environmental news shock !

[xane]

Amazon destruction rate 'falls'

What a shock, a positive message about the environment ! You'd never have thought that eventually _facts_ start getting reported about the environment in mainstream media.

My favourite quote

Other environmentalists warn that the fluctuations in the figures make it difficult for the ministry to claim that deforestation is under control.

This hasn't stopped environmentalists from claiming that situation is getting progressively worse however

Interestingly most human deforestation is done to cultivate the land for food, this is something that could be prevented by using high yield GM crops, which the environmentalists also oppose.

 

[Munkey-]

argh. geography.


could go on about this but wont.

one word. eutraphication

 

[old.Fweddy]

You mean eutrophication, right? whats that got to do with this?

 

[Wij]

Did anyone watch that programme on beeb 1 about gm crops last week ? Didn't see it but it looked well shit

 

[Scouse]

Cam - you may notice that it means that the destruction rate has fallen - not reversed.

It just means that only SIX THOUSAND SQUARE MILES of rainforest were destroyed rather than the usual seven.

Fucking w00t!













Blimey - we seem to be at odds today

 

[Nighty-]

An area the size of Wales is destroyed every day! If only they could destroy Wales instead!

(sorry!)

 

[S-Gray]

aye heh, i notice not many people like Welsh.. but i think i know why, we have this total prick as a technician in our college, stupid tosser, no one likes him :/

 

[Nighty-]

I have a dislike for the Welsh Exam board!

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Scouse
It just means that only SIX THOUSAND SQUARE MILES of rainforest were destroyed rather than the usual seven.

So what ? Trees get chopped down and grow again, whats the problem with that ?

Your comments are typical of eco-hype, chopping down trees is bad, and thats it, no facts, no figures, no solutions. People often chop down tress to plant crops or provide grazing ground, so they can feed themselves, unless you offer a better solution then STFU, don't expect them to starve or eat mud.

Do you hear about reforestation improvements ? Do you hear about the hole in the ozone layer getting smaller ? Do you hear about improved oil reserves that prevent us drilling in protected areas ? Do you hear about the Antartic climate getting colder (despite "global warming") ? Do you hear that pollution has decreased progressively for the last 30 years and continues to do so ?

No, you only ever hear bad things. This is why I highlighted this report.

 

[Scouse]

Cam - you're really showing your ignorance on this topic. (Well, I don't think you're ignorant - more on that at the end)... Anyway - demonstration:

Do you hear that pollution has decreased progressively for the last 30 years and continues to do so ?

No it hasn't - the rate of prollution has decreased but not REVERSED (much like the rainforest deforestation).

Replanting rainforest is not a sustainable approach. Sure - you can replant the correct indiginous species in roughly the correct amounts - but tropical rainforest cannot be replaced like that, and takes roughly 80-90 years to start exhibiting the same sort of properties as far as its abilities to support the fauna it previously was. Even if they replanted at the same rate that they cut down (which they don't - not even 10% of what they need to) then they'd run out of rainforest way too early.........

Sustainable development is what the region's after. High yield GM crops are a good idea - but not necessary because other methods of farming and commerce would make far better alternatives and bring prosperity..........

As for:

Do you hear about reforestation improvements ? Do you hear about the hole in the ozone layer getting smaller ? Do you hear about improved oil reserves that prevent us drilling in protected areas ? Do you hear about the Antartic climate getting colder (despite "global warming") ?

Reforestation: Yes - did hear about it (explained above). Most reforestation doesn't occur in tropical climates anyway but in coniferous forests in temperate zones where it's a more viable proposition because of the composition of the flora.

Hole in Ozone layer: Yup - heard it's getting smaller. Good skills - it'll all go titsup if China dump all their fridges tho. One you're right about

Not drilling in Protected Areas: Yes - heard about that - Applies unless you're American, in which case your president has flouted international agreements and has decided to drill in unspoilt areas of Alaska to get at oil reserves which they don't, as yet, need. But that's OK if you're just 250 million people producing TWENTY FIVE percent of the worlds pollution.......

Antarctic Climate Cooling: Yes - heard about it - it's falling fits in nicely with most predictive models of Global Warming.


Now, don't get me wrong - there are too many "swampies" out there fucking things up for us and themselves (they piss me off as much as anyone else) - but your crusade to be sceptical about all the percieved environmental ills of the world makes you just as bad.... The "anti-swampy" if you like, when the reality is somewhere in-between.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Scouse
Cam - you're really showing your ignorance on this topic. (Well, I don't think you're ignorant - more on that at the end)... Anyway - demonstration:

Pardon my ignorance but what the f*ck are people supposed to do if they can't clear forest to plant food ? I'm sure your mega-clever non-ignorant brain could come up with a solution to that one, so lets hear it ?

Originally posted by Scouse
No it hasn't - the rate of prollution has decreased but not REVERSED (much like the rainforest deforestation).

Pollution has reversed, not just decreased, in fact big urban cities like London are less polluted than they were during the middle ages. This accounts for all types of relevant pollution, chemicals, particles, etc. Even if pollution was to stay the same it would be a major achievement considering the growth in cars and such, plus the fact that pollution monitoring is more accurate.

Originally posted by Scouse
Replanting rainforest is not a sustainable approach. Sure - you can replant the correct indiginous species in roughly the correct amounts - but tropical rainforest cannot be replaced like that, and takes roughly 80-90 years to start exhibiting the same sort of properties as far as its abilities to support the fauna it previously was. Even if they replanted at the same rate that they cut down (which they don't - not even 10% of what they need to) then they'd run out of rainforest way too early.........

Sustainable development is what the region's after. High yield GM crops are a good idea - but not necessary because other methods of farming and commerce would make far better alternatives and bring prosperity.........

Reforestation also means planting fast growing trees and using them _instead_ of chopping down more rainforest. Currently a tiny proportion of the world's forest supplies most of the wood because they are from plantations, which is sustainable and economically viable, and diverts the need to chop down a rainforest.

As I said, if you believe chopping down trees is bad, full stop, then you are responding to eco-hype. Chopping down trees can actually prevent serious damage being caused, you use sustainable methods, but you still have to chop trees in the first place.

There are lots of other ways to avoid chopping down trees, but the environmentalists don't support them, in fact they oppose some of them.

Originally posted by Scouse
Now, don't get me wrong - there are too many "swampies" out there fucking things up for us and themselves (they piss me off as much as anyone else) - but your crusade to be sceptical about all the percieved environmental ills of the world makes you just as bad.... The "anti-swampy" if you like, when the reality is somewhere in-between.

So taking note of the facts qualifies me a "sceptical" ? What a shame the world is run by the eco-warriors posting their lies and misinformation, and the media-obsessed who like to troll the hype for popularity and profit.

As you neatly demonstrated, you think chopping down trees is bad, but it clearly is not, you _can_ responsibly chop down trees and restrict environmental damage, quoting the rate of deforestation is not a viable argument, if the rate of deforestation is falling then we clearly _are_ demonstrating a responsible attitude.

Swampies are not the problem. I remember the pop star Sting and his crusade to save the rainforests, last time I saw him he was advertising luxury cars with leather and wood-panelled interiors. The environmental movement is made up of people like him who profit from all the hype, but never intend to come up with solutions.

 

[Perplex]

Originally posted by Munkey
eutraphication

errrr?

 

[Scouse]

Are you naive enough to believe these countries were clearing six or seven thousand square miles of rainforest a year simply to plant food?

I don't need to come up with a solution because your mega-clever brain has already said that high-yield GM crops would do the job for us

No. I don't believe that "chopping down trees is bad" and am very well aware that the vast majority of the worlds wood sources come from sustainable developments in temperate zones. (In fact - I think that the "wood source" problem which the world apparently suffers from is a bit of a non-issue).

But needlessly over-harvesting such a rich resource as the rainforests is pure waste.

Don't get me wrong - I'm sure if we were in their position we'd do exactly the same - but we're not so we can preach to our hearts content.......

There are lots of other ways to avoid chopping down trees, but the environmentalists don't support them, in fact they oppose some of them.

I consider myself a bit of an environmentalist - and I support any exploitation of a sustainable resource - such as wood.

Pollution has reversed, not just decreased, in fact big urban cities like London are less polluted than they were during the middle ages.

You just made that up. There've been no qualitative or quantitative studies of pollution levels that are so specific other than general pollution studies in sedimentation layers.

That and the fact that London wasn't a "big urban city" in the middle ages



I think the real problem here is not the quality of the data or any real dispute over facts (which the scientific community tend to agree on (with reservations)) - but your scepticism. Demonstrate:

So taking note of the facts qualifies me a "sceptical" ? What a shame the world is run by the eco-warriors posting their lies and misinformation

Just look at your use of the phrase "eco-warrior". The world is hardly "run" by them, and they certainly aren't representative of the majority view of the serious environmental scientist.

History lesson: In the early 80's the then tory government decided that they were fighting a losing battle against a populist and well-respected environmental movement (as were governments across the worlds). They actually hired image consultants and came up with the terms "eco-warriors" and "eco-terrorists" and also directed the focus of the media on the sort of projects that attracted all the extremeists.

Result? Serious environmentalists (who take a co-operative approach to environmental issues and who understand that the needs of the people and the environment are often at odds) became tarred with the same brush as the tattooed, long-haired, dirty fuckwitts who chained themselves to trees.

So - you tar all the serious scientists with the same brush as swampy - and are sceptical about anything that comes out which seems negative.

It is commonly held (by scientists) that Global Warming is a natural phenomenom that is being wildly exacerbated (dangerously so) by mans activities. - You don't believe this - saying that it's a bunch of hype by liberal environmentalist-types.

The evidence is not 100% conclusive, but then again it never will be - and in theorietical science it never is. (do you believe Black Holes exist? I do - but they can't prove it with absolute certainty).

Your at-odds attitude also comes across in other posts - you seem to go right against the grain with the conventional thinking on many things. For example - privacy? I'm glad you think it's OK practice for people to take actions to snoop on you for things other than legal proceedings/criminal investigations - most of the rest of us don't like it and shouldn't have to put up with it.

Just because people can read your emails if they put in the effort doesn't mean that they should. (I'd be pretty fucked off if someone robbed mail from my postbox to read my mail - and thats easier to do than monitor my email).

Are you angry at something Cam?

 

[mr.Blacky]

Eutraphacation is the increasing of nitrates and phosphates in a lake until the lake eventually dies. thats whats google has to say about it.


We could do a lot more for the environment. But the taxes are not oriented on polution (you polute you pay taxes), so we will do the cheapest thing.

GM foods? no thank you, we dont know enough on the long run what the genetic mendling will do, and besides that we can do most with crossbreeding.

Global Warming , Earth was already becoming warmer before humans started to pollute. Besides that what is bad about having a higher temperture?

 

[~YuckFou~]

Originally posted by Mr.Blackshirt
Global Warming , Earth was already becoming warmer before humans started to pollute. Besides that what is bad about having a higher temperture?

I remember seeing someting about this on tele. It will actually get colder for us in the UK not hotter. This is because as the ice at the north pole melts it will go south, towards us, making the sea temperature drop, as a result it will get colder.

 

[Scouse]

Global Warming , Earth was already becoming warmer before humans started to pollute. Besides that what is bad about having a higher temperture?

Hot countries that are already in trouble with be f00ked basically (african countries and the like). We'll have milder summers and winters (not a problem really). If the sea levels do rise (not at all certain, but possible) then many of the low countries will cease to exist (all of the Maldives etc....).

 

[Kempo]

what yuckfou said, i live in aberdeen thats at the same latitude as places in russia and the like, the only reason that we dont get the v cold tempratures they get is because of the north atlantic drift which moves warm water up and heats the sea here and in turn keeps the weather warmer, if global warming continues, the north atlantic drift may cease to exist and tempratures of -10 c will be the norm, and id rather that didnt happen thnx.

 

[*Exor*]

Fags.

 

[xenon2000]

Originally posted by *Exor*
Fags.

 

[Scouse]

Here's a semi good 'un:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/newsid_2042000/2042856.stm

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Scouse
Hot countries that are already in trouble with be f00ked basically (african countries and the like). We'll have milder summers and winters (not a problem really). If the sea levels do rise (not at all certain, but possible) then many of the low countries will cease to exist (all of the Maldives etc....).

You are correct, in fact western nations could in fact benefit from higher temperatures because of increased crop production as a result (less frost, longer crop cycles, etc).

And Scouse you should note from that article, the following

During the past few years, rainfall has increased in the Sahel. Mr Rotstayn explains this improvement by the "clean air" laws introduced in North America and Europe.

This is what I am saying, the west has cleaned up its act and has improved pollution significantly.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Scouse
That and the fact that London wasn't a "big urban city" in the middle ages

It depends what you mean, relatively speaking, London in around 1000 CE was quite small, in fact smaller than in Roman times, yet it still managed to build magnificent places like Westminster Abbey. By around 1500 it was as big as many major cities in Europe, and the pollution problems were very well documented, a lot of coal burning went on and particle pollution was severe.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Scouse
History lesson: In the early 80's the then tory government decided that they were fighting a losing battle against a populist and well-respected environmental movement (as were governments across the worlds). They actually hired image consultants and came up with the terms "eco-warriors" and "eco-terrorists" and also directed the focus of the media on the sort of projects that attracted all the extremeists.

Result? Serious environmentalists (who take a co-operative approach to environmental issues and who understand that the needs of the people and the environment are often at odds) became tarred with the same brush as the tattooed, long-haired, dirty fuckwitts who chained themselves to trees.

The environmental movement was way before even Maggie became Tory leader, you can place the serious environmentalists at the beginning of the 1960s, with books like Silent Spring echoing the hype.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Scouse
Your at-odds attitude also comes across in other posts - you seem to go right against the grain with the conventional thinking on many things.

On the contrary, the mainstream attitude is either "fuck the environment" or "whats the problem ?". Most scientists do not acknowledge the doom and gloom prophescies that have been banded about for the last few decades, there are lots of positive signs.

Whilst anyone admits that mankind has impacted the environment (even Bush has said this) the fact is we are already taking control and reducing that impact, mainly for economic reasons, we should be addressing problems like world poverty instead, not excessively worrying about trees or gorillas.

Organisations like Greenpeace are politically motivated, they no longer care about the human world or the economic costs their proposals will bring, they only want to keep membership high by denouncing other political systems.

The founding members of Greenpeace have abandoned it in droves, precisely because they realise the "facts" don't add up any more and it is facile to consider tiny ecological disruption when the world lies starving.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Scouse
Are you angry at something Cam?

I wasn't earlier, but now some bastard lorry has just sideswiped my car and driven off, I now have a choice of £400 bill in lost no-claims insurance or £700 to fix it myself

 

[Wij]

U-U-U-U-ULTRA POST !!!

 

[FatBusinessman]

Wouldn't that be M-M-M-M-MONSTER POST?

 

[Scouse]

Fucking BASTARD!

Sorry to hear that chap.....

Anyway - not willing to start it all off again today

But just a quickie:

the west has cleaned up its act and has improved pollution significantly

Don't get me wrong - steps in the right direction have been made - the example I quoted was good in the fact that one type of pollution had been drastically reduced (in response to acid rain really) - but others aren't dropping as fast as they need to be - and the net pollutant values are still rising too fast......

We'll be on course in about 2020 I reckon (talk about pulling a year out of your arse!) - but it'll be the developing countries that fuck it all up then.......

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Scouse
Don't get me wrong - steps in the right direction have been made - the example I quoted was good in the fact that one type of pollution had been drastically reduced (in response to acid rain really) - but others aren't dropping as fast as they need to be - and the net pollutant values are still rising too fast......

We'll be on course in about 2020 I reckon (talk about pulling a year out of your arse!) - but it'll be the developing countries that fuck it all up then.......

I'd agree more has to be done, but the scientific evidence points to an improving situation, you only need to spread panic when you want a political advantage.

I honestly feel that environmental issues are under control and the radical green movement has had it's day, they should divert their attentions to the direct problems the third world is suffering from, like poverty, starvation, war and economic instability.

The developing countries will not "fuck it up" if the issue is brought about sensibly, it has already been shown that a responsible economically stable country can control and prevent excessive environmental damage.

The western world had to go through a period of environmental destruction to make it realize, the developing world does not need to make the same mistakes. The important issue is to make sure that developing countries grow into stable economies so they can "afford" to be green. Otherwise you simply penalize them to financial ruin and wipe them back to the stone age.

Starving people don't give a sh*t about GMO in food or the tiny possibility of cancer from toxins, they need to eat and survive, and their economy needs to grow, then maybe they can decide whether to pick organic produce from the supermarket or visit McDonalds.