1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Global Warming Experts Recommend Drastic Measures to Save Species

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by Ben_n_austin, Aug 12, 2008.

  1. Ben_n_austin

    Ben_n_austin Benched

    2,898 Messages
    3 Likes Received
    Global Warming Experts Recommend Drastic Measures to Save Species

    July 17, 2008

    E-mail this article

    AUSTIN, Texas — An international team of conservation scientists from Australia, the United Kingdom and United States, including University of Texas at Austin Professor Camille Parmesan, calls for new conservation tactics, such as assisted migration, in the face of the growing threat of climate change.


    They report their policy ideas in a paper published July 18 in the journal Science.

    The authors argue that both the rapid rate of climate change and the presence of human-made barriers to natural movement will prevent many species from shifting where they live in response to changes in local climate.

    They suggest that human-assisted translocation of individuals, often termed "assisted migration" or "assisted colonization," may be necessary to ensure colonization of new geographic regions as parts or all of the historical species' range becomes unsuitable.

    "When I first brought up this idea some 10 years ago in conservation meetings, most people were horrified," Parmesan said. "But now, as the reality of global warming sinks in, and species are already becoming endangered and even going extinct because of climate change, I'm seeing a new willingness in the conservation community to at least talk about the possibility of helping out species by moving them around."

    Parmesan and her colleagues point out that assisted migration can never be a major solution for wildlife, but could conceivably be used to help a few species that biologists and the public deem to be important enough for the effort and could otherwise go extinct.

    The species would need to be easy to collect, raise or move. Its habitat requirements would need to be well understood, and there would need to be viable habitat options outside of the species' current range.

    The authors present a conceptual framework for just how such decisions might be made.

    This framework includes fundamental biological questions which much be addressed before decisions to act can be made, such as risk of extinction if nothing is done versus risk of harm to the new community if the species is moved there.

    In addition to biological considerations, their framework includes social dimensions of the issue, such as cost and inherent value people place on the target species.

    The authors argue that the most suitable scenario is when the risk of extinction of the target species is high in its historic range, but the risk to the community into which the species will be imported is low. It might also be appropriate when the likelihood of successful colonization is high, but the time and cost to perform the transplantation is low.

    "Passively assisting coral reef migration may be acceptable, but transplanting polar bears to Antarctica, where they would likely drive native penguins to extinction, would not be acceptable," Parmesan said.

    "Ultimately, the decision about whether to actively assist the movement of a species into new territories will rest on ethical and aesthetic grounds as much as on hard science," she said. "Conservation has never been an exact science, but preserving biodiversity in the face of climate change is likely to require a fundamental rethinking of what it means to 'preserve biodiversity.'"

    Parmesan's coauthors include Ove Hoegh-Guldberg (lead author) and Hugh Possingham of the University of Queensland, Lesley Hughes of Macquarie University, Sue McIntyre at CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, David Lindenmayer at The Australian National University and Chris Thomas at the University of York.

    For more information, contact: Lee Clippard, College of Natural Sciences, 512-232-0675; Camille Parmesan, associate professor of integrative biology, 512-232-1860.

    http://www.utexas.edu/news/2008/07/17/assisted_migration/
  2. Cajuncowboy

    Cajuncowboy Preacher From The Black Lagoon

    27,476 Messages
    2 Likes Received
    Ridiculous. :rolleyes:
  3. ThaBigP

    ThaBigP New Member

    2,062 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    With the recent events in Georgia, I hope the rational people of the West take note - this was the plan all along. The environmental movement has its roots in the international communist movement. It was set up and funded that way by the old Soviet Union in order to undermine the greatest strength of the US/Europe (and the biggest thorn in the side of the Communist Bloc), our economy and industry. So...we've refused to produce petroleum here. So has Europe for the most part. Result, Europe is almost completely dependent upon Russia for most of its energy supplies. And not only is energy production verboten here, but many heavy industries have likewise been "outsourced" to nations who don't share our self-delusion of prosperity=global suicide (never mind the illogic of thinking that shoving our production overseas, where even the most superficial environmental protections don't exist, will somehow save the planet from this pending apocolypse). So we are likewise dependent upon them for many of our raw materials. All of this is in total defiance of reason, as we sit upon one of the greatest gifts of natural resources the world has ever known. Granted, the change did not happen in time to save the Soviet Union, but certainly occured in time to give the modern version, Putin's autocratic Russia, the leverage it needed to pull of this recent adventure with the West awe-shucked as to what to do.

    Enviros will point to "alternative energy" as the answer - in other words, solutions that do not exist, and likely will not exist for some time. Wind-powered fighters or tanks? Or solar powered? Or geo-thermal? In the meantime, we've completely weakened our ability to defend ourselves and our friends abroad, and have handed (complete with pretty paper and bow and a note "from the West with love") an ace that Putin is now playing. Russia is awash in petroleum money, enough that he has begun to rebuild Russia's conventional forces.
  4. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,860 Messages
    1,705 Likes Received
    The only good thing is like in Mexico Russia has milked the oil industry of money needed for infrastructure and future production. Russia's oil production is already dropping and will continue to do so. With the price of oil finally falling, Putin is going to find himself short of the money he needs to really rebuild Russia's air force, and the navy.
  5. ThaBigP

    ThaBigP New Member

    2,062 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Let's also breathe a tentative sigh of relief - most of the equipment Russia used was Cold-War era hardware, seriously obsolete by Western standards. But therein is another problem - a single man with a rock in his hand, and willing to use it, is in a more powerful position than an army afraid to fire thier modern rifles. So too with natural resources. It matters not what lies in the ground undisturbed, but what you bring forth and forge into a modern society.
  6. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,860 Messages
    1,705 Likes Received
    Yeah, I know. And that perfectly describes the Europeans.
  7. Ben_n_austin

    Ben_n_austin Benched

    2,898 Messages
    3 Likes Received
    LOL Now environmentalists are commies... I love it.

    What about the idea here for conservation. Junk science aside, I think it's a relatively cool idea. Notice the article didn't mention oil....
  8. PosterChild

    PosterChild New Member

    2,027 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Her career has taken a cheerless and precipitous downward turn since inventing that cheese topping, lo, those many years ago.
  9. PosterChild

    PosterChild New Member

    2,027 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Scientist used to go to extreme lengths to avoid interfering with natural extinction processes.

    I assume the thinking is that these predicted or feared extinctions are a result of human activity, and justify meddling accordingly. Well, what they're are proposing is an enormous undertaking.
  10. Ben_n_austin

    Ben_n_austin Benched

    2,898 Messages
    3 Likes Received

    I agree, but it's at least interesting. No?
  11. ThaBigP

    ThaBigP New Member

    2,062 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    There is a distinct and sharp difference between ensuring the protection of our natural blessings and the quasi-religeous fanaticism that currently guides our environmental policy. And no, "environmentalists" in general are not commies. But it is true that the international communist movement (with support from the Kremlin) attempted a major hi-jack of that movement during the Cold War in order to suppress productivity here and in Europe. And it has taken root. They also used their influence to get some in the west to sign onto the "Nuclear Freeze" peace movement.

    This should come as no surprise - we, for our part, provided support for anti-communists living in the Soviet Union and the Communist Bloc in order to topple them. One of *our* weapons was the Catholic Church, and Christians in general (especially crucial in light of the fact that the Communist governments were, by policy, atheist).
  12. ThaBigP

    ThaBigP New Member

    2,062 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    ...and yes, I read the article. The one coldly referring to mass-displacement of humans....ahem, the "species"....all based on junk science. How, oh how, can you say "junk science aside, whaddaya think?" (ok, not a direct quote but a paraphrase). That's like saying "aside from the earth being round, whaddaya think about us refusing to sail off the edge of the flat earth?". Yeah. Sounds GOOOOOOD! Much like a modern-day Noah, collecting one of each of every species - all to save them from this coming, biblical disaster. Only this one of our own making, so the story goes. The vanity of mankind seems to know no bounds.
  13. PosterChild

    PosterChild New Member

    2,027 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Sure it is.


    BTW, no courtesy laughter for my joke? Parmesan...cheese...get it?;)
  14. ThaBigP

    ThaBigP New Member

    2,062 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    And it's not with a small amount of irony that those who tell us we must uproot every man, woman, child, beast, bird, tree, and indeed even the very coral that grows beneath the sea and "replant" them elsewhere will not let us drill in an area the size of the DFW airport...in a state twice the size of Texas. Because *that* would have disasterous ecological consequences....

    Again, the vanity of mankind.....
  15. DragonCowboy

    DragonCowboy Well-Known Member

    5,421 Messages
    136 Likes Received
    While some conservation is important, I swear, some people would've "assisted" the T. Rex if they had the chance.
  16. zrinkill

    zrinkill Diamond surrounded by trash

    33,080 Messages
    807 Likes Received
    What happened to natural selection? How is man not part of nature?
  17. AtlCB

    AtlCB Active Member

    3,684 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    That joke was cheesy. :laugh2:
  18. AtlCB

    AtlCB Active Member

    3,684 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    The founder of Greenpeace seems to believe it.
  19. Royal Laegotti

    Royal Laegotti Dyin' ain't much of a livin', boy!

    4,971 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Ya know I might have just a slight bit of respect if the enviro-whack-nut jobs and global warming cult, the entire umbrella of them from the scientist to the sheeple that follow them, if they would all just take the lead and go find themselves some caves to live in and actually practice what they preach because, to me, they (in general) basically want everybody to use no energy, use no animal as food, want to turn our lives upside down so we can save some endangerd species and for all of us who enjoy the luxuries of America to live in a cave.

    So to the Al Gore's of the world get rid of your power sucking jet planes, SUV's, and houses/mansions that use more kilowatt hours in 1 month than my tiny home uses in 1 year, take the lead and smell what you're shoveling.
  20. DFWJC

    DFWJC Well-Known Member Zone Supporter

    23,564 Messages
    2,432 Likes Received
    I'll try to get a digital copy of one of the latest summary studies on this issue done by people who do not have an interest in promoting global warming, but who are very curious as to why there are fluctuations.

    The article deals with well documented sun cycles (we are currently near the end of cycle 23--which started in 1996) and how the cycles have always been far and away the dominant factor in global temperature change.

    It does not deny that CO2 emissions effect global temperature, but the effect is about 100th of what the claims are...and the relationship is counter logarithmic. In fact the effect in an unchanged solar environment would be .1 degree every 50 years (not the 5 degrees proposed by the IPCC).

    It says glabal warming is is real, but miniscule and that there is a very big solar-driven global cooling coming in a few short years (they predict late 2009) that will last approxmatley 12 years. Furthermore, increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is wonderful for plant growth (LOL)--which has been proven by record crop yields during this latest solar cycle.

    How ironic.

    Don't shoot the messenger here, as I'm just passing along interesting information.

Share This Page