Quote :

"Folks like China could make the legitimate case that we've been wrecking up the place long before they became a major contributor, and therefore, if we want to make demands upon them to not emit so much, we ought to have something to bring to the table ourselves."

Indeed. I can't imagine why they would agree to curtail emissions if the richer countries didn't promise to reduce their own at the same time.

5/27/2009 7:50:45 PM

and yet, how is it equitable to allow China to emit 5000 times the same substance as us, to the detriment of our economy?

5/27/2009 7:52:00 PM

Quote :

"I can't imagine why they would agree to curtail emissions if the richer countries didn't promise to reduce their own at the same time."

and vice versa

5/27/2009 7:53:50 PM

Quote :

"and yet, how is it equitable to allow China to emit 5000 times the same substance as us, to the detriment of our economy?"

Well, it depends on how you believe the right to pollute exists. Does it exist per person, or per political boundary?

I mean, let's put it another way - should the U.S. only be allowed to emit as much as say, Greenland?

Regardless, given the fact that we've been emitting for awhile, simply demanding that the Chinese stop right now isn't going to get very far. You're going to have to bring something to the table if you want them on board.

Quote :

"and vice versa"

And thus we are left with a classic Prisoner's Dilemma.

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 7:55 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2009 7:55:08 PM

Greenland? maybe, maybe not. But, to put one country's economy at risk while trying to allegedly solve a problem, in a way that won't work, doesn't really make sense, does it? We don't even need to get to the "equity" argument at that point. It doesn't work. at all. and it wrecks one side's economy. How is that equitable?

5/27/2009 8:04:16 PM

Quote :

"and yet, how is it equitable to allow China to emit 5000 times the same substance as us, to the detriment of our economy?"

That's nothing remotely like the current situation. At best, they've just passed us in total emissions. China's population is only a little more than four times that of the US. That's that multiplier that would apply if things were even.

5/27/2009 8:12:36 PM

come on. the multiplier would be far more than 4, and you know it. Hell, if we take the article above at face value, we see China expanding its emissions by a factor of 4 every year compared to our expansion. Given the fact that a far greater majority of China's power comes from coal, and dirty-ass coal, let's be honest about this: China is a far-greater polluter than we are, and some people want to give them a free-pass!

5/27/2009 8:15:04 PM

Quote :

"the multiplier would be far more than 4, and you know it."

Have you invented some new sort of arithmetic I'm unaware of?

Quote :

"Given the fact that a far greater majority of China's power comes from coal, and dirty-ass coal, let's be honest about this: China is a far-greater polluter than we are, and some people want to give them a free-pass!"

In terms of carbon, that's simply incorrect. The most up-to-date sources I can find say they've just recently passed the US in total emissions.

5/27/2009 8:24:51 PM

do you dispute that China has a greater percentage of coal-supplied electricity than the US? Because fact begs to differ with you.

Quote :

"Have you invented some new sort of arithmetic I'm unaware of?"

Well, let's see... China has just surpassed our carbon footprint. It doesn't even come close to the electrical output the US has. It's electrical output is dirtier than us. And it has 4 times the people. Hmmm, all of that suggests that the multiplier would be far more than 4. You could, you know, dispute this. or you could just be an asshole. Clearly, you will take the latter

5/27/2009 8:32:12 PM

Quote :

"Greenland? maybe, maybe not. But, to put one country's economy at risk while trying to allegedly solve a problem, in a way that won't work, doesn't really make sense, does it? We don't even need to get to the "equity" argument at that point. It doesn't work. at all. and it wrecks one side's economy. How is that equitable?"

Well, this is why I ask the question I ask - because its answer is important to how one formulates a strategy to solve said dilemma.

Based upon your argument, perhaps you would argue that an equitable distribution of CO2 would be based upon the worth of goods produced, no? i.e., GDP. Because producing CO2 is inherently linked to economic activity, thus one expects those who produce a higher amount of value would output more CO2.

However, the obvious counter-argument is that China also wants to expand economically, and has every right to do so. So, the crux of the matter - how do you mitigate what will be a much larger expansion of emissions by nations like China, given the damage already done by first-world countries in their own economic expansions? What are you prepared to offer as a trade-off? It doesn't necessarily mean that first-world countries must live in the stone age - this is but one of many possible outcomes. Perhaps we pay them to build nuclear plants instead of coal ones? What would you suggest?

5/27/2009 8:33:22 PM

Perhaps you didn't understand my initial claim. If the US and China had the same per capita carbon emissions, the difference would then match the difference in population. This is mathematically indisputable.

Now, you may be correct that Chinese emissions per capita will eventually exceed US levels. Total Chinese emissions are supposedly increasing at eleven percent per year. They've a long way to go, but that's serious growth.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080318-china-warming.html

5/27/2009 8:38:08 PM

or perhaps you are moving the goalposts...

5/27/2009 11:18:42 PM

GoldenViper, the main flaw of your argument is that you're making points based on the assumption that CO2 is harmful. Find me DIRECT evidence of that and I'll concede you to. Too bad none exists.

5/27/2009 11:27:50 PM

^ Without the greenhouse effect, the planet would be a hell of a lot colder. John Tyndall demonstrated carbon dioxide's ability to hang on to heat about a hundred and fifty years ago. We the know mechanism. We've tested it in a lab. Carbon dioxide absorbs and emits infrared radiation. Thus, more carbon dioxide should raise temperatures. Now, whether increased temperatures are good or bad for the species remains an open question.

5/28/2009 1:28:58 AM

Quote :

"Thus, more carbon dioxide should raise temperatures."

should being the operative word. As well, how much it "should" raise temperatures is, frankly, what is at issue.

5/28/2009 8:38:38 AM

^^glad to see you comparing the atmosphere with lab tests that isolate CO2. Tell me why when there was over 2000ppmv CO2 concentration hundreds of thousands of years ago, why didn't the earth kill itself? I mean, the evil humans weren't there to burn CO2 but the CO2 was there anyway. And if I recall nothing bad happened.

Quote :

"Now, whether increased temperatures are good or bad for the species remains an open question."

Its really not much of a question at all. Historically increased temperatures benefit most life on the planet. Whereas decreased temperatures always come with famine and extinction.

[Edited on May 28, 2009 at 9:29 AM. Reason : k]

5/28/2009 9:28:27 AM

Obama's green guru calls for white roofs
President Obama's energy adviser has suggested all the world's roofs should be painted white as part of efforts to slow global warming.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/5389278/Obamas-green-guru-calls-for-white-roofs.html

5/28/2009 12:49:53 PM

Early researchers did think the coming climate shift would be beneficial. These days, experts predict that the relatively sudden change will cause more harm than good. Increased agricultural production may not offset millions of environmental refugees and so on.

5/28/2009 12:52:16 PM

^^don't forget the idiots in CA that are trying to outlaw dark painted cars.

^What sudden climate change are you talking about? There's nothing strongly pointing to that happening. Climate cooling (especially quickly) would be much worse. What "environmental refugees"? Any sea level rise we've been having is below the historical average (4 ft/century) from the last few hundred thousand years. And the Sahara desert has been shinking, not that I've seen anything recently about any other deserts.

[Edited on May 28, 2009 at 1:05 PM. Reason : k]

5/28/2009 1:03:27 PM

Quote :

"There's nothing strongly pointing to that happening."

Yes, there is. We've know about the connection between carbon dioxide and increased temperatures for over a hundred years. Early calculations by Svante Arrhenius came close to the best modern estimates.

Look, as we know the mechanism, how can you argue that emitting carbon dioxide won't heat up the planet? I don't understand this. If we continue burning fossil fuels for long enough, the effect must eventually become relevant. Unless we stop burning them at some point, the average temperatures will climb endlessly. That can't be beneficial. While slight warming might shift certain regions into a sweet spot for farming, perpetual warming assure that wouldn't last. Even if you reject current models, it's a serious long-term problem.

5/28/2009 1:17:52 PM

You do know anything about the history of this planet? Like how we've had CO2 levels greater than 10 times current levels. From a historical point of view the Earth is currently carbon starved.

After 900ppmv CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere either. Do us a favor and stop relying on "climate models" that have never accurately predicted anything.

[Edited on May 28, 2009 at 1:40 PM. Reason : stick to your "singularity" rants]

5/28/2009 1:37:35 PM

Quote :

"You do know anything about the history of this planet? Like how we've had CO2 levels greater than 10 times current levels."

how can you keep using this as an argument? things are pretty different on earth these days since levels that high occurred -- we didn't have oxygen in the atmosphere a couple billion years ago either, but it certainly would be a problem if there wasn't any today

5/28/2009 3:56:46 PM

Quote :

"After 900ppmv CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere either."

Huh? How does that work? That contradicts the demonstrated properties of carbon dioxide.

5/28/2009 5:06:42 PM

Quote :

"You do know anything about the history of this planet? Like how we've had CO2 levels greater than 10 times current levels. From a historical point of view the Earth is currently carbon starved."

Yes, and during a large part of that time it was inhospitable for large mammals.

5/28/2009 7:19:36 PM

^^^don't be a complete fool.

Quote :

"Huh? How does that work? That contradicts the demonstrated properties of carbon dioxide."

If you understand mathematics its not that hard to figure out. To wit:

Quote :

"The first thing to be aware of is that the warming effect of carbon dioxide is strongely logarithmic. Of the 3°C that carbon dioxide contributes to the greenhouse effect, the first 22ppm has a great effect than the following 400ppm. By the time we get to the current level of 384ppm, each 100 ppm increment will produce only about 0.1° of warming. With atmospheric carbon dioxide rising at about 2ppm per annum, temperature will rise at 0.1° every 50 years. If that is true, you will ask, how doe the IPCC get its icecap-melting figure of 5° for doubling of the preindustrial level to 560ppm? An equation called the Stefan-Boltzman equation tells us that in the absence of feedbacks, doubling would produce a rise to 1°. The IPCC climate modeling assumes that the feedback from this rise will be positive; that is, that the extra heat will cause more water vapor in the atmosphere, which in turn will cause more heat to be trapped, and the system compounds away until 1° gets turned into 5°. As described, the Earth's climate would be tremendously unstable, prone to thermal runaway at the slightest disturbance."

Furthermore:

Quote :

"The real world evidence says the opposite. In late 2007, a Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama published a paper analyzing data from the Aqua satellite. Based on the response of tropical clouds, Dr. Spencer demonstrated that the feedback is negative. He calculates a 0.5° warming for a doubling of the preindustrial carbon dioxide level. Global warming is real, but it is also minuscule. Atmospheric temperature rose 0.7° in the 20th century; it has also fallen by the same amount in the last 18 months. Global warming, as caused by carbon dioxide, will be lost in the noise of the system."

http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Warming%20or%20Cooling.pdf

Quote :

"Yes, and during a large part of that time it was inhospitable for large mammals."

Nah, they did just fine. In fact, they had much more plentiful vegetation to feast on (one of the reasons a lot of mammals were much larger in the past). In fact, the benefits of increased carbon dioxide concentration has not been lost on plants.

[Edited on May 29, 2009 at 11:56 AM. Reason : if you want further references, go to the link provided and scroll down.]

[Edited on May 29, 2009 at 11:57 AM. Reason : k]

5/29/2009 11:54:49 AM

Quote :

"^^^don't be a complete fool."

i'm certainly not -- you can't just cherry-pick random historical data points without taking into account the rest of the system

when CO2 levels were 10x today's levels and there were large mammals, the earth was pretty freaking warm and the oceans were practically anoxic -- also, none of those large mammals are still around so they didn't exactly do just fine in the long run...

5/29/2009 3:13:05 PM

Umm, yeah. There are these things called ice ages, that killed them off...

5/29/2009 3:58:43 PM

Quote :

"Tell me why when there was over 2000ppmv CO2 concentration hundreds of thousands of years ago, why didn't the earth kill itself? I mean, the evil humans weren't there to burn CO2 but the CO2 was there anyway. And if I recall nothing bad happened."

I don't understand your argument, unless you're suggesting that the earth will eventually become inhospitable to human life anyway, so why bother.

As was previously stated, humans didn't exist and could not have existed under those conditions.

5/29/2009 7:33:54 PM

Quote :

"If you understand mathematics its not that hard to figure out."

That doesn't support your initial claim. More to the point, I'm rather certain there's a difference between 900 ppm CO2 and the atmosphere of Venus.

5/29/2009 7:38:03 PM

humans CAN exist under those conditions. And furthermore, a productive biosphere of the Earth CAN exist under those conditions.

However, the present ecological balance CAN NOT continue to exist under those conditions. The Earth of the past evolved to cope with some pretty nasty stuff and got over it, it'll get over this too, but that isn't relevant to the discussion since it will take millions of years. Since the industrial revolution was in 100s, it makes since to change us versus change the Earth.

Some republicans might just be fine with the fact that we're currently causing the 6th mass extinction event of the planet, but it will affect us drastically. We are bugs on the windshield on those time scales.

5/29/2009 7:40:24 PM

Quote :

"Nah, they did just fine. In fact, they had much more plentiful vegetation to feast on (one of the reasons a lot of mammals were much larger in the past). In fact, the benefits of increased carbon dioxide concentration has not been lost on plants."

*sigh* I know this has been stated at least twice over but since you refuse, yet again, to grapple the concept I will repeat it. Plants that develop in a CO2 rich atmosphere are bigger, yes but less nutritious. Animals needed to eat more in order to meet their dietary needs. More food, bigger gut, bigger animals. Are you following me, camera guy? This in no way makes CO2 some miracle food buff. Good grief.

5/29/2009 7:59:00 PM

^please to provide links. You keep saying it, but I don't see anything. And regardless, if you weren't so busy trying to disagree with me you'd see that I said larger vegetation led to larger mammals.

Quote :

"However, the present ecological balance CAN NOT continue to exist under those conditions."

What the hell are you smoking? The Earth never has been, and never will be, in a balance. It's always been constantly changing, and will continue to do so. Humans causing the 6th mass extinction? Perhaps, but if that's the case CO2 has little to do with it. If you care so much why don't you push for the gov't to push harder to stop deforestation, chemical waste contamination, raw sewage being dumped into the sea, and excessive hunting of vulnerable species. There's your cause of extinction. Instead you'd rather believe in something who's main "evidence" is trumped up computer models.

[Edited on May 29, 2009 at 11:21 PM. Reason : k]

5/29/2009 11:18:14 PM

^ *face palm*

5/30/2009 4:03:53 AM

set em up

5/31/2009 3:26:12 AM

Quote :

"set em up"

This thread made it 16 pages before one of you cretins had to say this.

[Edited on May 31, 2009 at 10:40 PM. Reason : and you fucking miscounted too]

5/31/2009 10:37:27 PM

I used to wonder why we would need a Renewable Portfolio Standard after we set up a cap-and-trade program. I used to think it was redundant at best and do-gooder meddling at worst. I was wrong:

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-07-mandate-renewables-carbon-cap/

5/31/2009 11:22:08 PM

Quote :

"What the hell are you smoking? The Earth never has been, and never will be, in a balance. It's always been constantly changing, and will continue to do so. Humans causing the 6th mass extinction? Perhaps, but if that's the case CO2 has little to do with it. If you care so much why don't you push for the gov't to push harder to stop deforestation, chemical waste contamination, raw sewage being dumped into the sea, and excessive hunting of vulnerable species. There's your cause of extinction. Instead you'd rather believe in something who's main "evidence" is trumped up computer models. "

I won't argue that those other things could currently have a greater impact than trying to fight global warming. But let's get clear about this; so far, global warming has made zero species extinct. But global warming has the potential to significantly fuck things up much worse than what we've already done.

6/1/2009 12:36:06 AM

Quote :

" used to wonder why we would need a Renewable Portfolio Standard after we set up a cap-and-trade program. I used to think it was redundant at best and do-gooder meddling at worst. I was wrong: http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-07-mandate-renewables-carbon-cap/"

I find most of his argument unconvincing. I mean, the horrors of utilities building nuclear plants, or if they actually managed to get carbon sequestration to work! (The latter of which I am skeptical of.)

In fact, the author seems to unknowingly be tipping his own hand - it isn't about carbon at all, in a certain sense - it's about mandating the embrace of otherwise unfavorable energy technologies, particularly solar (whose economics are terrible.)

The most convincing argument he has to make is that the sunk capital cost of coal-burning plants makes their operating cost effectively immune to carbon charges, under what would be a politically tenable carbon cost. But then, we need to look at the economics of operation license renewal for coal plants and how this effects the construction of new ones, not simply start declaring an industrial policy.

Otherwise, why bother with cap and trade at all? He accuses economists of presenting carbon as "the only externality" and then offers us no other externality. His only argument is, "The carbon cost won't be enough."

So what? This isn't an externality - this is a failure of political economy. If he wants to argue that the price of carbon cannot be made high enough to force out coal plants or the adoption of mitigation strategies (such as retrofits for sequestration), fine - but this is not a new externality.

Meanwhile, his argument about the utilities being regulated monopolies is also not an externality. It's a circumstance of the market which bears understanding (which in turn ties into his argument of oh gnoes, nukular!!!), but again - I don't think he knows what an externality actually is.

[Edited on June 1, 2009 at 8:00 AM. Reason : .]

6/1/2009 8:00:05 AM

Quote :

"global warming has made zero species extinct"

Are you serious? Hundreds of species become extinct every day and you don't think any of them are tied to global warming? Here's the 4th google result:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/11/AR2006011102121.html

6/1/2009 8:01:30 AM

^You seriously used a Washington Post article for your rebuttle? LOL

Academics at NCSU is appearantly going down the shitter. I bet you use Wikipedia as reference material for classwork

6/1/2009 9:25:10 AM

You're calling me out for linking Washington Post? Of all the links to eccentric one-sided journals and nut-job speculators, you're going to complain about Washington Post? Is this your first time in the soap box?

Here's the same federally-funded study being reported by msnbc and, *gasp* FOX NEWS
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15828892/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181438,00.html

6/1/2009 10:03:29 AM

^LOL. I wonder how many species Global Warming killed off during the Roman Warm Period. Or how many species perished during the Little Ice Age?

Tell me how it's humans fault now, but not back then?

6/1/2009 11:50:47 AM

My point was that global warming IS causing extinctions; to counter someone else's claim that it wasn't. I wasn't making any point about the cause of global warming, so save your roll-eyes for relevant snarkery.

6/1/2009 12:02:41 PM

I apologize. I will agree with you that global temperature change can kill off species. But this is nothing new, and not human caused.

6/1/2009 1:00:05 PM

^^ Yes, but had the planet not warmed a different set of species would be extinct right now. The question is which pile of species is higher, which is prohibitively difficult to discern.

6/1/2009 2:03:52 PM

Hey! I found a website that lists extinctions.

http://extinctanimals.petermaas.nl/

Quote :

"#Madeiran Large White, Pieris brassicae wollastoni, 29-30 October 2007 #Western Black Rhinoceros, Diceros bicornis longipes, 8 June 2006 #Po'o-uli, Melamprosops phaeosoma, 28 November 2004 #Pyrenean Ibex, Capra pyrenaica pyrenaica, 6 January 2000 #Zanzibar Leopard, Panthera pardus adersi, 1996 #Golden Toad, Incilius periglenes, 1989 #Arcuate Pearly Mussel, Epioblasma flexuosa, 1988 #Atitlan Grebe, Podilymbus gigas, 1987 #Kaua'i 'O'o, Moho braccatus, 1987 #Holdridge's Toad, Incilius holdridgei, 1986 #Eungella Gastric-brooding Frog, Rheobatrachus vitellinus, March 1985 #Conondale Gastric-brooding Frog, Rheobatrachus silus, November 1983 #Tecopa pupfish, Cyprinodon nevadensis calidae, 16 February 1982 #Javan Tiger, Panthera tigris sondaica, 1980s #Southern Day Frog, Taudactylus diurnus, 1979 #Dutch Alcon Blue, Maculinea alcon arenaria, 1979 #Colombian Grebe, Podiceps andinus, 1977 #Round Island Burrowing Boa, Bolyeria multocarinata, 1975 #Guam Flying Fox, Pteropus tokudae, June 1974 #Lake Pedder Earthworm, Hypolimnus pedderensis, 1972 #Bali Tiger, Panthera tigris balica, 1972 #Bush Wren, Xenicus longipes, 1972 #Tubercled-blossom Pearly Mussel, Epioblasma torulosa torulosa, 1969 #Greater Short-tailed Bat, Mystacina robusta, April 1965 #Santo Stefano Lizard, Podarcis sicula sanctistephani, 1965 #South Island Piopio, Turnigra capensis, 1963 #Glaucous Macaw, Anodorhynchus glaucus, 1960s #Caspian Tiger, Panthera tigris virgata, 1959 (might persisted longer or surviving) #Thicktail Chub, Gila crassicauda, 1957 #Crescent Nail-tail Wallaby, Onychogalea lunata, 1956 #Blue-grey Mouse, Pseudomys glaucus, 1956 #Goff's Southeastern Pocket Gopher, Geomys pinetis goffi, 1955 #North Island Piopio, Turnagra tanagra, 1955 #Little Swan Island Hutia, Geocapromys thoracatus, 1955 #Ilin Island Cloudrunner, Crateromys paulus, 4 April 1953 #Caribbean Monk Seal, Monachus tropicalis, 1952 #Queen of Sheba's Gazelle, Gazella bilkis, 1951 #Perrin's Cave Beetle, Siettitia balsetensis, 1950s (probably at the end) #Lesser Bilby, Macrotis leucura, 1950s #Japanese Sea Lion, Zalophus japonicus, 1950s #Hula Painted Frog, Discoglossus nigriventer, 1950s #Ratas Island Lizard, Podarcis lilfordi rodriquezi, 1950 #Wake Island Rail, Gallirallus wakensis, 1945 #Laysan Rail, Porzana palmeri, 1943 #Barbary Lion, Panthera leo leo, 1942 (survived longer in captivity, and maybe still does) #Vegas Valley Leopard Frog, Lithobates fisheri, 13 January 1942 #Arabian Ostrich, Struthio camelus syriacus, 1941 (or 1966) #Canarian Black Oystercatcher, Haematopus meadewaldoi, 1940s #Dang's Giant Squirrel, Ratufa indica dealbata, 1940s #Lake Titicaca Orestias, Orestias cuvieri, 1940s #Houting, Coregonus oxyrinchus, 1940 #Arc-form Pearly Mussel, Epioblasma arcaeformis, 1940 #Roque Chico de Salmor Giant Lizard, Gallotia simonyi simonyi, 1940 #Toolache Wallaby, Macropus greyi, 30 June 1939 #Schomburgk's Deer, Cervus schomburgki, 1938 #Tobias' Caddisfly, Hydropsyche tobiasi, 1938 #Tasmanian Tiger, Thylacinus cynocephalus, 7 September 1936 #Pink-headed Duck, Netta caryophyllacea, 1936, but maybe surviving! #Ryukyu Wood-pigeon, Columba jouyi, 1936 #Desert Rat-kangaroo, Caloprymnus campestris, 1935 #Hawai'i 'O'o, Moho nobilis, 1934 #Lesser Stick-Nest Rat, Leporillus apicalis, 18 July 1933 #Pemberton's Deer Mouse, Peromyscus pembertoni, 26 December 1931 #Yunnan Box Turtle, Cuora yunnanensis , 1930s #Darwin's Rice Rat, Nesoryzomys darwini, 16 January 1929 #Syrian Wild Ass, Equus hemionus hemippus, 1928 #Paradise Parrot, Psephotus pulcherrimus, November 1927 #Caucasian Wisent, Bison bonasus caucasicus, 1927 #Thick-billed Ground-dove, Gallicolumba salamonis, 1927 #Madeiran Wood Pigeon, Columba palumbus maderensis, 1924 #Bubal Hartebeest, Alcelaphus buselaphus buselaphus, 9 November 1923 "

What is causing those? Starting at the top...

Quote :

"The Madeiran Large White had suffered a terminal decline because of loss of habitat to the construction of new businesses and homes, including holiday homes."

Quote :

"The extinction of this subspecies of black rhino was caused by pouching for their horn, lack of finance, limited anti-poaching efforts, limited local capacity for conservation management, failure of courts to hand down sentences that can act as a deterrent to potential poachers, and genetic and demographic factors."

Quote :

"The po'o-uli declined and became eventually extinct due to habitat destruction and modification, the rapid spread of disease-carrying mosquitoes in the lowlands (Mountainspring et al. 1990), predation by introduced rats, cats and small Indian mongoose Herpestes auropunctatus."

Quote :

"The reasons behind the extinction of this species are largely unknown, although a number of hypotheses have been suggested including the inability to compete well with other species like livestock and Chamois (Rupicapra pyrenaica pyrenaica) for food, infections and diseases caught from domestic livestock, poaching, infertility and inbreeding problems, and climatic conditions."

Quote :

"Increasing conflict between people and leopards in the 20th century led to their demonization and determined attempts to exterminate them (Wikipedia contributors 2007). "

Quote :

"The restricted range of the golden toad and having a "narrow window of time" in order to breed, made this species vulnerable. Global warming or the El Niño-Southern Oscillation may have caused the erratic weather that destroyed the reproductive efforts of the golden toad."

Quote :

"The major threat this species faced was habitat loss. (Bogan, 2000)"

Quote :

"The introduction of large-mouth bass Micropterus salmoides, increasing pressure on breeding sites from local reed-cutting and from tourism development, the murder of the government game warden for the national park and falling lake levels have led to the extinction of this species. "

So...

Has man-made climate change killed species so far? I think you could maintain that it hasn't... much. The overwhelming majority are being killed today due to habitat destruction for one reason or another. Before that, large animals were going extinct (and still are) due to humans competing with them in the wild. Competing with a species as insanely successful as humans will lead to dying out. Is this the natural way of things? That's a twisted argument.

The next big wave of extinctions could come from climate change. It is an acute possibility. The coral reefs being destroyed by the acidity of the ocean alone will destroy more species than we can count. Literally.

6/1/2009 2:17:26 PM

What makes you think as many species would go extinct when temperature stays the same?

6/1/2009 2:18:45 PM

Well, if you believe the hype, temperatures were supposed to be dropping before manmade global warming.

But, far more likely, species on the verge of extinction are often not there alone, but because they are in competition without other species for scarce niches which have been made even more scarce by the presense of humans. Now, a warmer planet is also a greener planet, as we have watched the world forests expand ever further toward the poles. As they did so, they expanded the habbitat available for forest dwelling species, many of which are endangered thanks to the enchroachment of humans into forrest lands. As such, had this expansion of territory not taken place, confronted with human enchroachment these species may have already died off.

Especially if you factor in the impacts of fighting global warming, as non-carbon intensive sources tend to have larger footprints, causing more of scarce habbitat to be gobbled up for farmland, solar and wind installations, and housing/transportation for a more rural population.

6/1/2009 2:52:55 PM

^^^the corals are doing just fine, which has already been argued in this thread.

^^I'm confused. Which nonexistant point in the Earth's history are you referring to?

^Glad to see your levelheadedness in this thread.

6/1/2009 3:21:12 PM

In the next chapter of the Liberal Hippy Global Warming Conspiracy turns out that Big Energy is actually in on the big secret. Luckily our conservative heroes continue to risk their life day in and out to provide willing listeners with the truth so that they will not be deceived by the travasty of lies that the big corporations and stoner hippies spread about climate change.

6/1/2009 9:57:06 PM