|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Stout
Joined: 28 May 2011
|
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 2:26 am Post subject: Doomsday cometh |
|
|
Problems with oceans multiplying, worsening
World Jun. 21, 2011 - 11:57AM JST ( 1 )
WASHINGTON �
The health of the world�s oceans is declining much faster than originally thought�under siege from pollution, overfishing and other man-made problems all at once�scientists say in a new report.
The mix of interacting ingredients is in place for a mass extinction in the world�s oceans, said a report by a top panel of scientists that will be presented to the United Nations on Tuesday.
The report says the troubles from global warming and other factors are worse when they combine with each other. Factors include dead zones from farm run-off, an increase in acidity from too much carbon dioxide, habitat destruction and melting sea ice, along with overfishing.
�Things seem to be going wrong on several different levels,� said Carl Lundin, director of global marine programs at the International Union for Conservation of Nature, which helped produce the report with the International Programme on the State of the Ocean. The conclusions follow an international meeting this spring in England to discuss the fate of the world�s oceans.
Some of the changes affecting the world�s seas�all of which have been warned about individually in the past�are happening faster than the worst case scenarios that were predicted just a few years ago, the report said.
�It was a more dire report than any of us thought because we look at our own little issues,� Lundin said in an interview. �When you put them all together, it�s a pretty bleak situation.�
The combination of problems suggests there�s a brewing worldwide die-off of species that would rival past mass extinctions, scientists said in the document. Coral deaths alone would be considered a mass extinction, according to study chief author Alex Rogers of the University of Oxford. A single bleaching event in 1998 killed one-sixth of the world�s tropical coral reefs.
Lundin pointed to deaths of 1,000-year-old coral in the Indian Ocean and called it �really unprecedented.�
�We now face losing marine species and entire marine ecosystems, such as coral reefs, within a single generation,� the report said.
�Multiple high intensity� factors also led to the previous five mass extinction events in the past 600 million years, the scientists note.
The chief causes for extinctions at the moment are overfishing and habitat loss, but global warming is �increasingly adding to this,� the report said.
Carbon dioxide from the burning of coal and other fossil fuels ends up sinking in the ocean which then becomes more acidic. Warmer ocean temperatures also are shifting species from their normal habitats, Rogers said. Add to that melting sea ice and glaciers.
Chemicals and plastics from daily life are also causing problems for sea creatures, the report said. Overall, the world�s oceans just cannot bounce back from problems�such as oil spills�like they used to, scientists said.
However, Lundin said, �Some of these things are reversible if we change our behavior.�
___
Online:
State of the Ocean report: http://bit.ly/kXHKOM
http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/problems-with-oceans-multiplying-worsening |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:37 am Post subject: Re: Doomsday cometh |
|
|
Quote: |
an increase in acidity from too much carbon dioxide |
Not sure about the rest of the article (probably written with a environmentalist agenda, but we'd have to take it point by point), but this point is total bunk (nothing more than than AGW propaganda).
I for one am a whole lot more concerned with the Fukushima meltdown mega-disaster filling the ocean with Plutonium and other deadly radioactive isotopes than I am about CO2. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Stout
Joined: 28 May 2011
|
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:01 am Post subject: Re: Doomsday cometh |
|
|
visitorq wrote: |
Quote: |
an increase in acidity from too much carbon dioxide |
Not sure about the rest of the article (probably written with a environmentalist agenda, but we'd have to take it point by point), but this point is total bunk (nothing more than than AGW propaganda).
I for one am a whole lot more concerned with the Fukushima meltdown mega-disaster filling the ocean with Plutonium and other deadly radioactive isotopes than I am about CO2. |
Everyone is freaked by the radiation spewing into the ocean, that's a given. Not sweating the other stuff is why the environment has become degraded dramatically within the last 40 years or so. Once the tipping point is reached, there is no return. You procrastinate on your term paper, you get slammed on your grade. You procrastinate on polluting the planet, you get higher rates of stress, cancer, conflict over resources, higer prices for basic necessities, lower standard of living, degraded air, degraded water, all of the above and then some leading to game over. It's simple math. The earth is finite. We have been treating it like it is infinitely renewable regardless of what toxins we produce and throw away. It used to be only the few 'developed' countries behaved in this manner, but now China, Brazil, India, and everyone else (partly due to our trumpeting of 'globalization') is falling into the same pattern. You can test it out on your yourself- drink a coupla brews. Now drink 10 more. Now 50 more. Repeat. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:20 am Post subject: Re: Doomsday cometh |
|
|
Stout wrote: |
visitorq wrote: |
Quote: |
an increase in acidity from too much carbon dioxide |
Not sure about the rest of the article (probably written with a environmentalist agenda, but we'd have to take it point by point), but this point is total bunk (nothing more than than AGW propaganda).
I for one am a whole lot more concerned with the Fukushima meltdown mega-disaster filling the ocean with Plutonium and other deadly radioactive isotopes than I am about CO2. |
Everyone is freaked by the radiation spewing into the ocean, that's a given. Not sweating the other stuff is why the environment has become degraded dramatically within the last 40 years or so. Once the tipping point is reached, there is no return. You procrastinate on your term paper, you get slammed on your grade. You procrastinate on polluting the planet, you get higher rates of stress, cancer, conflict over resources, higer prices for basic necessities, lower standard of living, degraded air, degraded water, all of the above and then some leading to game over. It's simple math. The earth is finite. We have been treating it like it is infinitely renewable regardless of what toxins we produce and throw away. It used to be only the few 'developed' countries behaved in this manner, but now China, Brazil, India, and everyone else (partly due to our trumpeting of 'globalization') is falling into the same pattern. You can test it out on your yourself- drink a coupla brews. Now drink 10 more. Now 50 more. Repeat. |
I agree that there are real environmental issues. However, to say it is 'simple math' is naive in my opinion. There is definitely an agenda at play in the environmentalist movement, and it's not based on simple resource/pollution statistics... It is an anti-human agenda, tracing its roots back to writers like Malthus (who have been proven wrong consistently over time).
Anyway, I agree that infinite consumption is impossible. However, this is caused more by our inflationary monetary (ponzi scheme) central banking monetary system than by 'overpopulation'. Overpopulation is relative. Cutting off resources to the poor is not a logical way to curb consumption, considering they already consume very little.
Finally, I'm not convinced in the slightest that the world overall is the garbage dump that the environmentalists tell us it is. Sure there are heavily polluted areas, but most of the world is also uninhabited by humans... I think a lot of the stats they throw at us are bunk (like AGW stats). Ultimately it's probably impossible to find the real "truth", given how much of an agenda there is (and how much money and power is involved). |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Stout
Joined: 28 May 2011
|
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
As you say, no way to be totally sure. If you want to gamble on the health of the planet and support the way things are going, no one's going to physically stop you, least of all the multinationals. But you may see inflation continuing to rise, and everyone struggling more to lead a decent life. Generally happens when usable resources become scarcer. If the marine ecosystems collapse anywhere near what is hinted at in the article, the drastic drop in fish and and other things farmed from the sea will send a not very minor ripple effect across the board. I for one hope you're right, but in my gut I really don't think the big industrial concerns are very good stewards. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Friend Lee Ghost
Joined: 06 Jun 2011
|
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
The ice caps are melting, glaciers are melting at a rate even greater than we thought just a few years ago. Ocean acidification is proceeding very rapidly, and sea is about to rise to levels that will be catastrophic to many coastal areas.
While there was definitely some fraud involved in the global warming (pseudo)science, it is happening nevertheless.
I agree with vq though that a majority of blame for our environmental problems can be placed at the feet of the greedy banksters and elites who run them who are willing to sell out the planet for a profit. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Stout
Joined: 28 May 2011
|
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Friend Lee Ghost wrote: |
The ice caps are melting, glaciers are melting at a rate even greater than we thought just a few years ago. Ocean acidification is proceeding very rapidly, and sea is about to rise to levels that will be catastrophic to many coastal areas.
While there was definitely some fraud involved in the global warming (pseudo)science, it is happening nevertheless.
I agree with vq though that a majority of blame for our environmental problems can be placed at the feet of the greedy banksters and elites who run them who are willing to sell out the planet for a profit. |
Yes, we are all on the same page regarding this. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Julius

Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:03 am Post subject: Re: Doomsday cometh |
|
|
visitorq wrote: |
Finally, I'm not convinced in the slightest that the world overall is the garbage dump that the environmentalists tell us it is. Sure there are heavily polluted areas, but most of the world is also uninhabited by humans... |
Uninhabited does not mean untouched or unaffected by human activity.
People do not reside on the ocean, yet vast areas of it are clogged with trash and debris.
Don't believe me? Take ferry from e.g. Busan to fukuoka and count the number of visible floating plastic bags or polystyrene objects en route. You would need to count in hundreds per 10-minute blocks in some places, and probably X that number by ten to account for all the other stuff suspended just under the surface.
Walk along a beach ( e.g. south jeju) and count all the dead stuff either snared by discarded fishing line, asphyxiated by floating oil from boats, or choked by plastic. Go check the miles of floating driftnets left out for permanently, and count the amount of stuff caught and drowned in them. Including e.g. seals, or porpoises.
Get out your room for once and actually go out into the natural environment. Then you might actually have a clue what you're talking about.
While I agree environmentalism has been hijacked at times to further political causes and strategies, it is not the lies that you claim. The environment is and has been seriously damaged by human activity, it is not a figment of some politicians imagination. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Can we stop the fear tactics? They are not helping. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005 Location: In Cognito
|
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I thought doomsday was this May past? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Stout
Joined: 28 May 2011
|
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kuros wrote: |
Can we stop the fear tactics? They are not helping. |
In the video the near the end the man dubbed the "anti-environmentalist" actually admits global warming is a reality, and says that his position is different based on how he would tackle the problem. In any case, the man in question, Bjorn Lomborg, was later discredited-
Accusations of scientific dishonesty- After the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg was accused of scientific dishonesty. Several environmental scientists brought a total of three complaints against Lomborg to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD), a body under Denmark's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. The charges claimed that The Skeptical Environmentalist contained deliberately misleading data and flawed conclusions. Due to the similarity of the complaints, the DCSD decided to proceed on the three cases under one investigation.
[edit] DCSD investigationOn January 6, 2003 the DCSD reached a decision on the complaints. The ruling was a mixed messages, deciding the book to be scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in question:[6]
Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. ...In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bj�rn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.
The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:
1.Fabrication of data;
2.Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
3.Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
4.Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
5.Plagiarism;
6.Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Stout wrote: |
Kuros wrote: |
Can we stop the fear tactics? They are not helping. |
In the video the near the end the man dubbed the "anti-environmentalist" actually admits global warming is a reality, and says that his position is different based on how he would tackle the problem. In any case, the man in question, Bjorn Lomborg, was later discredited-
Accusations of scientific dishonesty- After the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg was accused of scientific dishonesty. Several environmental scientists brought a total of three complaints against Lomborg to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD), a body under Denmark's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. The charges claimed that The Skeptical Environmentalist contained deliberately misleading data and flawed conclusions. Due to the similarity of the complaints, the DCSD decided to proceed on the three cases under one investigation.
[edit] DCSD investigationOn January 6, 2003 the DCSD reached a decision on the complaints. The ruling was a mixed messages, deciding the book to be scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in question:[6]
Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. ...In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bj�rn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.
The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:
1.Fabrication of data;
2.Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
3.Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
4.Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
5.Plagiarism;
6.Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results. |
He addresses the allegations in the film. Basically, its a character attack. Here's a classic criticism of the peer review process: its far, far from infallible.
Anyway, yes, you got the point of the trailer: neither Bjorn nor I deny the existence of AGW. But we deplore the fear rhetoric and of course the smear tactics you reproduce above.
Bjorn aims his criticism at the Kyoto and Copenhagen accords. Namely, these agreements were inefficient, and would only ameliorate the environmental impact for about 30-40 cents on the dollar. As opposed to other solutions, such as marine cloud whitening, further energy R&D (employing wind/solar now is cost inefficient and uncompetitive), stratospheric aerosol research, and carbon capture. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Stout
Joined: 28 May 2011
|
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bjorn probably is trying to do something good. The problem is that it gets reported as 'anti-environmentalist confounds the experts', which multinationals then exploit to their advantage. And your normal Joe who just wants any excuse to take the easy road and not worry about the environment is then given what he's been looking for. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:41 pm Post subject: Re: Doomsday cometh |
|
|
Julius wrote: |
visitorq wrote: |
Finally, I'm not convinced in the slightest that the world overall is the garbage dump that the environmentalists tell us it is. Sure there are heavily polluted areas, but most of the world is also uninhabited by humans... |
Uninhabited does not mean untouched or unaffected by human activity.
People do not reside on the ocean, yet vast areas of it are clogged with trash and debris.
Don't believe me? Take ferry from e.g. Busan to fukuoka and count the number of visible floating plastic bags or polystyrene objects en route. You would need to count in hundreds per 10-minute blocks in some places, and probably X that number by ten to account for all the other stuff suspended just under the surface. |
This is a major route traveled by people and located between 2 large cities. This is like telling me to count the trash along the side of a major highway and saying it's representative of the world at large. Totally meaningless.
Quote: |
Walk along a beach ( e.g. south jeju) and count all the dead stuff either snared by discarded fishing line, asphyxiated by floating oil from boats, or choked by plastic. Go check the miles of floating driftnets left out for permanently, and count the amount of stuff caught and drowned in them. Including e.g. seals, or porpoises. |
This is just ridiculous. I've walked my fair share of beaches and I've yet to see any asphyxiated porpoises
Anyway, going off of the above, your debate style is quite clear: appeal to emotion. Sorry, but that doesn't work on me. All I'm interested in is facts, not hyperbole and personal anecdotes.
Quote: |
Get out your room for once and actually go out into the natural environment. Then you might actually have a clue what you're talking about. |
I enjoy nature a lot, actually. I often go hiking and camping and I've been all around the world. As far as I can tell personally most of the world is pretty much the same as always... though obviously in a constant state of flux. Humans have an impact, but it's only relevant insofar as it affects ourselves.
Also, your claim to know better and to have seen more nature than others (in order to prop yourself up in a debate) is pretty arrogant, and actually counts for nothing since it's unverifiable.
Quote: |
While I agree environmentalism has been hijacked at times to further political causes and strategies, it is not the lies that you claim. The environment is and has been seriously damaged by human activity, it is not a figment of some politicians imagination.[ |
The environment is so huge that you can't even wrap your mind around it. Yet you're claiming that "it" has been damaged severely. Bull. You may be able to understand certain local environments if you study hard enough, but never "the" environment. It's too big and complex.
I bet you're one of those people who thinks the "real" environment is that which would exist if humans didn't. I've got news for you: humans are a part of the environment. We are indigenous to the earth, and any impact we have is natural (we're not aliens). The real issue is how we treat ourselves, not the planet (which is not some living Gaia creature like the environmentalists are brainwashed into believing). For now we have more than enough resources to go around and our environment is nowhere near collapse. The real issue is how to keep the elite (the same elite who control all the crony capitalist firms on Wall Street, and also fund socialism and environmentalism since it benefits them the most) from taking away our personal liberties. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Stout
Joined: 28 May 2011
|
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
This is just ridiculous. I've walked my fair share of beaches and I've yet to see any asphyxiated porpoises
All I'm interested in is facts, not hyperbole and personal anecdotes.
I enjoy nature a lot, actually. I often go hiking and camping and I've been all around the world. As far as I can tell personally most of the world is pretty much the same as always... |
Yes, you on your own have covered the planet, therefore your personal anecdotes are facts
Yes, the planet is "pretty much the same as always" (you've been around since before the Industrial Revolution, eh?), meaning your planet, which is obviously in orbit somewhere very far away from this one. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|