Ready for a laugh? - Global warming could destroy 15-37% species by 2050: Study

Nature Journal ^ | 01-08-2003 | Reprinted in Press Trust India

[Brian_Baldwin]

Global warming could destroy 15-37% species by 2050: Study

Press Trust of India

Washington, January 8

Global warming may cause the extinction of 15 to 37 per cent of species by 2050, a study published on Thursday in the noted science journal Nature has warned.

"The midrange estimate is that 34 per cent of plants and animals will be committed to extinction by 2050," said economist Chris Thomas of Britain's University of Leeds, who conducted the study along with 17 other researchers.

"We are talking about 1.25 million species. It is a massive number", Thomas said.

The study was conducted by researchers in a range of habitats, including Britain, the wet tropics of northwestern Australia and the Mexico desert.

The researchers called for "rapid implementation of technologies" to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and warned that the scale of extinctions could climb up much higher because of mutually reinforcing interactions between climate change and habitat destruction caused by agriculture, invasive species and other factors.

Though the researchers admitted that there were many uncertainties in both climate forecasts and the computer models they used, they said their prediction could come true if industrial nations did not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that trap heat in the atmosphere.

"We're already seeing biological communities respond very rapidly to climate warming," Thomas said.

Among the already threatened species that could become extinct are Australia's Boyd's forest dragon, a tree-dwelling lizard, and Europe's azure-winged magpie.

[jrawk]

Not if I get to them FIRST!

-- lates
-- jrawk

[SwinneySwitch]

"Among the already threatened species that could become extinct are Australia's Boyd's forest dragon, a tree-dwelling lizard, and Europe's azure-winged magpie."

2 down and ~1,249,998 to go!

[nuconvert]

"...economist Chris Thomas"

Who IS this kook? And why should we take the word of an economist?

[VOA]

...economist Chris Thomas of Britain's University of Leeds, who conducted the study
along with 17 other researchers.

I wish some provocative conservative group would hire some private investigators
to follow Chris Thomas and the 17 co-authors around for a month.

Then report back with this information about these folks:
1. What modes of transportation did they use?
Bicycle, train, bus, car, truck? And if they got into a private vehicle bigger than
a Yugo, I'd want photos!
Did any of them get on a plane or travel out of town on a trip that
was NOT absolutely a matter of life and death?
2. What sort of housing do they live in?
If they are in a dwelling bigger than a studio apartment, we need to know.
3. Family...how many kids do they have? If they have any, how could they face themselves,
knowing they are contributing to global degredataion. Even if they have one kid,
that's too many.
4. At home and work: do they walk their talk? Turn off their computers/applicances to save
energy? Sit/work in rooms without heating or cooling, in order to avoid burning
of greenhouse-gas producing fuels?
5. Finally, are they all vegetarians? (In order to reduce the degradation of
the environment caused by feeding meat-producing livestock...)

I just say this...because I remember a few years ago, some academic environmentalist type
won an honor (which I think included some sort of cash award).
IIRC, the fellow said that while he was very happy with the recognition, about all
that would change in his life is that he'd probably DRIVE to his work more often than
before, seeing how he could now afford a campus parking spot.

[demkicker]

I'm more upset about the publication in which this crap was circulated. Crap, it's the Hindustan Times! The damned dumbing down agenda has even hit India folks and that's bad news.

[BobS]

Maybe global warming will destroy liberals too! They will be pretty old by 2050:)

[Capt. Tom]

I like Michael Chrichtons take on predicting the future:

Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?

But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS… None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn't know what you are talking about.

Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it's even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They're bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment's thought knows it.

[Renegade]

I thought that 99% of all living things that existed on the planet were extict .What we have now is what is left ! So whats another 35% of the 1% . Mosquitos, greenheads, ticks and chiggers have my vote to be eliminated.

[SwinneySwitch]

BREAKING NEWS: I calculated the midrange estimate to be only 33.5 % and saved 18,382 plants and animals from extinction by 2050!

[nuconvert]

Unfortunately, seems Hindustan Times will print almost anything.

[demkicker]

Thanks, that makes me feel better, I think (?).

[kylaka]

It was also on the NBC nightly snooze tonight. Tommy boy reported it with especially grim face for emphasis. The "anybody but W campaign" is in full bloom.

[strongbow]

Does that include all the republicans that are going away??

[nuconvert]

LoL. Sounds even funnier.
How anyone could report this with a straight face is Beyond me.....

[demkicker]

Look at the bright side. The sheeple who still watch and believe Tommy Boy probably weren't going to vote for W. anyway.

[caisson71]

I agree. I'll add a few "greenies" to species we would not miss.

[GATOR NAVY]

Actually, it's entirely possible these predictions are correct. It's entirely possible the Earth's climate is getting warming. It has been warmer than it is now many times in the past. It's a cycle.

The myth of global warming is not that it may be occuring and that there may be serious environmental consequences, the myth is that human activities are resposible.

[RightOnline]

Two words: central air.

[zook]

I, for one, am a little tired of having all those extra species around! They can take the sharks, the wolves, the grizlies, and mosquitos and I won't miss 'em!

[jrawk]

Be wary of the man who declares the world will end, and the only solution is thay you give him more power over you.


If this really is a threat to humanity, we will get nowhere close to a solution unless we scour ALL of nature for the cause.


Until we know one or the other, most of society is better off if we ignore it.


-- lates
-- jrawk