Say Anything Blog

Funny, BBC has recently run several reports of discoveries of new, never before seen species. As has Science and National Geographic. A bit of political skulduggery is afoot, me thinks.

What are these knuckleheads going to use next? Stand on a pile of dead bodies and blame humans for the existence of death?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

This was the first link in a google search for “undiscovered species”. It is not a liberal conspiracy, 2H9.

NatGeoNews

To date, taxonomists have identified less than two million distinct species, mostly mammals and birds. But it’s estimated that the number of undiscovered species—primarily fish, fungi, insects, and microbes—ranges from ten million to more than one hundred million. Even at the low estimate, it’s an enormous number.

New species are being classified at a rate of only 15,000 a year. That’s not nearly fast enough to significantly close the knowledge gap.

It is obvious to most that there has been an increase in the loss of habitats over the last three decades or so, which corresponds with an increase in human population over the same time period. It should also be obvious to most, that if you reduce biodiversity, then you will reduce the possibility of some species surviving a rapid environmental change. One of these could be a “keystone” species and we don’t want to lose too many of those.

Political skullduggery? No, I think not.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

40 odd years of the environmental movement, worldwide, working to stop habitat loss, and you say even more has been lost? Sounds like an abject failure, and we are expected to do more of the same. Political skulduggery, of the rankest type.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

None of these groups are political, they are bi-partisan, because they cannot effectuate change by lobbying just one political affiliation.

Yes,they’ve worked for forty odd years to prevent habitat loss and if they hadn’t we would probably be looking at greater losses.

GAC!

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

You actually believe these people have no political aspirations. You need to wake up.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

As I have said, I don’t think that we can do anything about further biodiversity loss. Basically, this is because I think it would be impossible to get enough people to suspend their personal and national economies to accomodate any changes which would improve things.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

2H9, I could say the same for you. Their political ideologies are not the basis of this SCIENTIFIC study.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Just like the UN Global Warming report. Remember that pile of crap?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9.  No, I stopped paying any attention to the UN since they ran away from their “peacekeeping” missions and left their white vehicles abandoned in Yugo.
Saw them with my own eyes.  We will not serve under those cowards.

Communism is evil

The trouble is you are lumping all environmental scientists together. This is not the case. If we lumped all people with similar jobs or ideologies together, across the board, then we could happily assume that all Republicans are Ron Paul supporters, or all Americans are fat.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

As I said in my post

THIS IS NOT INTENDED AS A MMGW DEBATE

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

about it elsewhere

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

, especially with the advent of climate change (whether human caused or not - THIS IS NOT INTENDED AS A MMGW DEBATE).

Just a question, why are these species here then since all the climate does IS change, warm, cold, warm.....?

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Realistically the relatively minor shift in global climate from human activity wouldn’t matter much, had there not be the associated loss of habitat and other activity such as over fishing/hunting that already brought these species to the brink of extinction.

We need to address how we shift the scope of human activity: deforestation, hydrological projects, pollution, species replacement (by introducing exotic species into other ecologies) fishing and so forth to allow coexistence with other species, if we want to retain them.

I read through the article, and one thing popped out:  They claimed that water shortages are associated with species loss.

This is entirely stupid.  The water shortages are associated with changing human water usage patterns:  For example over-use of drinking water for irrigation in the United States.  Species loss plays no role (although the opposite is definitely true, hydroelectric dams have led to species loss).

I guess I could see loss of habitat make it harder for species to adapt, although the amount the climate has warmed in the past 30 or 100 years doesn’t seem significant enough to contribute to that.

Still I think the solution would be to push for more ethanol so that we lose more habitat and available water from framing and processing said ethanol.

<Sarcasm>

Why does Algore hate fuzzy creatures?

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Carrick, I read the BBC article on this same report, then went to Flamer’s linked article from Independent.co.uk, and as far as I can see 80 to 90% of it is agitaprop couched in scientific jargon. They come to the same conclusions that the environazi crowd has been chanting for 40 years. Humans must massively curtail industrial,agricultural activity, stop using all petroleum based products, and massively reduce electric production and use.

Put it in a dress and slap lipstick on it, it is still a pig.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Take a close look at the article; what we have here is not a scientific study, but rather a “survey of biodiversity” by an activist group without any clear examples of the horrendous loss of species.  Call me very skeptical; if we’ve really lost a lot of species--say about half a million of them by their count--don’cha think they’d lead with some of the more impressive losses?

Besides, most of those doing the research are died in the wool Darwinists.  Shouldn’t they know that species that go extinct are simply unsuited to their environment?

Christ, these same or similar organizations were saying the same schtick 50 or so years ago.  “Woe is the world, all the species are dying and it’s man fault”.  I guess the current global warming scam has bred new life in this old cause.

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

I am both amused and saddened by the assumption, yes assumption to a fault, that one is the cause of the other.  Moreover, if humanity is the crowning glory of evolution, as no doubt the author would contend, this is just par for the course.  You know, survival of the fittest… natural selection.  It is high time these inferior life forms descend into the abyss that is extinction if evolution is to march on.  Evolution will not be responsible for destroying the ecosystem necessary to maintain life.  It would mean that natural selection is a myth.  May the next species evolve.

Civilization is blamed on specie extinction but those species that can adapt (and a great number do adapt) will not only survive but flourish within the structures and institutions of civilization.  For instance, when I first moved into the development where I now reside, there were few animals and birds.  In the 20 or so years I have been at this residence, I have witnesse more and more ‘wildlife’ moving into the area.  First there was the mockingbirds, jays and a few rabbits; then came the squirrels and other bird families [one of the most interesting adaptations was the doves that typically occupy open fields have found a new home in suburbia).  Of course food and nesting is the key and the maturing of trees and shrubs has had much to do with the species successful adaptation.

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

Here is a curious result from modern evolutionary theory.

Environmental stressors reduce biodiversity.

Basically what happens is if you had a certain number of species living in an econiche, and you turn up the stressors in that environment, the consequence is that some of the animals will be less well adapted than others, and will die out.

According to evolutionary theory, this has been happening for the last 750,000,000 years or so.  Over time, evolution selects out the “solutions” to the “stay alive and propagate” problem that all biological organisms face, that are most optimal.

Evolution doesn’t lead to a genetic diversity (represented well by the myriad of configurations of animals in the early Cambrian, e.g. animals with five-fold symmetry rather than the bilateral symmetry exhibited by most extant organisms) but rather selects a few of the “solutions” as the most optimal.

So yes, if you increase the ecological stressors on a species, that species chance of survival are correspondingly reduced.  Reducing habitat and other related human activity are examples of these. 

So… if you really wanted to “address” the problem, the only real solution is we all go live in caves or just shoot ourselves (probably something wrong with that too).  Obviously that ain’t going to happen, so everybody talks about window dressing solutions like reducing CO2.

And by the way, I agree 100% Whistler that AGW is a very minor part, except perhaps in the Northern Arctic, which has seen a substantial warmup in the last 20 years.  (The $20 question is whether it’s related to human activitys though.)

Basically what happens is if you had a certain number of species living in an econiche, and you turn up the stressors in that environment, the consequence is that some of the animals will be less well adapted than others, and will die out.

This was demonstrated fairly recently when some flightless birds on some Pacific islands were wiped out by rats accidently introduce from sailing ships.

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

I agree 100% Whistler that AGW is a very minor part, except perhaps in the Northern Arctic, which has seen a substantial warmup in the last 20 years.

How did the polar bears survive the Medieval Warm Period, let alone the Holocene Climate Optimum?

By the way, it would be my opinion that Polar Bears are NOT going to lose a significant amount of habitat. (Nor have lost).

In fact with the hunting ban that’s been in place for years they’re getting almost like seagulls.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Life as we know it will end in our lifetime. Or haven’t you figured that out yet.

Put on your burlap shirt, sandwichboard, and rope sandals. Then go stand on the corner and tell your troubles to Jesus, the Chaplain done went over the hill.

Life as we know it is ending, and beginning, in a continuous cycle. Like a dryer with a stuck “on” switch.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Life as we know it will end in our lifetime. Or haven’t you figured that out yet.

Man the stupidity is deafening.

Whistler:

How did the polar bears survive the Medieval Warm Period, let alone the Holocene Climate Optimum?

I understand your point that regional warming in and of itself hasn’t caused their extinction, so it would be, all else being the same, unlikely to do so now. 

However the point I was making is slightly different:  The polar bear population is under stress due to human activities (people who have spent quite a bit of time studying them make this claim), so adding an additional stressor such as regional warming simply raises their chance of extinction.

But if they went extinct, the main cause wouldn’t be climate change, it would be more direct human activities such as habitat loss and over-hunting of seals or something like that.

How did the polar bears survive the Medieval Warm Period

They were still e-volving from lower forms of life like Hostess Sno-balls.
Besides, that was the Med-ieval period. With internal combustion engines, this is the Large-ieval Period. Don’t believe me? Just ask Al Gore!

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Eskimo Pies

How did the polar bears survive the Medieval Warm Period

Less biodiversity, means less range within an ecology to respond to abrupt environmental changes.

I thought all you guys worshipped at the altar of Darwinism, which teaches that the most successful species survive, while the least capable die out.  This entire meme is Darwinism at its best. Furthermore, this erroneous idea that the “ecology” is fragile is complete nonsense.  It is so rugged it has survived everything, and is still pumping out successful species, like human beings.
Survival of the fittest, remember?
Extinction is the byproduct of Natural Selection.
If you know anything about the history of the Earth, you know that other species will occupy the newly-opened ecological niches that have been vacated.
What you are really doing, Man, is resisting change.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Carrick the population up in the arctic isn’t vastly greater.  The polar bears aren’t hunted, in fact I understand the problem is that they don’t fear humans at all and come right into the villages.

By the way you talked about Global Warming only showing up in one small area.  Certainly the entire atmosphere would be capturing more heat.  While some areas might cool, I think we should expect a general warming.

OH, also on the polar bears, “they” say they’re threatened by global warming melting their ice pack.  I call BS.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Thanks for illustrating your ignorance, R108. See this description of keystone species and then consider what would happen if the bees were to die out or become scarce. Duh!

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Flamer, according to Darwinism another specie will move into the niche. And as for the bee problem, it has several causes, not the least of which was the over breeding of 2 strains of breeding stock sold to beekeepers during the last 50 years. It has produced bees that are more susceptible to disease and parasites.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

BTW, within each ecological niche, there is little or no “biodiversity”, due to Natural Selection. Duh.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Man: Only a leftie would consider Wiki any sort of valid source for scientific information.  The “keystone species” hypothesis is pure crap, as the history of the Earth illustrates quite clearly.
Every species, if it becomes too specialized(the result of Natural Selection) is vulnerable to extinction.  Duh.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Whistler, again as I understand it, it’s not direct ecological forces that are affecting these animals, rather it is the hunting of seals and the decrease of that population that is threatening them.

I can’t say anything more intelligent than this, because I would actually have to find some of the pertinent literature, such as the supporting documents for the EPA classification to know what it is that is making their wheels turn. However, I personally wouldn’t automatically assume these people are stupid or necessarily agenda driven, without spending a bit more time researching the question in a bit more detail.

Man: Only a leftie would consider Wiki any sort of valid source for scientific information.

Nice ad hominem.  If a thing is true, it’s true regardless of the source.

Nice ad hominem.  If a thing is true, it’s true regardless of the source.

While it is doubful that Wiki qualifies as a “homo"(Latin for “man”, the “hominem” means “man” in the term “ad hominem"), the reality is that I properly questioned the integrity of Man’s source, which he cited as an authority on the subject.  Wiki is not an authority on anything, and you, Carrick, have produced no evidence that the keystone species hypothesis is true in any way.
I await that from you, who used “ad hominem” here, against me.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Hahahahaha!

There are around 260 species of bee in the UK and about 25 species of bumble bee and they are all in decline. That is not the low biodiversity per ecological niche that Robert claims natural selection predicts. Duh!

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

BTW, if the keystone species had any truth to it, how did life on Earth survive any of the mass extinctions that have taken place in the history of Earth?  Were we just lucky?

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

BTW, I know plenty of scientists, myself included, who use Wiki as a jumping off point.  I use it to get references and basic nomenclature for a field (e.g., most recently tornado genesis).  From there, I usually go to Google Scholar, or to the search engine for a specific journal.  (In medical sciences, there is pubmed, unfortunately the physical sciences has no good equivalent to that.)

Perhaps Robert108 can explain to us why “keystone species” are such crap or how the natural history of the Earth illustrates why it is crap.

Quite obviously you can have an ecosystem collapse, and then over time rebound.  The Permian-Triassic extinction, where 94% of all marine species disappeared, is probably an example of the domino effect for extinction.

BTW, if the keystone species had any truth to it, how did life on Earth survive any of the mass extinctions that have taken place in the history of Earth?  Were we just lucky?

Life on Earth is such a general term as to be meaningless.  Do you really care if “life on earth” survives, but humans don’t?

While it is doubful that Wiki qualifies as a “homo"(Latin for “man”, the “hominem” means “man” in the term “ad hominem

The ad hominem was not related to Wikpedia as you know full well.  It was the “Only a leftie...” comment disparaging anybody who would use WIKi.

If you have a problem with the information, the onus is on you to prove it wrong, not to just smear somebody for using it as a source.  It has been shown that sourced literature in Wikipedia as reliable as Encyclopedia Briticannica (sp) , and certainly much more reliable than any popular media outlet, including Fox News, Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh.

It was the “Only a leftie...” comment disparaging anybody who would use WIKi.[/quote}

Now I understand your accusation, but you’re still wrong.  I hardly think “leftie” qualifies as an ad hominem, but my criticism was of Wiki, not of Man, no matter how you try to spin it.
My entire point was a validation of Darwinism, which does not support the keystone species hypothesis, to my knowledge.  I thought you worshipped Darwin, dude.
Or is this just another one of your ad hominems directed at me?  Nice ad hominems toward Fox News, Ann and Rush, though, even though they are not part of this discussion, and you’re the only one to mention them.

---

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Robert108, where exactly is the ad hominem in observing that Wikipedia in any “sourced literature” is more reliable than any popular media outlet?

I have to admit that I am barely following your train of logic here.

MOFAL, I was wondering if you could give us at the least a technical reference bolstering your (apparent) claim that there is a long-term decline in “around 260 species of bee in the UK and about 25 species of bumble bee”.

I inserted “long-term” because if it’s short term, it could be a meaningless oscillation in insect population.

Also, while I suspect the statement to be true, to the extent that this is the case, it is probably once again related to habitat loss.

If you think reducing CO2 emissions is a tough sell (even if a pointless gesture here), think about trying to explain to people how they have to return their properties to honey bees.

Please tell me you are not trying to make the point that there are fewer flowering plants upon which bees, and other insect, feed than in the past? Are you really trying to make that lamed assed argument?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

There is this study which analysed hundreds of sites and found be populations had declined 80% in many of them. This study found evidence of decline in populations pre-versus post 1980 in both Britain and the Netherlands.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

2H9, are you really trying to make the point that modern human activities and agricultural practices have no impact on biodiversity, including the preponderance of wildflowers? Are you really trying to make that lame assed argument?

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Carrick, the assertion is based on the cited studies which found declines throughout UK bee populations. The numbers are just those of the number of species of each in the UK. They may not (of course) all be in decline, but these studies suggest otherwise.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Many pollinators depend on certain native species of plants.  Many factors, including urbanization, agricultural land usage, introduction of exotic plant species and so forth are related to this, but the overall fact does seem to be a population loss of many native species of native plants and the insects that are dependent on their existence.

I note that the data MOFAL links points predominantly to a diminished population of specialized pollinators, with other species populations actually increasing with time.

I am pretty sure those facts are accurate.  The policy question is what if anything should be done about it

There has been some action taken in recent years, with British farmers incentivised to replant native hedgerows and leave a wildflower border around their tilled fields. However, with the rise of cereal prices and the reorganisation of the EU farming subsidies, the incentives are no longer competitive and so much of the progress made in the last few years could be cancelled.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Since beekeeping is a major activity in Great Britain, perhaps you would like to do a bit of research, Flamer. Not through wiki. Through actual apiary sources. You know? The people who actually know stuff about bees. Though there are several, diverse, camps of thought in that community. All tend to agree that the lack of genetic span in the commercially available bee population is a massive contributive to the current problem. Not to mention killing off of wild swarms which nest in locations people don’t like.

The fungal and parasitic kill offs are tied to the weakening natural immunities of population through lack of diversification of the genetic stock used in breeding bees for commercial purposes. Just like any other livestock, if you over breed a specific line it becomes unstable and inviable.

Cause&Effect. It works.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

This does not however explain a decline in native wild bee populations.

Thanks for the suggestion, 2H9, but I’ve got far too much research to do just now, without adding to the workload.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Remember the inter-breeding of wild bees from Africa with “domestic” honey bees? Remember why that whole project was undertaken in the first place? In the mid ‘50s?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

And spare us the wiki-shit.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Blow it out yer ear!

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Those links weren’t from Wiki, though that’s a rather tiring excuse for not accepting truth as truth.  MOFAL has already provided two sources looking at natives bee population declines.  We aren’t talking about massive population dies offs here, but rather 25-year periods of decline with a direct link to declining populations of associated plants that these pollinators depend on.

As you said, cause and effect does work.

Finally. Making progress. What are the 3 primary reasons for bee swarm die off. And again, spare us the wikishit.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

For the last time, we’re not talking about bee-swarm die off.

I have to admit that I am barely following your train of logic here.

You’re not following it at all. Man based his logic on a Wiki article about the keystone species hypothesis, with no supporting facts or logic, and an assumption that it actually described anything real.  Without the keystone species argument, there is no basis for his scareology.  Species simply come and go, according to their success in adapting to existing and changing conditions; some succeed and some fail, for any number of reasons, and mass extinctions in the past have not wiped out all life on Earth.  Humans, because we are not specializing physically to adapt to the changing environment, but are rather using technology to adapt, seem to be relatively immune from the usual factor in extinction: overspecialization, combined with a change in the environment beyond our ability to adapt.  Honeybees represent one ecological niche, not the entire ecology; if they are becoming extinct, we will have to devise some solution to that, either by dietary changes or some type of pollination technology; or another species may take over pollination duties.  My take on the ecology is that it’s quite rugged.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Humans, because we are not specializing physically to adapt to the changing environment, but are rather using technology to adapt, seem to be relatively immune from the usual factor in extinction

Your lack of understanding is fairly amusing.  On an evolutionary scale of time, humans have not been here very long.

Your lack of understanding is fairly amusing.  On an evolutionary scale of time, humans have not been here very long.

There is no relationship between your two statements, so your initial assertion remains unproven.  I detailed a truth about how humans adapt; you have not refuted that with your statement about time.  Non sequitur.  I know you “feel” I’m wrong(probably due to partisan hatred), but try thinking before you type, next time.  You might make some sense.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

I believe that adaptibiiity has little to do with evolution.  Specie adaptability has to do with how well a specie reacts to changes in its environment.  An adapted specie is not a new specie!!!

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

Blow it out yer ear!

I bow before such intellectual acuity.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Ah, now I get it! Bees don’t count, only polar bears. Gotch’ya! I’ll keep that in mind when all the environazis are screeching and wailing about the bees dying, cause they don’t matter.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem