Climate Change

[Roger C. KENDRICK]

JP,

well commented.

Whilst climate change is something that most creatures can probably adapt to (on the news yesterday there was evidence that polar bears survived the last major interglacial period, with mean global temperatures over 6 deg. C higher than now and much higher sea levels), habitat destruction is still going to be the primary cause of most species extinction. All the talk and focus is now on climate change, which is only a symptom of the way humanity abuses and destroys the rest of life on earth for its own very short sighted gain. In the media's eye, habitat destruction is not the big issue it ought to be. :(

Roger.
 
Roger C. KENDRICK  Ph.D. 
Senior Conservation Officer, Fauna Conservation,  
Kadoorie Farm & Botanic Garden, Hong Kong 
http://www.kfbg.org/    
 
C & R Wildlife (sole proprietor), Tai Po, Hong Kong  
hkmoths at yahoo.co.uk 
 
Hong Kong Moths  - http://asia.geocities.com/hkmoths/ 
 
discussion groups 
 - http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Hkmoths/ 
 - http://www.hkwildlife.net 
 - http://www.hkls-forum.org/

----- Original Message ----
From: JPPelham <zapjammer at verizon.net>
To: Leps List <LEPS-L at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 12:14:47 AM
Subject: Climate Change

All,

I have been staying strictly out of the Global Temperature debate; it
 has been and remains a contentious and fruitless discussion on
 list-serves.  However, after reviewing the various exchanges and visiting some
 of the suggested websites, my conscience will not allow me to refrain
 any longer.  There are obviously agendas at play.  I cannot fathom all of
 them, nor will I make the attempt.

Global Warming/Cooling, CO2, Hot/Cool Sun...whatever.  A majority of
 scientists studying earthâs climate are concerned over the potential
 effects that humans are having on the climate.  I think this statement is
 beyond dispute.  As an example of how people try to negate this fact, I
 heard one soul proclaim that upwards of 30% of the scientists at a
 'Bali Symposium' refused to sign a declaration of consensus on the
 subject, demonstrating considerable dissent.  I later discovered that these
 recalcitrant scientists were upset that the measures discussed were too
 lenient!  Was this is a simple oversight on the part of this poor soul,
 or blatant misrepresentation for the purpose of misleading people?
  This happens so often that I suspect an intent to defraud.

People do misrepresent themselves.  They can also be misrepresented.
  Both are lies, but apparently, 'we' are becoming immune to dishonesty.
  It seems to me that we shall not know who is 'right' as to whether
 humans influence climate for at least half a century.  But there is
 something unsaid in all of these arguments.  There is something that disturbs
 me about what seems a widespread anti environmentalism.  It is possible
 that it has something to do with these agendas I cannot fathom.

While cruising the internet, I read some incredibly absurd arguments
 from people who seem supremely qualified to post them.  There is a lot of
 that going around these days.  As a result of my incredulity, I formed
 some questions.  I think the answers are obvious enough, but I would
 also guess that they will generate great indignance.

1. Can there ever be too many people on the planet?  Is ever increasing
 human population growth not only conceivable but preferable?

2. Can 'Human Progress' and development of resources expand
 indefinitely?  Is there no end to human potential?

3. Is it demonstrable that the human presence on our planet does not
 cause stress to environments and the diversity of organisms that dwell
 within them?

4. Can a secular argument be generated that humans are, collectively,
 'better' than any other creature?

Can anybody examine our natural world and find evidence that any
 creature is better than any other?   How can it be possible to show that we
 humans are superior creatures, especially in light of our ephemeral
 existence?  One cannot merely cite our 'accomplishments' as evidence of our
 superiority.  A complex creature is not 'better' than another simply
 as a product of its complexity.  Is an ant better than a solitary wasp?

The reason I exclude spiritual arguments seems obvious.  I know that
 there are spiritual arguments for and against, just as in the secular
 world.  However, the sources for spiritual support of an argument are not
 subject to the same scrutiny that secular facts can be.  They are <de
 facto> unassailable.

In my nearly 60 years on this planet, I have seen one after another of
 my favorite places developed or destroyed.  This has been incremental
 and, sorrily, I do not see an end in sight.  Many of you of similar
 experience (as old as me!) will note the same.  The only defense I can
 distill from the many arguments in support of human progress, is that
 people come first, all else is (apparently) subservient to our needs.  If
 this is so, if people are actually so precious, then it would seem that
 we ought to consider what the next several centuries will present us.
  Instead, we plow straight ahead, blissfully unaware of consequences.

If incremental development and human progress continue at the same pace
 as they have, there will be no room for e.g. butterflies & moths, save
 those that can adapt to our environments.

That concerns me.

JPPelham


 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl 
 






Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/leps-l/attachments/20071212/f32e30cc/attachment.html