Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Antarctic Marine Wildlife Is Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Study Finds

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the water-to-vinegar dept.

Earth 180

A study has found that a decreased pH level in the antarctic is damaging the shells of native wildlife. "Marine snails in seas around Antarctica are being affected by ocean acidification, scientists have found. An international team of researchers found that the snails' shells are being corroded. Experts says the findings are significant for predicting the future impact of ocean acidification on marine life. The results of the study are published in the journal Nature Geoscience (abstract). The marine snails, called "pteropods", are an important link in the oceanic food chain as well as a good indicator of ecosystem health. 'They are a major grazer of phytoplankton and... a key prey item of a number of higher predators - larger plankton, fish, seabirds, whales,' said Dr Geraint Tarling, Head of Ocean Ecosystems at the British Antarctic Survey and co-author of the report."

cancel ×

180 comments

Beware - overview may be severely biased... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42089291)

Remember, this is the BBC, who took a corporate decision in 2006 to pursue an alarmist reporting stance.

The original paper says that this is only a pilot study, and that it cannot definitely point to any disadvantage to the animals - 'they MAY suffer increased predation' is a typical comment. And the /. comment of 'water to vinegar' is frankly rubbish - no ph is given, but it's certainly not dropping to less than 7. 'Less alkali' is not the same as 'acidic'...

Re:Beware - overview may be severely biased... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42089331)

The BBC has had bias issues as far as politics is concerned, but I haven't heard any bias from them against science. That is unless you consider ocean acidification an indicator of global warming which certain fringe (stupid) groups consider to be politics.

Re:Beware - overview may be severely biased... (5, Funny)

mrbluze (1034940) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089391)

The BBC has had bias issues as far as politics is concerned, but I haven't heard any bias from them against science. That is unless you consider ocean acidification an indicator of global warming which certain fringe (stupid) groups consider to be politics.

The big question to ask is cui bono? I think this is all a preconceived British plot to wipe out the French by depriving them of all their snails.

Re:Beware - overview may be severely biased... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42089705)

Is there a reason why you gargle with the seaman of virgin boys?

Re:Beware - overview may be severely biased... (1, Redundant)

haruchai (17472) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089851)

A seaman has virgin boys? I thought they would be strictly captain's privilege.

Re:Beware - overview may be severely biased... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42090723)

mod up: Parent, incredibly, is begging the question while employing a strawman and malapropism – and all are neatly wrapped in an ad hominem. This is troll poetry, sirs!

Re:Beware - overview may be severely biased... (0)

buybuydandavis (644487) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090581)

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

Every supposed crisis is an opportunity for a government power grab. If you want to promote government power, you want to generate crises. By a strange coincidence, crises are also good for the media.

Re:Beware - overview may be severely biased... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42089401)

'Less alkali' is not the same as 'acidic'...

But 'less alkali' is 'more acidic'. The shift in pH is surely the important point.

Re:Beware - overview may be severely biased... (1)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090673)

Less alkali is "more neutral" if you're starting off alkali.

Less alkali is "more acidic" if you're starting off acidic.

Re:Beware - overview may be severely biased... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42089413)

Remember, this is the BBC, who took a corporate decision in 2006 to pursue an alarmist reporting stance.

They took a decision that there was no case to be made for having always to 'balance' the reporting of mainstream science with opposing views, most of which are not represented in the scientific literature anyway. In the same way that a natural history programme should not have to balance each mention of evolution with a creationist argument.

Re:Beware - overview may be severely biased... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42090003)

And then they lied about it.

I wonder why they did that if it was all above board? Could it be because the 'top scientists' they claimed had given them the OK to do this turned out to be Greenpeace? After they had spent GBP 1.3m trying to keep this information secret from a FOIA request?

If it looks like corruption, and smells like corruption, I wonder why you defend it?

Re:Beware - overview may be severely biased... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42090967)

It is worse than that, in the UK get a compulsary licence fee, and have a Royal Charter that Requires Balance, they are in no position to change that AT ALL.

Further they would be better rooting out Paedophiles (Savile) in their ranks and defaming innocent people (McAlpine).

The BBC is rotten to the core.

MFG, omb

Re:Beware - overview may be severely biased... (5, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089625)

Here is a summary of the paper, as I understand it:

1)Deep ocean antarctic water is corrosive to pteropod shells (for various reasons, including water pressure, composition of the water, etc).
2)Normally, from time to time there are upwells of the deeper water, which theoretically can cause pteropod shells to corrode.
3)These scientists developed a technique to observe corrosion in the shells, and observed that at around 200m, the shells are indeed corroded.
4)If ocean acidification increases, then it will cause more corrosion.

If ocean acidification increases, it could cause problems for wildlife. There's nothing particularly controversial here.

Re:Beware - overview may be severely biased... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42090045)

There is no "if" about it. The decreasing pH (AKA acidification) of the oceans has been documented and there is no prospect that it will stop until the oceans are saturated with CO2 again.

Re:Beware - overview may be severely biased... (5, Informative)

Jawnn (445279) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089837)

If you consider their decision to not waste time (ours and theirs) with nonsense like giving air to "opposing viewpoints" as "alarmist", I suppose we could say that's the case. Most of us, however, don't consider the rantings of superstitious fools (or those of a particular political ax to grind) as "opposing viewpoints" in the arena of science. There are rules to that game, and "...because the Bible says..." does not qualify as "research". So, no. Your attempt to divert the discussion into a questioning of the BBC's credibility fails, this time. Nice try. Thanks for playing.

Re:Beware - overview may be severely biased... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42090073)

"..If you consider their decision to not waste time (ours and theirs) with nonsense like giving air to "opposing viewpoints" as "alarmist", I suppose we could say that's the case. Most of us, however, don't consider the rantings of superstitious fools (or those of a particular political ax to grind) as "opposing viewpoints" in the arena of science..."

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death my right not to let you say it.

Re:Beware - overview may be severely biased... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42090637)

Is that why Fox news doesn't have liberals most of the time? They are considered so out of touch with reality that there isn't a need for their viewpoint anymore?

Funny how when I said the same thing it suddendly doesn't sound as great as when you said it? I guess censorship either way should be considered bad.

Re:Beware - overview may be severely biased... (5, Informative)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090385)

Remember, these sites and other social media sites are patrolled by agents paid by the oil and gas industry to cast aspersion on anything and everything having to do with global warming. I think we just met one. The post is so malignant, it's worth unpacking in detail.

Remember, this is the BBC, who took a corporate decision in 2006 to pursue an alarmist reporting stance.

Technique one - ad homineum attack on the messenger. A study was done. That study was reported. Attempt to discredit the study by attacking the credibility of the entity doing the reporting. Instead considering the worth of the study itself, the hope is the integrity of the study will be smeared by smearing the entity that reported it.

Technique two- change the topic. We were talking about the effect of global warming on the oceanic food web , now we're going to start talking instead about the BBC and whether they're biased or not.

The original paper says that this is only a pilot study, and that it cannot definitely point to any disadvantage to the animals - 'they MAY suffer increased predation' is a typical comment

Technique three, misrepresent normal and appropriate scientific qualification of results as a license to dismiss the study's findings. The fact is, no single study is definitive. That's normal science. The certainty increases as each successive study is confirmed, amplified, and new studies support the same conclusions using different approaches. Each study considered individually comes with caveats; the picture of reality emerges from an aggregation of such studies. This is called "normal science" and it's how science gets to truth. This study fits into that framework.

Technique four- decontextualize the study from the larger supporting body of related evidence. Closely related to technique three above, the mass of evidence pointing to the devastating effects of oceanic acidification on the food web is incontrovertible. This study reinforces and elaborates this finding with new evidence. Seen in its proper context, this study's relevance increases because its findings are congruent with other studies showing the same disturbing trend- acidification of the oceans is assaulting the food web in the ocean.

The smallest part of the omitted scientific context:

http://www.ocean-acidification.net/FAQeco.html [ocean-acidification.net]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/10/ocean-acidification-epoca [guardian.co.uk]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/19/opinion/acid-test-for-oceans-and-marine-life.html?_r=0 [nytimes.com]

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/02/436193/science-ocean-acidifying-so-fast-it-threatens-humanity-ability-to-feed-itself/ [thinkprogress.org]

http://oceana.org/en/our-work/climate-energy/ocean-acidification/learn-act/effects-of-ocean-acidification-on-marine-species-ecosystems [oceana.org]

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/06/local/la-me-acidic-oceans-20121007 [latimes.com]

http://www.examiner.com/article/lethal-carbon-dioxide-and-ocean-acidification-threaten-marine-life [examiner.com]

Not the real problem. (-1, Redundant)

DavidClarkeHR (2769805) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089307)

Why worry? There won't be any ice left in a few years anyways.

Oh wait, it's just the Arctic that's melting, right?. Right? I should read the article.

When you get lemons... (3, Funny)

lucm (889690) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089321)

The lower the pH gets, the better chlorine will work. Being closer than ever to pool-quality water in the ocean, the Antarctic people should spin this and enjoy a boom in tourism! I bet they can't wait to see more people that those bearded scientists who don't spend a dime on penguin art.

Re:When you get lemons... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42089371)

There ARE no "Antarctic people"; nobody lives there. The closest is New Zealand.

Re:When you get lemons... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42089473)

*whoosh!*

Captcha: ostrich -- Get your head out of the sand, man, GP was funny!

Re:When you get lemons... (2)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089479)

You are confusing citizenship with where one lives.

The scientists in Antarctica certainly do live in Antarctica during their months/years of work. It's not like you can fly home after an 8 hour shift to your respective home country, sleep, and go back.

And you're wrong about the closest country, too. Chile is closer.

--
BMO

Re:When you get lemons... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42089849)

Thanks for the Chile correction.

Regarding where people live, my point was that the original post implied two groups of people in the Antarctic - the "Antarctic people" and "those bearded scientists who don't spend a dime on penguin art", thus suggesting that there are indeed indigenous people residing in the Antarctic trying to sell penguin art that the scientists do not purchase. While there are any number of support teams down there along with the formal researchers, both on the ice and in the water, there aren't any gift shops.

Re:When you get lemons... (4, Informative)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089961)

>While there are any number of support teams down there along with the formal researchers, both on the ice and in the water, there aren't any gift shops.

You would be wrong about this too.

http://www.ukaht.org/peninsula/port-lockroy [ukaht.org]

"The buildings were renovated in 1996 by a team from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and since then opened to visitors during the Antarctic summer. See more about the restoration. This is made possible only by the proceeds of the small gift shop which all go towards renovation of historic sites in Antarctica. "

http://www.yogoyo.com/antarctica-travel-guide/palmer-station-photos/gift-shop-palmer-station-antarctica.htm [yogoyo.com]

A photo of a Ukrainian gift shop in Antarctica:

http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/p/m/1f4d46/ [virtualtourist.com]

There are other links, but those were some of the top few.

--
BMO

Re:When you get lemons... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42090863)

Most excellent - I stand corrected once again, and humble myself before your art and craft! :-)

Re:When you get lemons... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42089503)

Nobody lives there yet. Just wait 'till global warming really kicks in, then there's going to be a land rush down there. I know I got my future beach-front property staked out already.

Re:When you get lemons... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42090099)

Except for some areas on the Antarctic peninsula and some mountain peaks Antarctica is 98% covered by ice with an average depth of at least 1 mile. It would take several millenia to melt all of that ice.

Re:When you get lemons... (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090243)

There ARE no "Antarctic people"; nobody lives there. The closest is New Zealand.

1. You need to get a sense of humor. The GPP was a joke.

2. You need to get a map. The closest country to Antarctica is Chile, not NZ.

chem 101 (5, Informative)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089419)

CO2(aq) + H2O(l) H+(aq) + HCO3–(aq) [distilled water reaction]

2NaOH(aq) + CO2(g) Na2CO3(aq) + H2O(l) [sodium hydroxide reaction]

Explanatory:
Carbon dioxide reacts with water at standard temperature and pressure to form a weak acid and hydrogen ions (both in solution), adjusting pH *at saturation* from about 7.6-6.0. That it is known yet underreported that the world's oceans are the carbon sink to beat all others, puts lie to the CO2 problem and a simple classroom experiment with distilled water, a straw, sodium hydroxide solution and phenol indicator proves this.

Incidentally, for the carbon sink to fail would require the oceans to be heated to just below boiling. Not likely to happen yet for around 5 billion years.

Re:chem 101 (2)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089429)

For clarity, the formulas should read something like:

CO2(aq) + H2O(l) H+(aq) + HCO3–(aq) [distilled water reaction]

2NaOH(aq) + CO2(g) -> Na2CO3(aq) + H2O(l) [sodium hydroxide reaction]

Re:chem 101 (5, Informative)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089437)

slashdot please fix the unicode. This is getting annoying.

here is the experiment [nuffieldfoundation.org]

Re:chem 101 (5, Insightful)

spinninggears (551247) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089459)

I don't the issue is how much carbon the oceans can sink. (Your giant test tube). I think the issue is whether ocean life can survive it. Besides Chem 101, there is also Biology 101.

Re:chem 101 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42090285)

It'll survive fine. Live evolves.

The only question worth asking is will we survive, and it's not on anyone's agenda unless you're an AGW nutjob.

Re:chem 101 (1)

Nimey (114278) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090323)

Evolution doesn't happen on that timescale, fuckwit.

Re:chem 101 (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090653)

So let me get this straigh. You're arguing we can do whatever the fuck we want and because it won't likely kill all humans, that's okay?

Re:chem 101 (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090823)

Preventing increased adoption of fossil fuels in most of the world will kill lots of humans (who already die by the lots because of poverty) so yeah, "thats okay"

Chem 102 (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42089653)

Too bad you apparently stopped at chem 101. In Chem 102 one might learn that reactions are not instantaneous.

Have you ever tried to dissolve atmospheric carbon dioxide in water? If so, you will note that the rate of dissolution is not very high.

As a result, though the ocean is fully capable of dissolving the CO2 produced by burning of fossil fuels, it will do so very slowly -- over a multiple-century timescale. (And it will disrupt marine ecosystems in doing so.) Incidentally, this process is already incorporated into all climate models.

To make the CO2 dissolve faster, you could use a stirring system to incorporate gas into the bulk liquid and to distribute the bicarbonate evenly. Good luck finding one big enough to stir the ocean.

Alternatively, you could use a strong base, like hydroxide, to deprotonate bicarbonate and drive the process to completion. Unfortunately, strong bases are not available as raw materials. Their production results in the release of large amounts of acidic chemicals like chlorine, which must be disposed of or else they will acidify the ocean and cancel out the effect of all the hydroxide.

Re:Chem 102 (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089877)

stirring system? What, you mean like the TIDES?

Re:Chem 102 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42090181)

No, not like that dumbass

Re:chem 101 (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42089691)

Incidentally, for the carbon sink to fail would require the oceans to be heated to just below boiling. Not likely to happen yet for around 5 billion years.

Chemistry 101, please say hello to Mathematics 201. All these reactions rates depend on concentrations. So say hello to differential equations. The rates depend on concentrations. Oceans were always a sink and volcanoes the emitters. But if you 100x the emission rate, your steady state solution may not be what you think it is.

Finally, there is Biology 101. Shells have been used by ALL forms of aquatic life at the bottom of the food chain since shortly after the formation of multicellular life 500 million years ago. Changing such a basic ocean chemistry can have catastrophic changes for the entire biosphere. It is not when you kill off all the whales or tuna that we fuck ourselves over. It is when we manage to affect the micro cellular life, the phytoplankton, the bugs, that the real change begins..

So I don't know what you are trying to say with your very limited knowledge on the subject. Maybe you are like a lot of arrogant people with little knowledge thinking they know everything on the subject. Maybe if you gain some additional knowledge you will figure out how little you actually know.

Re:chem 101 (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089797)

Finally, there is Biology 101. Shells have been used by ALL forms of aquatic life at the bottom of the food chain since shortly after the formation of multicellular life 500 million years ago. Changing such a basic ocean chemistry can have catastrophic changes for the entire biosphere. It is not when you kill off all the whales or tuna that we fuck ourselves over. It is when we manage to affect the micro cellular life, the phytoplankton, the bugs, that the real change begins

Oh quit being such a conservative panty waist. Nature by itself is too friggin boring - changes over millions of years? Where's the fun in that? We humans need instant gratification. We need to reboot the food change so things happen faster.

Otherwise, we won't be able to insert as many commercials. That would be a problem.

Re:chem 101 (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090685)

He is a pseudo skeptic who has come up with a simplistic claim and he'll ride it all the way. I do love how deniers claim natural systems are too complex to model, until of course they need to bolster their own claim, and then suddenly Chem 101 is all one needs to model atmospheric-oceanic reactions.

Re:chem 101 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42090787)

I do love how deniers claim natural systems are too complex to model, until of course they need to bolster their own claim, and then suddenly Chem 101 is all one needs to model atmospheric-oceanic reactions.

I do love how AGW proponents are all human population dieoff-advocating misanthropes who resort to using sweeping generalizations, strawman arguments, false dilemmas, and ad hominem attacks whenever their dogma is challenged.

Seriously, man, unless you have evidence of this poster hypocritically flip flopping in the manner you describe, you are painting with an overly broad brush.

"I can't stand Slashdotters... they love to make sweeping generalizations."

Re:chem 101 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42090977)

It is not when you kill off all the whales or tuna that we fuck ourselves over.

Actually, since whales are excellent carbon sinks [google.com] , killing any whale is fucking everyone over.

Re:chem 101 (2)

haruchai (17472) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089867)

It's only under-reported if you frequent just the denialist sites. It has been stated for decades by researchers what are the main sources and sinks of CO2 and how much.

Please don't forget that the oceans are not pure water; you'd have to be sure that the other substances won't have an impact one way or the other.

That's not a simple problem.

Re:chem 101 (0)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090471)

Explanatory: Carbon dioxide reacts with water at standard temperature and pressure to form a weak acid and hydrogen ions (both in solution), adjusting pH *at saturation* from about 7.6-6.0. That it is known yet underreported that the world's oceans are the carbon sink to beat all others, puts lie to the CO2 problem and a simple classroom experiment with distilled water, a straw, sodium hydroxide solution and phenol indicator proves this.

Next time you quote pedestrian facts from first year chemistry in an attempt to refute what the world's PhD chemists are saying about ocean chemistry and the ecology of the ocean, perhaps you should stop and think that having taken a chem 101 course is not really sufficient preparation to take on the world's PhDs in their subject matter and what's more , thinking that it is is and the world should accord your opinion the gravitas and authority of people who have actually EARNED through WORK the right to have that gravitas implies you suffer from narcissistic personality disorder:

From Wiki

The symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder can be similar to the traits of individuals with strong self-esteem and confidence; differentiation occurs when the underlying psychological structures of these traits are considered pathological.

Narcissists have such an elevated sense of self-worth that they value themselves as inherently better than others. Yet, they have a fragile self-esteem and cannot handle criticism, and will often try to compensate for this inner fragility by belittling or disparaging others in an attempt to validate their own self-worth.

In children, inflated self-views and grandiose feelings, which are characteristics of narcissism, are part of the normal self-development. Children typically cannot understand the difference between their actual and their ideal self, which causes an unrealistic perception of the self.

After about age 8, views of the self, both positive and negative, begin to develop based on comparisons of peers, and become more realistic.

Two factors that cause self-view to remain unrealistic are dysfunctional interactions with parents that can be either excessive attention or a lack thereof. The child will either compensate for lack of attention or act in terms of unrealistic self-perception.[7]

And as to your point, the oceans only have to become acidic enough to interfere with the normal biology of the animals who evolved to live in it. They don't have to "boil away" or "fail" totally as a carbon sink.

From this we learn that the extremely unlikely event that a slashdot poster with a first year level of understanding in basic chem refuted the collective work of the world's PhDs with "a simple classroom experiment" has not, in fact, occurred.

Pot. Kettle. Black. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42090835)

thinking that it is is and the world should accord your opinion the gravitas and authority of people who have actually EARNED through WORK the right to have that gravitas implies you suffer from narcissistic personality disorder:

If you do indeed hold a PhD in psychology or an MD in psychiatry, then I will retract my accusation.

Otherwise, you do have to recognize the irony & hypocrisy of your rant.

Also, "diagnosing" people via internet posts and via Wikipedia quotes? Really? Are you 12?

erosion of coral (5, Interesting)

lkcl (517947) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089465)

a friend of mine just started at portsmouth university, studying marine biology, and we happened to talk about this subject. the situation's actually much worse than being reported here, because the coral reefs are *also* being corroded. given that coral reefs are where the majority of the ocean's life-forms congregate, if that eco-system collapses we're in real serious trouble. i say trouble: the planet's likely to survive, and to re-generate life over the next hundred millenia or so. it's just that humans really won't be around to enjoy being here, that's all.

Natural Selection (-1, Troll)

Endovior (2450520) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089629)

Not sure why people tend to get really freaked out by things like minor pH shifts and whatnot. It's a change in environmental conditions, the same as occur all the time, even without our involvement. Those species which can adapt to the new conditions, do so, and thrive. Those which cannot, die off. The view that we should somehow intervene to save species which are being selected against is baffling to me. Extinctions, even mass extinctions, happened before we came along, and they'll continue to happen regardless of what we do.
So, say you're right, and the coral reefs do get wiped out. That's not something that'll happen immediately, for one thing; we'll have plenty of warning to see it happening, and plenty of opportunity to do something about it. And not 'do something about it' in the sense of 'emissions reduction' and similar unfeasible nonsense; whatever we in the First World begrudgingly contribute on that front, wringing our hands over the economic impact of the smallest marginal reductions, China and India, and the rising Third World, will more then make up for as they modernize. I'm talking 'do something about it' in the sense of geoengineering. When the environment becomes a problem to become an actual threat to humans, instead of to some marginal species which was dying off on it's own anyway, then we humans will go out there and fix it. If it comes down to it, and everything really is going to hell in a handbasket, we can design our own replacement ecosystems, to the tolerances needed to survive the conditions at hand, in less time than it'd take for mere warming to wipe us out.
Unpalatable solution, unintended consequences? Most certainly. But climate change is slow, and humans think fast. In 100 years, by the time the more alarmist predictions suggest we'll be dealing with 5 degrees more global heat, we'll be busy terraforming Mars, and long since have mitigated our own climate problems, to whatever degree they happen to need mitigating.

Re:Natural Selection (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42089707)

Brilliant post.

Re:Natural Selection (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089717)

In 100 years, by the time the more alarmist predictions suggest we'll be dealing with 5 degrees more global heat, we'll be busy terraforming Mars,

That's really optimistic.

Re:Natural Selection (0)

Endovior (2450520) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089905)

Not really. Mars One, for instance, is claiming to have a plan to permanently colonize Mars beginning in 2023, at a fairly modest cost. That, of course, is really optimistic, but at the same time, it'd be really pessimistic to say that nobody will be living on Mars in 2070. And once there are people on Mars, odds are good that they'll be starting some kind of terraforming effort almost immediately, if only as a small-scale experiment to see how easy it is to affect change. Now, I don't expect them to have much success within this century... terraforming is a very long-term project. But something would have to go drastically wrong (engineered pandemic, asteroid strike, or some similar civilization-ending cataclysm) in order to stop us from at least getting started.

Re:Natural Selection (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089927)

I don't know, we haven't even had much luck yet with biodome's here on earth. And that was a lot easier.....

Re:Natural Selection (1)

Endovior (2450520) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090037)

That's not really meaningful. A lot can change in 60 years, after all; we'll be a lot better equipped to tackle the problem by the time we're actually in a position to land there and start setting up shop. Any specifics at this point, would be pure speculation... but if you're not averse to fiction, I'd refer you to Red Mars. If the goal isn't 'immediately fabricate a habitable environment from scratch', but instead 'make small, incremental changes, leading in the direction of the environment you want', the problem is much easier. Anywhere you can add extra heat, oxygen, or water to the system is a net win; the question is simply how to most effectively do this on a large scale. And there's lots of things you can do to push the process along in small ways, which you can do on the side as you study the big picture.

Re:Natural Selection (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090213)

but instead 'make small, incremental changes, leading in the direction of the environment you want', the problem is much easier. Anywhere you can add extra heat, oxygen, or water to the system is a net win; the question is simply how to most effectively do this on a large scale.

Hmmm that is an interesting point. I would suggest again though, that it is not as easy as it sounds; for example, we've been burning coal here on earth at a massive scale for a hundred years, and it's barely made a detectable difference in earth's temperature. Do you think we'd be able to come anywhere near that output on Mars?

Re:Natural Selection (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090565)

On Mars you would not use CO2 as a greenhouse gas for terraforming but Methan and later Tetrafluoromethane (CF4) or other polymers which are about 10k as potent as CO2.

(Note: in the canions of Mars you already have a quite high air pressure and during summer at daytime the temperature is above 0 degrees most of the time)

Re:Natural Selection (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090871)

hmmmm interesting points. We've been releasing a lot of methane on earth too, though, so I'm not sure it would be much better.

Re:Natural Selection (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42089917)

And why the hell do we need to terraform a planet that is hostile to life when we have one that's pretty sweet right here and now ?

Re:Natural Selection (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090703)

Because we're going to fuck this one up pretty bad, and petroleum executives and shareholders will need a new place to live.

Re:Natural Selection (1)

Darby (84953) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090785)

And why the hell do we need to terraform a planet that is hostile to life when we have one that's pretty sweet right here and now ?

Eggs, baskets, distribution ratios...I dunno, there's a saying.

Re:Natural Selection (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089829)

Yep, things change. 98% of all species are extinct. However, we're driving the car now. And heading into the cliff wall with it. No matter what happens, we probably won't be able to cause extinction of the human race, but we might get fairly close.

I'm kind of divided as to whether or not this is a good thing in the long run. The sad part about it is that we can effect a much more gradual change to the environment - one that will leave the planet more or less the same (and remember, WE like it the way it is). It just looks like we aren't going to take that road.

Hang on to your butts.

Re:Natural Selection (2)

crispytwo (1144275) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090203)

However, we're driving the car now. And heading into the cliff wall with it.

The problem isn't the car, it's the number of people - as population grows WE all suffer.

i.e less people, less power required, less agriculture, less environmental stresses. The opposite is basically true too.

Everyone who has, or has had multiple children are the root multiplier of the problems we are facing today. To blame any single technology as the problem is disingenuous.

Re:Natural Selection (0)

Darby (84953) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090819)

i.e less people, less power required, less agriculture, less environmental stresses.
<pedant mode>
*fewer* people, less power required, less agriculture, *fewer* environmental stresses.
</pedant mode>
Thank you for taking this as a possible learning opportunity rather than grammar nazism as it helps alleviate the brain unsettlement caused by reading that ;-)

Re:Natural Selection (4, Informative)

Genda (560240) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089871)

Okay, lets put the dots really close together for you. No, the oceans acidity doesn't change all the time. That last time it changed like this the planet changed from a snowball into a sauna bath and it followed perhaps the largest extinction indecent in the planet's history (read up on the snowball earth.) This is not a minor change. This isn't a "Okay so we lose the parrotfish.. who the 'F' cares about parrotfish?" This is a global change in ocean chemistry attacking one of the primary constituents of zooplankton.

I'm guessing you're not a biologist, so let me give you an example. If something came along and wiped out all the grass. You're immediate response would be big whoop, no more mowing. The problem is that all grains are grasses. So everything that eats grass or grain get's impacted immediately. No more bread, or rice, or oats or barely or corn or millet (you want to think about what proportion of the human diet is grain based, its the only thing keeping large parts of the third world alive.) So no more milk. No more beef. In fact Cows, Pigs, Chickens, Turkeys, Horses, Deer, basically every grass eating animal, mammals including rodents at the bottom of the food chain, birds, insects... all gone, see yah, then the predators that eat them... like you and me... gone, gone, gone. Can you see the implications now. No Grass BAD!!!

So, animals with shells all have a larval stages and are at the bottom of the oceans food chain. Anything that kills them is EQUALLY BAD for all the critters up the food chain (again that includes us human beings.) The sudden loss of zooplankton causes a subsequent super bloom in phytoplakton (also a potentially bad thing all by itself.) This is not some far off maybe someday event. Coral Reef are bleaching this very moment as I write (one of the largest and more diverse ecosystems on the planet responsible for more kinds of fish, crustaceans, cephalopods, you name it) is on the verge of catastrophic collapse. You can't geoengineer extinct. Gone is gone. You think the cost of cutting back on burning carbon is expensive, figure out how much it'll cost replace the services that nature provides for free with manmade alternatives. You can't unscramble an egg. You can't fix this once you're satisfied its broken, because you'll be in a moving train barreling down the tracks and the only thing you'll be able to do is gird yourself for the crash.

Its all tied together. Its all based on Carbon. There's too much where it doesn't belong and now its beginning to be a real problem. Soon it will be a problem for which human beings will be unable to address. Why would anybody with the vaguest hint of sanity let something get so bad. Sorry, its inconvenient. Expensive. Even hurtful to developing people, who always take the brunt of what fails in the world. Simply letting it get worse will ensure the impact on those same people will be nothing less than devastating. Playing Russian Roulette with the future of humanity is far more irresponsible than acting now to reduce carbon, improve efficiency, develop alternative energy sources, and come up with new technologies to better sequester the byproducts of our civilization. Wake up, the coffee is burning! Right Now.

I don't know what planet you live on, but the one I live on is tangled up in bureaucrats and a collapsing middle class. Think for a moment. We haven't been on the moon in nearly 45 years. You think we can put enough people on Mars to make a difference if we break our ecosystem? By when? The numbers are all in. The hottest years in history all this decade. The ocean is rising. The oceans chemistry it getting dangerously unbalanced. Please read about the rise of slim. Lakes dying and changing to Hydrogen Sulfide cycles below a 100 feet. The list is huge, but its all point at the inescapable certainty than man is toxic and poisoning his mater. I agree that a human diaspora to the stars is the answer, but destroying the ecosystem before you can leave is just stupid.

Re:Natural Selection (1)

Endovior (2450520) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089991)

Don't mistake me. I don't mean to suggest that this is not at all a problem; my point was that it's not an urgent problem. Yes, it's a change, in a system that doesn't normally change. But it's a slow change, and even blind natural selection does pretty well at dealing with slow changes. And we've got intelligent problem-solving, which can handle much faster changes. Accordingly, we've got time to solve it. In fact, we've got time to sit around scratching our heads and researching whole new fields of science to develop better tools for solving it. We don't have forever, of course, but we've got time for a measured, deliberate response.
And if things do suddenly jump the gaps, and get worse faster than expected, than we can get up off our asses and start implementing some of the more drastic solutions that we know about. The reason why we're not currently employing geoengineering, for example, is because it's a completely new field of scientific endeavor, and it's kinda sensible to do some basic investigation into the consequences before we start deliberately fucking around with the climate. But if things change suddenly, or new data comes in suggesting we have less time than anticipated... then we can jump right in and see what happens. Indeed, we'll have no choice. Fortunately, our preliminary studies of geoengineering suggest that making intentional modifications to the planet is much faster and more effective at changing the climate than making minuscule adjustments to the levels of waste we're emitting.

Re:Natural Selection (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090379)

You appear to be operating from a flawed assumption. In what way would a mass human die-off be bad for Gaia?

Re:Natural Selection (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42089953)

"Those species which can adapt to the new conditions, do so, and thrive. Those which cannot, die off. The view that we should somehow intervene to save species which are being selected against is baffling to me."

Not even for Homo sapiens? Okay, we aren't going extinct. But civilization as we know it might during the stress of dealing with climate change, and I'm not consoled by the fact that humans would probably tough it out in caves somewhere to technically survive. Yay, we're not extinct. Great future for the kids.

"So, say you're right, and the coral reefs do get wiped out. That's not something that'll happen immediately, for one thing; we'll have plenty of warning to see it happening, and plenty of opportunity to do something about it."

We're *there* now. Coral bleaching events are becoming more common. This is a bad sign.

You want to put all your efforts in geoengineering? You think we can figure it out, AND deploy it on a big enough scale to matter? I'm skeptical. If things start turning as bad as you seem to think they need to before we should lift a finger, it may be freaking difficult to do anything. It may be like stopping a train by hurling peanuts at the front of it. Or if we deploy it, it may go horribly wrong. Changing the Earth on a grand scale when we don't fully understand it is risky. An act of desperation. I'd rather not get backed into a corner so much that we have only desperate options left. Because if we really are that desperate, humans have a bad habit of starting to shoot each other instead of pulling together. Then we'll have multiple problems to try to deal with.

Re:Natural Selection (1)

ravenshrike (808508) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090895)

The real issue is that none of the "solutions" advocated by the vast, vast, vast majority of the AGW crowd would remotely solve oceanic acidification. It would perhaps drop the saturation point in 100 years from what the high would be without said plans, but since saturation is so slow and we are already seeing effects that means virtually nothing. Which means the only solutions are either killing off the vast majority of humanity and hoping land based carbon sinks grow fast enough to offset the current acidification, or for humans to engineer a massive man-made carbon sequestration scheme.

Re:Natural Selection (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090911)

Not even for Homo sapiens? Okay, we aren't going extinct. But civilization as we know it might during the stress of dealing with climate change

Yes, lets not mention that fact that 'civilization as we know it' for the readers of slashdot is quite a bit different from the global median already. The fact is that civilization as WE know it is not perpetually sustainable regardless of the climate.

I for one hope we can sustain it for the rest of my life, and the way to do that is to continue exploiting cheap energy. As far as I am concerned, future generations are imaginary people, and in my imagination they too will exploit the cheapest form of energy available.

Re:erosion of coral (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42089963)

Yes. one should shout that the sky is falling when the sky really is falling. The improvements in the human condition may well end up eliminating the human race.
                            We have a population, about half of which, is in terror of loss of position and wealth. They do not want to confront notions like the extermination of the human species and frankly as long as they die while in their current status could care less about what happens the moment they die. Read that as younger people are really screwed blue.

Re:erosion of coral (0)

MickLinux (579158) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090789)

It will be a time of great distress; there has never been such a time from the beginning of the world until now, and will never be again. If that time of troubles were not cut short, no living thing could survive; but for the sake of God's chosen it will be cut short. Matthew 24:22. It makes me wonder, but it also gives me real hope. Contrary to the attitude, 'well it's all going to burn, may as well use it now', it makes me think that good stewardship of our resources is more important than ever.

Re:erosion of coral (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42090023)

"..a friend of mine just started at portsmouth university, studying marine biology, and we happened to talk about this subject. the situation's actually much worse than being reported here, because the coral reefs are *also* being corroded...."

I suggest that your friend changes his university to one where they provide accurate and balanced information.

Unless he wants to join Greenpeace, or the BBC. In which case he needs to up the scare factor by about 200%...

REAL problems we should be worrying about: (-1, Flamebait)

StefanJ (88986) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089521)

Why are we being asked to worry about this when Americans are facing REAL problems, like the War on Christmas, and Michelle Obama wanting to replace our children's cafeteria pizzas and sloppy joes with brocolli and whole wheat bread?

PRIORITIES, PEOPLE, PRIORITIES!

It's not like this problem is going to get worse and worse if we just ignore it, until there is a massive collapse of marine ecosystems leaving nothing but oceans full of algea blooms and teeming hordes of jellyfish.

STUDY FINDS STUDIES BOOST STORIES ON STUDIES !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42089525)

Study much, do you ??

why does this matter? (0)

kenorland (2691677) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089533)

I can't figure out why some smallish results from marine ecology are "news that matters" to nerds.

Given the inevitably rising CO2 levels and constantly changing ocean conditions, there will be lots of marine extinctions, just like there have been many times before in earth's history.

Re:why does this matter? (-1, Flamebait)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089651)

I can't figure out why some smallish results from marine ecology are "news that matters" to nerds.

Because we haven't had a good global warming study in a while, and ocean acidification is a good proxy.

Re:why does this matter? (3, Funny)

Genda (560240) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089929)

Yeah those goofy scientists... what will they say next. New York being stomped flat by a super storm? The hottest years in history all being in the last decade? The upper atmosphere colder than any time on record. The oceans turning into a carbonated beverage! What do they know? Let's use up all the coal and oil and gas. What could possible go wrong?

Re:why does this matter? (1, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089949)

Believe it or not, the actual study isn't about ocean acidification. It was tangentially related, but the scientists knew they would get better coverage if they pushed that in that angle. And they were right.

Re:why does this matter? (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090089)

Let's use up all the coal and oil and gas. What could possible go wrong?

Once we use it all up, fossil fuel emissions will be zero.

Re:why does this matter? (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090711)

Once we use it all up, fossil fuel emissions will be zero.

There will be a very brief period where all the forests and peat moss get turned into firewood.
Only then will fossil fuel emissions will be zero.

Re:why does this matter? (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090743)

firewood is not a fossil fuel.

Re:why does this matter? (3, Insightful)

Genda (560240) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089901)

Because whats going extinct is at the bottom of the food chain. It means everything above it goes extinct... and no, this hasn't happened in hundreds of millions of years. The impact is profound, and sudden (on biological scales) and devastating to all life on the planet. You and your children will be impacted. The ocean covers 3/4 of the planets surface and people in Kansas are impacted by the ocean directly. Someone is telling you that you have cancer, and your response is "Tell me when I hit stage four, then I'll worry." Interesting, but loony. Perhaps a little chemo and surgery now are indicated, Hmmmm.

Re:why does this matter? (0)

kenorland (2691677) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090017)

You obviously have no idea what that article is talking about. You're as scientifically illiterate as those people who keep whining on about "irreducible complexity".

Re:why does this matter? (1)

ravenshrike (808508) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090917)

Of course, there's the fact that things like carbon trading schemes and everything else proposed by Al Gore et al has about as much to do with the environmental equivalent of chemotherapy as homeopathy has to do with medicine

i wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42089553)

i wonderif someone wants to do a study on the fossil record to see if a weakening in shell strength of ocean dwelling pteropods is highly corellated to known extinctions

Re:i wonder... (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089655)

i wonderif someone wants to do a study on the fossil record to see if a weakening in shell strength of ocean dwelling pteropods is highly corellated to known extinctions

My guess is no, because examining the corrosion in live specimens was difficult enough; they needed a scanning electron microscope. I would guess it near impossible to examine in fossils, if you could even find enough to test.

Re:i wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42089761)

i wonderif someone wants to do a study on the fossil record to see if a weakening in shell strength of ocean dwelling pteropods is highly corellated to known extinctions

My guess is no, because examining the corrosion in live specimens was difficult enough; they needed a scanning electron microscope. I would guess it near impossible to examine in fossils, if you could even find enough to test.

i wonderif someone wants to do a study on the fossil record to see if a weakening in shell strength of ocean dwelling pteropods is highly corellated to known extinctions

My guess is no, because examining the corrosion in live specimens was difficult enough; they needed a scanning electron microscope. I would guess it near impossible to examine in fossils, if you could even find enough to test.

are there not many types of sedimentary stones with fossils that have calcium from shells that are preserved well enough to measure? If you see the average weight of deposited calcium per shell in sandstone deposits? I dunno.

Yuo f2ail it... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42089619)

simple solution BSD has always = 1400 Ne9tBSD

Re:Yuo f2ail it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42089773)

mod parent up lol!

This is one of the realistic doomsday scenarios (4, Insightful)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090021)

This is just one of the realistic doomsday scenarios that people need to take seriously- the collapse of food chain in the oceans.

Remember, it doesn't have to be that oceans are completely and totally dead for people to start acting as if they are. It's enough that they no longer provide food or jobs for a lot of people, especially in developing nations. When the oceans are seen to be moving inevitably and inexorably to that condition , then it's as good as real, just like a stock that people understand is going to zero is as good as worthless even when it's price is still positive.

If the really small things that support the fisheries- thing like phytoplankton which support the zooplankton which in turn support start to fail it takes with it the krill, mackerel, sardines, anchovies, tuna then upwards to the fish we eat -and we'll know if it starts to happen- then there will be price-panic food buying with the result that right then, tens of millions start to starve and economies start to collapse.

It doesn't have to be in full effect for the full societal reaction to get going, it just has to be *seen* as going into full effect. That's when the chaos, the insane inflation of food, the rioting, the wars and uncontrollable immigration and nation destabilizing kicks in. That's when the civil wars break out and the uber-terrorism- uniting the entire 3rd and 2nd worlds in a death-lust for the West kicks in.

Do you like your life? Do you like sitting down at your computer and surfing and learning and enjoying life? Would you like to continue in the same vein? Would you like things to generally keep going progressing slowly forward? Would you like your culture and civilization to continue? Are you *conservative* in that large sense of the word? Because right now the "conservatives" in America are the most reactionary, radical literally suicidal and culture-cidal group of cretins ever created.

Perhaps the real conservatives can step forward at this time. The guys who were in the Rod and Gun clubs, the sportsmen who were conservationists, like the WWII vets who started the ski resorts in the Rockies, maybe the people *like that* would like to step forward and reclaim their party and protect the earth from the coke snorter conservatives, the narcissist conservatives, the Aspberger conservatives for whom politics comes down to single issues like taxes or Obamacare or abortion. I'm talking about The Glenn Becks the Sara Palins the Grover Norquists the Ralph Reeds the fucking Christian Right and their one-Jesus-fixes-all-problems fucking form of goddamned mental retardation. I can't even think of one person that fits description of a real conservative in the whole motherfucking Republican Party. Oh, wait. John Huntsmen. OK. One. One motherfucker in the entire fucking party.

The deniers war against reality and taking immediate dramatic action while it still has the chance of being effective and economically viable isn't LIKE WWIII, it IS WWIII. It IS the reason that the next wave of tens of millions of people are going die and worse, it's a foreseable, preventable well-predicted event.

It's go time, Mr. President. It's waaaayyy past time to stop trying to diddle Congress's clit just right on this topic. It's time for the Executive to unilaterally declare global warming to be an urgent matter of national security and Executive Action to initiated unilaterally towards alternative fuels, towards conservation, towards binding treaties and against those voices in our society who have declared themselves to be terrorists determined to set off the global warming bomb and kill billions. There is nothing more to talk about , it's time for action- Executive Action. It's time to silence, disable, undermine, discredit, and dismantle those individuals and organizations who are sewing the seeds of doubt. Their careers need to be ended as ignominiously as possible and failing that their voices need to be silenced as discretely as possible. This is war. This is what war is. This is what terrorism of the "insane" variety is, this is what has happened, this is who is doing it , this is reality- don't overthink it.

Taking the above actions is the legal and proper privilege of the Executive Branch. Just ask Bush. Just ask Cheney. Just ask John Yoo. This is not about politics, it's about facts and the deliberate building of a post-nuclear super-bomb called "global warming" with the power to kill billions and deconstruct all of human civilization. It couldn't be any plainer. It couldn't be any starker. It couldn't be any more clear cut and factual. It's go time Mr. President.

We're civilization- either you're with us, or you're against us. .

Re:This is one of the realistic doomsday scenarios (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090245)

When the oceans are seen to be moving inevitably and inexorably to that condition , then it's as good as real, just like a stock that people understand is going to zero is as good as worthless even when it's price is still positive.

Even stocks don't work exactly at this way. The idea that a speculative attack on food will make any bit of difference is insane.

(I'm not saying that generalized exticntions at the oceans wouldn't be a bad thing. It would. It'd be very bad. But you need to review your model, that feedback loop isn't real.)

Re:This is one of the realistic doomsday scenarios (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090287)

We're civilization- either you're with us, or you're against us.

My network of neural networks (machine intelligence) only had this to say when it scanned your post: false dichotomy

(un)Ironcially, that is actually the problem you should be fighting...

Re:This is one of the realistic doomsday scenarios (1)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090563)

Quoted from Bush II, intended ironically.

Re:This is one of the realistic doomsday scenarios (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090401)

Liberals calling for annihilation of those who don't share their opinions...where have I seen this before?

PS the 2nd world ceased to exist in 1991, but go ahead with that, it shows the rest of us how reality-based you are.

Re:This is one of the realistic doomsday scenarios (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42090561)

Climate change is not an opinion. Nor is peak oil. The right wingers have been calling for liberals to be sent away for years. What goes around comes around.
Liberals don't have to accept the lies and hate that the right wing nuts spew. When the right grows a brain then the liberals will listen.

Re:This is one of the realistic doomsday scenarios (1)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090583)

Yeah except that doing nothing about global warming will assuredly result in the end of civilization and the deaths of billions, which is apparently OK since "doing nothing" is the same as "doing no harm" in your twisted brain.

Reality is what it is. Doing nothing about global warming, denying global warming so society does nothing about it is nothing but a form of mass murder by dint of the results. Stopping that from happening is a form of law enforcement and the proper role of society.

You may think that you've found a great new crime society will be forced to let you get away with since you aren't "doing anything or making anyone do anything". You'd be wrong. That' s a superficial understanding of the relationship between criminals and terrorists and their aims and methods and those of legitimate society and their aims and methods.

Denier = terrorist.

Re:This is one of the realistic doomsday scenarios (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42090799)

Are you kidding ? What an extremely well thought out terrorist rant. You would have the president discreetly silence everyone who disagrees with you? I'm glad you declared war. Bring it.

Culling Begins (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42090547)

With this information the UN Secretary General with direction from the IPCC High Command has directive to begin Culling of Human Beings, regardless of nationality for the Saving of Planet Earth.

UN Assignation Teams and ParaTroopers are fanning out World Wide to rid Planet Earth of the Scourge of Homo Sapiens.

At UN High Command Headquarters in New York City, USA, is videoed enjoying a meal of Korean Head Soup, made from the heads of dead Korean Nationals.

Bon Ki Moon, UN Sec. General, "Mmmmmm .... Tastes like General Zuo Zongtang Chicken"! ... with a happy smile on his face for the media reporters.

This is real.

The UN is the enemy of humanity!

Remember Eisenhower? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42090763)

Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation comes to mind

            "The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."

Beware of science with to many "may become" and "likely to". This article has the taste of grant application where peer review has been replaced by buddy review.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...