Beta
×

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!

Global Warming Spreading Pests Far and Wide According To Study

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the bullet-ants-over-broadway dept.

Earth 193

An anonymous reader writes "New research has concluded that global warming is helping pests and diseases that attack crops to spread around the world. 'Researchers from the universities of Exeter and Oxford have found crop pests are moving at an average of two miles (3km) a year. The team said they were heading towards the north and south poles, and were establishing in areas that were once too cold for them to live in. The research is published in the journal Nature Climate Change.'"

cancel ×

193 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

frist pist (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44739391)

fuck you, you denying mother fuckers

Re:frist pist (4, Funny)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#44739419)

First pest?

Re:frist pist (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#44739597)

First pest?

Damn first pest denialists... this problem has been going on for a lot longer than now, and the fact that it's just being reported is stupid. Oh, correlation doesn't mean causation! Intarwebs! Car analogy! (collapses giggling)

I'm just not happy with the name (2)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44739731)

"Anthropogenic Global Warming" really had some heft.
But that sadly died, and "Climate Change" was left.
That's now dead, and what must rise from its dust is
Something like "Global Non-Constant Atmospheric Justice".

Generalized Hypothesis in a Generalized World (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44739429)

Human population is expanding similarly. Uh, yes, you did say crop pests...maybe they count too.

Re:Generalized Hypothesis in a Generalized World (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44739491)

Clearing forests to grow crops should be more than enough to get humans classified as a crop pest.

Re:Generalized Hypothesis in a Generalized World (1, Flamebait)

MickLinux (579158) | about a year ago | (#44739669)

Strange. My first thought was "Al Gore; Kyoto delegates; Chinese; French!"

That said, I think that global warming is a valid concern. My biggest problem with the environmentalists is that they often do even more destruction with their willy-nilly unjust laws.

And injustice does cause environmental problems. Now that I'm losing my car, for example, I won't be recycling; I don't have the means. And when people can't afford plumbing, they end up with the contamination in slums.

Wrong (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44739439)

No their knot! La La La! I can't here you!

ClimateChangeDenialBot37

Re: Wrong (1)

oldwarrior (463580) | about a year ago | (#44740177)

I call well funded bull-carp on AGW hysteria.

Pests (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44739441)

Yep, them hippie environmentalist pests are especially bad since global warming started.

Still want it? (3, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#44739465)

I wonder if the selfish and short-sighted people who want global warming to continue because they live in areas that would benefit are still so enthusiastic...but I guess pests are as at least as easy to ignore as wars, refugees and food shortages.

Re:Still want it? (0, Troll)

sosume (680416) | about a year ago | (#44739489)

Based on my location I have at least 5,000 years of pest-free life ahead. I'm also guessing that the rate in which it moves north and southward will decelerate over time, so bring it on!

the selfish and short-sighted people who want global warming to continue

The debate is centered around the question whether a rise in temperature is caused by men, and if the current trend is upwards. As there has been no change in temperature in the last 10 decade. But thanks for the compliment.

Re:Still want it? (3, Informative)

professionalfurryele (877225) | about a year ago | (#44739615)

Mmmmm those cherries are so good, I see why you picked them:
http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Global [climate4you.com] temperature trends
Care to admit why you picked 10 years and not 15 or 20?

If you grab a sample of 2 women and 2 men you may well find the women are taller, and you wont be able to say based on that sample if men or women are taller on average. But given 20 or 30 women and 20 or 30 men the answer becomes obvious.

Re:Still want it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44739765)

You only have satellite measurements since...the late 60s? Since you haven't measured the flux of the system for more than 50 years, and you are complaining that he picked the last ten...

If climate science is so sound, you need to come up with a predictive model that actually, you know, predicts how the temperature will change. That hasn't happened. 10 years later, the temperature actually decreased.

Re:Still want it? (1, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#44739907)

Good thing satellite data isn't the only kind of temperature and climate data available. And no model is going to provide the level of accuracy you demand. Really, you don't need that level of accuracy any more than a physicist needs to count the lifespan of every single uranium atom to know uranium's halflife.

Re:Still want it? (0)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#44739975)

Only if you discount ocean warming and the effects of La Nina and the pacific decadal oscillation. Otherwise it's right on track.

Re:Still want it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44739623)

The debate in the media? Yes. The debate among scientists? No. Whether the trend is upwards? No.

Sure, science is never 100% certain about something, but if the current scientific consensus does not convince you, then I guess nothing short of complete armageddon due to climate change actually will.

Re:Still want it? (3, Interesting)

0111 1110 (518466) | about a year ago | (#44739743)

The majority of Americans and probably even American scientists believe in a supernatural all powerful entity for which there is no evidence at all. Just because a majority of people believe in something does not make it true.

Evidence is what convinces me. Not opinion polls. Opinion polls are most definitely not a part of the scientific method. Once a large enough majority believes in a thing it becomes difficult for many people to disbelieve it. Just show me the raw data and I will draw my own conclusions. I don't need to be told what to think. Scientists are just as capable of being irrational as anyone else. Just because a scientist believes in a thing doesn't make it true.

Re:Still want it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44739863)

Some people say that they saw man crucified, and then alive again three days after his death. They wrote it down. They died professing the truth of their claims. That is evidence. Historians of antiquity record the existence of Jesus. Your claim of no evidence at all doesn't hold up to the most simple challenge.

What you conclude about the evidence is another matter.

Re:Still want it? (3, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#44739889)

There is one single extra-Gospel source that Jesus existed, and that is Josephus. Once you strip away the 2nd and 3rd century "additions", what you get is basically "there was a Nazarene named Jesus who was a holy man and had a following, and who was put to death by the Romans."

Re: Still want it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44740069)

"And then a zealous believer named Paul turned the story into an organized religion based on guilt."

Re:Still want it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44740097)

Even if he really did die and come back to life doesn't make him a supernatural entity. It doesn't make him a god or deity. That's pretty much the least probable explanation of the events. But the real reason unbelievers don't believe the accounts of Jesus' resurrection is just that extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence for skeptical people to believe them. When a climate scientist reports that a weather station thermometer in the tropics reads 86.2 degrees F I'm inclined to believe it because it isn't improbable. If he reports that he jumped into the sky, spread his arms and flew to Alpha Centauri and back on his lunch break I would need some very extraordinary evidence in order to believe it.

Re: Still want it? (1)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#44740279)

Of course there was a Jesus. The non-Greek name is Joshua which was a common name in that part of the world for hundreds of years before him

Re:Still want it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44739877)

Then what is your conclusion on climate change based on the raw data?

Your specious argument aside, there are climate scientists in other countries too, and last time you took some kind of medicine, did you also draw your own conclusion whether it will actually do something for you based on evaluating the raw data? It seems that people only question the scientists that have come to a conclusion they do not like?

I do not even know why I am feeding the trolls here, there is so much scientific evidence out there (sure, we do not always understand perfectly how all of it fits together, but the main directions are clear), you are insulting all the scientists that have dedicated themselves to actually understanding things, while all you can do from your armchair is telling everybody that they are either all deluded or have succumbed to group think.

I thought most people on slashdot are scientifically literate, and actually respect people dedicated to science, but you are the perfect example that there are narrow-minded, self-righteous pricks on slashdot as well.

Re:Still want it? (3, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#44740037)

The majority of Americans and probably even American scientists believe in a supernatural all powerful entity for which there is no evidence at all.

2.3 of the world's population and over half of all scientists.

Evidence is what convinces me.

There is no evidence I was in possession of marijuana -- It's gone. There is no evidence Jimmy Hoffa is dead, but I'm pretty sure he is. There is no evidence for extraterrestrial life, but I think there probably is.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Re:Still want it? (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#44739647)

In scientific circles, there is very little debate. This isn't a scientific debate, it's a PR debate instigated by fossil fuel companies. As to your last sentence, either you're wilfully lying, or you're an ignoramus.

Re:Still want it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44739799)

But thanks for the compliment.

In scientific circles, there is very little debate. This isn't a scientific debate, it's a PR debate instigated by fossil fuel companies. As to your last sentence, either you're wilfully lying, or you're an ignoramus.

In English language circles, there is little debate as to what the last sentence means. Is he lying about the complement, or ignorant about compliments? Or maybe he is lying when he's thanking.

Re:Still want it? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44739873)

The more shrill the global warming crowd gets, the less people believe them. The more "scientists" engage in gloom and doom hyperbole in front of the press, the less public support they're going to get. Technology and human development is often at odds with the environment, but the real danger to humanity is politics, and "scientists" aren't free of it. BTW, there is quite a lot of debate in scientific circles. The ones who deny that aren't scientists. They're ideologues.

Re:Still want it? (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#44739927)

There is a lot of debate about aspects of AGW, not about AGW itself. Misrepresenting debate as some sort of lack of consensus on the general aspects of any given theory is being deceitful. That's like saying "There is a lot of debate on whether Proto-Indo-European sprang from the Kurgan culture or from Anatolia, therefore French, Hindi and Old Church Slavonic are not related languages."

Re:Still want it? (2)

harvey the nerd (582806) | about a year ago | (#44740055)

You're right but there are a lot of Algroe fanbois and lackeys who think they know a little science because they can parrot the line.

Re:Still want it? (3, Interesting)

jovius (974690) | about a year ago | (#44740053)

Let's try this. Imagine if aliens started to pour carbon dioxide, methane and other gases to Earth's atmosphere. As you know from the elementary school Earth's greenhouse effect keeps the temps at a nice level. Greenhouse effect that has been known well over 100 years is actualized because of the called greenhouse gases, which trap heat to the lower layers of the atmosphere. So ask yourself this: what will happen when the amount of those gases is increased?

Would you be welcoming the aliens who pour gases to the atmosphere? One effect of that would for example be that hugely larger areas of crops are threatened because of pests. Your very source of food is in danger.

Wouldn't you be pretty sure who is responsible for the anomalously amplified greenhouse effect? I'd guess the media would be in full blast declaring a war against them. It's interesting why it isn't happening at the moment.

Re:Still want it? (4, Funny)

cusco (717999) | about a year ago | (#44740167)

Are you suggesting that the fossil fuel companies are headed by aliens? That would explain an awful lot . . .

Why not, if other things can flourish also? (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year ago | (#44739499)

This theory (that pests are moving farther north because it's no longer as cold) ALSO supports the idea that other things, like plants and animals can also be raised farther north because it is warmer.

If you think that's offset by some parts becoming too warm to support some crops and animals, then you must ALSO weigh that with the aspect that some pests will find it too warm and so there is some benefit. But since jungles grow everything in abundance it's pretty hard to argue that warming is not a net gain overall in terms of food production.

Basically, the fact that habitable zones increasing in size brings an expansion of everything that lives in those zones should not really be news to anyone, and you shouldn't be foolish enough to play up a very tiny negative aspect of it in a desperate grab to make other people fear the way you want them to.

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? (3, Insightful)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about a year ago | (#44739585)

You're assuming the warming stops at 'habitable'...

Just desserts - deserts. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44739675)

You're assuming the warming stops at 'habitable'...

Thank you.

We'll also see deserts increase in size and new ones form.

We'll also see more fisheries collapse.

Re:Just desserts - deserts. (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | about a year ago | (#44739709)

You're assuming the warming stops at 'habitable'...

Thank you.

We'll also see deserts increase in size and new ones form.

We'll also see more fisheries collapse.

Deserts have very little to do with temperature.

Re:Just desserts - deserts. (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#44739751)

Um, but they do have a lot to do with rain belts, and along with warming temperatures you also see those shift, which will mean increased pace of desertification.

Re:Just desserts - deserts. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44739787)

You're assuming the warming stops at 'habitable'...

Thank you.

We'll also see deserts increase in size and new ones form.

We'll also see more fisheries collapse.

Deserts have very little to do with temperature.

As temperatures increase, rainfall patterns will change - increasing deserts in some parts of the World while increasing rainfall in other parts of the World.

So, yes, there IS a link between global temperature and deserts.

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? (3, Interesting)

Arker (91948) | about a year ago | (#44740023)

You're assuming the warming stops at 'habitable'...

Hot-house earth isnt completely uninhabitable. The violent storms and extreme heat in the tropical zones would make them indoors-only and dangerous to travel in, but the polar regions and for instance high mountain areas further south would be quite habitable.

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about a year ago | (#44740241)

Take a look where most of the land is. It's in temperate to tropical zones. And how exactly to you move a few billion people to these new 'polar' paradises?

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44739665)

Warming isn't even what worries me. Looking at data from ice cores, it is clear that human civilization came about during a unusually stable time for the Earth's climate. If we've pushed the system out of that stable point, it's going to be a lot harder to predict the next growing season. Sure some new areas will support new crops, but will you know in advance? If it supports a new crop 5 years out of 10, what do you do in the other 5, move all the farmers to another region?

you shouldn't be foolish enough to play up a very tiny negative aspect of it in a desperate grab to make other people fear the way you want them to.

You shouldn't assume those people even exist. All I see is a desperate grab to gain web viewers. You're the one spooked by fake fear mongers.

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#44739681)

The problem here is that it seems rather likely that the habitable zones won't grow in size. Rather they will shift in latitude. There will be very real geopolitical ramifications to the North American and Eurasian growth zones jumping northward. Imagine the North American Grain Belt heading a few degrees north. All of a sudden, large areas currently under cultivation in the United States cease to arable, or at least cheaply arable. At the same time, Canada gains large amounts of arable land much farther north. In a few generations, you could see US food security compromised, with large amounts of the grain it needs suddenly in another sovereign country. The US will almost certainly be able to come to some accord with Canada, but other parts of the world may not be so lucky. A brief survey of historic and prehistoric migrations heavily suggests that people don't just sit on their asses and quietly die out when they can no longer get enough food and water.

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? (2)

innocent_white_lamb (151825) | about a year ago | (#44739993)

large areas currently under cultivation in the United States cease to arable, or at least cheaply arable. At the same time, Canada gains large amounts of arable land much farther north.
 
There are factors other than mere temperature that go into whether land can be used for growing crops. Much of the soil north of where Canadian farmers currently grow their crops is either very poor or next-to-nonexistent. The Canadian Shield consists largely of volcanic rock. You can't grow a crop in that even if the temperature appears to allow it.

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? (2)

Burz (138833) | about a year ago | (#44740159)

Its a worse problem than that. The soil in poleward locations may not be suitable, tending to turn into desert instead (at least in the geologic near term). Land area is also less abundant near the poles, especially when you consider that Antarctica will remain ice-covered deep into the arable land crisis. Most plants and animals that help keep a temperate zone healthy probably won't be able to migrate quickly enough to the unprecedented rate of warming we have unleashead.

Then there is the tiny little question of how human bodies themselves can cope, being only adapted to live in interglacial and glacial periods--We've never adapted to the global hothouse type of climate. We couldn't even manage to do agriculture for 150,000 years in the past because the global climate made frequent 1C shifts. Our brains are especially susceptable to frequent heat extremes, curbing their energy use (and thinking ability) when heat-stressed... or otherwise causing us to croak. Our immune systems are not adapted to warm environments (however pleasant) that are steeped in dampness during 6-month long periods of darkness.

This is not the temperate zones moving poleward. Its the temperate zones disappearing and a part of the arctic likely turning into something different that hasn't existed for over 40 million years.

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? (1)

32771 (906153) | about a year ago | (#44740245)

Well fortunately we live on a cylindrical planet where the area higher up is equal to the area towards the middle ...

No, that was wrong let me have another positive look at this, we applied a step function to the input of a non-linear system with feed-backs and all. If we get
lucky the temperatures move up so fast the Equatorians won't be able to catch up.

There is one excited Ph. D. student who is talking about the prospect that it is getting warm in Canada:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw1GEp8UBj4 [youtube.com]

and staying that way throughout the next ice age, which wouldn't have to be called that way anymore. He also mentions that the equator may only get +3 degrees temperature improvement.

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44740399)

i think this is a big misrepresentation of the known facts.
one the one hand we have awg, but on the other we have new hybrids that can be grown
it shorter growing seasons and therefore can be planted further north. now which is
more likely, that this pest migration is caused by awg or the spread of the crops themselves?

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? (1)

symbolset (646467) | about a year ago | (#44739711)

Never the mod points when I need them.

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? (1)

cusco (717999) | about a year ago | (#44740391)

jungles grow everything in abundance

Corollary: deserts grow nothing in abundance.

Actually your statement is quite incorrect anyway. Of all the major food sources used by humans only yucca/cassava grows well under jungle-type conditions, and to a lesser extent rice. Corn, wheat, rye, barley, potatoes, and sweet potatoes all do very poorly if they grow at all, and only a few varieties of yams do well.

Re:Still want it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44739517)

Those mythical people "who want global warming to continue". I guess you're also scared of commies under the bed too.

Re:Still want it? (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#44739685)

It's hard to see such people as myth when monster international corporations and uber-rich guys like the Koch Brothers are very much behind a massive campaign to discredit AGW researchers. I can't say whether they want the climate to continue to warm. They could be more mundanely evil in not giving a sweet fuck what happens 50 or 100 years from now, so long as their net worth continues up in the short and medium term.

Re:Still want it? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44739909)

Well, the Koch brother have their money, not that I would imply they are opposed to making more. They are actually spending money to forward their agenda, unlike other somewhat less uber-rich guys like Al Gore who make piles of money directly hyping their agenda.

So he're my position. There are guys on both sides of the debate who are far more knowledgeable than I, admittedly far more on one side than the other. So, I have to look at credibility. One side definitely has the numbers and the support of the scientific establishment, but the establishment has been wrong before (more than once). The establishment seems to spend a lot of energy on ad hominem attacks to discredit the opposition, which is a hit on credibility.

Most importantly, the loudest advocates of AGW fail to propose anything that might actually work. Most of their proposals advocate massive international cooperation to institute some schemes that will be economically harmful on a large scale. When has that ever happened? Any country participating will have a huge incentive to cheat, as they will get the same benefit as everyone else without paying the price. If AGW proponents want to be taken seriously by me, they need to start loudly advocating things like nuclear power, building dams for more hydro-electric, and maybe even geo-engineering.

Until I observe realistic solutions being advocated I have to conclude that AGW really doesn't even bother the people who believe in it, so why should it bother me?

Re:Still want it? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#44739959)

I'm sorry. Could we start at credibility here? Why, if you're investigating a scientific theory, would you both considering what Al Gore or the Koch Brothers had to say?

As to the rest of it, well, for one of the first times in history we are able to predict with at least a certain level of certainty a major ecological crisis shaping up. Our ancestors had these, and they often spelled catastrophe for civilizations. So why shouldn't one at least hope that nation states and international organizations might, for once, actually try to cut emissions to at least slow down the warming? After all, the solution to that problem also happens to solve some other problems, and will leave us with a goodly supply of long chain hydrocarbons whose uses go beyond running various kinds of combustion engines.

Re:Still want it? (4, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | about a year ago | (#44740073)

Why, if you're investigating a scientific theory, would you both considering what Al Gore or the Koch Brothers had to say?

Because it's not about science for the denialists, it's about tribalism and primate dominance.

Re:Still want it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44740283)

Dude, you started with the Koch brothers, Al Gore is the logical anti-Koch.

About the only thing that large numbers of countries have been able to cooperate on are thing that are of fairly immediate and mutual benefit. The only things that countries have been able to cooperate on that also involves significant short term sacrifice are wars, where survival is at stake. Reducing CO2 is a classic Prisoner's dilemma (I won't waste time, if you are unfamiliar look it up). So here is what will going to happen with any big scheme battling man-made CO2 emissions.

Let's say "super-Kyoto" is passed. Some kind of massive international carbon trading/tax scheme. Note-by definition this would not be required if CO2 generating activities were not economically beneficial. Every country on earth has a huge incentive to either not join the scheme, "game" the system to avoid the scheme, or just cheat. If the rest of the world follows the scheme, and I am Argentina and don't sign, I still get the benefit of reduced CO2 emissions, but I also get the benefit of burning fossil fuel (which would probably be really cheap if nobody else was using it). Or maybe I'm China, and I sign the treaty but use my position as a big fish to negotiate huge loopholes that allow me to continue to use fossil fuels like no tomorrow. I still get 90% of the benefit. The "honest" counties will suffer economic penalties until they are no longer important actors on the world stage.

The only way around this would be a world-wide enforcement mechanism. Some sort of global AGW cops that could FORCE countries to comply, and I don't see countries giving up sovereignty without a fight. I seriously doubt that the AGW war will be better than just living with AGW. You can HOPE everyone just comes together and holds hands and agree, but HOPE is not a course of action.

That is why, until the AGW believers start proposing something that is realistic, I don't believe they are very worried. I'll start worrying when they start worrying.

Re:Still want it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44739729)

I am one of them ! I know grow grapes and kiwis !
Ok I now have brown and black widows but I have to fear spiders anyway, thing is my fear is now rational :)

Re:Still want it? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#44739775)

It's not a fictional bogeyman, it's a real opinion I've heard from real people including Slashdot users.

Re:Still want it? (5, Funny)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#44739589)

Personally, I'm switching careers from IT to pest control.

Re:Still want it? (5, Funny)

wbr1 (2538558) | about a year ago | (#44739695)

Personally, I'm switching careers from IT to pest control.

It is an easy career change. You deal with bugs in both professions.

Re:Still want it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44739705)

Isn't that the same career path?

Re:Still want it? (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#44739899)

Isn't that the same career path?

There is quite a bit of overlap.

Re:Still want it? (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#44739921)

Yes. In IT we call them users.

I see it coming (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44739739)

Personally, I'm switching careers from IT to pest control.

Future news:

"The pest control industry is lobbying Congress for an increase in H1-Bs for pest control engineers. Stating ' there isn't enough qualified Americans coming out of school.'"

On Slashdot we'll see: ' I've been interviewing pest control engineers for years now, and I can tell yo that getting qualified people is really difficult. We get people with years of experience who can't describe how the poisons work on the pest nervous system and they can't even give a balanced equation on the compound's creation!"

"Same here! Why one guy couldn't use the sprayer properly."

And there will be ads for:
'Pest Control Engineer. MUST have 5 years of experience with the Pest Sprayer 2020 v 1.43.233, 5 years experience with the Pest sounder 3.42.11, 5 years of programming experience of the pest control API for Windows, BS/MSPE, Able to program the pest control Robot'

And there will be the "We are a Silicon Valley start-up with a new and ground breaking company that is a social media pest control company with iPad apps. There's a huge shortage of qualified people here in SF!" on Slashdot.

Re:I see it coming (0)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#44739785)

LOL Mod Funny! XD

Re:I see it coming (3, Funny)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#44739883)

...and then there will be the offshore pest control operators. "You are having receiving the package? Very good. Now kindly open the package and taking out the metal canister. Very good. Now kindly place the metal canister on the floor of your cubical. Very good. Now if you would please pull out the pin being on the top of the canister. Very good. Oh, you should probably run now. Please close the ticket at your earliest convenience, and being sure to fill out our survey. Hello?

Re:Still want it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44740109)

Umm...Yes, because crop pests are a direct result of....crops. If I lived in Siberia, the fact that it might be warm enough to grow more food, and the pests that eat said food would be a net positive.

Is that really hard to figure out?

Re:Still want it? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#44740213)

Would your local ecosystem that's been unaccustomed to the pests handle the invasion well? What if it's a built up area with no meaningful room to grow crops, but still room to host pests? What if it was an area that could host the crops but not the pests, and can now also host the pests?

Do you think everything is so simple?

Re:Still want it? (1)

symbolset (646467) | about a year ago | (#44740331)

What if the predators for pests moved at the same rate as the pests. If the entire ecosystem were so much more intelligent than humans that it just automatically and naturally moves to where the food is. Like it did the last eight times this happened. Wouldn't that be just amazing?

Pests? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44739503)

When we're self-flagellating over lost species we call them "biodiversity." We're were promoting up our Global Warming agenda they're "pests."

Pine beetle (4, Interesting)

blankinthefill (665181) | about a year ago | (#44739611)

This is actually believed to be one of the main culprits of the explosion of pine beetle infestations in Colorado, as the beetle is now able to survive at higher altitudes than it was previously able to due to increased warming, which has allowed it to infest species of trees which have no natural defense against the pine beetle. This in turn has driven a huge increase in the amount of standing and fallen deadwood in mountainous forests, and is believed to be one of the reasons behind the dramatic increase in the severity of wildfires in those areas.

Re:Pine beetle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44739747)

Or maybe it was humans stopping all the wildfires for the last 100 years like an article right here two days ago.

Re:Pine beetle (4, Interesting)

blankinthefill (665181) | about a year ago | (#44739825)

That's why I said ONE of the reasons. The forestry techniques of the last century certainly increased the amount of deadwood and undergrowth. Anyone familiar with the forest situation in Colorado will tell you that the pine beetle is ALSO a huge contributor to the large increase of deadwood in mountainous forests there. The worrisome thing about the pine deadwood, though, is that it's very often standing deadwood, which, unlike living trees, torches easily along it's whole length. This can very easily carry a fire into the crowns of trees, killing them where they may have otherwise survived. No one is denying that what the article from a few days ago said is true. But the increase in deadwood because of the pine beetle hugely exacerbates that situation. With JUST the forestry techniques, or JUST the pine beetle, we would be seeing the increase in destructiveness that we saw 30 or 40 years ago. With both, we end up with the destructiveness we see today. (Note, YES, I know there are also other factors, such as overbuilding, poor building practices, and the proliferation of unintentional fire breaks. However, those are minor issues when you consider that, without the deadwood and undergrowth situation as it is today, those fires would likely not be the problem they are today.)

Re:Pine beetle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44740099)

Or maybe it was humans stopping all the wildfires for the last 100 years like an article right here two days ago.

NO, that is NOTHING to do with the pine beetle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_pine_beetle [wikipedia.org]

The beetle range is expanding at EXACTLY the same rate as the temperatures are increasing. Environment Canada mapped temperate anomalies observed over the last 10-15 years and they match *exactly* with pine beetle expanding range of destruction.

Currently the beetle is over the rockies and there is nothing really stopping it from moving into the pine forests all along Canada. Saskatchewan and especially Manitoba still have somewhat cold winters, keeping the beetle at bay, but if the weather there warms a few more degrees, the beetle will hop over the apalachians and fuck over the entire eastern Canada pine. And if it spreads across Alaska over bering strait, the entire taiga will be gone.

If there is a danger to all pines in the world, this is IT. And this pandora's box has only been kept close by temperature which we are nicely opening up and will continue to open up for next few centuries. By then, pines could as well be extinct plant species.

If you knew ANYTHING about the beetle, you would realize that it is not affected by fire at all. It is only affected by cold. If the temperatures don't drop to -40, the beetle lives and spreads. It's as simple as that.

Re:Pine beetle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44739905)

So no warming in the last 18 years is causing pine beetles to go to warmer areas that are not warmer?

Re:Pine beetle (3, Informative)

sribe (304414) | about a year ago | (#44740107)

So no warming in the last 18 years is causing pine beetles to go to warmer areas that are not warmer?

In this case, it's not average temps that matter. It's the lack of any sustained period of very low temps. The lowest lows are nowhere near historic norms in the past decade. Now why this is, I'm not going to debate here.

we should just nuke ourselves from orbit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44739633)

It's the only way to be sure. Then mother earth can heal from the damage inflicted by humans breathing out toxic CO2 with every breath they take.

All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44739637)

Goverment funded study identifies new threat. Only solution is to give up more resources and liberties to said goverment..

Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#44739703)

I'm curious. Do you think the universe gives one sweet fuck about your political ideology. We can debate the scientific merits of these claims, but to attack them because they somehow collide with your political ideology is so fucking stupid I can only assume your either a moron or mentally ill.

Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44739757)

Hey look, yet another statist MORON thinks the global warming scam has "scientific merits". ROTFLMAO.

Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#44739807)

Yes, like pretty much every climatologist on the planet. Certainly seems a more sensible group to turn to than some fucking halfwith AC on /.

Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power (0)

0111 1110 (518466) | about a year ago | (#44739995)

And every Godologist (priest) believes in his God. The fact that there aren't any atheist priests prove that He exists.

Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#44740003)

Fallacy of the False Equivalence [wikipedia.org]

It figures on top of everything else, you can't even make a cogent argument.

Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power (1)

0111 1110 (518466) | about a year ago | (#44740123)

Why would someone who didn't believe in AGW become a climate scientist? It just isn't going to happen. Or almost never. Does that really surprise you?

Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power (0)

killkillkill (884238) | about a year ago | (#44739837)

The GP was debating the scientific merits. Suggesting that there is a positive feedback mechanism in a system such that the funder would tend to get results that benefit them. Debating the bias of results is debating the core of it's scientific merit. So, please engage him in the debate and, if you disagree, argue why this bias does not exist. Only one of the two of you went on a tangent and threw profanity and personal insults into their post.

Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#44739867)

The poster I replied to wrote:

"Goverment funded study identifies new threat. Only solution is to give up more resources and liberties to said goverment.."

Can you explain how that is a critique of the scientific merits?

Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power (2)

tbannist (230135) | about a year ago | (#44739935)

That's a particularly ignorant argument seeing as the original post was clearly an ad hominem. He wasn't debating the merits of anything, he was dismissing something because he disagrees with the politics he assumes that the people who did research have. You should already know this. It seems that you are also allowing your politics to cloud your thinking.

Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44740377)

> your either a moron

Beautiful.

Riiight. Pests never spread before global warming (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44739653)

Nope. Rats never spread bubonic plague prior to those evil Americans creating SUVs. Never happened. Nope.

Jesus Fucking Christ - if you really want something to be done about human-caused climate change, STOP THIS OVER-THE-TOP DRAMA!!!!

Why? Because it's way too damaging to credibility.

Re:Riiight. Pests never spread before global warmi (1)

pjbgravely (751384) | about a year ago | (#44739759)

The Black Death I believe occurred at the end of the Medieval Warm Period. This might prove their point even though most AWGers seem to not believe it occurred.

Re:Riiight. Pests never spread before global warmi (1)

pjbgravely (751384) | about a year ago | (#44739781)

My apologies for responding to an AC. I expect to moded down accordingly for my mistake. .

Re:Riiight. Pests never spread before global warmi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44739937)

I you are wondering why Slashdot isn't what it used to be, there is the statement that says it all...
We live in a society where people have a misplaced feeling of self-entitlement.

Re:Riiight. Pests never spread before global warmi (1)

Boronx (228853) | about a year ago | (#44740071)

"if you really want something to be done about human-caused climate change, STOP THIS OVER-THE-TOP DRAMA!!!!"

Good thinking.

Heck, if you'd never heard about global warming at all, you'd probably be on the front lines for combatting it.

Tell me about it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44739733)

Those pests yapping about Global Warming are everywhere now, and they just won't shut up. Worse than the cicadas.

and the all time hoax continues... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44739839)

Try using science instead of FUD, it works better...

Re:and the all time hoax continues... (1)

Nimey (114278) | about a year ago | (#44740087)

Wake up sheeple!

The actual evidence (0, Troll)

0111 1110 (518466) | about a year ago | (#44739919)

However, the organisms can only take hold in new areas if the conditions are suitable, and the researchers believe that warming temperatures have enabled the creature to survive at higher latitudes.

I see. So the researchers believe something. How inspiring.

Dr Bebber said: "The most convincing hypothesis is that global warming has caused this shift.

Dr. Bebber finds the AGW hypothesis (his words) the most convincing explanation. Why don't I find his speculations more convincing? There can only be one reason. Nothing else makes sense. The oil companies must be paying me thousands of dollars to post this. No honest person could doubt such clear evidence as this.

Also what makes 1960 such a special year for combustion? Was it the start of the industrial revolution? It is certainly possible that human beings are solely responsible for the CO2 increase in our atmosphere during the past century and that this increase has been substantial enough to increase the average surface temperatures on the entire planet, but this study does not prove it. It doesn't even establish the ground work for doing so. At the very least I'd like to see evidence that such a spread is unprecedented and that it did not take place before the industrial revolution. After that it would be nice to see proof that temperature changes are the only possible explanation for certain species of insects spreading.

The researchers said that better information about where the pests and pathogens were and where they were moving was needed to fully assess the scale of the problem.

Sounds to me like they need some more money for further insect population studies and that if they don't get it we are all going to die and soon. Why direct surface temperature measurements are not sufficient to demonstrate increased surface temperatures is not explained. Did we uninvent thermometers and now require insects to tell us the temperature?

Reality doesn't require your understanding (2)

bussdriver (620565) | about a year ago | (#44740117)

You don't have to comprehend something to make it true. Reality and the Earth will continue without human "intelligence."

Next (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#44740027)

Easy to deal with pests, they are a minor issue. CONTINUE THE TERRAFORMING! We need the vast expanses of Canada and Siberia for farming!*

* Actually, we don't even need that.

Reality is complex (0)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#44740041)

When the first alerts of global warming started to appear, most people tough only in a bit more heat, while everything else continues the same. Then we had seasons of extreme weather hitting big cities, alerts on ocean rising, pests, and a lot more that is still coming, as everything is interconnected. Global Warming is just part of the problem, just a symtom, one where scientist can take a bunch of historical data and point a finger showing to even the dumbest persons that is happening, but our effect in the global ecosystem goes beyond temperature, changues in atmosphere, ocean and in life (specially the most abundant and invisible one). Changing the ecosystem we are taking high bets (agriculture that depends on climate being stable, cities that ties people to specific places), and a lot of people will pay those bets with their lives if the change happens fast enough (as it seems to be doing).

Meanwhile, the people behind the main human factors in the change try to convince people that nothing is happening nor is their fault [greenpeace.org] , are the ones that control laws and government politics in this topics, and won't care at all as have enough money to keep living comfortably even if things get very wrong for everyone else.

confirmation bias? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44740133)

So at what point do we start to tell the folks who love these predictions that perhaps they're incredibly prone to confirmation bias?

Seriously why does every-fucking-thing suddenly relate to global warming. I'd have a lot easier time accepting it if everyone wasn't so hellbent on linking the color of my shit to AGW. Holy shit people. There's gotta be some kind of middle ground where we can accept that warming climates cause this kind of stuff but isn't portrayed as "OMG! AGW PUTS ROACHES IN YOUR HOME!!"

Yes, it's all global warming's fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44740257)

Because obviously modern trade utilizing means of high-speed transport with lack of adequate quarantine or sanitation practices of international goods plays no role in the spread of pests and invasive species. Nobody should mind those wooden shipping pallets or forestry products from Asia or South America, whatever insects came in on the landing gear on that flight from Africa, or ships coming over from Europe dumping ballast in the Great Lakes after passing through the St. Lawrence Seaway.

Yep, of course all the pest problems are all due to global warming.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?