27 ms·

I'm curious how you can view this as separate from climate change and not inextricably linked.

by pc86 4y ago

EGreg 4y ago
It may not have anything to do with the greenhouse gas effect and emission of fossil fuels. The desertification has to do with farmers planting too much and extracting all nutrients from the soil - same as happened in the 1930s which didnt have to do with cars and cows and methane in the atmosphere. The overfishing - same thing The collapse of insect populations is highly unlikely due to the slight aberage temperature changes or carbon concentrations in the atmosphere. It may be due to wireless radio signals, or light pollution, or pesticides and GMO plants. The collapse of kelp forests or bleaching of coral reefs also has less to do with acidification of the oceans, and more with local pollution and ecosystem collapse. The extinction of some species is due to hunting. And so on. You could say the anthopocene is behind all these things — but that is not the same as saying that climate change is CAUSING these things. If A (human activity) is causing B and C, and nearly all we talk about is C, then it is valid to say that B is more pressing, and that we should focus on A causing B. The response that “C is linked to B” is not enough because C doesn’t cause B and talking about C doesn’t do anything to stop B.
- pohl 4y ago
  FTA: The team suspects climate change may be warming the region and affecting bee and possibly butterfly survival.
  - ars 4y ago
    You are unlikely to find a biology paper that doesn't say that. If it were true there should be an equivalent change in insect population as you move north/south.
    - all2 4y ago
      Or shifting biodiversity as new species move into a now warmer region, rather than net decline.
  - EGreg 4y ago
    "suspecting" is not exactly the standard that I am looking for when making statements of such importance. And their "suspecting" is certainly nowhere near good enough reason to not draw attention to other things such as pesticides, light pollution and other radio electromagnetic pollution
ars 4y ago
No, the two are quite different. Which is worse in your opinion: smoke, or CO2? (Defining smoke broadly.) It's a real question: Diesel motors make less CO2, but more smoke (of lots of types). Would you rather spray some pesticide on crops? Or would it be better to use an energy intensive tractor (lots of CO2) to handle the situation mechanically? The world currently is obsessed with CO2, and I think that's a huge mistake - the other types of pollution are worse.
goatlover 4y ago
Because not everything is related to climate change. You have to show there's an "inextricable" link first.
throw_pm23 4y ago
If climate change would be causing this then insects and butterfly would move into colder zones like many other animals and plants in fact do. Instead, they are disappearing everywhere. It is due to pesticides and monoculture agriculture.

I'm curious how you can view this as separate from climate change and not inextricably linked.

by pc86 4y ago

I'm curious how you can view this as separate from climate change and not inextricably linked.

It may not have anything to do with the greenhouse gas effect and emission of fossil fuels. The desertification has to do with farmers planting too much and extracting all nutrients from the soil - same as happened in the 1930s which didnt have to do with cars and cows and methane in the atmosphere. The overfishing - same thing The collapse of insect populations is highly unlikely due to the slight aberage temperature changes or carbon concentrations in the atmosphere. It may be due to wireless radio signals, or light pollution, or pesticides and GMO plants. The collapse of kelp forests or bleaching of coral reefs also has less to do with acidification of the oceans, and more with local pollution and ecosystem collapse. The extinction of some species is due to hunting. And so on. You could say the anthopocene is behind all these things — but that is not the same as saying that climate change is CAUSING these things. If A (human activity) is causing B and C, and nearly all we talk about is C, then it is valid to say that B is more pressing, and that we should focus on A causing B. The response that “C is linked to B” is not enough because C doesn’t cause B and talking about C doesn’t do anything to stop B.

pohl 4y ago
FTA: The team suspects climate change may be warming the region and affecting bee and possibly butterfly survival.
- ars 4y ago
  You are unlikely to find a biology paper that doesn't say that. If it were true there should be an equivalent change in insect population as you move north/south.
  - all2 4y ago
    Or shifting biodiversity as new species move into a now warmer region, rather than net decline.
- EGreg 4y ago
  "suspecting" is not exactly the standard that I am looking for when making statements of such importance. And their "suspecting" is certainly nowhere near good enough reason to not draw attention to other things such as pesticides, light pollution and other radio electromagnetic pollution

ars 4y ago

No, the two are quite different. Which is worse in your opinion: smoke, or CO2? (Defining smoke broadly.) It's a real question: Diesel motors make less CO2, but more smoke (of lots of types). Would you rather spray some pesticide on crops? Or would it be better to use an energy intensive tractor (lots of CO2) to handle the situation mechanically? The world currently is obsessed with CO2, and I think that's a huge mistake - the other types of pollution are worse.

goatlover 4y ago

Because not everything is related to climate change. You have to show there's an "inextricable" link first.

throw_pm23 4y ago

If climate change would be causing this then insects and butterfly would move into colder zones like many other animals and plants in fact do. Instead, they are disappearing everywhere. It is due to pesticides and monoculture agriculture.