Science and Natural History discussion

Which books/articles say that global warming is not real? More importantly, can we save the Earth?

Alexander, As we develop the skills to leave this earth behind we must be assured that we have some reasonably diverse stock of plants and animals here on earth from which to select species and strains of crops that will be able to grow in the new environment. How about bringing tasty tomatoes with us rather than the cardboard hydroponic ones we can grow all winter here. How about discovering the tastiest guinea pigs in Peru that will be able to survive and be our meat source. If we do not work hard now to save the current species numbers we will be down to wooden tomatoes to accompany us on our escape from a polluted, flooded and overheated earth.

Alexander, the suggestion that we will suddenly evolve as needed to take advantage of a yet unknown environment and abandon our current physiology sounds mysterious and difficult to see how we can prepare for. Perhaps the most rapid evolution we have seen previously was the non-natural selection that occurs in our domesticated animals or lab models such as Drosophila where, knowing a direction we want to go in, selection can achieve dramatic changes ... wild dog dingo to chihuahua or great dane. Perhaps the most difficult change you are projecting involves the evolution of behavior you describe which would involve us understanding the brain to an extent that I do not believe is achievable. As the most energetic organ in our body the brain's cells would also not do well without constant food availability. Will we reach a simpler state that requires less brain activity? The only organisms that have decreased in complexity during evolution are parasites that have allowed some other organism to do the energy provision ... such as the bacteria that became the mitochondria serving to produce energy for our cells while losing a great deal of genes or transferring them to the host's genome. Your plan to simplify seems to relinquish power supply to some superior entity which seems a week link in our survival. What do we have to offer the superior entity?

Reading on global warming and ocean acidification:

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/repor...

Ocean Acidification: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZimEB...

Vulnerability of Lobsters: http://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/worl...
- contains a link to a Royal Society report discussing broader issues world-wide.

I am not sure why there should be any discussion of whether global warming is happening. Surely we are past that point?

Some good books that I recently read on the topic are:

This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate

The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History

Adventures in the Anthropocene: A Journey to the Heart of the Planet We Made

Learning to Die in the Anthropocene: Reflections on the End of a Civilization

Radiantflux wrote: "I am not sure why there should be any discussion of whether global warming is happening. Surely we are past that point?

Some good books that I recently read on the topic are:

[book:This Changes ..."

Taking a paraphrase from politics "All climate change is local." The dramatic changes in our environment may be mainly local i.e. regionally local. The mid-west may stop being the 'bread basket', perhaps it already has. The central California source of vegetable may literally dry up. Canada may become the new 'bread basket'. Locally here in New England the Gulf-of-Maine Shrimp is almost extinct as a legitimate name. The Northern Shrimp still exists but its Western Atlantic preferred home territory is now up in the Gulf of St Lawrence in Canada. Our American lobsters are doing the same thing. The 500 million US$ a year crop for the State of Maine is moving north and eventually out of reach of Maine lobstermen. Just 20 years ago the center of the lobster population was in Massachusetts waters south of Cape Cod! This is a real issue for one crop regions like Maine. So all of the suggested readings have interpretations of how their main thesis is being played out in real time on local regions and local populations. Here in Scarborough Maine we have just passed a law that makes it easier for owners of non-conforming structures to be modified (put up on pylons) to be safer from rising tides during storms. Formerly one needed to bring ones home into conformation with all building codes before raising it up to safety. Now a single process is being allowed. So, locally how are we being forced to respond to the increasing frequency of new crises that will become more a way of local anxiety in trying to make the future better for our families.
The discussion of the Anthropocene is sadly homocentric which is, I guess, understandable given our position. A evolutionary biologist colleague of mine put the issue in a more universal perspective. This is not the 'age of man' after the 'age of mammals' after the 'age of dinosaurs', ... it has always been the 'age of microorganisms' and our greatest challenges will always be dominated by the microbes. The way that lobsters moving north played out below Cape Cod, for instance, was that lobster-shell-disease attacked the lobster populations south of Cape Cod and shell disease, which may be encouraged by factors such as ocean warming and acidification, may make the now huge population of lobsters in the the Gulf of Maine vulnerable to disease. Local geography and nearshore oceanography may dominate how global warming is played out on regional plant, animal and human populations.

One of the things I like about Goodreads is that I can choose to befriend or follow those who write intelligent, informed reviews of books that are of interest to me. Some of those books are and sceptical books that detail the weird things some people believe, and also psychology books that explain why some people believe weird things. As a highly educated very rational person, it is sometimes difficult for me to empathise with people who have an extremely irrational and unsophisticated understanding of the world.

This thread is I feel mostly an excellent demonstration of why certain people shouldn't be followed.

First we have a very confused question (is global warming happening?) - yes it's beyond doubt. Then a very important question ("can we save the world"?) - which is however so badly phrased as to be meaningless - what do you actually mean by "save the world"?

Then we get the someone who comes along and talks about future human evolution, which apart from not being relevant to the question (the points to be made here are ecological rather than evolutionary), also demonstrates a lack of understanding of what evolution is and how it works, and comments that he's arranging this evolving in his garden shed.

And finally we get a voice of apparent reason who is tries to argue against unreason.

This isn't a very intelligent conversation.

Joseph wrote: "The discussion of the Anthropocene is sadly homocentric which is, I guess, understandable given our position. A evolutionary biologist colleague of mine put the issue in a more universal perspective. This is not the 'age of man' after the 'age of mammals' after the 'age of dinosaurs', ... it has always been the 'age of microorganisms' and our greatest challenges will always be dominated by the microbes. "

I disagree. Anthropocene seems like an excellent term since humans are creating global climate change, ocean acidification, mass deforestation etc. I am pretty sure if the bears, the bees, or the fishes of the sea (or for that matter aliens) wanted a term they would also think Anthropocene appropriate.

I guess my point is that we are most likely going the way of the dinosaurs and even if this is our 'scene' when our scene is over the microbes will still be here and they may be one mode of our undoing through no doubt opportunities we may be giving them.

If someone could please inform me: who is Alexander? Twice above Joseph addressed him/her. What did he/she say?

I apologize if my absence had contributed to unusual comments and/or less-desirable environment.

Alexander has deleted his posts. I cannot say this is a bad thing - they weren't very intelligent and weren't worth reading.

DrosoPHila wrote: "First we have a very confused question (is global warming happening?) - yes it's beyond doubt. Then a very important question ("can we save the world"?) - which is however so badly phrased as to be meaningless - what do you actually mean by "save the world"?"

'Is global warming happening' is a good first question, I agree with Joseph that every discussions about global warming should start with this.
As for 'Can we save the world?' I couldn't find this question. Were you referring to the first comment (which is mine) 'Which books/articles say that global warming is not real? More importantly, can we save the Earth?'? I'm an author and I always chose my words very carefully. And your concern was the very reason why I chose the word 'Earth' and not 'world'.

DrosoPHila, everyone of us is a teacher. If a member isn't well-informed about something, we can educate him/her, but please do away with ad hominem attacks. We debate the ideas, not the people: this will be more constructive.

I think I have been quite reserved in my comments given the nature of what was discussed. I do find dignified understatement a most effective method of discussion. A statement that someone's understanding of reality is apparently completely lacking is not an ad honinem attack.

So, while we're at it, my own personal history with you doesn't convince me that you understand science or philosophy particularly well either, and as for being "an author", it would be somewhat unbecoming to congratulate oneself too hard on being self-published author of a single pretentiously-titled book ( Genesis ) that explains your personal philosophical views - 18 times rated on Goodreads is hardly threatening the New York Times bestseller lists.

As an actual qualified and experienced teacher who actually teaches people rather than a keyboard warrior, it is clearly essential that students have motivation, affect and ability. An unable student can be helped to improve, though I doubt by very much.

But yes, if we are do have this discussion, what do you actually mean by your second question? What do you mean by "save the earth/world?" (the distinction is not really relevant in this case, but as "a published author" you should have realised this).

What books are there on environmentalist philosophy? Have you read any of these?

Your comment above is almost entirely ad hominem attacks, because I have -- politely -- stated a simple statement that I wrote 'Earth' and not 'world', but instead of admitting your misunderstanding, you attack me and my book Genesis, which is not relevant to the discussion. Is this lack of insight or simply someone being unable to be educated?

I'd like to humor you by responding to it :), even though I know the comment doesn't deserve any comeback.

First and foremost, please point out any statement I have written regarding my book and any of my statement about science in goodreads that you find faulted. Even though I haven't found any university professors that can disprove my theses, I always love knowing; and secondly if you can't find anything that qualifies your accusation of my work as 'a single pretentiously-titled book ( Genesis ) that explains your personal philosophical views', I can always sue you for defamation.

Your statements above that I think are faulted:

I think I have been quite reserved in my comments given the nature of what was discussed.
You may think anything, but almost all the time it is people other than you who determine whether your statements are ad hominem attacks or not.

I do find dignified understatement a most effective method of discussion.
You used the word 'most', this makes it very easy for me to say that what you find above is faulted.

A statement that someone's understanding of reality is apparently completely lacking is not an ad honinem attack.
As I have said, almost all the time it is people other than you who determine whether your statements are ad hominem attacks or not.

my own personal history with you doesn't convince me that you understand science or philosophy particularly well either
It is OK if you think so. Truthfully, we had a very short history and almost every single of that history was your being condemnatory of my work. By the way, have you read my work?

it would be somewhat unbecoming to congratulate oneself too hard
When did I ever congratulate myself? I apologize if it appeared so to you.

An unable student can be helped to improve, though I doubt by very much.
This statement is not relevant to anyone here.

What do you mean by "save the earth/world?" (the distinction is not really relevant in this case, but as "a published author" you should have realised this).
I think any English-speaking person can know the difference.

What books are there on environmentalist philosophy? Have you read any of these?
Was this another attack toward me :) ?

DrosoPHila: Let me know if I've addressed your concerns, preferably in my goodreads blog.

Joseph: What is your current understanding on the questions (the title of the discussion) which we know were once your questions :). I know the significance of an outbreak, but should we really immortalize the concept of 'the Age of Microorganisms'? Do you think diseases will wipe us more quickly than global warming?

Instead of replying, DrosoPHila gave a one-star rating to my book. What have I ever done to this man/woman?

I am a person rather than a "man/woman", but as "an author" who "thinks deeply about words", I assume you'd know that. What have you done? Well you've wasted my time, and you want to waste more of it.

The problem with declaring that you are the sole judge of ad hominem arguments against you is that if someone makes a point about your ability which you cannot rebut, you can start complaining about being offended by those arguments and hand-wave away the criticism. It's a great way of sidetracking discussions if you have n other way of dealing with things.

I think the question you should be asking yourself is why I (or anyone else for that matter) should spend their valuable time (and money) reading your book.

You seem to have no particular academic credentials, which means you haven't received respect from those in academia (though you could be). You don't otherwise seem to understand how science works, or how academia works. You refuse to listen when this has been pointed out to you.

Furthermore, your book has not published by a reputable publisher. It's not been peer-reviewed. It's (AFAICT) been reviewed by anyone of note.

Short of reading the book itself, we can however read the description of Genesis. It looks like a rambling about your own personal philosophy. I guess what goes on inside your head is important to you but that doesn't necessarily mean it's important to anyone else - nor does it mean that it should be important to anyone else.

By the looks of it Genesis includes such things as "Why scientists and philosophers of science are completely wrong about the nature of science, but I am right (despite being neither of the former)" - but the icing on the cake would probably be "my personal speculative thoughts about religion and various dead men who founded religions".

Given the lack of competence demonstrated, it's not even remotely possible that Genesis is a work of deep philosophical implications. It's transparent self-published sophistry of the worst kind. It ought to embarrass you. It embarrasses me to belong to the same species as you.

The one star review was slightly petty, yes. But look at it positively - now you have 19 Goodreads reviews - success on Goodreads seems oddly important to you - perhaps one day you might even catch up with The Hunger Games .

I'm out of this group - are simply not competent to even think about science let alone write about it.

Andreas wrote: "DrosoPHila: Let me know if I've addressed your concerns, preferably in my goodreads blog.

Joseph: What is your current understanding on the questions (the title of the discussion) which we know we..."

Andreas asked " ... should we really immortalize the concept of 'the Age of Microorganisms'?" and I want to answer in the context of our current conversation about the global warming issue.

Global warming is occurring quite slowly and we are all asking "How will it play out?" Some think it will have some cataclysmic result based on a exponential effect on glacial melt or tundra methane release. However I see it a slow death of a thousand cuts due to our and other species gradual disquieting in our local regional environment, such as the effect on the Maine marine economy being cause by joint warming and acidification. Life in Maine waters is being made inhospitable for top predators, American lobsters and Northern Shrimp. With the loss of top predators the shellfish population has responded over the short run by increased survival (seen as population growth) but are they healthy? The lobstermen are happy because they are trapping more lobster (all-time record numbers). But the population center is moving north. But what does that mean? In my view the shell disease that killed lobsters off south of Cape Cod is just moving north. What does that mean for regional Maine humans? Their huge monetary and energy investment in lobster boats and fishing gear will be a short term gain but end up a long-term loss. Will they move north to continue being lobstermen or change their careers and lifestyle in our one-crop (lobster) regional economy? The driving force will be global warming but the mode of action will be the micro-organisms that cause disease among the populations that are being displaced from the region.

If we even momentarily lose the fight against the multi-drug-resistant bacteria and particular strains such MRSA, human living conditions in outbreak areas can be made miserable. Once safe visits to hospitals for life saving emergencies may become more dangerous in themselves.

Perhaps the Age of Microorganisms may not be the only mode-of-action of global warming, but I want to raise it as one of the real dangers in how warming will play out. Clearly the frequency of deaths during heat-waves will also increase but the general encouragement of "microbial adventurism" by the gradual warming and encouragement of infections by our changing behavior during the "microbial adventurism" may far outstrip deaths by heatwaves.

It would be interesting for these associated human phenomena to be modeled by our governmental organizations such as NOAA in the USA. The European modelers seem to have a lead in the severe weather predicting models with our "Sandy" experience on the east coast of NA in fall 2013(?) being a good example. We clearly need a global model of disease progression that can focus down to local and regional predictions of vulnerability for both humans and other predictor "canaries in the coal mine".

DrosoPHila wrote: "I am a person rather than a "man/woman", but as "an author" who "thinks deeply about words", I assume you'd know that. What have you done? Well you've wasted my time, and you want to waste more of ..."

Shaking my head.
I just hope I taught him/her/the person a lesson before he/she/the person left.

Joseph wrote: "I want to answer in the context of our current conversation about the global warming issue. ..."

This's a very keen observation, Joseph. I need to do some research on these issues first.

Others, feel free to write down what you know, especially Alexander, please don't feel discouraged.

I second DrosoPHila's frustration. I wish, if for no other reason than tactics, that their comments didn't express their frustration so openly... But I completely understand it. Probably more than a few of my comments could be 'nicer', too.

But it is very difficult not to eventually lose patience when opinion, raw conjecture, and amature philosophizing are given equal -or greater- weight than scientific knowledge and thinking, especially in a group named "Science and Natural History." We are all teachers, but sometimes disruptive students need to be told to sit the f@%k down :)

In any case, I think this group is now more a distraction for me rather than a source of interesting books and/or engaging discussion, so I too am voting with my feet and withdrawing.

Daniel wrote: "I second DrosoPHila's frustration. I , if for no other reason than tactics, that their comments didn't express their frustration so openly... But I completely understand it. Probably more than ..."
This is not the first time someone named DrosoPHila disrupt a discussion. He wasn't frustated, because I think this was the first time he posted a comment in our group. I knew him from some science group. He is a harsh fellow. So you don't second his "frustation", Daniel, you don't know him, I think you mean: you feel the same way.

Daniel, when I first met DrosoPHila, I kind of angered him by stating something like I solve a problem in physics. I asked that person to see or disprove my mathematical formula or something, I don't quite remember. He refused by making some kind of excuses. I believe he wasn't that educated.

But it is very difficult not to eventually lose patience when opinion, raw conjecture, and amature philosophizing are given equal -or greater- weight than scientific knowledge and thinking, especially in a group named "Science and Natural History." We are all teachers, but sometimes disruptive students need to be told to sit the f@%k down :)
Were you referring to our discussion about infinity :)? Heaven's sake, Daniel, that is ONE discussion that almost thoroughly disagreed with you, and where the hell did you get off calling it opinion, raw conjencture, etc above? *frowningface.

Sorry for my last statement.
My friends, we are not paid doing any of these. If there is a way we can benefit from this it is through understanding what is. Many of our members including me are very strict scientists. New ideas? Sure. New data? Sure. Name calling and accusations? Can be destructive. Made-up things? Not now (perhaps later).

Joseph, thank you for your input.
re: the Sandy link you mentioned. It didn't work for me.
Can you tell me where to find the information you mentioned on the severe weather predicting models?

Jaye wrote: "Joseph, thank you for your input.
re: the Sandy link you mentioned. It didn't work for me.
Can you tell me where to find the information you mentioned on the severe weather predicting models?"

Jaye, the book on the storm is better reached with this URL http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/survi...

The idea that the European Models were better than the American NOAA models was experienced live by us on the USA east coast as all of the models were predicting that Sandy would turn east out to sea, ... all but the European Model which early on several days earlier was predicting that Sandy would hook west and hit the East Coast in the Mid-Atlantic States and eventually predicted New Jersey. ... and the European Model was correct.

The reason that the European Model was said to have done the job correctly is because it is a true World Weather Model while the then NOAA model was based mainly on Western Hemisphere data. So the better model included a wider collection and analysis of data suggesting it takes a worlds data to predict the weather. The following URL leads to other links that might be of additional interest:
http://www.popsci.com/why-are-america...

can there be more courteousy in this group? there are kids in this group who may not want to be lead into wrong ways of debating. Most of what is being exchanged is happening on a personal level.
I believe: First, Science is not learned or communicated to earn respect. We pursue it to gain more insights into the laws of the Universe. If someone doesn't know something it's just because the right facts haven't reached him. It's not the other way, where a person MUST know something.
My opinions about global warming is that it is indeed happening from some very convincing facts I came across through books: With Speed and Violence by Fred Pearce and the above mentioned book Sixth Extinction.

My base is how we can reason backwards: Climate change is happening because of change in local weather patterns across different regions. Mainly because in many cases the usual patterns of various cloud, wind and water current flows are destabilized. This is again because temperature rise in many places are interfering with the thermal potentials that enable these currents to flow in the first place.

This rationale is what let's me believe in Global Warming.

Very, very well put, Vish. A person once said: if someone fails to learn, it is the teacher's failure. You're very wise.

In the past, has the Earth ever gone through some periods of global warming? Did it survive them?

Andreas wrote: This's a very keen observation, Joseph. I need to do some research on these issues f..."

Andreas, as if they read my indictment the feds say that we are being made sick by global warming, URL:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/50671f...

Vish wrote: "can there be more courteousy in this group? there are kids in this group who may not want to be lead into wrong ways of debating. Most of what is being exchanged is happening on a personal level.
I..."

I just rejoined this group because I think it is important to make a couple of things clear.

1.) I agree that discourse should be kept courteous, in general. I try, though I suspect I fail, sometimes without even noticing.

2.) But... That said, *rational* discussion can be derailed by any number of issues. I have been fairly active over the last several months and I have tried to ignore this, but have grown increasingly frustrated. This began boiling over in last month's post about infinity. Andreas, who is in fact a moderator for this group and considers himself a scientist and philosopher of some importance and wisdom, makes statements re: math, physics, the existence or non-existence of the universe and/or it's dependence on consciousness... and I lost my patience. Is this a group to discuss "Science and Natural History" or to discuss "philosophy" al a Deepak Chopra?

3.) Here, let me help you do my work for me. In the same vein, rational, respectful, informative conversations and debates are difficult to carry out when one person takes the "shotgun approach": Throw out as much verbiage, some of it misused, and let the other person attempt to sort out the sense from the nonsense. (Again, the infinity discussion is a prime example of this.) This is off-loading the difficult work of thinking onto other people... and all the better if you can then blame them for misunderstanding you.

4.) A club... or a club? I agree, Vish, that science is not learned to be used to club other people into submission, to force respect, etc. This should be a congenial, collegial space... a club, so to speak. That said, there is a flip side. If you have studied something at the university level, have discussed it with professors, graduate students, and post-docs, and have even been lucky enough to sit in on discussions between some of those professors and Nobel prize winners, you have a level of knowledge of that subject that the vast majority of people do not have. When you then find yourself in discussion with other people who have not had the same study, the same training, and they insist on their special, unique, privileged insight based on... ... ? it is incredibly frustrating. This is made worse if that person spends screen space saying how important it is to learn, etc. when it is clear to you that they have no interest in doing the hard, long, boring, ugly, hair-pulling-out, tedious work of really learning what it is they want to talk about.

5.) Ultimately, its all about expectations. I wish I would find a group on Goodreads where I heard detailed discussions about scientific topics, *both* at a pop-level and a hard, investigative level, with debate carried out in a slow/citation laden kind of way. (I joked, sort of, during an earlier thread that we would have to have a "Year of Neuroscience" before we could even *start* to talk about it.... that is, kind of, what I'm looking for; but I realize most people are not going to sign up to read a dozen 300-1200 page books and several dozen journal articles in order to start talking about something... in a year! :>)

6.) Who's burden? This gets into a whole can of worms... I feel a bit guilty leaving, because I do feel like I have some kind of... I dunno... civic duty, I guess, to try to spread knowledge. (And I'd love to LEARN; there are a number of, it seems, biologists, ecologists, maybe some people with physiological expertise: all areas I know next to nothing about.) But every time I hear some psuedo-philosophical about consciousness being the universe I have a visceral reaction. When the moderator tells me (in direct message) that he thinks his ideas re: math and infinity are on par with e.g. Stephen Hawking... I'm left speechless. And, again, I didn't come to debate so much as to discuss and learn, aka, "I didn't sign up for this."

7.) Axes to grind. Andreas seems like a great guy. But he has a axe to grind (to use the American colloquialism) re: his personal philosophy/world-view/theory. You may have been messaged about his book where he reveals the answers to life, the universe and everything. Fine, whatever. Everybody gets to make their own way through the world. But these... "theories", and the attitude that "he has the answers to.... everything!!!!" (at least according to the description of the book) really comes through in my exchanges with him. I feel like I'm stuck, unhappily, in a debate from a few years ago with a firm believer in Intelligent Design: around and around we go, and no one is any wiser, no on has changed their opinion, and the gorilla in the room is that we have just *fundamentally* different world views -also something I told Andreas, in a direct message, when trying to disengage from the Infinity discussion. (And that's my axe to grind: I'm a firm, inveterate even, materialist.)

Okay, so now I've explained myself in a lengthy manifesto, and I will exit the group again, to leave you all to it. Perhaps it really is me :) In any case, happy to respond to anyone who sends me a message, Andreas that includes you if you want to resume our infinity discussion (after April 16, still haven't taken the PGRE.)

I just read this. I tried to manage my time; some authors had sent me their books in exchange for an honest review so I had to examine them.

Joseph, I'm really confused about this global warming thing. I'd like to send you my paper; I think it can help the global warming thing. Please tell me your email in a private message.

Daniel, has the PGRE finished? I hope it went perfectly.