One of the saddest encounters I had with a frog…

Sir David Attenborough makes an eloquent plea for the survival of rainforests on behalf of the Prince of Wales’ Rainforest Project, courtesy of the Telegraph. He’s a great communicator, and it’s an important subject. No gorillas involved.

34 thoughts on “One of the saddest encounters I had with a frog…”

  1. If you would put as much effort into lobbying for birth control in the third world as you do into greenhouses gases you would really be doing something worthwhile.

  2. Rainforests are one of the Earths greatest biological treasures. They represent a store of living and breathing renewable natural resources Rainforests are being destroyed because the value of rainforest land is perceived as only the value of its timber by short-sighted governments, multi-national logging companies, and land owners. As Sir David Attenborough says ” we have to be aware that the rainforest isnt ours to squander”.

    We need rainforests in order to keen the natural balance of our Earths existence and therefore keep this planet inhabitable. For example, The Amazon Rainforest has been described as the “Lungs of our Planet” because it provides the essential environmental world service of continuously recycling carbon dioxide into oxygen. More than 20 percent of the world oxygen is produced in the Amazon Rainforest.

    I am shocked that people can put an issues such as this one at the bottom of ‘important’ issues. Do they realise that at the rapid rate we are destorying our world, ice caps are melting, sea levels are rising, rainforests are being destroyed! Future generations have nothing to look forward to. Humans are a selfish species, ruining the future for others because it ‘suits’ us.

    In response to what Roger Dewhurst said putting more effort into birth control rather hen greenhouse gases-
    Have you ever stopped to realise that their is not much point fixing problems like that in the world when soon their wont even be a world to live in?
    The life expectancy of Plant Earth itself is getting shorter. I think keeping our planet alive is more important then any other social issue in the world. Without it, we are all doomed. Just like the panamanian golden frog, we might aswell wave goodbye if we continue the way we are.

    1. 3.

      The destruction of the environment is due principally the increase in the world population. This increased population is going to make ever increasing demands on resources. The political pressure to improve ‘the standard of living’ will be irresistable. Reduction in the rates of human reproduction is the cheapest and most politically feasible approach to the problem. I hate to see the natural word being concreted over by the day. But this will continue without respite as long as populations increase. Carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases are simply a sideshow distracting us from what really needs to be done. An increase in carbon dioxide will not destroy the earth. An increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will increase the growth of plants and will provide more food. If that increase in the food supply simply means more people reach reproductive age in the third world we will not be making any progress. If however an increased food supply leads, in a roundabout way, to better education and a lower birthrate we might be on the right track.

      The world has reached this stage in its life span with less carbon dioxide in that atmosphere than has been for many millions of years. Throughout the history of life on this planet the original store of carbon has been progressively locked up in limestones, marl, coal, lignite, peat, oil and gas. The quantities of carbon in the carbonate rocks is beyond measurement and belief. All has come from the atmosphere. We can afford to release a tiny part of it back to the atmosphere. The more trees and photosynthetic life forms we have on this planet the faster that carbon will be removed from the atmosphere. That should be our first priority, maintaining and increasing the photosynthetic biota at the expense of the human biota. You are obsessed with carbon dioxide at the expense of other far more important matters in relation to the environment.

      1. An increase in carbon dioxide will not destroy the earth.

        This is true. But what about the diversity of life in the biosphere? What about the source of food for 7 billion human inhabitants? I worry more about those than the chunk of hot rock beneath.

        An increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will increase the growth of plants and will provide more food.

        Ah, no. Peter Sinclair has an episode on Crock of the Week about this. And of course you can read more about it in IPCC reports (I link to the AR3/TAR because it is deeply linkable).

        Saying that higher COâ‚‚ will lead to more food production ignores the effects of droughts, for instance. It is in no way correct or relevant to speculate about increased worldwide food production because of increased COâ‚‚ levels. I’m afraid you’ve bought another denialist talking point.

        The quantities of carbon in the carbonate rocks is beyond measurement and belief. All has come from the atmosphere. We can afford to release a tiny part of it back to the atmosphere. The more trees and photosynthetic life forms we have on this planet the faster that carbon will be removed from the atmosphere.

        The report I linked also contains detailed accounts of the carbon “economy” of the environment; and unfortunately the uptake on land is far, far too small to do that (without artificial assistance such as widespread afforestation).

  4. I personally do not think that increasing birth control in third world countries is the best answer to climate change problems. However simply reducing the destruction of rainforests, the amount of oil being consumed, and other human inflicted pain on the earth will! A change in lifestyle is what people need. Who will be the one to change you might ask? Who wants to stop driving their car to work everyday? Thats when things like money comes into it. If it wasn’t so expensive to buy solar powered cars, or even to get a bus down the road rather then drive, more people would find alternative and environmentally friendly ways of transport.

    While i see that lesser population would help slightly, this also raises issues of religion and the beliefs of ones right to life. Hundreds of years ago, humans managed to live on the earth without cars, skyscrapers, fertilizers and other man made things that are destroying the environment and our animals. We caused this mess and we have to fix it. Destroying our earths rain forests is definitely digging us into a bigger hole.

  5. >This is true. But what about the diversity of life in the biosphere?

    I am very much concerned about the diversity of life in the biosphere.

    >What about the source of food for 7 billion human inhabitants?

    I am not so much concerned about 7 billion bipedal anthropoids. The world would be better off with fewer of them.

    >Ah, no. Peter Sinclair has an episode on Crock of the Week about this. And of course you can read more about it in IPCC reports (I link to the AR3/TAR because it is deeply linkable).

    I do not propose to waster my time with self evident rubbish. If CO2 does not increase plant growth greenhouse operators would not waste money pumping it into greenhouses. That is real evidence. What a bunch of nondesripts drivel to each other to boost their funding is something else.

    >Saying that higher COâ‚‚ will lead to more food production ignores the effects of droughts, for instance.

    Droughts do not occur everywhere and all the time. Reduce the vegetation and the rainfall decreases as happened on Mt Kilimanjiro. Increase the vegetation and it is fair to assume that the rainfall will increase.

    1. “If CO2 does not increase plant growth greenhouse operators would not waste money pumping it into greenhouses.”

      Roger, you do know that the atmosphere doesn’t really act like a greenhouse, right? The name “greenhouse effect” is a misnomer from the early days of the theory, when it was thought that the atmosphere was like a greenhouse.

      Nowadays, thanks to that thing called science, and those people who are called scientists, we know that the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere works in a rather different way. So what relevance do you think horticulture in a greenhouse has to atmospheric physics?

      “What a bunch of nondesripts drivel to each other to boost their funding is something else.”

      So all science is bunk, is that it? Because all scientists get paid for what they do, and have to get funding from somewhere.

      Besides, you get paid for what you do (or did) – does that mean that everything you say is bunk? Well, you may have a point there.

    2. I do not propose to waster my time with self evident rubbish. If CO2 does not increase plant growth greenhouse operators would not waste money pumping it into greenhouses. That is real evidence.

      Of course, it works in greenhouses, but the natural world is not really the same as an artificially closed system, is it.

      Did you read the stuff in the IPCC report about how increased COâ‚‚ doesn’t affect plants with Câ‚„ metabolism?

      Guess you’re finding other things to “waster” your time on.

  6. .While i see that lesser population would help slightly, this also raises issues of religion and the beliefs of ones right to life.

    I have little sympathy for beliefs such as those.

    >Hundreds of years ago, humans managed to live on the earth without cars, skyscrapers, fertilizers and other man made things that are destroying the environment and our animals.

    Only for want of the ability to construct them at the time.

    >We caused this mess and we have to fix it.

    You are dreaming if you thing the problems can be fixed with a steadily increasing population. Are you smoking pot or something?

    >Destroying our earths rain forests is definitely digging us into a bigger hole.

    Yes. So let us look for some realistic solutions not psychotic dreams.

    I am very much interested in the environment having lived and worked, for most of my life, pretty damn close to it, probably closer than most of you.

    I usually describe myself as a geologist but I competed a full degree in Botany with an “A” pass in stage 3 and have four years experience in tropical horticulture under my belt as well. Thus you can assume that botanical bullshit will not wash with me.

  7. Hmm what about Liebig’s Law of the Minimum basic ecological/argicultural/ forestry science.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig%27s_law_of_the_minimum

    The reason that pumping CO2 into greenhouses works is that the market gardener is also pumping in NKP, heat, water and sometimes extra sunlight.

    Out in the real world this can’t be done so increasing CO2 only works as long as it is the limiting factor (not often). Most commonly this will be water or N, but P is also a common limiting nutrient.

    I am surprised that you didn’t remember this from Bortany Liebig came up with this in the 19th C.

        1. Hell I have never gone up in a rocket but I understand the application of Newtonian physics as how to determine transition orbits.

          But in any case yes I have some personal experience. As a forestry student I loaded nitrogen fertiliser on to topdressing planes in a forest in the central North Island. The forestry company spent significant amounts of money to correct an identified nitrogen deficiency with the aim to boost growth and shorten crop rotation.

          Other than that I have just read lots of literature on different field trials and undertaken practical lab work to develop skills on on how identify growth limiting factors in forests and the least cost methods for remedying these.

          Don’t tell me you don’t trust the value of field trials?

  8. >Roger, you do know that the atmosphere doesn’t really act like a greenhouse, right? The name “greenhouse effect” is a misnomer from the early days of the theory, when it was thought that the atmosphere was like a greenhouse.

    I have a feeling that your brain, if it is fair to describe it thus, is a much a bunch of tangled spaghetti through which Mann wishes to draw a trend line.

    >Because all scientists get paid for what they do, and have to get funding from somewhere.

    Bingo! The next step is to figure that they do not get the funds unless they tell the funders what they want to hear. That is the real world. You have not met it yet, very obviously.

    1. So every single piece of scientific knowledge that has been gained by paid scientists is completely useless?

      It’s a strange, strange world that you inhabit, Roger, but it is not the real world.

      1. “So every single piece of scientific knowledge that has been gained by paid scientists is completely useless?”

        No. For most science the funders are neutral. In the case of AGW the jobs of many are entirely dependent on the continuance of the scam.

            1. Here’s a corker from that article:

              Both ignore the fact their theory would result in less severe weather. It claims polar air will warm more than tropical air, which would reduce temperature contrast, thus reducing the potential for severe weather.

              Follow the logic there? Yep, polar air will warm more than tropical air. Therefore the range of temperatures on the world will be more constrained. Therefore the potential for severe weather is reduced. Therefore the IPCC is wrong. Quad Erat Demonstrandum

              Nice “evidence”.

              (the biggest mistake in the chain of logic is assuming that storms arise from differences in temperature across longitudes. However AIUI storm intensity is largely a function of surface sea temperature. Therefore a warmer system implies greater intensities of storms)

  9. “I have a feeling that your brain, if it is fair to describe it thus, is a much a bunch of tangled spaghetti through which Mann wishes to draw a trend line.”

    Haha yes, I actually think CTG is the worst climate idiot on this site. There is a lot of tough competition but after months of observation I’m willing to call it.

    1. Yes, well given that you don’t have a credible theory, I guess insults are all you have left.

      You two have pretty much summed up the entire denialist campaign – motivated by hate and bile, devoid of science, no positive contribution to make to the world. Why don’t you just shut up and go away?

    2. R2, I implore you not to push for a vote on the subject of worst climate idiot on this site. There are many readers out there would be severely disappointed to see you lose to someone like Roger.

  10. “The United Nations is pulling out the “big guns” in an attempt to create a climate of urgency about climate change so that the meeting of over one hundred world leaders in Copenhagen some 75 days from now can produce an agreement to replace the failed Kyoto accord. Nature, however, is not co-operating. Average global temperature is rising at 1.40C per century, not the 3.90C indicated by the IPPC models. We are in the seventh year of global cooling. Sea levels, despite messages to the contrary, are rising at normal rates – eight inches per century – much less than the IPPC models suggested. Global sea ice shows relative stability over the last thirty years.
    –Stephen Murgatroyd, Troy Media Corporation, 24 September 2009”

    1. Yeah – the “Nth year of global cooling” canard, incorrect assertions that global warming has failed to match predictions – naturally over some vague and unspecified timescale – incorrect information about sea ice showing “stability”. Hallmarks of a reliable source.

      Fits your preconceptions – check. Must be reliable.

Leave a Reply