http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science...ss.extinction/


Scientists agree world faces mass extinction
August 23, 2002 Posted: 11:43 AM EDT (1543 GMT)


Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in the Sonoran Desert of Arizona,
pictured here, has never been grazed and remains in pristine
condition.








By Gary Strieker
CNN
(CNN) -- The complex web of life on Earth, what scientists call
"biodiversity," is in serious trouble.
"Biodiversity includes all living things that we depend on for our
economies and our lives," explained Brooks Yeager, vice president of
global programs at the World Wildlife Fund in Washington, D.C.
"It's the forests, the oceans, the coral reefs, the marine fish, the
algae, the insects that make up the living world around us and which
we couldn't do without," he said.
Nearly 2 million species of plants and animals are known to science
and experts say 50 times as many may not yet be discovered.

IN-DEPTH
Global balance: Johannesburg Summit 2002




Time.com: How to preserve the planet and make this a Green Century






Yet most scientists agree that human activity is causing rapid
deterioration in biodiversity. Expanding human settlements, logging,
mining, agriculture and pollution are destroying ecosystems, upsetting
nature's balance and driving many species to extinction.
There is virtual unanimity among scientists that we have entered a
period of mass extinction not seen since the age of the dinosaurs, an
emerging global crisis that could have disastrous effects on our
future food supplies, our search for new medicines, and on the water
we drink and the air we breathe. Estimates vary, but extinction is
figured by experts to be taking place between 100 to 1,000 times
higher than natural "background" extinction.
At the first Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro 10 years ago, world
leaders signed a treaty to confront this crisis. But its results have
been disappointing. According to Yeager, "It hasn't been a direct kind
of impact that some of us had hoped for."
One hundred eighty-two nations are now parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity. The United States is the only industrial country
that has failed to ratify it. But there is wide agreement that the
treaty has had virtually no impact on continuing mass extinction.
The treaty is more like a political statement than a plan of action,
setting very broad goals instead of real targets, and leaving it to
national governments to decide how to reach them.
Many developing countries in tropical areas, where the most species of
plant and animal can be found, wanted nothing in the treaty that could
limit their freedom to exploit natural resources.
So the treaty was framed as a political compromise to balance three
principles: conservation, sustainable development and fair sharing of
the benefits of biodiversity.
In the process, critics say, the operation of the treaty has lost its
focus. It's been distracted from science and conservation by other
issues, such as "biopiracy" - determining who profits from genetic
resources -- and "biosafety" -- controlling trade in genetically
modified organisms, such as seeds, with built-in pesticides. Many
pressure groups have forced governments to address the issues of
"biopiracy" and "biosafety."
Debbie Barker, co-director of the California-based International Forum
on Globalization, says, "You cannot really separate preservation and
sustainability and conservation and biodiversity without addressing,
for example, important new technologies like genetic engineering or
genetic modification."
That may be true, but many scientists and conservationists say almost
all the work at the treaty's conferences has been focused on these
hot-button issues, including "biopiracy" and "biosafety", during the
past decade. The result, they say, has been a lost opportunity to
address the real crisis.
The member nations still stand by the treaty, but at a conference
earlier this year at The Hague they issued a statement admitting
humans are still destroying biodiversity at an unprecedented rate.

(alt.global-warming removed from address list.)

What does this posting have to do with global warming? The
article doesn't even discuss possible links between anthropogenic
global warming and extinctions.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Roger Coppock wrote in message ...
(alt.global-warming removed from address list.)

What does this posting have to do with global warming? The
article doesn't even discuss possible links between anthropogenic
global warming and extinctions.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Global Warming is one of the threats to Endangered Species.

Deforestation is a threat to Endangered Species.

Deforestation is a contributor to Climate Change Injury on a much more
accelorated basis than Green House Gases.

People who keep forgetting the connectedness between forestry
depletion, consequent droughts, subsequent stress on habitat, related
injury to ecosystem webs, need to be reminded from time to time that
abstract instrumentation measures of gases and spot temperatures are
less important than actively defending ones life-support systems.

"Global Warming" has become a code word like "ecology" is a codeword.
Ecology technically means "study of [a] biotic habitat system[s]", but
is used interchangably to describe dynamic habitats as in "Oil Spills
Harm the Ecology". A large majority of readers understands that oil
spills do not harm the STUDY of habitats -- they harm the actual
habitat. Whenever the majority makes a decision on word/term usage it
is foolish to oppose the trend.

By the same token, "Global Warming" has come to mean "Climate Change
Injury". Those whom have professional interests in purity of the term
can exercise no power or control over the majority usage. People don't
much care if the world gets a few degrees hotter UNLESS that will
cause INJURY to their interests. So people say "Global Warming" when
they mean the DIRE EFFECTS of global warming.

Those who understand the science of global warming greenhouse gases
are out of touch with the biology people affected by habitat
destruction, deforestation, and the subsequent pain inflicted on
animals and 80 MILLION HUMAN BEINGS CURRENTLY SUFFERING EMERGENCY FOOD
SHORTAGES largely due to adverse and severe weather. This is not an
abstract debate: this is a genuine struggle for power -- those who
benefit from the status quo propagandizing against those who intend to
change the destructive behaviors. With estimated 12,000,000 sociopaths
(pathological anti-social behavior disease) in the USA, there are no
doubt some whom have been elected to high office, and some who hold
prestigeous science positions of status.

There are so many sociopaths that more than a few have computers and
exercise their diseased logic on usenet newsgroups.

Fixing the "ecology" and fixing "global warming" is not a unanimous
consent process: there will be sociopaths opposing and complaining and
disinforming and sowing confusion. It merely takes resolve, courage,
fortitude, intelligence, and wide education to defeat the sociopaths,
and that is what you are seeing. They are a powerful but tiny
minority.

_Lion_Kuntz_
http:/LionKuntz.com

What does this posting have to do with global warming? The
article doesn't even discuss possible links between anthropogenic
global warming and extinctions.


The anthropogenic "Inefficient" industrial component is one aspect of
the problem of the current menatlity of scientism and the
technological imperative, where progress can be seen as a reduction in
jobs as long as a more industrial or technological efficiency
occurs....even at the expense of the human condition including its
life support systems which include bio-diversity.

Bio-diversity is responsible for the "lack" of plagues and swarming
bacteria such as malaria.

On 23 Nov 2002 10:31:38 -0800, (Lion
Kuntz) wrote:

Roger Coppock wrote in message ...
(alt.global-warming removed from address list.)

What does this posting have to do with global warming? The
article doesn't even discuss possible links between anthropogenic
global warming and extinctions.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Global Warming is one of the threats to Endangered Species.

Deforestation is a threat to Endangered Species.

Asteroid impacts are a threat to endangered species; do you plan to
cross-post this to sci.astronomy?

BTW, out of curiosity...why do you capitalize the phrase, "endangered
species"?

Doug