A long-running boffinry brouhaha regarding the disappearance of a rare golden toad has taken a new turn, with the latest team of scientists insisting that in fact human-driven climate change was not responsible for the creatures' demise. Tree sampling in the Monteverde cloud forest. Credit: Jorge Porras Toad-murder detectives …
It may well be that the forest climate has been degrading over 40 or so years. Personally I'm a believer that industrial inefficiencies and other human factors such as habitat destruction are contributing to climate change.
However. A one year dry spell does not count as "climate change" especially when it's clearly attributable to a strong Southern Oscillation.
Seriously, not everything is attributable to bloody Climate Change. Stop crying wolf, show some good science, and the message gets stronger instead of being diluted to homeopathic proportions!
No, No, No.
Wasn't the environmental catastrophe of the 80s asbestos or CFCs or Acid Rain or leaded petrol or something?
Carbon _DIOXIDE_ (don't forget the dioxide!) was barely thought of back then (at least in the wider public consciousness), so it wasn't in the papers, so it couldn't have been an issue.
Too many humans
Global warming? pft...Too many people. Finite space and resources being eaten up by endlessly multiplying people. Habitat loss. Don't send aid ever, send condoms. The meek shall inherit the earth, or what is left. More creatures in danger, cause greedy humans. Extinctions happen regularly, no one cares. People detached from nature. Prognosis for future..not good. GM crops, not feed poor, feed greedy mercans bank accounts. Create monocultures. Hide little toad, hide.
Mordin? Is that you?
Read that back in your head in the voice of Mordin Solus (Mass Effect 2).
What's all this then?
"warming alarmists", "warmist tendency", "warmist researchers"...
Your articles on climate change used to be more balanced than this. Have you been hanging out with Andrew Orlowski of late, or is this evidence of a hardening of El Reg's editorial stance?
Re: What's all this then?
On the whole the reg is both entertaining and reasonably balanced, if you take their humor into account. However their environmental reporting is atrocious, I generally avoid it, however the title of this article piqued my interest.
So we did kill them.
The *introduced* fungus killed them. Regardless of whether climate change caused them to gather, the INTRODUCED fungus killed them!
Get that?! They died because we messed with their ecosystem however you want to cut, dice or spin it.
And also, if their ecosystem was not a tiny island due to human encroachment and clearance of their habitat then neither the fungus nor climate change might have been a worry. As it is, one or other, or both was permanently fatal.
To suggest humanity played no role in the demise of this creature is like saying humanity cannot change climate! We managed to increase UV radiation by eating a hole in the ozone layer. Then we managed to stop further development of that problem, so that is two examples in one of humans altering the conditions under which life evolved and flourished. If you alter a LOCAL system, quid pro quo, as that system is part of the global system, you are altering the global system. Just as a GMC car having no power steering means whilst it is still a car, it does not function the same as it did....
Fungi propagate through spores.
Or do you believe every island independently evolved its own, entirely unique, species of trees, grass, fungi, toads, etc.?
Pollen and spores float in the air. That's why many people suffer from hay-fever. (Including me.) They're spread hither and yon by the winds.
Whether humanity was involved in introducing the fungi or not is therefore irrelevant: *any* species which has such a fragile grip on existence is most likely doomed in the long run. Whether that fungus was introduced by man, or by a passing breeze, the result would have been the same.
We can't protect 'em all. Nor should we. Natural selection has the word "natural" in it for a reason.
No shit Sherlock!
".....climate change will no doubt play a role in future extinctions,”
A safe bet that as it's played a massive role in a large number of the previous ones. Most of these rather inconveniently occurred before there were any people around to blame for it though.
waste of carbon
the whole study, all of the debate.. anybody care to hazard the footprint this argument has created?
and these people are being paid to continue the debacle.
poor bloody frogs yes..
we did it however indirectly.. it's not like we're not in the anthropocean(?) era or anything..
"Balance" is only a requirement where there are multiple opposing views of broadly equal value and merit.
The recent Climategate (and other) scandals have effectively undermined the panic-mongers' key points. "Man-Made Climate Change" is being pimped by vested interests in exactly the same way malware's potential damage is often hyped to the skies by anti-malware companies. And only the latter have any evidence that could be described—if you squint a little—as "compelling".
The Earth is in exactly zero danger from Homo Sapiens. *We* might be some *slight* danger, but we're an adaptable species; we've survived ice ages and more.
And the ecosystem has been looking after itself just fine for millions of years. Extinctions have happened before—even mass extinctions—and new species evolve to fill any new niches.
(Note: "Natural Climate Change" also exists. Feel free to explain how we're supposed to stop it. And why we should even do so.)
@ Sean Timarco Baggaley
I objected to the use of the term "warmist", which was absent from Lewis' previous essays that touch on climate change. For the avoidance of doubt, I also object to terms like "denier", which are frequently used elsewere. Neither adds value to the literature.
And you are at it yourself, talking about "panic-mongers".
As for the detail of your arguments, please see http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php, especially paragraphs 55 and 62.
@ Sean Timarco Baggaley
Furthermore, we expect to get the alternate, non-mainstream viewpoint from The Reg. If you don't wanna see the other side of the coin, go read BBC etc. with the rest of the sheeple.
_Those_ renowned golden toads.
El Nino has been part of the Earth's climate pattern for thousands of years, I suppose. And the golden toads were with us all that time, and now they're gone. If the effect of an El Nino cycle is particularly severe, is that random, or is it anthropogenic?
Ask the Mayans. They were heavily into water management and storage to protect themselves from El Nino effects.
Oh dear, we can't. An extraordinarily extended cycle did for them in the ninth century. That'll be before industrialisation and any alleged Anthropogenic climate effects.
If El Nino took out the Mayans, how did the toads survive?
- Vid Hubble 'scope scans 200,000-ton chunky crumble conundrum
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Google offers up its own Googlers in cloud channel chumship trawl
- Interview Global Warming IS REAL, argues sceptic mathematician - it just isn't THERMAGEDDON
- Apple to grieving sons: NO, you cannot have access to your dead mum's iPad