Are Scientists Bad For the Environment?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟11,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Scientists Find Oldest Living Animal, Then Kill It - Evolution | Human | Theory | Man | Paleontology - FOXNews.com

Scientists Find Oldest Living Animal, Then Kill It

British marine biologists have found what may be the oldest living animal — that is, until they killed it.

The team from Bangor University in Wales was dredging the waters north of Iceland as part of routine research when the unfortunate specimen, belonging to the clam species Arctica islandica, commonly known as the ocean quahog, was hauled up from waters 250 feet deep.

Only after researchers cut through its shell, which made it more of an ex-clam, and counted its growth rings did they realize how old it had been — between 405 and 410 years old.
 

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
45
Dallas, Texas
✟22,030.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single

The titles are hilarious. It's like reading a tabloid.

At any rate, I would say that scientists are no more dangerous to the environment than any other human and probably even less so as scientists usually understand that humans don't hold a privileged or special place in the hierarchy of life, unlike some religious people who think we have the right to use nature any way we want because it was made for us. Just to name a worse killer of the environment, the fishing industry kills thousands of marine organisms with every catch as collateral damage and rarely do people blink an eye at that.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟11,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
The evidence is piling up that scientists are bad for the environment.

Scientists Use Google Earth to Destroy Last Untouched Forest

ScienceDaily (Feb. 1, 2009) — Space may be the final frontier, but scientists who recently discovered a hidden forest in Mozambique show the uncharted can still be under our noses. BirdLife were part of a team of scientists who used Google Earth to identify a remote patch of pristine forest. An expedition to the site discovered new species of butterfly and snake, along with seven Globally Threatened birds.

The team were browsing Google Earth – freely available software providing global satellite photography – to search for potential wildlife hotspots. A nearby road provided the first glimpses of a wooded mountain topped by bare rock. However, only by using Google Earth could the scientists observe the extent of woodland on the other side of the peak. This was later discovered to be the locally known, but unmapped, Mount Mabu. Scientific collections and literature also failed to shed light on the area.

“This is potentially the biggest area of medium-altitude forest I’m aware of in southern Africa, yet it was not on the map”, related Jonathan Timberlake from the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (RBG Kew), who led the expedition. “Most Mozambicans would not even have recognised the name Mount Mabu.”

Following scoping trips, a team of 28 experts from the UK, Mozambique, Malawi, Tanzania, Belgium, Ireland, and Switzerland ventured into it last autumn. They included scientists from BirdLife. The group was able to stay in an abandoned tea estate where the road ended, but had to hike the last few kilometres into the forest to set up camp. They had to contend with steep terrain and dense vegetation.

Inside, they found a wealth of wildlife, including three new species of butterfly and an undiscovered species of adder. The scientists believe there are at least two novel species of plant and perhaps more new insects to identify. They took home over 500 samples. “The phenomenal diversity is just mind-boggling”, exclaimed Jonathan Timberlake. Despite civil war from 1975 to 1992 ravaging parts of Mozambique, the landscape was found virtually untouched.
Not anymore.
 
Upvote 0

Dannager

Back in Town
May 5, 2005
9,025
475
38
✟11,819.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Democrat
Taking a few hundred samples of wildlife from an entire forest is not the same as destroying it. Killing one old clam is not the same as harming the environment. The reality is that many of these discoveries will actually lead to advancements that will help sustain the environment.

Scientists are what scientists are. Some of them are bad for the environment, some of them are great for the environment. Kind of like all humans.

Unfortunately, this doesn't allow you to vilify the entire scientific community. It's pretty clear that you hate and wish to discredit both science and scientists, but that's not going to succeed here.
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟11,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
It's pretty clear that you hate and wish to discredit both science and scientists, but that's not going to succeed here.
For the record, I don't hate science and scientists.

The Global Warming Cult hates science and scientists.

The Global Warming Cult makes death threats against scientists: Scientists threatened for 'climate denial' - Telegraph

Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.

They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.
One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.
 
Upvote 0

laconicstudent

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2009
11,671
720
✟16,224.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟11,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟11,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Another example of how scientists are bad for the environment is that they want to kill all the plants on Earth by taking away the 00.038% of the Earth's atmosphere that is CO2.

Carbon Dioxide: They Call it Pollution? We Call it Life!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq_Bj-av3g0
 
Upvote 0

Exial

Active Member
Dec 7, 2009
312
16
United Kingdom
✟555.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Another example of how scientists are bad for the environment is that they want to kill all the plants on Earth by taking away the 00.038% of the Earth's atmosphere that is CO2.

This is also false, scientists do not want to remove all CO2 from our atmosphere but rather limit the rate that the human race releases this gas into our atmosphere.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟11,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
This is also false, scientists do not want to remove all CO2 from our atmosphere but rather limit the rate that the human race releases this gas into our atmosphere.
Why would you want to limit the CO2 in the atmosphere? It's less than 00.038%. We need more of it so plants can grow.

Carbon dioxide affecting growth of quaking aspen - JSOnline

Wisconsin's quaking aspens are growing much faster than in the past, and scientists think that rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere provide the explanation.

A sample of nearly 1,000 aspen trees in different parts of the state showed an annual growth radial rate of 53% over the past five decades, according to scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of Minnesota Morris.

The reason for the jump: A 19% increase in carbon dioxide that has been recorded in the Earth's atmosphere from 1958 to 2003.
By the way, 19% increase is still less than 00.038%.
 
Upvote 0

Exial

Active Member
Dec 7, 2009
312
16
United Kingdom
✟555.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Why would you want to limit the CO2 in the atmosphere? It's less than 00.038%. We need more of it so plants can grow.

CO2 is one of the causes of the greenhouse affect. Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will enchance this affect. And that, is bad for the enviroment.

There enough CO2 in the atmosphere to support plantlife on our planet.
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟11,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Cabal

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2007
11,592
476
38
London
✟30,012.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Cabal

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2007
11,592
476
38
London
✟30,012.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
So you concede that the Sun and not carbon dioxide controls the climate.

Carbon dioxide DOES control climate, it's still a greenhouse gas. It's not the only control but it is a factor nonetheless.

The point is whether or not man is contributing to that via its own CO2 emissions. The point I raised about water is that Mars is going to have less atmospheric water vapour, which is a much more efficient trapper of heat than CO2. Earth, by contrast, will have a lot more.

The best climate models are those which take BOTH natural and anthropogenic factors into account. Looking at the natural factors only gives a marked error in the match, and it's not exactly small either.

And I notice you didn't pick up on these points, which goes to show how much you know :wave:
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,109
51,508
Guam
✟4,909,160.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Jebus, people! Why won't you just do what's best for you and

IGNORE THE TROLL!
Says the guy that has "Defeated dad" as his caption.

Why didn't you take your own advice?

Or is dad not a troll?
 
Upvote 0

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
45
Dallas, Texas
✟22,030.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.