Link to Original Source
So get your popcorn ready, it's going to be a show.
So if you're up to star hopping, it'll be a good opportunity to colonize a whole stack of systems getting flung in a whole stack of directions
huge amounts of deforestation (nine thousand acres worth),
It looks from the aerial photography you link to that they just cut tracks to each turbine.
Wind power is a joke regardless of how you look at it.
I look at it from price per unit, insulation from oscillating fuel prices, greenhouse emissions, and production of harmful waste.
It's not as funny as you seem to think.
The great thing about the Hydrogen economy, is you can increase the amount of renewable on the grid, and convert excess to hydrogen, when you have an excess, like in the middle of the day and the middle of the night.
I hope no one mentions to them Ebola is in DRC.
You're reasoning in isolated abstractions: "biodiversity is good for humans"
That's pretty well accepted.
The argument you see in textbooks is that the interdepedence of ecological systems is such that at it is difficult to know what species are key to our own survival. so dropping biodiversity is like playing Russian Roulette. (Of course the rich will be able to supplement, but I mean key to our own cheap survival).
But more importantly to me is the intellectual resource. Each species comes with it's unique proteins and biological processes. Losing them without studying them is a permanent loss to our knowledge, and future study is more likely to have useful results than current study, as our understanding of the biochemistry allows fuller understanding and so utilization of the processes observed.
"tigers dying reduces biodiversity"
I linked to a paper with this (generalized) result: reduced genetic diversity withing species reduces biodiversity of other species in the ecosystem.
"ice sheets move slowly and allows migrations"
The species in current existence have survived the repeated glaciation cycle of the holocene. The current warming is more rapid, and in the wrong direction.
With that kind of superficial reasoning, you can "prove" anything in any complex problem by just picking out the right abstractions.
I think you're ignoring the proofs. If you think one of them is wrong, we can delve into it. But read the paper linking genetic diversity to biodiversity first.
Large predators are usually already evolutionary dead ends, candidates for natural extinction
That seems like an isolated abstraction. Do you have any science-based evidence of this claim?
Humans have killed off many apex predators in many environments over the past few millennia.
Can you give a few examples?
Generally, the main effect has been that human livestock and humans have become safer.
Do you have any science-based evidence of this claim? I think that it is wrong. When you remove an apex predator, biodiversity crashes.
Historically speaking, were in the "colder than usual" range of the bell curve today, and thats with using ice cores to detect CO2 levels and temperature histories.
This is not true, using the data set [s]he mentions. We're much warmer than normal, according to the ice core record.
This is not, as you seem to have been suggesting that the Earth is less than a million years old, but that Ice Cores don't go back further than that.
1.12 males to every female at birth, compared to the world average of 1.07
It could be the epigenetics of a growing economy. If its not, that's 4.5% less girls born that average: 1 in about 22. (Probably more aborted than murdered.)
That's what I thought, but the link he gives only shows a 400,000 year window.
The link to the ice-core temperature reconstruction data from the Vostok Ice cores?
They only go back 400,000 years. EPICA cores go back a bit further.