Man-Made Global Warming is Natural


More about Florida’s population of Invasive Nile monitors:

Whatever man made global warming is, it’s not artificial: The root of “artificial” is artifice, which implies intelligence, art and skill. Global warming, recently re-branded as “Climate Change” is obviously man-made or “anthropocentric” if you want to get all Greek and science-y about it. But, the point is there is no art or skill behind it. Its obviously an unintended consequence of Industrialization and its concomitant heavy use of Fossil fuels.

Global warming is presented by elite circles in academia and governance (as opposed to industry) as an evil: That much is clear. Every good democrat knows by now just how hard global warming is on cartoon polar bear. More recently, global warming was given a cost in dollar amounts to make it perfectly clear just how horribly bad it is.

Here is a particularly ridiculous example.

Dollar amounts like 60 trillion always make me laugh. I am about as remote from an intimate relationship with 60 trillion dollars as I am to cartoon polar bears. What does it mean really? One thing I do know is that everything that costs money also makes someone money. So looking at it in another way, Global Warming could potentially make somebody 60 trillion dollars. How’s that for a windfall?

I have always seen these machinations from academia and government regarding global warming as being about getting things into position for a new program. I have always seen it global climate change itself and propaganda about climate change are two separate things, and I’ve always been open- minded about the former and extremely skeptical of the latter. I am now completely convinced that it’s real and also complete bullshit.

We are talking about two very different things here: Climate Change and propaganda about Climate Change. Reality vs. what people say about reality

It’s a good general principle to separate these things. Like the old Buddhist canard says, “The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon itself.” Or as Robert Anton Wilson says “Don’t believe other people’s BS.”

Let me try to be as clear as possible: Government is about hoping people won’t call their bluff. Government needs some danger, some evil, which it then presumes to protect against. That is the entire source of its power. States need enemies to hold themselves together. Without enemies, they fall apart. Homeland security needs Al Qaeda, as much as the Police State needs the war on drugs.

Subversive people with deeply anarchic sentiments take great pains to point out things like:

1. Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda was created by the CIA, just like Big Brother created “The Brotherhood” and Emmanuel Goldstein (and kept him mythologically alive long after he was probably dead).

2. Drugs really aren’t that bad. Declaring war on them causes more harm than good.

So yeah, here I am as an inveterate anarchist at the leading edge of the fringe thought, saying to you, nascent anarchist:

Climate Change is real, but its not all that bad. I mean, if you live in Miami you may want to get ready to move eventually, but its nothing to lose sleep over, because here is a little secret:

Life likes heat. The more heat the more life. I am up North right now in the Adirondack mountains and everything is dying. It not a weird plague or anything: It happens every year. It’s too cold here to sustain life year-round, and every year everything dies or goes into hibernation or some type of dormant state. It’s harsh. The plants I have nurtured all summer get hit with frost and instantly begin to die. The leaves just go to shit. Trees have a more graceful way of going about it, changing color and falling off, but with annual plants like beans and squash, they just get burned by the frost and die. They just get all jacked up and die. I mean its a natural cycle, and you can wax philosophical all day about it like people have, and carve pumpkins and celebrate the fall colors, but the fact remains, death is descending upon the land.

So in a few days, I am going to Florida. In Florida there is life. There is too much life really for many people’s taste, lots of biting insects and snakes and creepy crawly things. Things like alligators could never live in the Adirondacks because it is simply too cold. But in Florida, they thrive. Everything thrives there. Its hot and steamy. In this plot of land I have been working these past too summers, its often not warm long enough for tomatoes to ripen. In Florida, things ripen.

In Florida, things thrive. Things thrive that people don’t want to thrive,  like “invasive” species.  Florida has a so-called problem with them, but I think calling it a problem is backwards thinking, really. I personally don’t begrudge successful organisms their success. In Florida, 26% of “fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals” are exotic. The conventional wisdom is that this is a bad thing. The badness of this is presented as a dogma without a lot of facts to back it up. The most intelligent thing I have heard anyone say of why “invasive species” are bad is that “they aren’t supposed to be there.” I heard that from a volunteer weed-killer at a National Park. No opponent of invasive species, I have read or talked to has anything more intelligent to add, even if they use bigger words and more proper grammar.

That these exotic species supplant native species is false. They don’t. If they do its rare. They eke out an existence alongside the natives. The fact is, exotic species have increased the biodiversity of Florida by 26%. That is amazing. This is all possible because human beings are heavily disturbing the environment there and because i’ts warm. This warmth is moving north, and at the end of the day, what this means is that due to climate change and anthropocentric disturbance of the environment, biodiversity is increasing. Life is becoming more abundant. Its not only becoming more abundant its becoming tougher and more resilient. It’s adapting itself to human civilization.

Civilization is about cultivation. Its all possible because of agri-CULTURE. Agriculture is about converting nature into culture, plowing a meadow, or clearing a forest, and planting it to corn or building a subdivision. But every action has an opposite and equal reaction.

Koert van Mensvoort writes in Real Nature is Not Green:

Every time nature seems to have been conquered, it rears its head again on some other battlefield. Perhaps we should not see nature as a static given, but as a dynamic process [14]. It is not only humans that are developing; nature, too, is changing in the process. Thus, I am proposing a new approach to distinguish nature and culture. At first– as is usual with paradigm shifts – it takes some getting used to, but after a while things become clear again. Real nature is not green. Rather, it is beyond control.

Climate change doesn’t scare me, and I don’t think of it as the next scary monster like drugs or Al Qaeda that my government will protect me from. To me it represents the forces of chaos and creative destruction that opposes humanity’s complete control of the natural world. Stifling control has always been my enemy From the day I set foot in the public school classroom from the times I was drawn again and again into sterile cubicles to earn my daily bread. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Warmth moisture and chaos is necessary for life. Life is dynamic. The natural and the artificial are engaged in a mysterious dance. On the human end, this dance has been fraught with hubris. But with all this hubris and unintended consequences there is room for wisdom.

Rather than resist the inevitable, I have come to embrace change and chaos, and thus embrace life. Plus, screw nice neat little subdivisions, with this stifling sameness and neat manicured lawns. I want to live in a world with roaming packs of coyotes and monitor lizards eating people’s house pets.

Embrace Global Warming. Embrace Chaos. Embrace Life.

130 Comments on "Man-Made Global Warming is Natural"

  1. What about the areas that will cool down?

  2. BuzzCoastin | Sep 28, 2013 at 3:45 pm |

    here’s a look at the last 500K years of global warming trends
    you can make up your own mind as what the data means
    either way
    we have no understanding of Nature’s weather patterns
    it’s a babble & disinfo generated by blind men grasping elephant feet

    • atlanticus | Sep 28, 2013 at 4:03 pm |

      Oh shit…doesn’t that graph imply we’re due for an ice age?

      • BuzzCoastin | Sep 28, 2013 at 4:09 pm |

        in Nature
        something pushed to the extreme always reverses
        so too hot eventually changes into too cold
        from what we can tell from the last 500K years
        Earth tends to be cold, with brief periods of extreme warmth
        which reverse into extreme cold

        • kowalityjesus | Sep 29, 2013 at 4:36 pm |

          extreme with reference to what? the vacuum of space? The problem (if you indeed refuse to get sentimental about many of the fragile and magnificent species that currently populate our earth) is how fast the change is happening. Geological time i.e. 500,000a is something a human cannot easily (at all?) rationalize, like 60 trillion. Global warming is disturbing and shitty. Take a small example: I give it 50 years before theres an established population of copperheads in Michigan. That’s within my lifetime, and that is fucked, and that would probably be one of the very least of my worries.

          • Calypso_1 | Sep 29, 2013 at 4:38 pm |

            Excellent! Snake-handlers & Signs to follow.

          • The Well Dressed Man | Sep 30, 2013 at 12:30 am |

            It was rattlesnakes that got the flock fired up for the really serious falling down and shouting in tongues back in my great-grandfather’s day.

          • Calypso_1 | Sep 30, 2013 at 2:42 am |

            Michigan already has a rattler & a few churches that take them up.

          • BuzzCoastin | Sep 29, 2013 at 6:53 pm |

            since the Big went Bang
            it’s been nothing but incessant change
            round & round it goes
            where it stops is anyone’s guess

          • Ted Heistman | Sep 30, 2013 at 5:45 am |

            I guess I kind of share your Contrarian yet Zen viewpoint.

          • BuzzCoastin | Oct 1, 2013 at 4:34 pm |

            Stop thinking, and end your problems.
            What difference between yes and no?
            What difference between success and failure?
            Must you value what others value,
            avoid what others avoid?
            How ridiculous!

            Other people are excited,
            as though they were at a parade.
            I alone don’t care,
            I alone am expressionless,
            like an infant before it can smile.

            Other people have what they need;
            I alone possess nothing.
            I alone drift about,
            like someone without a home.
            I am like an idiot, my mind is so empty.

            Other people are bright;
            I alone am dark.
            Other people are sharper;
            I alone am dull.
            Other people have a purpose;
            I alone don’t know.
            I drift like a wave on the ocean,
            I blow as aimless as the wind.

            I am different from ordinary people.
            I drink from the Great Mother’s breasts.

          • I think I like that, but I’m reading it as irony and satire.

          • one of my favorite chapters of the Tao te Ching!

      • Not only that, but implies that we’re trying to reverse things.

        And that such actions are, in the end, futile.

  3. emperorreagan | Sep 28, 2013 at 4:01 pm |

    The big dollar amounts always drive me crazy, too.

    It’s not just that the numbers are so big as to be meaningless.

    It’s that numbers like that typically are the result of some entity externalizing the cost to the future/governments. If, indeed, there’s $60 trillion dollars in mitigation efforts that happen eventually, it’s within the context of the previous industry and profits that created that mess.

    THe other way they often drive me crazy is when someone reports that, say, people screwing around on the internet costs businesses $300 billion dollars per year in lost productivity. Lost productivity due to internet usage is inherent in using the internet. Comparing it to some theoretical construct where humans are 100% productive is meaningless.

    When they drop the context and assign some astronomical dollar amount to something, you can tell they’re full of shit. As you say, it’s money that someone thinks they’re going to make, whether realistic or not.

    And there’s the more fundamental point that money doesn’t inherently have value, no matter how much the handful of people sitting on the representational wealth of the world try to reinforce that belief. Money is a relational tool.

    • Ted Heistman | Sep 28, 2013 at 4:11 pm |

      Yeah I heard some Atheist group say something like “Churches cost the government yada yada in “lost tax revenue” or something like that. Similar line of thinking. Counting your eggs before you buy chickens I think.

  4. atlanticus | Sep 28, 2013 at 4:02 pm |

    Every time I have this conversation with certain stripes of liberal, they get so angry at the pure logic of it…”But! but! but! How will we convince people to recycle!”

    Humans are the ultimate invasive species.

    • bobbiethejean | Sep 29, 2013 at 2:21 pm |

      Every time I have this conversation with a conservative, they stick their fingers in their ears because they don’t want to have to take responsibility and change their wasteful, selfish, greedy, ignorant ways.

      • atlanticus | Sep 29, 2013 at 7:11 pm |

        Yes, both sides are certainly ridiculous, aren’t they? 😉

        • Jason Lewis | Sep 29, 2013 at 11:36 pm |

          Except that one side is more obstinately ignorant than the other and it isn’t the liberals..

          • atlanticus | Sep 30, 2013 at 7:17 pm |


            *forehead slap*

            I’m not a conservative. I thought it was clear enough by my reply. You are aware there are other options, right?

          • Jason Lewis | Sep 30, 2013 at 9:19 pm |

            Of course there are other options, not that they have much power…and saying both sides are certainly ridiculous is an easy dodge which implies that the right and the left are equal in their deficiencies with this subject where in reality the left at least recognizes the science of it. We can hardly get off the blocks to talk seriously about it when there are people who can’t come to the table because they think the table doesn’t exist.

          • the ignorant are rarely aware of their ignorance.
            are you?

          • Jason Lewis | Oct 3, 2013 at 1:48 pm |

            I’m aware enough about this particular issue that to entertain deniers is wasting time.

          • but yer not aware of yer own unawareness. that’s the point im tryingto make

          • Jason Lewis | Oct 5, 2013 at 1:33 pm |

            uh huh… so … what, because I have areas in my thinking that are not fully informed I need to state that irrespective of this particular issue of man’s impact on global warming which is pretty much an agreed upon consensus? An issue that I do have awareness..

          • Agreed upon consensus does not make a Truth.
            You believe you know something for a fact, and that others MUST believe as you do, or else they’re absurd. Sounds fundamentalist-y to me. Its a trait almost all liberals share which I detest. Its keeping us from sharing common ground.
            External Facts are never that. I mean, Fact. They are always subject to subjectivity, as Descartes proved. So, give room for others to find their way and don’t assume you know it all.
            For what its worth. I think its likely man can and does influence the climate, and more than that, too. But I refuse to accept Obama’s cure for global warming. Which involves, among other things, cooling the globe with chemicals, or metals, dumped in the atmosphere. There is a root problem and it won’t be cured by just cutting the weeds, which create more havoc, but pulling it up by the root. Now, what may that entail?

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 7, 2013 at 9:06 am |

            Yeah, I think most of the Techno fixes proposed for Global warming are horrible.

          • Its kind similar to allopathic medicine’s cures. You farm, right? When weed are taking over yer garden, what do you do? You can pull them up by the roots. If you just cut them down, they grow back stronger, with deeper roots. Also, weeds grow in earth thats been damaged. For example, if there is a certain lack of nutrients or the ground is too clayey or too compact, the weeds can break up the soil. So, they actually help the soil if you let them, up to a certain point. If you supply the proper nutrients and insure the soil is aerated enough, the weeds won’t really grow. We can learn a lot from Nature if we pay attention to her.

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 7, 2013 at 1:56 pm |

            yep. Exactly.

          • Jason Lewis | Oct 7, 2013 at 3:39 pm |

            You got me there jnana…consensus doesn’t equal truth. I would offer this though. If you see 10 doctors and 9 tell you that you have cancer but one says you don’t are you going to take a course of action based on the one?
            So you agree that global warming is at least in part a result of human activity. So what are you arguing with me about exactly? Would it be your perceived sense of smug snarkiness in my posts? If so I can understand you reacting that way. But here’s the thing. When there is information coming from experts..a majority of experts it’s something we should take seriously. And this information has been around for awhile now. To be a denier at this point makes you a contrarian for no legitimate reasons other than maybe for political or possibly religious ones. At some point we need to move forward and make better policies that address this issue. You don’t like Obama, great. Get in line. I don’t like him much either but I’d rather have someone in office who at least recognizes the science. And finally my attitude that you seem to be reacting to mostly exists because I’m tired of deniers who bloviate about conspiracy and feel like they’re being harshed on as if there’s no reason to dismiss their beliefs. At some point when all evidence points to a basic conclusion we need to move on. I’m not telling people they “MUST” think the way I do. I’m nobody and I have no bully pulpit to influence anyone anyway. I’m arguing for this discussion about global warming to move past the infant stage of whether human activity has a role to play. At this point the CONSENSUS (overwhelmingly by experts) says it does and I frankly have seen no legitimate evidence to the contrary nor a reason to believe otherwise.

          • just like conservative lobbyists push the belief there is no man made climate change so that corporations may pollute more with no worry and people can burn energy w/ no guilt, liberals seem to push the idea there is man made climate change so they can enact their tyrannical policies including dumping chemicals in the atmosphere. So I may agree that man abuses the earth but I don’t want the government to tell me how I can fix it. Because their science on the fixes for climate change are just as biased as the deniers’.

          • emperorreagan | Oct 8, 2013 at 10:48 am |

            When the options proposed seem to be (1) keep doing exactly the same thing or (2) keep doing exactly the same thing but add a tax or add a chemical, I can definitely see why there’s resistance. While the problem is real, there are no actual solutions being offered.

          • well, there are solutions, but not many people are willing to abandon a life of consumption and to work with the Earth instead of trying to conquer her and bend her to their will

          • emperorreagan | Oct 9, 2013 at 7:19 pm |

            Definitely, but those solutions hardly ever break into the political debate.

            The point I was wanting to make was more that one side denies the issue and the other side offers solutions that are basically perfect strawmen to undermine the case for climate change.

            I can see why people would end up resistant to the idea of climate change at all, since the political debate around it is absurd.

          • Jason Lewis | Oct 8, 2013 at 11:29 am |

            A couple of things…you don’t want the government telling you how to fix it….so you’d rather have private industry telling you? Or maybe you’ll just recycle and call it a day. Capitalism at its extremes, as we’re seeing now in some sectors of the economy, is no better than your ideas of the government telling you and at least the government is supposed to be accountable to the people (I know the reality is different but its better than being held accountable to only the shareholders). There are arenas that a free market economy doesn’t do well with like health care, roads and the military. Big things. Dealing with global warming is another one. The idea that free market capitalism is the best way to solve problems and make a better life for all is really deficient imo. But you said you have problems with both sides so maybe you’re arguing for…I don’t know…anarchy?

          • if I advocate for anything its for self-ruled communities, and keeping as much as possible as small and local as possible. in the meantime, I do agree that government can keep a check on corporations reckless destruction upon the Earth, but I don’t believe government is necessary for this as people would find a way to do it on their own if allowed. For example, organizing workers to strike and putting pressure on people and corporations who harm Life.

  5. I smell social Darwinism.

    • Ted Heistman | Sep 28, 2013 at 4:17 pm |

      Me too. I think global Warming alarm-ism is partly about preventing the developing world from Industrializing and upsetting the balance of Power.

      • That was pretty close to the exact opposite of what I meant. Good job!

        • Ted Heistman | Sep 28, 2013 at 6:33 pm |

          Care to explain? Maybe write a Haiku instead of a one liner?

          • It seems to me your screed essentially advocates not even attempting to do anything to mitigate or slow climate change, and to just let anybody or anything harmed by it suffer and die.

          • Ted Heistman | Sep 30, 2013 at 5:50 am |

            No. That’s not it. But how is your action plan to help the environment working?

      • Jason Lewis | Sep 30, 2013 at 12:04 am |

        And I think global warming denialism and/or global warming questioning is partly about being a contrarian..possibly due to the politics of the issue or just so you can stand out. The thing that bugs me about this article and others far worse in tone and overt denialism is that it keeps the discussion stuck at a rudimentary and unsophisticated state. The thing is, I don’t necessarily believe that the world has to universally do all the things that epitomize an egalitarian, high eco conscious future with policies that are so progressive as to undermine the machinations of our economy. I just want to be able to get to te next level of this argument. There’s lots of aspects that need to be addressed with this issue but we can’t even get there when people don’t want to believe 95% of climatologists.

    • Ted Heistman | Sep 28, 2013 at 4:37 pm |

      Were you fingering Richard Dawkins

      • Ted Heistman | Sep 28, 2013 at 6:33 pm |

        I thought it was funny, especially since he is pictured smelling his finger.

  6. Ted Heistman | Sep 28, 2013 at 4:29 pm |

    I will add though that I don’t personally do anything to waste resources or destroy the environment. I am environmentally conscious. I just think nature is more of a mystery than what we humans really understand and we are an intimate part of it.

    • Are you sure? It seems that being a living human and a part of the Big Machine means some level of waste and destruction. Unless someone is off the grid, doesn’t use a car, paper products, anything made from petroleum, completely eschews air conditioning, refrigerator use and so on, I don’t know how it is possible. Maybe that’s just my ignorance revealing itself.

      • Ted Heistman | Sep 29, 2013 at 4:06 pm |

        Well I am alive. According to some people, like the Church of Euthanasia, that’s bad in and of itself.

  7. Great article. I think you’re spot on.

  8. interesting. One thing i would disagree with though is your talk about invasive species, ever heard of the Melaleuca tree epidemic in Florida?

    • Ted Heistman | Sep 28, 2013 at 5:12 pm |

      They can have negative impacts, but if 3 invasive species cause 1 native species to become extinct its still a net gain in biodiversity. But really its way better than that its more like 1000 to 1.

      Melaleuca seeds have probably been in Florida for thousands of years. Birds are always shitting seeds all over the place. Usually what causes new opportunistic species to take hold is disturbance. Seeds can be dormant for a many years and suddenly sprout in the right circumstance. In an undisturbed ecosystem all the niches are locked down, but some kind of cataclysm creates new ones. We are a cataclysm.

      • the rate at which it spreads i doubt it had been there for thousands of years… This is an example of the opposite where 1 invasive species crowds out many more than one species, a net loss by your thinking.

        The problem comes from a mismatch of species heartiness and environmental danger. melaleuca comes from a much harsher environment of Australia and when it was brought to Florida, it thrived in a manner that can only be described as a pest. Natural Florida wildlife doesn’t eat it, and it spreads faster than Florida plantlife.

        • Ted Heistman | Sep 28, 2013 at 5:37 pm |

          Well, from experience I am skeptical that it is eating the landscape and killing everything in its path. Almost every invasive species is described that way. Check out the discription on this video:

          Frankly they have cleaned up a lot of man made polution on the great lakes. Lake Superior is crystal clear now because of Zebra muscles.

          • Ted Heistman | Sep 28, 2013 at 5:43 pm |

            anyway that pdf. is basically an ad for a business. He obviously has a control method he wants to sell.

          • its… from a preservation site through the University of Florida Food and Agriculture Science dept. (IFAS)… I suspect its too close to the government to be considered legitimate?

            Your logical leaps are frankly surprising in trying to uphold your opinion here. They’ve been getting it under control somewhat in the last decade or so, but I’ve seen the sort of ecological devastation it has wrought.

          • Ted Heistman | Sep 28, 2013 at 6:07 pm |

            Well. Its not an ad it just reads like an ad. I view everything as propoganda. I am very suspicious of authority. People really like authority though, because you can simply quote what they say in order to be right.
            Basically I wrote this to stimulate thinking. I don’t claim to be an authority. But anyway invasive species are job security for large numbers of people and state agencies. This agencies put out propoganda in order to justify their role.

            The pdf. article is pretty obviously propaganda. Have you examined any of its implicit assumptions? That they are fighting to keep nature pristine and that they are saving millions of dollars? Thats all bullshit to me. That’s nonsense talk. You don’t have to agree with me and maybe in this one case I am wrong, but basically this reads like everything I have ever read on any invasive species, from buckthorn to feral hogs.

          • Ted Heistman | Sep 28, 2013 at 6:17 pm |

            let’s look at some figures here:

            “It has been estimated that reduced eco-tourism alone could result in an estimated loss of$168.6 million per year to Florida’s economy.”

            That’s obviously highly dubious. That’s the kind of figure that makes me laugh, like the one I pointed out in the article.

            Now look at this:

            “To date, agencies in Florida have spent $35 million to control this noxious weed.”

            That number is real. This is money in peoples pockets, such as government agencies and contractors. . Not an unsubstantial sum. Noxious weeds are big business as a source of revenue, justifying these costs as “saving money in the long run” is just the kind of thing these agencies always say. Maybe its partly true maybe its not., But it IS propaganda.

          • Ted Heistman | Sep 28, 2013 at 6:24 pm |

            I will say this though, They imported two new species of insect in order to control it, increasing Florida’s biodiversity even more! Also this is a medicinal plant that grows all over the place now. Many “invasive” species are useful like that.

          • Calypso_1 | Sep 29, 2013 at 4:36 pm |


          • kowalityjesus | Sep 29, 2013 at 4:51 pm |

            that is true about zebra mussels, and in fact many invasive species I have known. We shouldn’t lose our pants in front of the threat of invasive species because much more often than not, they tend to level out and join the general breeding population of an area. There are exceptions to that rule like kudzu or pythons that generally really fuck things up.

            I have a different rational approach to global warming. Every tree we see is like a pillar of carbon. Every barrel of oil burnt is like something that will eventually become a tree or a peat bog or carbonic acid in the ocean. Until it becomes one of those things, it is being a hoodlum in the atmosphere and warming shit up that nobody wants because they got really used to this temperature/climate. The climate has changed plenty in the past, but in long lobing trends, not in capitalism-manifested fossil fuel extravaganzas. The rate of change is the killer, and also if you care, the sea level rise which will inundate some very fucking important places.

          • Ted Heistman | Sep 29, 2013 at 5:21 pm |

            I am skeptical that pythons are actually wreaking havoc. They already have 700 lbs gators all over the place, how bad could it be? They coexist with humans in SE Asia.

            Overall I think the climate alarmism is based on computer model projections. I lost 5 lbs last week if I continue to lose weight at this rate in less than a year I will disappear!

          • kowalityjesus | Sep 29, 2013 at 5:54 pm |

            Yez, yez, expostulating long-term projections from short term changes is often fallacious. But the problem with pythons isn’t the idea that they coexist with humans (they’re not even poisonous), its that they eat all the fookin birds. Florida is an incredibly important habitat for migrating and nesting exotic and fragile birds who have gotten very used to the climate, flora and fauna being the way it was for a very long time.

          • Ted Heistman | Sep 30, 2013 at 5:25 am |

            They don’t have birds in Burma?

          • kowalityjesus | Sep 30, 2013 at 4:18 pm |

            actually, it looks like small mammals are the biggest victims… its hard to feel bad for a local population of raccoons, bobcat, deer, and an endangered rodent.

  9. Chris Sirias | Sep 28, 2013 at 5:37 pm |

    Great article. Cheers to the author.

  10. Here in New York, we’ve already had record cool temperatures for the year. Hmmmm…

  11. The Holocene Extinction is not causing a general increase in biodiversity.

    You can embrace your own death as “creative destruction,” but expecting others to do the same is tyranny in freedom’s clothing. I’ll decide whose liberty I die for, thank you very much.

    • Ted Heistman | Sep 28, 2013 at 7:25 pm |

      That’s actually not true. Wherever we humans travel we increase local biodiversity:

      • bobbiethejean | Sep 29, 2013 at 2:22 pm |

        Wow. You just do not understand the natural world at all. That’s just scary levels of cognitive dissonance and ignorance right there. I mean wow.

        • notcreastive | Sep 29, 2013 at 2:48 pm |

          I am a long time lurker and I noticed you only ever insult people and don’t make any rational arguments

      • I explicitly did not say local biodiversity, I said general. I’m talking about a current extinction rate hundreds to thousands of times the normal background extinction rate. That reduces general biodiversity.

        • Ted Heistman | Sep 30, 2013 at 5:24 am |

          So what do you do about besides get all upset? Is it in your control? BTW getting pissy with me accomplishes nothing. Maybe you do it because you feel helpless and want to lash out at somebody.

          My guess is that some of its greatly exaggerated. Most of the biodiversity is in the tropics in rain forests which are getting deforested, but there may be a cycle of them being periodically whittled down to little islands anyway. Speciatiion can also happen really fast.

          If you have never been to a tropical rainforest and done extensive biological surveys, you are just relying on propaganda figures, like it or not. Many of that stuff is debatable.

  12. Ted, should the headline read “Man-Made” instead of “Made-Made”? We can fix it…

  13. Wewillwin | Sep 28, 2013 at 10:49 pm |

    Your invasive species argument is ridiculous. Have you seen what Kudzu does to a forest? Have you walked through a forest understory full of Japanese barberry? Invasive species are biodiversity killers. There is nothing left when invasives take over.

    You are mixing up the term ‘invasives’ with introduced or non-native species and there is a major difference between the terminology.

    Habitat destruction is always number 1 and invasives play into that by taking over disturbed areas, but there is no field biologist I have ever met that thinks invasive species increase diversity. People are seeing major changes in the biological make up of whole ecosystems in their lifetimes. How many years experience do you have in the field studying the natural world?

    Too bad I’m not sadistic because then I might sympathize with what you wrote. But I don’t enjoy watching the downfall of the amazing animals we share this planet with. Not because I read that its happening online. I can go out and watch it in real time.

  14. Earthstar | Sep 29, 2013 at 3:16 am |

    Seriously, you can’t grow tomatoes to maturity in the Adirondacks? All of Canada doesn’t have this problem. They’re frickkin’ tomatoes!

  15. bobbiethejean | Sep 29, 2013 at 2:16 pm |

    You can make jokes about killing Gore’s cartoon polar bear but the fact is: GCC is the single biggest threat to polar bears. They require iceflows that are disappearing more and more rapidly with every passing summer. Quite frankly, if GCC doesn’t scare you, you’re uninformed about how dangerous it is and will become (and that’s putting it nicely). You should be scared. We’re screwing up the planet and it’s not like we have a back up planet we can just jump onto if we destroy this one.

    • atlanticus | Sep 29, 2013 at 9:48 pm |

      “We’re screwing up the planet and it’s not like we have a back up planet we can just jump onto if we destroy this one.”

      I honestly can’t understand why we aren’t terra-forming Mars already…is it something about the lack of magnetic poles?

      • The Well Dressed Man | Sep 30, 2013 at 12:25 am |

        Future job title: Geomagnetic engineer. Then they’ll really start accusing us of playing God.

      • Did you ever think that maybe someone is? I have thought for a long time that certain people that think of themselves as more important that everyone else are.And probably at the taxpayers expense.The rovers are sent to wherever they want them to go,like the middle of a large crater so we only see a small part of the planet.

      • bobbiethejean | Oct 5, 2013 at 10:03 pm |

        The technology just isn’t there yet. : I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that we are defunding science and education at startling rates. XC

        • atlanticus | Oct 6, 2013 at 6:43 pm |

          Maybe…at least I have recently decided to give up on Art School in favor of Biology / Ecology, so…you know, I’m helpin’? I just hope my text books are up to date…

          • The Well Dressed Man | Oct 6, 2013 at 7:50 pm |

            Well done! Protip: buy cheap old editions of textbooks online to keep at home, and download the most current editions from the more interesting corners of the internet (VPN is worth it.) Save enough in one semester to pay for a shiny new tablet to cart around all those .pdf files.

          • bobbiethejean | Oct 7, 2013 at 12:17 pm |

            I wish I had made that decision. I spent 100K on my artschool education and they literally did not teach me anything I could not have taught myself or did not already know anyway. It was totally useless. Well, ok. That’s not fair. It wasn’t totally useless. But it certainly wasn’t worth having to second mortgage my ASS to pay for. But my mother insisted I have a degree and she felt it was important that I “follow my heart.” Pft. Man, ya know what they say about hindsight. *Sigh.*

            In any case, good luck to ya on that. You wouldn’t happen to be an INFJ, would ya? 😉 I’m betting you are.

          • atlanticus | Oct 7, 2013 at 8:07 pm |

            Yeah, when I started to realize that all of my friends who had already graduated weren’t doing anything other than moving back in with their parents and/or utterly failing at “making it” on either coast and moving back to the mid-west with their tails tucked between their legs, I slammed on the breaks…

            Hm, I think I might be all of the Myers-Brigg personalities at various points throughout the year, depending on the situation.

            As for this moment, according to this website:
            …it says I’m an INTP… *shrugs*

            I do vacillate on that T/F dynamic, depending on who I’m surrounded by…a group of woo-woo arty-farties? I’ll be the “Scully” to their “Mulders”; but say, in a group of computer programmers? I’ll be the one to annoy with rhetorical musings on the nature of reality and consciousness and such…and tell them all about my ghost sightings.

            The J/P divide is just unfair, since I’m supposedly ADD, so…I’d *like* to be more organized than I am, but I usually find myself flying by the seat of my pants.

            What do you define yourself as? Do you put a lot of stock into tests such as these?

            I’m also a Capricorn if that means anything to you. It does to my best friend and I have yet to get a straight answer from her as to why she puts faith in a system created before the widespread knowledge that the sun is at the center of our solar system. She insists that is soooo Capricorn of me.

          • The Well Dressed Man | Oct 7, 2013 at 10:03 pm |

            It’s a thing. Sadly, university arts degrees (and maybe most of the humanities too ) are no longer leading the working classes to opportunity. Those of us who didn’t cash in on the web booms and are still trying to make it are either building small businesses ala “maker-faire” (offensively precious, but commendably sustainable,) or going back for hard science degrees. Somewhere along the line I segued from INTP to INTJ. Judgemental? Me?

          • atlanticus | Oct 7, 2013 at 11:37 pm |

            “Web booms”?…wasn’t all of that over by the time I was 12? I never even had a shot! *sigh*, Yes, I’m well-aware at this point that “making it” as an artist of any sort is now reserved for the children of the stupidly-rich-but-not-quite-rich-enough-to-qualify-as-one-percent. Which, of course, is why culture sucks now.

            It seems to me that the only ones who “make it” in the humanities from the working class are the ones who are 1.) extra studious and 2.) know they want to eventually become professors from the start. I’ve never been keen on teaching in a structured environment. (“What? You want grades? What kind of Nazi shit is that? Fine. ‘A’. Everyone gets an A. Even though you still can’t draw a squash that doesn’t look like a piece of dog shit.”)

            But yes, I’ve definitely considered starting an Etsy shop or something of the sort on various occasions…I suppose I could still do both. Once I teach myself how to sew, in between studying…(and one day I’ll learn another language, and how to play an instrument and, etc, etc, etc…)

          • The Well Dressed Man | Oct 7, 2013 at 11:46 pm |

            You should see the entitled hordes of 20-something google/facebook/twitter new money jackasses currently sucking every last drop of life from SF. We’re already hoping for the next recession. Or an earthquake.
            Edit- This kind of crap:

          • atlanticus | Oct 8, 2013 at 12:14 am |

            You had me worried for a moment, but those two are definitely not 20-somethings…

          • The Well Dressed Man | Oct 8, 2013 at 12:21 am |

            I can assure you that these types are the role models for their younger toadies. Zuckerberg (just bought a house in the Mission,) is still under 30. The twitter crowd is even younger. It’s like 2000 all over again here, but without even the pretense of edginess.

          • atlanticus | Oct 8, 2013 at 12:29 am |

            Yeah, I noticed that…kids…stopped understanding irony…someone should have figured out that would back-lash… >_>

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 8, 2013 at 7:46 am |

            Get a room you guys! 😛

          • atlanticus | Oct 8, 2013 at 7:13 pm |


            This…is why I usually don’t use a female name in online interactions…

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 8, 2013 at 7:18 pm |

            I was just busting your balls…

          • atlanticus | Oct 8, 2013 at 8:45 pm |


    • Ted Heistman | Oct 8, 2013 at 7:55 am |

      so you are saying If you are not _________ emotion you are uniformed. Interesting premise.

      So if you spend the next ten years feeling all paranoid and I don’t, ten years from now if we are still here what have you gained? What would I have lost?

      Anyway Polar bears are just white grizzlies anyway adapted to earting seals. They are a really young species. There is barely any life in the high arctic.

      All the biodiversity is on the equator. There aren’t even any fucking plants in the arctic besides moss. So GCC is basically a disaster that “destroys” areas with little life and causes them to have more life.

      Boo hoo hoo

      • bobbiethejean | Oct 10, 2013 at 1:04 pm |

        so you are saying If you are not _________ emotion you are uniformed. Interesting premise.

        Never said that.

        Anyway Polar bears are just white grizzlies

        No they aren’t and your insistence that they are shows how monumentally ignorant you are of biology.

        So GCC is basically a disaster that “destroys” areas with little life and causes them to have more life.

        You can’t possibly be THAT stupid. I mean, that is literally retard-levels of stupid right there. I’m not trying to insult, you I am speaking clinically. You might possibly be retarded.

        • Ted Heistman | Oct 10, 2013 at 2:41 pm |

          Why would I be insulted? You can’t think for yourself. You obviously don’t form your own opinions, you just repeat what people say, whom you consider to be in authority.

          All I am doing is upsetting you by saying things that contradict conventional wisdom on these topics. I am exaggerating a bit for a effect but I seem to know quit a bit more about polar bear genetics than you do. A quick google search brings up some information readily at hand from wikipedia

          “The evidence from DNA analysis is more complex. The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of the polar bear diverged from the brown bear, Ursus arctos, roughly 150,000 years ago.[15] Further, some clades of brown bear, as assessed by their mtDNA, are more closely related to polar bears than to other brown bears,[17] meaning that the polar bear would not be a true species according to some species concepts.[18] The mtDNA of Irish brown bears is particularly close to polar bears.[19] A comparison of the nuclear genome
          of polar bears with that of brown bears revealed a different pattern,
          the two forming genetically distinct clades that diverged approximately
          603,000 years ago,[20]
          although the latest research is based on analysis of the complete
          genomes (rather than just the mitochondria or partial nuclear genomes)
          of polar, brown and black bears, and establishes the divergence of polar
          and brown bears at 4-5 million years ago.[21]

          However, the two species have mated intermittently for all that time,
          most likely coming into contact with each other during warming periods,
          when polar bears were driven onto land and brown bears migrated
          northward. Most brown bears have about 2 percent genetic material from
          polar bears, but one population residing in the Alexander Archipelago
          has between 5 percent and 10 percent polar bear genes, indicating more
          frequent and recent mating.[22] Polar bears can breed with brown bears to produce fertile grizzly–polar bear hybrids,[16][23]
          rather than indicating that they have only recently diverged, the new
          evidence suggests more frequent mating has continued over a longer
          period of time, and thus the two bears remain genetically similar.[22] However, because neither species can survive long in the other’s ecological niche, and because they have different morphology, metabolism, social and feeding behaviors, and other phenotypic characteristics, the two bears are generally classified as separate species.[24]

          The difference between polar bears and grizzly bears is much more blurry than you think and has been all along. So how is this “Monumentally ignorant” of biology? If these species share DNA and freely interbreed? There have been warming trends off and on throughout history, where brown bears and grizzly bears over lap and create hybrid populations, that have left a permanent trace on their genomes.

          • > You obviously don’t form your own opinions, you just repeat what people say, whom you consider to be in authority.

            Says someone who goes on to quote Wikipedia.

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 10, 2013 at 3:39 pm |

            Read the footnotes.

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 10, 2013 at 3:43 pm |

            The point is she is just having a knee jerk reaction based on her unexamined assumptions about things. The fact is by some definitions polar bears and grizzlies are the same species with a long history or interbreeding during warm periods. So since she has to read a PhD say something before she believes it I gave her a source. There is recent article in NATURE about how global warming will likely increase biodiversity. When you go to actually thinking instead of regurgitating you realize things are more complex than you thought

          • Considering all the concern you’ve expressed about actual living (as opposed to possible future) animals elsewhere in these comments, I think I value her regurgitated thoughts more than some of your original thoughts.

          • bobbiethejean | Oct 12, 2013 at 9:33 am |

            Yes, I’m aware that grizzlies and polars have mated and I’m aware of how closely related they are. I learned about that on an episode of Sci-show. Yay science. But polar bears and grizzlies fill two distinct ecological niches and fulfill two distinct roles in the foodchain. You don’t seem to understand how delicate the foodchain is. If we lose either species, the consequences will ripple throughout, affecting hundreds of other species. I mean hell, I don’t know if you’re aware but you cited that very fact yourself!

            However, because neither species can survive long in the other’s ecological niche, and because they have different morphology, metabolism, social and feeding behaviors, and other phenotypic characteristics, the two bears are generally classified as separate species.

            Besides why the fuck should humans run around messing with shit just because we can? Why shouldn’t we try to preserve nature to the best of our abilities? Why should we murder species off left and right then shrug contemptuously at the consequences? Meh. It’s just a polar bear. They’re basically white grizzlies. Superficially, yeah, they are. But when you get down to the mechanics of it, the roles they play in nature, they are two very difference species wit two very different spheres of influence.

  16. Dan Muench | Oct 1, 2013 at 9:57 pm |

    Step 1: spend a generation or two making the population freak out about a natural cycle you know is coming from lore and gathered scientific data.

    Step 2: Convince said population to tax Carbon and thus every breath they take, every move they make, every single thing they do is now a taxable action.

    Step 3: OLIGARCHY!!!

    (I know, step 2 is supposed to be question marks and 3 profit, but when you already have all the money and most people don’t care, all that’s left is control.)

  17. I don’t think the chaotic and natural truths you use lead to or support the conclusions you draw.

    You contradict yourself. Everyone is wrong, except you.

    All things exist and therefore all things are natural. Therefore no distinctions can be made. There is no day and no night. No living and no dead. No beauty and no ugly. It’s postmodern deconstruction taken to the ultimate, intellectual, bullshit extreme. Sickening pseudo enlightenment.

    Congratulations on your embrace of egotistical apathy and insidious twisting of philosophical arguments.

  18. Tommy Decentralized | Oct 5, 2013 at 8:20 am |

    Were you trying to make some point here, or just babbling and killing time?

    • Ted Heistman | Oct 7, 2013 at 9:09 am |

      Is this addressed to me? So what do you think of the title? Did you read further?

      • Tommy Decentralized | Oct 7, 2013 at 3:20 pm |

        No, I was addressing Santa Claus and neither one of you answered the question.

  19. What is Ted Heistman Bias?

  20. What is Ted Heistman’s Bias on global warming?

  21. Good name, disinformation. The very start is wrong, global warming is not climate change. I stopped reading after that.

Comments are closed.