Renewable Revolution

Environment => Catastrophic Climate Change => Topic started by: AGelbert on October 06, 2015, 03:32:48 pm

Title: Species Population Biomass effects on the Biosphere
Post by: AGelbert on October 06, 2015, 03:32:48 pm
Are There More Pigs than Humans in Denmark?

There are more pigs than humans in Denmark – the country’s human population is an estimated 5.4 million, compared to its pig population of around 24 million. Due to its high amount of pig livestock, Denmark is the leading exporter of pork in the world. From the 1980s through the 2000s, the number of pigs in the country doubled, while the number of pig farms decreased by nearly 80%, with the remaining farms growing in physical size. The amount of slurry produced at Denmark’s pig farms is estimated to be able to fill the equivalent of 90,000 swimming pools every year.

More about the world’s livestock population:

Chickens are the most populous livestock in the world, at an estimated three chickens for every one person on Earth.

There are over seven sheep for every one person living in New Zealand (Agelbert obsevation: Nuttin' but mutton  ;D). The country also has one of the highest cattle rates, at around 2.3 cows per person.

China is the country with the highest numbers of livestock, leading the world’s total livestock populations for cattle, sheep, and pigs.   (    (
Title: Re: Species Population Biomass effects on the Biosphere
Post by: AGelbert on October 06, 2015, 03:46:54 pm
Human Population Growth: The Truth About How Human Activity Threatens The Conditio Sine Qua Non For Our Survival

What Is the Greatest Number of Children Born to One Woman?

As of 2014, the greatest number of children born to one woman was 69. Birth records from the 1700s show that the wife of a Russian peasant named Feodor Vassilyev gave birth 27 times — to four sets of quadruplets, seven sets of triplets and 16 pairs of twins. It was reported that 67 of the 69 children survived past infancy. Vassilyev’s second wife reportedly gave birth to 18 children, which would make him the father of 87 children, with all but three surviving infancy. It has not been proved that the records are true, and some people believe that the numbers might be inaccurate.

More about child birth rates:

Niger is the country with the most births per woman, at an average of 6.16, with more than half of all Nigerian mothers giving birth before age 18.
The greatest number of surviving children born to one woman at one time was eight in 2009 in the United States.

The United Kingdom has the highest rate of childless women older than 45, at more than 20%.

Why Sterilizing the Poorest 50% of Homo Sap Won't Solve ANYTHING!

Brainwashed Propaganda Victims and Fossil Fuelers'  REACTION to the ABOVE: ( ( (

The "Human Population Must Be Reduced" Propaganda Myth. Why it is a divide and conquer tactic and why it has absolutely no basis in scientific fact.


"The total biomass of all the ants on Earth is roughly equal to the total biomass of all the people on Earth.

How can this be?! Ants are so tiny, and we are so big! But scientists estimate there are at least 1.5 million ants on the planet for every human being. Over 12,000 species of ants are known to exist, on every continent except Antarctica. Most live in tropical regions. A single acre of Amazon rainforest may house 3.5 million ants."

The Human biomass is tiny compared with thousands of species from insects to spiders to rodents, along with many marine creatures.  (

See for yourself the Evidence: (

I will provide for you a couple of links for you to research but let me give you a brief introduction to earth's biomass pyramid.

You have different trophic levels (life forms that eat other life forms to survive).

The lower you are on the pyramid, the more collective mass you have as a segment of the biosphere. What does that mean?

Here's a quote so you can see where I'm going with this:

"An ecological pyramid is a graphical representation that shows, for a given ecosystem, the relationship between biomass or biological productivity and trophic levels.

A biomass pyramid shows the amount of biomass at each trophic level.

A productivity pyramid shows the production or turn-over in biomass at each trophic level.

An ecological pyramid provides a snapshot in time of an ecological community.

The bottom of the pyramid represents the primary producers (autotrophs). The primary producers take energy from the environment in the form of sunlight or inorganic chemicals and use it to create energy-rich molecules such as carbohydrates. This mechanism is called primary production. The pyramid then proceeds through the various trophic levels to the apex predators at the top.

When energy is transferred from one trophic level to the next, typically only ten percent is used to build new biomass. The remaining ninety percent goes to metabolic processes or is dissipated as heat. This energy loss means that productivity pyramids are never inverted, and generally limits food chains to about six levels. However, in oceans, biomass pyramids can be wholly or partially inverted, with more biomass at higher levels."


Take insects as one example of the Laws of Thermodynamics as applied to life forms in the Biosphere trophic (food chain) pyramids.

In order for insects to BE food for spiders as well as many other creatures, the biomass of insects has to be much, much greater because of the heat energy losses in transferring energy from the insect to the spider (about 90% is lost in heat). The predators (that's what we are, by the way) are at the top of the pyramid and have the least total biomass of all the life forms.

Lions, tigers, sharks, whales, bears, wolves, etc. have a tiny planetary biosphere biomass in comparison with ants, earthworms, rodents, and krill (those tiny shrimp like creatures that whales eat). And the krill eat tiny nearly microscopic phytoplankton (that has more biomass than the ubiquitous krill).

Mollusks, as well as ants and several thousand other species have a larger biomass than humans. I bring up the mollusks because they have a HUGE biomass. I studied them in depth in college Zoology.

The phylum Mollusca:
"The phylum Mollusca is the second most diverse phylum after Arthropoda with over 110,000 described species. Mollusks may be primitively segmented, but all but the monoplacophorans characteristically lack segmentation and have bodies that are to some degree spirally twisted (e.g. torsion).

The Phylum Mollusca consist of 8 classes:

1. the Monoplacophora discovered in 1977;
2. the worm-like Aplacophora or solenogasters of the deep sea;
3. the also worm-like Caudofoveata;
4. the Polyplacophora, or chitons;
5. the Pelecypoda or bivalves;
6. the Gastropoda or snails;
7. the Scaphopoda, or tusk shells; and
8. the Cephalopoda that include among others squid and the octopus."

Agelbert Note: The biomass pyramid in the oceans in regard to mollusks and fish is NOT inverted. The oceanic "confusion" is due to the fact that some mollusks are apex predators like giant squid and the smaller mollusk predators like Octopodes that eat fish. Most mollusks are small to very small and are food for fish. They are the ones (bivalves near Fukushima) that concentrate radionuclides in their tissues that then get in the fish that eat them.  :( :P

The smaller mollusks (most of them are less than a foot long) are FOOD for fish. That means there HAS TO BE much more of them than there are fish. And I'm sure you don't believe the human biomass is greater than that of all the fish species, right?  ;D
Now for some biomass weights:
Human population = 335,000,000,000 kg.

"Human population = 335,000,000,000 kg. This figure is based on an average human weight of more than 100lbs, though (50kg, to be exact).  I don't know how accurate this estimate is, especially considering that about 1/3 of us are children.  There are supposedly around 1.3 billion cattle in the world, and, put together, they may weigh almost twice as much as our species."

Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba =  379,000,000,000 kg.
There are more ants than krill. Also, metabolism plays a role along with biomass. A "million ruby-throated hummingbirds will consume much more food than one African Elephant, even though both have about the same biomass (3,000kg, or 3.3 US tons). 

Thus, ants, as a group, may actually consume more resources per year than antarctic krill, even though both may have roughly the same biomass, because ants tend to be smaller, and live in warmer environments. Although there may be about 10-15 times the biomass of termites than cows in the world, studies have suggested that termites might produce almost 30,000 times as much methane per year because of their faster metabolism."

So how come nobody is hollering about reducing the termite population?  (

As the article in the quotes above points out, humans are a huge problem, not because of our biomass, but because of our carbon footprint (I.E. the use of fossil fuels!). And guess what portion of our population does over 80% of the Fossil Fuel consumption? You guessed it! The upper 20%!

 Who Done it?   ( (

 The Global Compact: 20% using 80% of the Resources (

To ACTUALLY address, confront and STOP the biosphere damage that Homo Sap is doing, we must face the scientifically confirmed REALITY that  if you get rid of the bottom 50% of the human population (the most poor among us) you will, I'm sorry to say, not even dent the pollution and biosphere destruction.

AS pointed out in the biomass numbers, the amount of people eating and defecating is not the problem, CARBON FOOTPRINT is the threat to a viable biosphere. We must attack that problem by reducing the carbon footprint of the most powerful people on this planet.

NOTHING ELSE WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM. The solution, in addition to a 100% transition to Renewable energy, involves eliminating corporate energy welfare queen subsidies for both fossil fuels and nuclear poison.

Democracy and a viable biosphere requires it from all of us. (

The "let's reduce the human population" ( baloney is a divide and conquer tactic to avoid billing the top human pigs (  for the damage they do while attempting to give the rest of us a totally unwarranted with ZERO empirical basis ( but VERY clever (  ( ) guilt trip. It's a lie. Don't buy it.

What we need to do is transition to 100% renewable energy as soon as possible. That will give our future generations a chance to live in a viable biosphere.

If you agree please pass it on. Also, feel free to visit my forum and post on any subject you wish. Thank you.

 Renewable revolution  (

Title: Re: Species Population Biomass effects on the Biosphere
Post by: AGelbert on October 07, 2015, 12:04:54 am
The predator survives – but the ecosystem crashes

Date:October 6, 2015  Source: Linköping Universitet

The killer whales' main prey used to be newborn whale calves. When whale populations fell dramatically due to intensive hunting, they began to hunt seal instead. Then when the seal population was quickly eradicated, the killer whales moved on to sea otters. This reduced the pressure on sea urchins, the preferred diet of the sea otters. As a result, the sea urchins grazed down the kelp beds that have served as nurseries for many different fish species and small marine animals.  :(

What do killer whales, polar bears and humans have in common?
They are adaptable predators with the ability to select new prey when their favourite food is in low supply. But this change can disrupt entire ecosystems.

"If the predator is efficient at killing its prey, such a change can lead to negative effects in the long term, for the entire food web, even if in the short term it benefits the predator's survival," says David Gilljam, doctoral student in theoretical biology, who joined with Professor Bo Ebenman and PhD Alva Curtsdotter to publish a new model-based study in Nature Communications.

By working with both natural and computer-generated food webs, the researchers can show how the overexploitation of resources caused by predators changing their prey can, in the worst case, lead to an extinction cascade, where species after species is wiped out in a domino effect.

A dramatic example of this is the killer whale, whose main prey was newborn whale calves. When whale populations fell dramatically due to intensive hunting, they began to hunt seal instead. Then when the seal population was quickly eradicated, the killer whales moved on to sea otters. This reduced the pressure on sea urchins, the preferred diet of the sea otters. As a result, the sea urchins grazed down the kelp beds that have served as nurseries for many different fish species and small marine animals.

"Think of a rope that's made of a number of twisted fibres. When force is applied to the rope, the force is spread across all the fibres. If one fibre breaks, the remaining fibres take all the force, with more force on each individual fibre. If more break, eventually the whole rope will fail," says Prof Ebenman.

A few examples from the real world:

•As the ice in the Arctic melts, it gets more and more difficult for the polar bears to hunt seal -- their natural prey. Instead they have started to venture onto the land, to feed on the eggs and young of ground-nesting birds, which are already the prey of other predators such as arctic foxes. The risk is that the predatory pressure on these birds will be too great.

•West-African fishermen are abandoning their fishing grounds in times of poor supply -- which is caused by industrial-scale fishing. Instead they are hunting on nature reserves, which leads to drastic reductions to the populations of prey animals there. Humans are an extremely flexible, efficient predator, who have massive impact on ecosystems.

The theoretical simulations presented by the LiU biologists completely contradict what we previously believed took place, when a predator loses its favourite prey.

"The belief was that an extinction cascade would be avoided if the predator is adaptable and can shift to another prey. Our new results indicate that the opposite can occur, and the consequences can be even worse. A change in prey is a double-edged sword -- in the short term it can help a flexible predator survive, but long term it can negatively affect the entire existence of the food web," says Prof Ebenman.

 Story Source:

The above post is reprinted from materials provided by Linköping Universitet. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference:
1.David Gilljam, Alva Curtsdotter, Bo Ebenman. Adaptive rewiring aggravates the effects of species loss in ecosystems. Nature Communications, 2015; 6: 8412 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms9412
Title: Re: Species Population Biomass effects on the Biosphere
Post by: AGelbert on April 20, 2016, 08:05:18 pm
The extinction crisis in a warming world

How climate change is intensifying threats to nature — and what can be done

Story by Ian James and Sammy Roth | Photographs by Marilyn Chung and Jay Calderon, The Desert Sun | April 18, 2016


The world is losing creatures at an accelerating rate: Species of frogs, lizards, fish and birds have all gone extinct as their habitats have been fragmented, degraded and destroyed by humans. Now, as the Earth grows warmer due to the burning of fossil fuels, the rapid disruption of the climate is placing even bigger stresses on species that are already struggling to survive.

Scientists have warned that unless humans act quickly to protect the natural world from habitat losses and the ravages of climate change, more than a third of all plant and animal species on the planet could disappear by the end of the century.

In every corner of the United States, animals are threatened by climate change, from chinook salmon in California to the Illinois chorus frog and endangered birds in the rainforests of Hawaii. So many plants and animals are at risk that scientists and conservationists are increasingly calling for new, more ambitious approaches to saving species and habitats.

Those strategies include aggressive interventions to protect species that are on the verge of dying out, and efforts to conserve larger wilderness areas and “corridors” that connect patches of fragmented habitat. There is also a growing push for better data to help prioritize the areas and species that are most vulnerable. (
Title: Re: Species Population Biomass effects on the Biosphere
Post by: AGelbert on November 24, 2016, 06:11:29 pm
The Rainforest Alliance ( (
Title: Re: Species Population Biomass effects on the Biosphere
Post by: AGelbert on March 02, 2017, 11:48:10 am
Ninety percent of predatory fish gone from Caribbean coral reefs due to overfishing

March 1, 2017

Researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have found that up to 90 percent of predatory fish are gone from Caribbean coral reefs, straining the ocean ecosystem and coastal economy. The good news? They identified reefs, known as supersites, which can support large numbers of predator fishes that if reintroduced, can help restore the environmental and economic setback inflicted by overfishing.

The work, led by former UNC-Chapel Hill graduate student Abel Valdivia working with John Bruno, a marine biologist at UNC College of Arts & Sciences, suggests that these supersites - reefs with many nooks and crannies on its surface that act as hiding places for prey (and attract predators) - should be prioritized for protection and could serve as regional models showcasing the value of biodiversity for tourism and other uses. Other features that make a supersite are amount of available food, size of reef and proximity to mangroves.

"On land, a supersite would be a national park like Yellowstone, which naturally supports an abundance of varied wildlife and has been protected by the federal government," said Bruno, whose work appears in the March 1 issue of Science Advances.

The team surveyed 39 reefs across the Bahamas, Cuba, Florida, Mexico and Belize, both inside and outside marine reserves, to determine how much fish had been lost by comparing fish biomass on pristine sites to fish biomass on a typical reef. They estimated the biomass in each location and found that 90 percent of predatory fish were gone due to overfishing.

An illustration of the relative fish biomass on reefs varying in fishing intensity and natural capacity to support large predatory fishes. Credit: Adi Khen

What they didn't expect to find was a ray of hope—a small number of reef locations that if protected could substantially contribute to the recovery of predatory fish populations and help restore depleted species.

"Some features have a surprisingly large effect on how many predators a reef can support," said Courtney Ellen Cox, a coauthor and former UNC-Chapel Hill doctoral student now at the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. For example, researchers believe that the Columbia Reef within the fisheries closures of Cozumel, Mexico, could support an average 10 times the current level of predatory fish if protected.

Not long ago, large fishes were plentiful on coral reefs, but are now largely absent due to targeted fishing. Today, predators are larger and more abundant within the marine reserves than on unprotected, overfished reefs. But even some of the marine reserves have seen striking declines, largely due to lack of enforcement of fishing regulations.

The bottom line is protection of predatory fish is a win-win from both an environmental and an economical perspective, explained Bruno.

"A live shark is worth over a million dollars in tourism revenue over its lifespan because sharks live for decades and thousands of people will travel and dive just to see them up close," said Valdivia, now at the Center for Biological Diversity in Oakland, Calif. "There is a massive economic incentive to restore and protect sharks and other top predators on coral reefs."

Agelbert NOTE: The Climate change Elephant in the room of the above study is the FACT that Ocean Acidification is destroying the reefs! So, that "ray of hope" for the "supersites" is contingent on STOPPING the burning of fossil fuels. Do YOU see that happening any time soon? Certainly NOT with fossil fuel TOOLS like Trump, Pruitt, Tillerson, etc. et al in charge of US energy policy. 

Tomorrow is Yesterday...

Title: Re: Species Population Biomass effects on the Biosphere
Post by: AGelbert on March 02, 2017, 07:36:04 pm

Threatened species in the biosphere

"Wealthy countries have a much higher per-capita footprint, so each person there is consuming a lot more than those in poorer nations." (

What these scientists are ERRONEOUSLY doing is ASSUMING the SAME AGENCY (i.e. biosphere damaging ability) to each and every human that is alive. That is TYPICAL broad brush fragmentation of agency (i.e. share of responsibility for the damage) that absolves the major polluters of the massive pollution they are responsible for.    (

The biosphere math facts clearly state that less than 17% of the human population, MOSTLY concentrated in wealthy countries, is DOING over 80% of the damage by consuming over 80% of the resources. Only about half (or less) of the MILITARY budgets alone of the wealthy countries could pay for bio-remediating the most impacted areas, stop the exploitation and care for and educate the high population growth poor there so they become good stewards instead of biosphere destroyers.

Since, according to the U.N., the richest 20% of the world's population uses 80% of the resources, the 'Fragmentation of Agency' pie chart for the damage done to the biosphere should look like this:

The fossil fuel industry, and almost half of the world’s 100 largest companies, want that 'Fragmentation of Agency' pie chart to look like is as follows:


The REAL bottom line is that less than 17% of the human population is an existential threat to the ALL of the human population AND a large part of macroscopic species in the biosphere.

"Capitalist ideology claims that the world is perfectly ordered and everybody is in their place (i..e. everybody gets what they deserve). This self legitmating aspect of Capitalism is Socially Catastrophic. This is the Victorian view of the world." Rob Urie - Author " Zen Economics"

Title: Re: Species Population Biomass effects on the Biosphere
Post by: AGelbert on June 04, 2017, 03:05:23 pm
Where's the Krill? Don't ask the Fossil Fuel "Industry" Polluters. (

How Much Krill Can a Blue Whale Swallow?

Unlike toothed whales that hunt for individual prey, baleen whales -- including the blue whale, the largest animal on Earth -- eat an enormous quantity of food in one big gulp. When a blue whale opens its mouth 80 degrees, it can hoover up large schools of tiny crustaceans called krill, consuming as much as 1,100 lbs. (500 kg) at a time.


And for a blue whale, a single mouthful of food can contain 457,000 calories, making each foray a relatively efficient and satisfying meal.

A whale of an appetite:

Instead of teeth, filter-feeding whales use baleen, which are plates with frayed edges in the upper jaw that filter out tiny seafood from the water.

Baleen whales' feeding efficiency is unprecedented, says researcher Robert Shadwick. “When they take a gulp of water, they are filling their mouths with the amount of water equal to their own body mass.”

Plates of baleen are made of keratin, a protein found in hair, fingernails, and feathers.


Your fossil fuel 'business model' is KILLING us! Whales, seals, penguins, fish AND YOU are next, you arrogant, stupid, greedy, ( humans! (

Krill Are Disappearing from Antarctic Waters

Whales, seals and penguins could be hurting as this tiny creature--fundamental to the food web--declines

By Andrea Thompson, Climate Central on August 29, 2016


They may be small, but krill—tiny, shrimp-like creatures—play a big role in the Antarctic food chain. As climate change warms the Southern Ocean and alters sea ice patterns, though, the area of Antarctic water suitable for krill to hatch and grow could drop precipitously, a new study finds.
Title: Re: Species Population Biomass effects on the Biosphere
Post by: AGelbert on June 12, 2017, 06:46:46 pm
Agelbert NOTE: This video  ( contains an excellent discussion of large marine species, their habits and their habitat problems.

Biological Extinction | Discussion #5

Casina Pio IV

Published on Mar 2, 2017
How to Save the Natural World on Which We Depend

PAS-PASS Workshop
Casina Pio IV, 27 February-1 March 2017

On our 4.54 billion year old planet, life is perhaps as much as 3.7 billion years old, photosynthesis and multi-cellularity dozens of times independently around 3.0 billion years old, and the emergence of plants, animals, and fungi onto land, by at least the Ordovician period, perhaps 480 million years ago, forests appearing around 370 million years ago, and the origin of modern groups such as mammals, birds, reptiles, and land plants subsequently. The geological record shows that there have been five major extinction-events in the past, the first of them about 542 million years ago, and suggests that 99% of the species that ever lived (5 billion of them?) have become extinct. The last major extinction event occurred about 66 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous Period, and, in general, the number of species on earth and the complexity of their communities has increased steadily until near the present.
Title: Re: Species Population Biomass effects on the Biosphere
Post by: AGelbert on August 05, 2017, 03:51:42 pm
Agelbert NOTE: NBL is an abbreviation for 'Nature Bats Last", a web site by scientist Guy McPherson.

Hello Folks. I hope all are well.

Am i the only person on this forum who is a NBL fan?
I listen to Guy's talks, hear the evidence as he presents it, and hope to hell he is wrong. Trouble is every time I try and investigate and look for facts I come to similar conclusions: Were ****!

I dont think NBL is promoting nihalism by telling what he belives is the truth. I really do hope Guy is wrong, even though I fear what he says is real, and I do what I can to mitigate the situation and be what I consider a good moral and ethical human being. (Note: I said what I consider not what other tell me I must do!) 

The acceptance thing on NBL is interesting. I dont accept my own demise ever though I rationally know I am a mere mortal. I really picture myself as an RE like immortal Demi-god who will live forever in Valhalla! (Cue Wagner: Ride of the Valkyries and sweeping shot of me flying off into the sunset on the back of a white winged unicorn brandishing a sword.. And perhaps a glass of Merlot in the other hand  if you want to have some authenticity:)

It is hard as a parent to even contemplate the premature demise of my children, even though I know they are going to face hardships me and my parents did not; after all this is the whole modus operandi of the Doomstead Diner: We are comingto the end of the current industrial civilisation and all its perks.... Including Merlot! Damn.

Some of NBL ideas I agree with:
1. We are all going to die. Nothing new or controversial in that statement.
2. We are all going to die soon. Nope, still nothing new. If I live to 100 its still not that far off in geological time frames.
3. We are screwing up the environment. Hmm, pretty obvious here in Oz, let alone what I saw last time I was in mid west Merika we are screwing up the environment and destroying habitat.
4. Screwing up the environment is going to lead to people dying. Happening now. Plenty of foods, fires, droughts and famines. Wait until we see an ice free arctic and lets see what effect this has on Northern Hemisphere weather patterns and food production....
5. If we screw up the environment enough it can and will lead to human extinction. Just a matter of how much we screw it up.

Guy just asserts we have got to the last step already. I fear we have too, but am working on the premise that we haven't, mainly through denial, and the perhaps futile belief I can make a difference for the next generation. After all I did actually bring some of them into the world and I believe I have a moral obligations to try and see them survive.
I did enjoyed the Mad Max movies, but would prefer if I could actually avoid the scenarios in real life... (Watch the first one, it is actually the best IMHO, and a lot of the scenes were filmed not far from where I live. Also a  Ford 1977 XB Falcon was my first car, although it was not a V8 or a 2 doorlike those that appear in the film.)

Geo- Engineering is about as logical as a Mars settlements as an answer to the habitat problem we will face.
If we cant live sustainably on a planet we are tailor made for  how the **** are we going to live in an alien hostile environment!

Geo-engineering i the cause of our problems not the cure...

Clean coal, or indeed clean energy is an oxy-moron. Solar panels don't spontaneously assembly in virgin forests...

Guns and Span wont save humanity either for all you survivalist types. Just leads to holes and constipation in lots of dying people.

The way I see it we really only have 2 possible options:

1. Pain followed by death.
2. Pain followed by death sooner.

Why sweat the details.

Now where did I leave that bottle..


There was time most of us were NBL fans, or at least a fan of Guy and what trying to get across in his writing and speeches. The real issue became the tone of the angry people who sought out the blog and used the comments section there to promote hating the human race. Mostly pissed-off burnouts from various environmental movements and animal rights groups who gathered daily to viciously attack well-meaning people who dropped by the blog to weigh in Guy's posts. I haven't checked out NBL in many months, maybe a year or two now.

I have exactly the same POV on NBL as Dr. Geoffrey Chia, whom RE cross-posts from time to time. Collapse is something to be planned for and anticipated, so that you can weather the vicissitudes of the coming storms.


I post videos of Guy from time to time. He makes a lot of sense, but his narrative is extremely conflicted. He is rather impatient with those who question his extinction box canyon assumptions, only to turn around and talk of "love" and "living the day". His insistance that he was born to be a "teacher" comes off as rather arrogant, considering that he now continuously advocates "humility". He is NOT open to being TAUGHT by ANYONE who doesn't possess the same University Credentials that he severely criticizes as belonging to mostly the bought and paid for cowardly set of scientists and academics out there.

Guy, the "boy genious" was TOTALLY unaware, by his own admission, that the U.S. Gooberment was assigning fawning pseudo-intellectual spies to his classes to gain his confidence and track his every move in order to undermine the validity of his excellent (anarchist = radical = root of proper living) teaching style.

WHY WAS THAT? BECAUSE GUY IS SO FULL OF HIMSELF that he was, and probably still is, a sucker for fawning con artists.

At NO TIME has he appeared, beyond lip service, to BEHAVE as if he possesses any new found humility. So, he has an arrogance problem. Sure, he will self deprecatingly talk about how long it took for him to learn to milk goats and how hard it is for him to grow plants and such in a display of humility, but he cannot seem to give a talk without parading the fact that he earned his full professorial credentials at a young age.

I enjoy listening to his dissertations on climate feedback loops and the in-your-face wishful thinking stupidity of many scientists. He is 100% right on both those issues. But his personal life is testament, though he vociferously denies it, to a man embittered because the establisment turned against the worthy and erudite Guy McPherson.

If you do not see that as a highly conflicted message, I suggest you look a bit deeper.  8)
Title: Re: Species Population Biomass effects on the Biosphere
Post by: AGelbert on October 22, 2017, 05:11:30 pm
Mist hangs over the Tongass temperate rain forest in Alaska. The Bush administration ( tried to undermine the Roadless Rule by exempting the Tongass National Forest from the rule. LEEPRINCE / SHUTTERSTOCK


By Jessica A. Knoblauch | Thursday, September 28, 2017

Tom Waldo, one of the legal architects of Earthjustice's Roadless Rule strategy, walks through a field of fireweed near Juneau, Alaska. MICHAEL PENN FOR EARTHJUSTICE


A decades-long fight over a landmark rule protecting wild forests nationwide took another successful–and possibly final–turn last week after a U.S. district court threw out a last-ditch attack by the state of Alaska against the Roadless Rule.

Adopted in the closing days of the Clinton administration, the Roadless Rule prohibits most logging and road construction in roadless areas of national forests. These lands, today equaling about 50 million acres or about the size of Nebraska, are some of the wildest places left in America.

Upon its passage, the rule was overwhelmingly popular with the American people, including those who like to hike, camp, fish and recreate among the trees in wild, unmarred areas. The Forest Service also liked the rule, since, at the time, the agency had a multibillion-dollar backlog on maintenance for more than 400,000 miles of existing roads, and it wasn’t eager to add even more to its workload.

Yet, despite its popularity, state political leaders with ties to the logging and timber industries hated the new rule. Even before President Clinton left office, they began their attack. The Bush administration (, which took office just eight days later, failed to come to the rule’s defense.

“It created this vacuum,” says Earthjustice attorney Tom Waldo, one of the legal architects of the organization’s Roadless Rule strategy. “So Earthjustice stepped in.”

A roadless area in the North Carolina National Forest. MARK VAN DYKE

Full story: (