Inconvenient Truths: Cute Animals Will Have To Die

The Independent:

Cute animals will have to die

You may not have come across the Bewick's swan. The smallest swan found in Britain, it reaches our shores from its Siberian breeding grounds in October and, along with 65,000 other water birds, it splashes down in the wetlands of the Severn Estuary. It is, without doubt, very cute.

Read the whole story: The Independent

Comments

[SFTor]

06:40 AM on 03/08/2009

We have had global warming for over a century now. How many animals cute or otherwise, have actually died out because of global warming? Any?

[orangepetal]

10:02 PM on 03/04/2009

Are there lots of 'these' natural bird lands or very few ?
Are there other sea areas this project could be done or is this the only location that could work?

[hopenchange12]

01:59 PM on 03/04/2009

NO its ok obama will stop all global warming with huis words!!!!! YES WE CAN

[TimmySlagle]

10:46 AM on 03/04/2009

Only the cute ones? How scientific is that?

Truth is, it's only the cute ones that people really care about. Only a few weirdos really care about the extinction of an albino cave slug. The cute ones like Pandas Penguins and Polar Bears, are what keeps the $$$ flowing into WWF and Greenpeace.

Here's what I know for sure: delicious animals, that people are allowed to own, will never go extinct.

Eat more endangered species!

[topgunna]

11:55 AM on 03/04/2009

Hahaha of course!

Of course, the corrolary to this claim is that certain disease-carrying species are going to see their populations spin out of control. It's truly amazing how climate change in any direction has unambiguously negative results.

[TimmySlagle]

03:14 PM on 03/04/2009

Great Point!

How can you have extinction and pestilence?

The Alarmists have just been pulling their apocalyptic predictions straight from the Bible, not realizing that they are scientifically contradictory.

(Flood AND Drought? Fire AND Rain?)

[BongHitsForJesus]

12:28 PM on 03/04/2009

Aren't you still full from all that crow you had to eat last November, Timmy?

[TimmySlagle]

03:12 PM on 03/04/2009

Not at all. I never liked McCain.

Like George Bush, he was way too moderate. (I'm a Ron Paul guy). All that does, is tarnish the Republican brand.

I know that all of you want to think that we are going to spend the next four years as miserably as you spent the last eight, but it's not going to happen.

You'll have to find your schadenfreude elsewhere.

[Durango]

10:41 AM on 03/04/2009

I thought that was one of Stephen Colberts talking points?

[deepintheheartoftejas]

10:14 AM on 03/04/2009

Wow, that final idea that because trees mostly stop absorbing CO2 after 50 or so years, so we should cut them down at that point and make furniture out of them.

I've rarely heard such mind-boggling stupidity come from the mouths of anyone outside of the Republican party... did he not consider the energy required to cut it down, and then transport all the wood to some factory, where it will be cut up and remade as furniture... and then transported to a retailer and then to someone's home??

[MTGradwell]

09:36 AM on 03/04/2009

The Huffpo home page link to this article says "Telegraph's Inconvenient Truths: Cute Animals Will Have To Die". Shome mishtake, shurely? The article was published in the Independent, not in the Telegraph, and as far as I can tell it makes no mention of the Telegraph, though I must admit I had to give up about three quarters of the way through.

I can understand the confusion, though, because the article is the sort of rubbish more usually associated with the Telegraph than with the Independent.

[Truby]

08:37 AM on 03/04/2009

Whew, here I was thinking it would be a haphazard die off. If it is only the cute animals, well then we will just have to make do with the ugly ones.

[imsosure]

03:21 AM on 03/04/2009

Will they really die or perhaps just stop to exist in this universe while thriving on a parallel universe in another place still in our space? Hmm, they may continue to live after all, nit necessarily becoming extinct.

[climatebabes]

02:51 AM on 03/04/2009

Why is it so hard to understand that if you act without care for the damage you do to the environment that supports you you will end up straving in a desolate mess?

[shanefish]

08:57 AM on 03/04/2009

Because it is human nature to find what is wonderful in life, then destroy it!

[GoldenAgeMaster]

02:20 AM on 03/04/2009

At least this one has it almost correct. The global warming hoax is simply another way to tax people. Ya gotta admit, the propaganda is working.

http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/children-force-fed-propaganda/

[shanefish]

08:59 AM on 03/04/2009

Dude, your ignorance is astounding, although hilarious. A hoax? Then why are us engineers being told to start designing our bridges and waterways to handle an additional 2'-6' of ocean levels rising, unpredictable weather patterns, etc? Do you really think it is a hoax, meant to keep me in the business of over-designing bridges, or do you think they really think it is going to happen? You're a Limbaugh repeater, who obviously can't think for himself.

[dems08]

11:47 PM on 03/03/2009

The article is wrong...

There is no such thing as 'clean coal'.

[bentheimmigrant]

08:12 AM on 03/04/2009

There's no such thing as clean anything. There are NO power production methods that completely avoid CO2 (and others) release. Renewables may be great in the long term, but you must still put energy and materials into building them.

[LadyAurora]

08:54 AM on 03/04/2009

Try googling MIT and clean coal. You will find that there are plenty of ways to generate "clean coal". Some may be expensive at the moment, but that's only because big oil has a strangle hold on the market.

So it is possible, but until more money is put in developing the technology and companies are willing to spend the money, it won't happen.

[AbstractImp]

10:58 PM on 03/03/2009

I choose to go with them, rather than stay here with these monstrous "humans" . . .

[justmeinAz]

10:13 PM on 03/03/2009

I'd need to write a comment longer than this article to address everything that is fundamentally wrong or factually inaccurate in this writing. However, since judging by the comments so far no one is buying this nonsense, I thankfully don't have to waste my time doing so.

[southwindow]

10:22 PM on 03/03/2009

i was about to go point by point through the article, but I had to stop myself.
I have so many other things to do than worry about this trash.

[shanefish]

09:05 AM on 03/04/2009

I have an idea, how about those of us who believe the world is heating up to the point of probable disaster (kinda like believing the world is flat) gets to better our portion of the world, then those of you who fight us on it because Limbaugh told you that it is WHOOEY, get your own nitch and we'll just see who is begging the other to let them live in the other area. Kinda remids me of the grasshopper playing all day and the ant dilligently preparing for the coming winter. You are the grasshopper, playing all day, hoping God will spare you of any disasterous effects from your silliness, and i am the ant, working hard to ensure we have a safe, reliable place to call home. Go back to school and learn some REALITY before you use the Bible to back up your nonsense.

[shanefish]

09:08 AM on 03/04/2009

Sorry, responded to the wrong comment, will you forgive me?

[jotunloki]

10:06 PM on 03/03/2009

This article is obviously bought and paid for by corporate interests.