The presentation of Climate Change in Zoos

F

foz

Well-Known Member
So with the ever increasing media interest in climate change/global warming how are zoos reacting to this?

Many zoos (in the UK at least) have taken measures to install renewable energy sources and reduce their carbin output. However there seem to be too few stalls/exhibits dedicated to the subject.

Should zoos raise the issue? and how does the inclusion of climate chnge information differ internationally?
 
San Diego Zoo recently redid Polar Bear Plunge with very strong graphics about climate change.

My zoo (Reid Park Zoo) set an example with our low environmental impact education building, certified by the LEED program of the green building council, which many other zoos are adopting in their new construction. The entrance at Cincinnati and the asian exhibit at Denver are a couple that come to mind. Here is a thread on our building:

http://www.zoochat.com/22/platinum-leed-certification-64603/
 
An interesting question; does everyone here beleive in Climate change? - in that is is caused by human activties?

And should zoo's be taking a stance on an issue over which much crticism and disbeleif still exists?
 
foz said:
An interesting question; does everyone here beleive in Climate change? - in that is is caused by human activties?

And should zoo's be taking a stance on an issue over which much crticism and disbeleif still exists?
Click to expand...

You mean, like evolution? :p


When the great preponderance of serious climate scientists worldwide agree (as they have for several years), then we must be suspect of the small minority who disagree. And we can't help noticing how many of that minority group are funded by oil interests. The "debate" over climate change, like the "debate" over evolution ended some time ago...well, except apparently at Noah's Ark Farm/Zoo

@foz - if school age kids are doubting the reality of climate change, then I fear for your education!
 
Last edited:
Zooplantman said:
You mean, like evolution? :p


When the great preponderance of serious climate scientists worldwide agree (as they have for several years), then we must be suspect of the small minority who disagree. And we can't help noticing how many of that minority group are funded by oil interests. The "debate" over climate change, like the "debate" over evolution ended some time ago...well, except apparently at Noah's Ark Farm/Zoo

@foz - if school age kids are doubting the reality of climate change, then I fear for your education!
Click to expand...

At least, there's proof for evolution. There's even a debate going on if there's even global warming, and what the natural curves are. And oil interests? Did you know that the whole co2-reduction industry is a 7 trillion dollar industry worldwide? It's pointless to talk about climate change, we have just a limited impact on our climate. But thousands of children are dying every year because of polluted water. This is actually measurable, and there are conferences being held about this. Where's the media attention for this matter? O, yes, off course, it's the oil industry blocking this. Foolish me.
 
Johnny said:
At least, there's proof for evolution. There's even a debate going on if there's even global warming, and what the natural curves are. And oil interests? Did you know that the whole co2-reduction industry is a 7 trillion dollar industry worldwide? It's pointless to talk about climate change, we have just a limited impact on our climate. But thousands of children are dying every year because of polluted water. This is actually measurable, and there are conferences being held about this. Where's the media attention for this matter? O, yes, off course, it's the oil industry blocking this. Foolish me.
Click to expand...

I have seen a great deal of media on the "coming crisis in drinkable water" and projections of the next wars to be over water rather than oil.
Why do you present these two issues as in conflict, as though we need be concerned about only one?

For that matter, why the sarcastic tone?

I do not know what is happening politically in the Netherlands, but here in the USA the oil industry (aided by car manufacturers and other manufacturers) had a huge influence on the past Administration(s) to fight any climate change legislation, claiming that "there remains some doubt as to whether human activities really really really are causing anything to occur." Even this year, a major bill was defeated in the Senate due to the efforts of these "lobbyists." While the Environmental and Scientific communities were in virtual agreement, the business and political interests have fought the idea every step of the way. The IPCC declared that climate change was proceeding at a dangerous rate 20 years ago and very little has been done about it specifically because it has been thwarted by economic interests quoting studies that they themselves paid for. The Kyoto Accord brought many countries on board, but some - such as the US - refused to sign because of economic ...not scientific.. concerns.
Were I living in the low countries, I would want to err on the side of caution.
 
Last edited:
Off course oil companies are against legislation that will cost them money. But the whole debate lacks objective scientific research. And only one outcome is allowed; the earth is warming up, and human activity is to blame for that, and all research prooving the opposite is funded by the 'polluters'. And that's the biggest problem with th ewhole theory ( that's still all it is).

My comparison with a driiking wate rproblem is a very good one, because this actually is a problem, instead of a theory. Still, this problem doesn't get the attention it deserves, while a not proven problem gets way too much.

And sealevels are rising every century, nothing new there. Why should we be worried? Where would the water come from? The north pole is floating in water, so no danger there. And it's currently bigger then it has been in years. Antarctica has gotten colder, the icesheets there are growing. Greenland is melting a lot slower dan mentioned by the 'alarmists'. So, where would the water be coming from?
 
Well, @Johnny, since I assume that neither of us are climate scientists we are obviously reading different and contradictory sources.

I do very much agree with you about the water issues! There are some wonderful products and simple technologies being developed for Third World families, but funding remains a big problem.
 
Zooplantman said:
You mean, like evolution? :p


When the great preponderance of serious climate scientists worldwide agree (as they have for several years), then we must be suspect of the small minority who disagree. And we can't help noticing how many of that minority group are funded by oil interests. The "debate" over climate change, like the "debate" over evolution ended some time ago...well, except apparently at Noah's Ark Farm/Zoo

@foz - if school age kids are doubting the reality of climate change, then I fear for your education!
Click to expand...

Reserach first, then post, lol.:eek:
 
Zooplantman said:
You mean, like evolution? :p


When the great preponderance of serious climate scientists worldwide agree (as they have for several years), then we must be suspect of the small minority who disagree. And we can't help noticing how many of that minority group are funded by oil interests. The "debate" over climate change, like the "debate" over evolution ended some time ago...well, except apparently at Noah's Ark Farm/Zoo

@foz - if school age kids are doubting the reality of climate change, then I fear for your education!
Click to expand...

Who said anything about school kids? I've observed in Uk media an intial hype surrounding climate change onlyt to be undermined as various news papers and other media outlets have changed their stance to side with the critics. I think the comparison between evolution and climate change is a good one and only wish more people would take global warming seriously.

I think it is naive and irresponsible to some degree to disregard climate change and carry on as normal. Surely the value of life outwieghs that of oil?

Globally there needs to be a better measurement of improvement other than economically.
 
The UK government made up its mind about climate change long ago (it first came to prominence while Mrs Thatcher was PM). Global warming and the greenhouse effect are taught in science lessons as part of the national curriculum and HMG (= Her Majesty's Government - common UK acronym) have policies both nationally and internationally to ameliorate the effects of climate change.
One of these is to make it a condition for the issue of a Zoo Licence that the zoo concerned should make an effort to educate the public about environmental issues - for example most UK zoos have some 'green' information on their websites.
In the long run, as the evidence accumulates, I expect that denial of climate change will be viewed in the same manner as denial of the Holocaust is viewed now.

Alan
 
foz said:
Who said anything about school kids? I've observed in Uk media an intial hype surrounding climate change onlyt to be undermined as various news papers and other media outlets have changed their stance to side with the critics. I think the comparison between evolution and climate change is a good one and only wish more people would take global warming seriously.

I think it is naive and irresponsible to some degree to disregard climate change and carry on as normal. Surely the value of life outwieghs that of oil?

Globally there needs to be a better measurement of improvement other than economically.
Click to expand...

Again, what does this have to do with the value of oil? Are you really ignorant of the fact that the 'global warming theory' supports a huge industry worldwide? That experts can't agree upon the fact if temperature curves are a natural phenomenon, and that the ipcc reports have been filled with lies? For instance, they ignored to mention the fact that since the beginning of the 1990's data from cold places are left out of the equasion. And- surprise surprise- they have observed a increase of the average temperature since that time.

The supporters of this theory are beginning to look like religious fanatics. Whatever the facts of the opposite, they are right, no matter what. This is a very unhealthy scientific debate. Governments worldwide should not pay attention to this, until there's certainty about the truth.
 
Johnny said:
Again, what does this have to do with the value of oil? Are you really ignorant of the fact that the 'global warming theory' supports a huge industry worldwide? That experts can't agree upon the fact if temperature curves are a natural phenomenon, and that the ipcc reports have been filled with lies? For instance, they ignored to mention the fact that since the beginning of the 1990's data from cold places are left out of the equasion. And- surprise surprise- they have observed a increase of the average temperature since that time.

The supporters of this theory are beginning to look like religious fanatics. Whatever the facts of the opposite, they are right, no matter what. This is a very unhealthy scientific debate. Governments worldwide should not pay attention to this, until there's certainty about the truth.
Click to expand...

1) Firstly oil is the main driver of major economies, fuelling a culture of large greenhouse gases. But to be honest perhaps it doesn't belong here (this thread) and maybe I shouldn't have brought it up.

However...

2) Whilst I agree that there is some uncertainty in evidence for global warming I think to "not pay attention to this" is incredibly dangerous and irresponsible. It is quite absurd to think that human society can pump out as much of anything as it likes into the atmosphere and have no effect.

Some beleive that climate change is a ploy used by governments and businesses to meet their own plans. Maybe climate change does aid politcal or economic agendas, even if it does, does this mean it is not real?
 
foz said:
Some beleive that climate change is a ploy used by governments and businesses to meet their own plans. Maybe climate change does aid politcal or economic agendas, even if it does, does this mean it is not real?
Click to expand...

Good heavens! What agenda could politicians possibly have that would cause them to fabricate this completely unwelcome "fiction"?
"we're destroying the planet so re-elect me"?!?!?!?!
"The manufacturing and energy companies won't give me campaign funds for some reason so I'll get back at them"?!?!
"My investment in wind farms is what I hope to get rich on"????
I can't imagine it

"Some" believe that the Space People are going to visit and make everything all better,... but that doesn't make it so.

(Sorry, @foz, I am not making fun of you...just these people you refer to)
 
Johnny said:
The supporters of this theory are beginning to look like religious fanatics. Whatever the facts of the opposite, they are right, no matter what. This is a very unhealthy scientific debate. Governments worldwide should not pay attention to this, until there's certainty about the truth.
Click to expand...

You seem to have misunderstood something. The vast majority of serious scientists support the climate change theory because this is what the vast majority of evidence shows. The people who disregard it are the people following the fringe theory and (in some cases) resemble religious fanatics, not the other way around. In science, the people with the strongest evidence and arguments come out on top, and that's why scientists supporting global warming far outnumber scientists that don't. If a scientist follows a fringe theory, like 'no global warming', it is his job to show the mainstream theory and its supporting evidence is wrong. This is not the same as saying all pro global warming science has been good but that's no different from pro evolution where there also has been some bad science. This doesn't devaluate the good science that clearly supports evolution, just like a few bad seeds don't devaluate the good science that clearly supports global warming. In both evolution and global warming there are unfortunately plenty of politicians that only care about their own agenda rather than evidence.

Though I wish another word than 'global warming' had been chosen as it is much more complex than that, and the fact that many 'normal' people are not aware of any details makes it easy to mislead them with incorrect arguments. For example because they do not know that the standard global warming theories show that a few regions actually will become colder due to changes of current and wind systems.
 
Last edited:
condor said:
You seem to have misunderstood something. The vast majority of serious scientists support the climate change theory because this is what the vast majority of evidence shows. The people who disregard it are the people following the fringe theory and (in some cases) resemble religious fanatics, not the other way around. In science, the people with the strongest evidence and arguments come out on top, and that's why scientists supporting global warming far outnumber scientists that don't. If a scientist follows a fringe theory, like 'no global warming', it is his job to show the mainstream theory and its supporting evidence is wrong. This is not the same as saying all pro global warming science has been good but that's no different from pro evolution where there also has been some bad science. This doesn't devaluate the good science that clearly supports evolution, just like a few bad seeds don't devaluate the good science that clearly supports global warming. In both evolution and global warming there are unfortunately plenty of politicians that only care about their own agenda rather than evidence.

Though I wish another word than 'global warming' had been chosen as it is much more complex than that, and the fact that many 'normal' people are not aware of any details makes it easy to mislead them with incorrect arguments. For example because they do not know that the standard global warming theories show that a few regions actually will become colder due to changes of current and wind systems.
Click to expand...

There are a few mistakes you're making. There's no significant majority supporting the theory, nor is there a small minority denying it. There's a reason it has become controversial. And it has become very controversial, to say the least. The fact that the sun has had a major influence on all the planets in the solar system, in the past ten years already explains a lot. The more valid theory is that because the increased solar activity has warmed up the oceans, which has been disrupting 'normal' wheater systems. Co2 and methane are greenhouse gasses, but need to be in much larger quantities to sort out any effect.

@ zooplantman,

Politicians who claim to have the solution for a problem are more likely te be (re) elected. As I said before, it is also a huge global indusrty. So, intersts in this business are as high as in the oil business. The big nature conservation organisations are old, and needy of a reason to keep existing. Don't forget, these are organisation depending on funding, but with budgets of many millions of dollars ( or euro's, whatever you want), and CEO's earning salarys with 5 zero's, sometimes even 6. Governments are collecting co2 taxes, and these certainly are not going into the funding of durable energy.

This simply is not a matter of a good and bad side, but a very serious issue. And, maybe interesting, maybe you should look for a theory, called 'the state of fear'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top