[Corey USA]

http://www.google.com/search?q=ocean...ain%22&start=0

Read some of this info Here is a more pressing reason for needing to curb our pollution.

This is not a scare tactic. I am pointing other ramifications related to our pollution. This is being observed right now. This is as "certain" as we can get.

Co2 + equivalents don't just effect climate.

If we wipe out the base of the food chain in the ocean then everything above could go along with it. We are at the top.

You sure you want to continue to waste?

[abraxus]

As you brought up the subject of the oceans, what about the contribution of whales to global warming?

Let's face, whilst we know global warming exists, we are far from saying that we are the primary cause (yes we no doubt contribute) or that it's permanent and not cyclical or in some way self regulating.

Of course scientific study can be made to show these things, but the problem is that often people are formulating their answer first and then building the scientific case around it, rather than the other way round. Not that this is neccessarily bad, but just that this approach allows you to come up with all sorts of conclusions depending on your agenda. For example:

Fact one: CO2 acts as a heat trapping gas. Plankton accounts for half of the transer of CO2 back into the biosphere by photosythesis therefore reducing the rate it accumulates and significantly helping to mitigate global warming. Nasa satellite studies since the late 1970's have shown that plankton levels have declined substantially since the 1980's.

Fact two: In 1946 the International Whaling Commission was established to provide for the proper conservation of whales. However, it was not until the scientific basis for sustainable management was developed and implemented that effective restrictions were progressively introduced for the most depleted stocks. Additionally, there had been major falsification of the true catch records, so in 1982 the IWC agreed to give total protection from commercial hunting to all whale stocks.

Fact three: Whales eat plankton in enormous quantities.

Pseudo scientific conclusion: The protection of whales began in earnest in the early 1980's. Studies from Nasa satelittes show that since this period there has been a substantial drop in plankton levels. Given that whales are a major consumer of plankton and that their numbers have steadily increased since 1982 due to conservation, it is logical to assume that the drop in plankton levels is due to the ever inceasing consumption by a growing whale population. The 14% drop in the North Atlantic and 30% drop in the North Pacific represents a substantial reduction in plankton's overall capability to recycle CO2 and is the most significant contributory factor to increased CO2 levels and therefore global warming.

Action plan: To lift the restrictions on whaling and start hunting whales again in earnest to get those plankton levels back up so that they can carry on regulating the planet like they did for millennia until 1982.

[njp]

Unfortunately for your argument, the IPCC conclusions do not rely on a fallacious piece of reasoning scribbled on the back of your fag packet, but on decades of highly detailed observation and analysis.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by abraxus

.... but the problem is that often people are formulating their answer first and then building the scientific case around it, rather than the other way round. Not that this is neccessarily bad, but just that this approach allows you to come up with all sorts of conclusions depending on your agenda. .

I think you will find that the vast majority of science, taken as a whole, actually works in that way. Start off with an empirical observation (eg in chemistry a plus b reacts to give you c and then formulate a 'theory' as to why (ie propose a reaction pathway). Then, using your theory try and predict results from experiments that you can do. Then do the experiments. If you get the predicted result, then your theory holds water. Then continue on in the same vein, until you do a reaction that doesn't quite work as expected. Work out why the result wasn't as predicted and either change your theory or explain the anomoly.
As I understand it the MMGW theory is in place and seems to hold water. The problem is that Climate science isn't like simple chemical reactions because there are so many variables. It hasn't been proved 100% that MMGW is with us, because you can't prove that kind of thing 100% (see many many previous posts on 100% proof). Being so complicated, every aspect of the pro MMGW argument can be taken and argued with individually. But by contradicting one aspect you achieve very little because the vast majority of evidence appears to support the general conclusion. So in some respects, its an act of faith. Are you persuaded by the sheer weight of arguments in favour, or do you prefer to find fault with each argument individually?
Personally, I think the globe is going through a warming phase and I feel that it is potentially bad news for us and future generations. If I can do my bit to reduce it or slow down the rate of warming, fine I don't have a problem with that. Will I do what I can in the face of most of the rest of the world not giving a damn? Well, yes actually because what I have noticed is that I can cut my consumption without noticeably harming my lifestyle. But it does noticeably affect, in a positive sense, my bank balance.
eg
*Properly serviced car
*energy efficient lights (being lucky because they don't give me headaches)
*reasonable insulation
*dual flush on the loos
*rainwater saving to water the gardens (not a lot of benefit this year tho')
*2 euros spent on a switch so that the transformers for the computer speakers and scanner and other bits are only on when I need them
and so it goes on.
It doesn't hurt. It saves me money.

[abraxus]

Originally Posted by njp

Unfortunately for your argument, the IPCC conclusions do not rely on a fallacious piece of reasoning scribbled on the back of your fag packet, but on decades of highly detailed observation and analysis.

The analysis on plankton is also the result of decades of detailed analysis by NASA. There is nothing fallacious about the reasoning. Plankton is declining as whale stocks are increasing. Whales eat plankton and plankton is the major recycler of CO2. Explain to me what's fallacious about that?

The analysis you refer to at best only concludes that we are responsible for "some" of the CO2, not the majority. The observations and analysis may well be highly detailed but the conclusions are no less back of a fag packet assumptions.

[abraxus]

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

I think you will find that the vast majority of science, taken as a whole, actually works in that way. Start off with an empirical observation (eg in chemistry a plus b reacts to give you c and then formulate a 'theory' as to why (ie propose a reaction pathway). Then, using your theory try and predict results from experiments that you can do. Then do the experiments. If you get the predicted result, then your theory holds water. Then continue on in the same vein, until you do a reaction that doesn't quite work as expected. Work out why the result wasn't as predicted and either change your theory or explain the anomoly.
As I understand it the MMGW theory is in place and seems to hold water. The problem is that Climate science isn't like simple chemical reactions because there are so many variables. It hasn't been proved 100% that MMGW is with us, because you can't prove that kind of thing 100% (see many many previous posts on 100% proof). Being so complicated, every aspect of the pro MMGW argument can be taken and argued with individually. But by contradicting one aspect you achieve very little because the vast majority of evidence appears to support the general conclusion. So in some respects, its an act of faith. Are you persuaded by the sheer weight of arguments in favour, or do you prefer to find fault with each argument individually?
Personally, I think the globe is going through a warming phase and I feel that it is potentially bad news for us and future generations. If I can do my bit to reduce it or slow down the rate of warming, fine I don't have a problem with that. Will I do what I can in the face of most of the rest of the world not giving a damn? Well, yes actually because what I have noticed is that I can cut my consumption without noticeably harming my lifestyle. But it does noticeably affect, in a positive sense, my bank balance.
eg
*Properly serviced car
*energy efficient lights (being lucky because they don't give me headaches)
*reasonable insulation
*dual flush on the loos
*rainwater saving to water the gardens (not a lot of benefit this year tho')
*2 euros spent on a switch so that the transformers for the computer speakers and scanner and other bits are only on when I need them
and so it goes on.
It doesn't hurt. It saves me money.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that we're only looking at one cause, and not neccessarily the major one at that.

I did say that it's not neccessarily wrong for the science to work that way, but that it cannot at this stage be conclusive, only (perhaps reasonably) assumptive.

If either the production or the ability to regulate CO2 is a crucial factor, then the depletion of plankton by whales is a potentially larger contributor to global warming than us.

I'm no disputing that CO2 contribtes to global warming, nor that we produce it, I'm simply suggesting that there may be other, more significant factors, so I'm not especially finding fault in any argument but saying that it may not be about one thing.

[njp]

Originally Posted by abraxus

There is nothing fallacious about the reasoning. Plankton is declining as whale stocks are increasing. Whales eat plankton and plankton is the major recycler of CO2. Explain to me what's fallacious about that?

What is fallacious is that you have not even attempted to provide numbers in support of your whale-warming hypothesis. It therefore does not even come close to being a theory of global warming. It is nothing more than a frivolous piece of whimsy.

The analysis you refer to at best only concludes that we are responsible for "some" of the CO2, not the majority. The observations and analysis may well be highly detailed but the conclusions are no less back of a fag packet assumptions.

Clearly you are unfamiliar with both the results of the analysis, and the means by which it is conducted.

[Stephen Wilde]

Interesting point about whales.

As they are the most successful large creatures in the Oceans then perhaps they are overpopulating their habitat and in the process producing a good deal of CO2 and destroying the plankton which the rest of the planet relies on to control a build up of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Can I get shares in a Company manufacturing whale condoms ?

Now all I have to do is create a list of people who take the scenario seriously and assert that there is a consensus that whales are responsible for global warming. Any objectors can be called upon to disprove the theory or be demonised and discredited via personal attacks.
All the 'evidence' currently available could equally support the whale scenario as the human scenario.

So much of the Oceans under the surface remains unexplored that the total whale population could be huge and rising fast.

[abraxus]

Originally Posted by njp

What is fallacious is that you have not even attempted to provide numbers in support of your whale-warming hypothesis. It therefore does not even come close to being a theory of global warming. It is nothing more than a frivolous piece of whimsy..

And you've offered nothing to disprove it either. I quoted facts and percentage drops in plankton so did give numbers, from NASA and marine bioligical surveys going back many years. I do apololise that I can't reference them but it was information I collected some time ago while reviewing a book on a different subject.

It's not fallacious simply because you choose not to believe it. If the facts are true (in other words if I haven't lied), then it is neither fallacious nor frivolous whimsy.

Even without a reference, the facts are well known. Whales eat plankton, plankton is a major converter of CO2 and whale numbers have been increasing since whaling bans, whilst plankton stocks have simulateously declined.

Originally Posted by njp

Clearly you are unfamiliar with both the results of the analysis, and the means by which it is conducted.

No I'm not unfamiliar, nor am am disputing the results and analysis. Merely questioning the conclusions drawn from them, and whether there might not be other, more significant contributions to CO2 and global warming that are being ignored.

I'm not intending to question other research, but the title of this thread refers to other pressing issues related to CO2, and I am raising one in the form of how and if whaling bans have contributed to plankton depletion.

[njp]

Originally Posted by abraxus

And you've offered nothing to disprove it either.

This is becoming surreal. I might as well posit that global warming is caused by an increased influx of fire-breathing space pixies, and challenge you to disprove that.

It's not fallacious simply because you choose not to believe it. If the facts are true (in other words if I haven't lied), then it is neither fallacious nor frivolous whimsy.

What facts? All you have said that the numbers of plankton have declined at the same time as whale numbers have increased. You haven't demonstrated a causal relationship between these two events, let alone established that oceanic CO2 exchange fluxes have declined as a consequence!

[abraxus]

Here you go:

"During the glacial periods, atmospheric carbon dioxide, or CO2 levels decrease substantially, while during interglacial periods, such as we are now in, those levels increase," said Hales. "There is also a striking inverse relationship between implied, historical iron fluxes to the ocean and atmospheric CO2 concentrations. These relationships suggest some sort of feedback system between iron and CO2 levels during glacial periods that keep the temperature low."

"In order for the phytoplankton to be a long-term sink for carbon, they somehow have to get deposited in the deep ocean, and that doesn't always happen," said Hales. "If the phytoplankton are just eaten at the surface, or don't sink to any great depth then the carbon is eventually released back into the atmosphere."

""The difference between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere today and during pre-industrial times is about the same as the difference between interglacial and glacial periods,"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0416014043.htm

[abraxus]

Originally Posted by njp

What facts? All you have said that the numbers of plankton have declined at the same time as whale numbers have increased. You haven't demonstrated a causal relationship between these two events, let alone established that oceanic CO2 exchange fluxes have declined as a consequence!

Given that whales eat plankton how much more of a relationship do you want?

Plankton recycles CO2 - Whales eat plankton - whales get protected - plankton diminishes - CO2 rises.

How is this any different to saying that we produce CO2, CO2 causes global warming, CO2 levels are rising, therfore it must be down to us.

The fact is that science can conclusively prove global warming. It can prove that CO2 is a contributor, and it can also prove that we produce CO2. What it cant do is prove that reducing our emissions will make any difference, nor can it prove that the current warming trend isn't part of a cyclical process that the planet can ultimately self regulate.

It also ignores other supposedly green actions such as the ban on whaling and the growing market for soya (particularly organic) for the vegetarian market, that also contribute to global warming.

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by abraxus

As you brought up the subject of the oceans, what about the contribution of whales to global warming?

Let's face, whilst we know global warming exists, we are far from saying that we are the primary cause (yes we no doubt contribute) or that it's permanent and not cyclical or in some way self regulating.

Of course scientific study can be made to show these things, but the problem is that often people are formulating their answer first and then building the scientific case around it, rather than the other way round. Not that this is neccessarily bad, but just that this approach allows you to come up with all sorts of conclusions depending on your agenda. For example:

Fact one: CO2 acts as a heat trapping gas. Plankton accounts for half of the transer of CO2 back into the biosphere by photosythesis therefore reducing the rate it accumulates and significantly helping to mitigate global warming. Nasa satellite studies since the late 1970's have shown that plankton levels have declined substantially since the 1980's.

Fact two: In 1946 the International Whaling Commission was established to provide for the proper conservation of whales. However, it was not until the scientific basis for sustainable management was developed and implemented that effective restrictions were progressively introduced for the most depleted stocks. Additionally, there had been major falsification of the true catch records, so in 1982 the IWC agreed to give total protection from commercial hunting to all whale stocks.

Fact three: Whales eat plankton in enormous quantities.

Pseudo scientific conclusion: The protection of whales began in earnest in the early 1980's. Studies from Nasa satelittes show that since this period there has been a substantial drop in plankton levels. Given that whales are a major consumer of plankton and that their numbers have steadily increased since 1982 due to conservation, it is logical to assume that the drop in plankton levels is due to the ever inceasing consumption by a growing whale population. The 14% drop in the North Atlantic and 30% drop in the North Pacific represents a substantial reduction in plankton's overall capability to recycle CO2 and is the most significant contributory factor to increased CO2 levels and therefore global warming.

Action plan: To lift the restrictions on whaling and start hunting whales again in earnest to get those plankton levels back up so that they can carry on regulating the planet like they did for millennia until 1982.

Stop blaming whales. They are not the cause. The points you brought up regarding whales is outdated. within this last year and spring 90% of the population is gone vs 1960 or earlier. whales returning from winter feeding are underweight. Not enough food. the link below could and would explain this last fact.

Its the co2 which is acidifying the ocean which is killing the organisms.

There aren't even enough whales to do what you claim! whales are good for keeping algae blooms on check for they can eat it before it colapses. if the bloom dies it has a devastating effect of flooding the area with co2. The whales are a check and balance in nature.

My guess is you didn't even bother to read the links on what effect the co2 was having on our oceans which had nothing to do with whales in the first place.

Even if you removed the whales you did not remove the pressing cause which was pollution from the industrial nations from using fossil fuels and other pollutants.

whales are so in regards that number of whales alive vs the co2 which is what is killing at a rate whales could ever match.

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by abraxus

Here you go:

"During the glacial periods, atmospheric carbon dioxide, or CO2 levels decrease substantially, while during interglacial periods, such as we are now in, those levels increase," said Hales. "There is also a striking inverse relationship between implied, historical iron fluxes to the ocean and atmospheric CO2 concentrations. These relationships suggest some sort of feedback system between iron and CO2 levels during glacial periods that keep the temperature low."

"In order for the phytoplankton to be a long-term sink for carbon, they somehow have to get deposited in the deep ocean, and that doesn't always happen," said Hales. "If the phytoplankton are just eaten at the surface, or don't sink to any great depth then the carbon is eventually released back into the atmosphere."

""The difference between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere today and during pre-industrial times is about the same as the difference between interglacial and glacial periods,"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0416014043.htm

look at the date of your links newer research has replaced your links.

(this is a small partof the whole precess of how hurricanes are having an effect)They have Observed how hurricanes have been stirring the water which is preventing the sinking process, eating it is small fry.

Not enough whale mouths. to make a significant impact.

Look what happened on land when we removed the predators, the prey species over populated became sick and large die off occurred. whales=wolves
in regards to check and balance in life. Stop trying to justify destroying our ecosystem further, when it is not the ecosystem causing the problem.

The ecosystem cannot fix our problem with co2+ equivalent only we can.

That was part of the reason for giving such a broad link as I did so as to show a multitude of evidence for and against. In hopes you would be smart enough to read and learn and possibly admit to mistakes and learn to change and adapt. This has nothing to do with brainwashing etc either.

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by njp

global warming is caused by an increased influx of fire-breathing space pixies

Well I never, you learn something new every day

[abraxus]

Originally Posted by Corey USA

in regards to check and balance in life. Stop trying to justify destroying our ecosystem further, when it is not the ecosystem causing the problem.

That's fair enough Corey, I accept what you're saying. I'm not saying we should destroy our ecosystem, merely saying that I believe current thinking is too narrow and only focussed in one area. I was simply making a point.

I did read the artcle I linked fully and one paragraph stated that:

"The difference between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere today and during pre-industrial times is about the same as the difference between interglacial and glacial periods"

Now this could mean that we might be faced with similar levels of CO2 even if we did stop producing the stuff. Where would be then if all of our efforts have been focussed in an area which turned out to have no effect?

What if it's a natural cycle that regulates itself over time? What if we're not important in the scheme of things and our destruction is just a natural byproduct of planetary business as usual.

There is currently only evidence that says that CO2 contributes to global warming, and that we produce CO2. There is no evidence to say that if we stop producing CO2 that global warming will stop or reverse.

What if we do stop global warming, eventually we'll hit another ice age at some point with equally disasterous results. The fact is we have no idea what will happen either way.

I'm all for taking precautions but strongly against something that will cost us all many billions upon billions when no-one can tell us what the result of that cost will be.

[Corey USA]

The point of this thread it is not theory its fact. through observation of it happening since 1980 ish till now. they can demonstrate in a labritory by increasing acidity and its effect on the base of the ocean food chain. There is no other way to dispute this issue. They know what the effects will be they just don't know how severe it will be. They already see examples of it in the coral reef and its proven that a more acidic ocean stops there ability to form shell and bone. This is a proven fact and can't be disputed through biology and chemistry.

The link I provided is not theory its fact through observation process.

I was providing another reason for our need to curb pollution which includes co2.

it was linked to show the damage we are doing, that is shown through visible evidence being collected since 1980 till now and as we speak.

this is demonstrate able how man is compromising our ecosystem directly right now. This line has nothing to do with doomsayer or brainwashing or anything. If you will not believe the irrefutable proof before you you only have yourself to blame in regards to brainwashing yourself. When the facts are right in front of your nose.

I am not speaking about climate change in this thread I am speaking about how our pollution is killing our ecosystem.

Yet it is connected to climate change, since the ocean and its sub ecosystem is part of the worlds total ecosystem, Climate is part of the total ecosystem.

[abraxus]

Originally Posted by Corey USA

The point of this thread it is not theory its fact. through observation of it happening since 1980 ish till now. they can demonstrate in a labritory by increasing acidity and its effect on the base of the ocean food chain. There is no other way to dispute this issue. They know what the effects will be they just don't know how severe it will be. They already see examples of it in the coral reef and its proven that a more acidic ocean stops there ability to form shell and bone. This is a proven fact and can't be disputed through biology and chemistry.

The link I provided is not theory its fact through observation process.

I was providing another reason for our need to curb pollution which includes co2.

it was linked to show the damage we are doing, that is shown through visible evidence being collected since 1980 till now and as we speak.

this is demonstrate able how man is compromising our ecosystem directly right now. This line has nothing to do with doomsayer or brainwashing or anything. If you will not believe the irrefutable proof before you you only have yourself to blame in regards to brainwashing yourself. When the facts are right in front of your nose.

I am not speaking about climate change in this thread I am speaking about how our pollution is killing our ecosystem.

Yet it is connected to climate change, since the ocean and its sub ecosystem is part of the worlds total ecosystem, Climate is part of the total ecosystem.

Corey, in that case fair enough I don't diagree that our actions are damaging the earths ecosystem.

It's my mistake that I took it further and broadened the discussion into the wider implications/causes of global warming, when that wasn't your intent.

Apologies.

[Corey USA]

"The difference between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere today and during pre-industrial times is about the same as the difference between interglacial and glacial periods"

There is no way to know for certain how much co2 there was way back in the interglacial periods.

But what we do know through observation is that atmospheric CO2 has been on a rise since the start of industrial revolution for several reasons.

we do know that too much co2 is making the ocean acidic.

we do know that the rapid melting of the glaciers is dumping fresh water in the ocean.

we do know that co2+equivalents are greenhouse gases.

we do know that we put these very gases into the atmosphere that were locked away in the fossil fuel.

We do know Human pollution is killing the ecosystem.

we do know earth is over populated with humans

we do know urban sprawl is destroying habitat and destroying our ecosystem

We do know we are running out of fossil fuel sources.

we do know Humans are cutting down the forests around the world which produce our air

We do know that forests and such keeps ground level humid enough to sustain life. otherwise it would turn to desert if the climate were to get hotter Africa and central Australia And death valley are examples.

We know that the current title of this sub forum says "Man made Global warming" I think maybe it should be changed to "Combating man made destructive influences on Earth" Which includes curbing and reducing pollution and that includes co2+equivalent. Co2+equivalent that is locked away in fossil fuel is a pollutant for it is not part of the current gas ratio till we burn it.

Focus on the Human induced aspects so as not to make it worse regardless of whether it is produced naturally or not. By us adding to it we ACCELERATE the process faster than life on earth can adapt to.

It is a fact we humans can not survive without an intact ecosystem.

It is fact that a mono ecosystem is easily compromised and dies with very little change. Pine tree die off in Canada and Alaska is current proof a slight change can kill a mono ecosystem (climate change of .5 degrees was all it took.) You can see this in effect with your own eyes.

I could go on all night

point I am trying to drive home is even if co2 we produce from industrialization has nothing to do with climate change it does have something to do with our oceans becoming acidic which is killing our ecosystem. So do we not have a responsibility to reduce as much of the dammage humans are contributing to destroying our ecosystem?

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by abraxus

Corey, in that case fair enough I don't diagree that our actions are damaging the earths ecosystem.

It's my mistake that I took it further and broadened the discussion into the wider implications/causes of global warming, when that wasn't your intent.

Apologies.

See you wrote this while writing the one directly above. its a piece of the bigger picture yes

the purpose was try try to get the other people to realize that we still must cut our use of resources along with reducing the population and along with cutting the pollution which includes the Greenhouse gases.

Since they are having trouble understanding and reasoning the justification of having to cut the things in the last paragraph. I was pointing out another real issue for the needs of the cuts which is connected with the global warming because the gasses involved effect both areas. In case of the ecosystem though every single person on earth can see the effects it has on the ecosystem around them with there own eyes.

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

Well I never, you learn something new every day

Well come on, disprove it, if you can.

Originally Posted by abraxus

As you brought up the subject of the oceans, what about the contribution of whales to global warming?

Let's face, whilst we know global warming exists, we are far from saying that we are the primary cause (yes we no doubt contribute) or that it's permanent and not cyclical or in some way self regulating.

Of course scientific study can be made to show these things, but the problem is that often people are formulating their answer first and then building the scientific case around it, rather than the other way round. Not that this is neccessarily bad, but just that this approach allows you to come up with all sorts of conclusions depending on your agenda. For example:

Fact one: CO2 acts as a heat trapping gas. Plankton accounts for half of the transer of CO2 back into the biosphere by photosythesis therefore reducing the rate it accumulates and significantly helping to mitigate global warming. Nasa satellite studies since the late 1970's have shown that plankton levels have declined substantially since the 1980's.

Fact two: In 1946 the International Whaling Commission was established to provide for the proper conservation of whales. However, it was not until the scientific basis for sustainable management was developed and implemented that effective restrictions were progressively introduced for the most depleted stocks. Additionally, there had been major falsification of the true catch records, so in 1982 the IWC agreed to give total protection from commercial hunting to all whale stocks.

Fact three: Whales eat plankton in enormous quantities.

Pseudo scientific conclusion: The protection of whales began in earnest in the early 1980's. Studies from Nasa satelittes show that since this period there has been a substantial drop in plankton levels. Given that whales are a major consumer of plankton and that their numbers have steadily increased since 1982 due to conservation, it is logical to assume that the drop in plankton levels is due to the ever inceasing consumption by a growing whale population. The 14% drop in the North Atlantic and 30% drop in the North Pacific represents a substantial reduction in plankton's overall capability to recycle CO2 and is the most significant contributory factor to increased CO2 levels and therefore global warming.

Action plan: To lift the restrictions on whaling and start hunting whales again in earnest to get those plankton levels back up so that they can carry on regulating the planet like they did for millennia until 1982.

Oh, come on. No spoof can be this obvious...or can it?