Revive the Woolly Mammoth to Fight Global Warming -- WHAAAT?!

Submitted by: boredhuman 3 weeks ago in Science


The idea is to genetically engineer a species based on mammoth DNA, so that it would change the environment to slow down global warming. It sounds far-fetched, but respected scientists are working on different steps of this process. How much of this is scientists touting their research to get funding and how much is actually feasible is unclear, but it's very interesting stuff. 

Here's the Genesis 2.0 trailer:



"God’s word is still imperfect, but if we work together, we can make God perfect." -- Dr. Huanming Yang.

Here's a TEDx talk explaining the craziness, by the author of Woolly: The True Story of the Quest to Revive One of History's Most Iconic Extinct Creatures:


Learn more about the Woolly Mammoth Revival Project here
There are 71 comments:
Male 7,525
The horrible part in all of this, even if you were massively successful and managed to put 80K mammoths in siberia, How long would it be before some assholes showed up to  kill them for the Ivory or just a Trophy?
0
Reply
Male 2,277
daegog If there were 80,000 mammoths up there breeding away with not one single natural predator? Then someone will have to step in to keep their numbers from becoming "boom and bust" and possibly driving them to extinction once again.

Remember Cecil the Lion? Since legal lion hunting (a major source of revenue!) was banned in that area? They've killed more lions than the legal hunters would have:
- they multiplied and started going after farm animals
- they have literally zero value except their hide to the locals
All hunting is not evil: poaching has nothing at all to do with legal hunters. Even you can see that... ok?

Oh: remember who kept the mammoths (and mastodons) in check back in the day? yup: CATS!
https://prehistoric-fauna.com/image/cache/data/size/Smilodon-size1-738x591.jpg
0
Reply
Male 9,631
daegog I'm sure the Trump kids will be front of the queue. If they even understand the concept of queues.
0
Reply
Male 9,631
I can't remember who it was suggested re-introducing polar berars to Glasgow. But I would love to see that on Saturday night CCTV.

"C'mon ya big hairy bast...aaaargh."
1
Reply
Male 2,277
LordJim Didn't they bring beavers back to Scotland already? 
By golly they did! 
https://www.scottishbeavers.org.uk/

Polar bears and mammoths are just around the corner :-)
0
Reply
Male 9,631
gohikineko Aye, and there are plans to bring wolves back to the highlands. What could go wrong?
0
Reply
Male 214
LordJim "What could go wrong?"
First beavers – now wolves. Scotland has changed since my ancestors left in the 16th century.

1
Reply
Male 3,055
semichisam Scottish Beaver....

0
Reply
Male 46,107
LordJim I think they meant "Polar Bear Club "

0
Reply
Male 794
Who cares if it saves the environment or not? Just having Hairy Elephants is totally worth it!
2
Reply
Male 939
The cloning mammoth thing comes around every few years it's bullshit. 
  1. Wouldn't be a mammoth. It's impossible to bring back a mammoth the DNA is too degraded you are going to have a genetically modified elephant. 
  2. Better ways to change the frozen tundra.
  3. It's cruel creating a a single generation of genetic freaks which have a history complex social structures across generations. 
0
Reply
Male 10,079
jayme21 Jayme, check your inbox. I sent you an email on the 29th. Thanks.
0
Reply
Male 939
squrlz4ever I havent purposely ignored it. I created and changed my IAB email on the 31st when considering applying to the editor role. The email you sent will have gone to a long forgotten dummy email and no way for me to access it. Sorry. 
0
Reply
Male 10,079
jayme21 I just forwarded the email to your new email address.
0
Reply
Male 214
jayme21 "it's bullshit." No, it's mammoth shit. Different mammal entirely.
1. At this time, it is impossible, but it will not always be, and an elephant is a modified mammoth.
2. Tell us more about the better ways. Don't leave us in suspense.
3. 'Freak' is a loaded term, as is 'cruel'. The rest of your sentence seems to be claiming more knowledge than the experts have.
The Guardian article described some of the problems. The existence of problems calls for solutions, not surrender.
1
Reply
Male 939
semichisam 
1- the DNA is degraded. You can't clone something you don't have. No matter how long into the future it is still destroyed. And some pigs are genetically modified with human genes to stop heart transplant rejections. Doesn't make a pig a human or a human a pig. 

2- The article goes into it. Use current grazing species. There are enough them.

3- "freak
/friːk/
noun
1.
a very unusual and unexpected event or situation" how does that not explain creatures modified to not be elephant or mammoth but some hybrid?


-1
Reply
Male 2,277
I've never seen anyone claim "the Earth is not warming" since it obviously has been warming since the last Great Ice Age. What Skeptics claim is that it is not 100% human-caused, which should be obvious and yet is the backbone of AGW, Paris and all the rest.

This is a fine idea because it isn't about reducing human activity (which always meets justifiable resistance) or spending many billions on highly questionable projects.  It is all about using natural forces to improve the environment, and inexpensively too. (so it'll never get done, lolz! too much money to be made off of hysteria)
-3
Reply
Male 1,540
gohikineko We have already discussed that no scientist claims climate change is "100% human-caused."

Let's continue our lesson on climate science from this past IAB post.
Get your textbook out: Introduction to climate dynamics and climate modeling
I've answered some of your questions already... Is there a new question on climate science you'd like to get answered? 
0
Reply
Male 10,079
boredhuman BH, please check your email. Thanks!
0
Reply
Male 2,277
boredhuman Yes, they do claim that. Paris is based on it: find me in the Paris accord where it defines the warming as anything other than human-caused. Find the defined % of natural vs human warming in it... I'll patiently wait.
We are constantly bombarded with that message: Human Caused Global Warming, no qualifiers, no 'partially' or even 'mostly' it's just 'by humans' they keep telling us on a daily basis and no one corrects them...
Of course SOME people qualify it, and that's far more accurate, but they're (in my opinion) the minority and at risk of being crucified as heretics skeptics by the "97%" ok?
Skeptics absolutely think it's not 100%, that's how actual science works: make the theory fit the facts and not the other way around.

0
Reply
Male 1,540
gohikineko  The Paris Agreement is a political agreement aimed to accurately account for and reduce emission of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
'Accord de Paris' is the wrong place to look for mechanisms of climate science. The right place is a climate science text book. So, lets go back to talking about climate forcing. You were doing so WELL last time! You were engaging, asking questions, and it seemed like you were getting it! What happened?!

Let's pick it up from where we left...
"You sure you want to learn what is meant by "solar irradiance" and "black carbon" in the graph? - it's all explained in the FAQ, but I could quote relevant passages for your convenience."
0
Reply
Male 2,277
boredhuman So the Super-Duper Global Agreement About AGW is NOT relevant? It has nothing at all to do with what Alarmists are saying? It in no way represents the AGW side of things? Really now...
That it pretends to 'save the world' based on.... ??? what exactly? That doesn't alarm you that they make no mention at all about natural forces? That ALL of their data and predictions is based on 100% human causes? Their solutions too, of course, are based entirely on 100% human causes or else they'd have to allow for natural influences, which they do not.

"Who stands to gain?"
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/12/climate_change__who_stands_to_gain.html

Added: 3 years of dropping temps, should be front-page news don't you think?? Has the MSM said 'boo' about it yet?
https://twitter.com/ComradeArthur/status/1080859122902466560
0
Reply
Male 1,540
gohikineko 7 questions... jeeze. Calm down...

Yes, the Paris Agreement is based on climate science, but it is not designed to teach or explain climate science. No, I'm not alarmed the political agreement doesn't mention 'climate forcing', 'natural forcing', 'solar irradiance' etc.

"Who stands to gain?"
Ah, a write-up by a Russian Soviet-born CEO of a company that manages oil refining...

Let's first discuss my reply to your Joe Olivier article - a conservative politician writing his opinions on global warming in a tabloid newspaper. You left that discussion last time... so lets bring it back. Please start by answering the question, which can apply to both your articles:
1) What makes you think the career politician [or Russian Soviet-born CEO who manages Oil Refining] is a TRUTHFUL and ACCURATE source on the topic of climate science?

0
Reply
Male 2,277
boredhuman It is not based on science: Paris is based on AGW and politics. It is an impossible 'accord' which is deliberately designed to fail. Even if all the nations did lower "emissions" it still wouldn't matter: but there is nothing in the agreement that says China or India will lower anything until after 2030... and a lot of nations promise to "think about it" ... not one nation of consequence has met "Paris" and NONE WILL.

Meanwhile? the USA leads the world in lowering emissions: you think they get one single milligram of credit? Guess again! Trump can never, ever be seen as doing the right thing no matter what. (not that Trump is doing it, but his policies (fracking for example) made it easier, unlike Obama who fought progress at every step)

"...holds degrees in structural engineering, economics and political science."
So he was born in Russia, so what? Don't you think someone who escaped from there knows quite a lot more about it than some armchair liberal in California? He is highly critical of Russia and also of Liberals for their blind support of Russia, China and socialism in general.

He is not "A Russian" you see what you just did there? You equate a person of Russian ancestry with the Russian Government... A RUSSIAN CEO... no, not at all: he is an American. An AMERICAN businessman. Can you see your mistake here? you spent a great deal of time lecturing me on a similar issue, yet here you've done the exact same thing yourself... amusing or disturbing? :-\
0
Reply
Male 1,540
gohikineko Markovsky is a Russian immigrant, and I have linked his profile to make it easy for people to check for themselves. Sorry you felt deceived, that was not my intention. Your point is well taken, and I have edited to make it more accurate. His heritage isn't relevant to climate science anyway - his profession is. So.... are you going to respond? Is there something else you feel deceived about?

1) What makes you think a CEO who manages oil refining a TRUTHFUL and ACCURATE source on the topic of climate science? 
0
Reply
Male 2,277
boredhuman Ok good! I was concerned I came off looking too hot and angry, I was just a touch surprised that you said it like that :/

1. I don't judge the words by the messenger, I judge them on their merits. What he says makes a TON of sense and afaik is entirely truthful. Of course "consider the source" is always applicable to everything too, but so is "don't judge a book by the cover".

Fact: scientists who work for "oil companies" are still scientists: just the same as the scientists that work for AGW driven companies. Humans will always be humans.
Why are one group "evil liars out to destroy all life on Earth" while the other are "pure and perfectly honest who we can believe without question" (or fact-checking, the science is settled after all!) ? Dehumanization is a terrible thing.
0
Reply
Male 1,540
gohikineko "I don't judge the words by the messenger" Oh how I wish you'd remember this when judging liberal sources!

Let's look at the words...
  "[Climate Change movement] was conceived in the early 1960s in Paris, France, as a sinister plot to contain American expansionism, as the Europeans called it at the time."

  Right off the bat you have a conspiracy theory. This businessman then goes on telling you the history of climate movement (because he rejects climatology as proper science)!
  Markovsky provides no evidence, no sources - there's no way to verify the truth of his opinions. And you eat it all up without questioning anything!

"What he says makes a TON of sense"
  Does it? I suppose if you believe climatology is a pseudo-science made up of fabricated lies... This brings use directly to my 2nd question:

2) What do you find "interesting" about this piece? (Besides confirming your existing beliefs)

"Why are one group "evil liars out to destroy all life on Earth" while the other are "pure and perfectly honest who we can believe without question"?"
Which one is which? :P Listening to you, you believe the "entirely truthful" businessman without question!
No, I use the same rigorous standard for both - I check sources and evidence for both. One side happens to have PhD papers, the other side has unsubstantiated claims... This time, there's nothing to check, but I've checked and found lies in prior discussions.   

3) Would you rather confirm your beliefs discussing a tabloid, or learn something new about climate science? 

  Read 'The Discovery of Global Warming' - check the sources and do proper fact checking yourself! Here's what it says about 50s, shortly before the 'sinister plot':

"In the 1950s, Callendar's claims provoked a few scientists to look into the question with far better techniques and calculations than earlier generations could have deployed. This research was made possible by a sharp increase of government funding, especially from military agencies that wanted to know more about the weather and geophysics in general. Not only might such knowledge be crucial in future battles, but scientific progress could bring a nation prestige in the Cold War competition. The new studies showed that, contrary to earlier crude assumptions, CO2 might indeed build up in the atmosphere and bring warming. In 1960 painstaking measurements of the level of the gas in the atmosphere by Charles Keeling, a young scientist with an obsession for accuracy, drove home the point. The level was in fact rising year by year."
0
Reply
Male 10,079
gohikineko You wrote: "I've never seen anyone claim 'the Earth is not warming'...."

You mean other than yourself (see below)? C'mon, Gohiki. For years on here, you've been jumping on every half-baked claim that the Earth is not warming -- or is actually cooling -- and submitting them as content. I'm fine with debating the issues surrounding global warming with you, but I'm not fine with you shifting your positions and pretending you never made claims you clearly did.



Also, forgive my asking, but what happened to the upcoming "Little Ice Age"? In this submission of yours, you wrote:

"Unlike AGW Theory, which requires us to wait until 2100 to find out if it is correct, this 'global cooldown will march in with a vengeance to usher in a 100-year mini-ice age that could freeze over the River Thames.' It will start in 2019 or 2020 and last for 30 to 100 years."

Are we still on schedule for this? It's 2019, so that Little Ice Age of yours must be imminent. Should I be stocking up on mittens?
0
Reply
Male 2,277
squrlz4ever Again, in case you missed it last time: THE BOOK IS NOT THE COVER! A headline is not a PHD paper! It's just a BRIEF introduction to the topic at hand: The Earth is not warming AS FAST AS PREDICTED by AGW computer models, ok?

The upcoming little ice age may have started, or might start in a year or 3... hard to say until 2-3 of it have already passed. Impatient much? It's plenty cold out in the first TWO DAYS of 2019... that's proof!! :-p

C'mon now: abbreviating or editing what I say to change its meaning is not the same as writing a headline:
The Earth is not warming so fast it will destroy everything.
The Earth is not warming by 100% human causes and nothing else.
The Earth is not warming so badly humanity will be exterminated.
The Earth is not warming anywhere nearly as fast as the AGW computer models predicted.

Lookie! I just said "The Earth is not warming..." four times! (if you omit the rest of the sentences) Golly gee! :-|

I'll put a 3 year into the future prediction up against a ~100 year prediction that has failed in every conceivable way in its first 20 years...

Added: 3 years in a row of dropping temps, not a "for sure" but does support the theory, yes?
https://twitter.com/ComradeArthur/status/1080859122902466560
0
Reply
Male 214
gohikineko 'I've never seen anyone claim "the Earth is not warming"'
I'm surprised you missed all the 'scientists' claims that the earth is cooling. The internet is full of it. (pun intended) One pretty sane example.
0
Reply
Male 2,277
semichisam Sigh, are you just trolling now?
The Earth is absolutely warming... since the Great Ice Age. If you change the subject then perhaps the Earth is cooling... over a 1-2 year span it warms up, then cools off. Remember: these same "climate scientists" claimed (in the 1970's) the next great ice age was imminent and if we didn't do something right now! The world was DOOMED (sound familiar?). We did nothing and by golly! The world did not freeze! Golly! I wonder why not?

Here's an excellent opinion piece on the subject:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/12/climate_change__who_stands_to_gain.html
0
Reply
Male 214
gohikineko Since you have so far argued both for and against every aspect of global warming/cooling, I am comfortable with declaring you the winner of whatever the hell this discussion was about. See award below.


I left it blank so you could fill in whatever you believe today.
1
Reply
Male 2,277
semichisam 3 years is starting to look like a trend? Still too early to be sure:
https://twitter.com/ComradeArthur/status/1080859122902466560
0
Reply
Male 2,277
semichisam My beliefs are more solid than the Rock of Gibraltar: the climate changes.
...
...
Any questions?

Oh btw: yes, nice link! There has been a dip in temperatures lately, but that itself isn't proof of the predicted 'global cooling' at least not yet. Of course the MSM and Alarmists never talk about years when the temperatures drop... you'd swear they've risen 20 straight years in a row... (hint: they haven't, temps go up and down like they always have) 
0
Reply
Male 46,107
I want a Mammoth bacon cheeseburger
1
Reply
Male 214
Gerry1of1 "I want a Mammoth bacon cheeseburger"

You're going to need some mammoth buns.

1
Reply
Male 2,473
semichisam talk to daegog about the buns.... 
0
Reply
Male 46,107
semichisam   Nice. Is guacamole extra ?
0
Reply
Male 287
1
Reply
Male 7,525
I have no idea if this will work BUT I appreciate the out of the box thinking..

This is so far outside the box that its almost hard to grasp.
1
Reply
Male 2,799
I put this in to the same group as global warming in general, 40 short years ago they were talking about putting carbon black on the poles to stop global cooling, they haven't got a glue.
-1
Reply
Male 2,277
0
Reply
Male 214
It's unfortunate that this guy didn't put any more work into his research or his presentation than he did into dressing himself. 

As for the concept itself, I put this into the category: might help, might not, but it's worth the effort just for the fun of it.

0
Reply
Male 10,079
I have just one opinion on this proposal at this point: If they're going to bring back the Woolly Mammoth, they sure better include those curving tusks. That's the best part! A Woolly Mammoth without those is just a shaggy elephant.
1
Reply
Male 214
squrlz4ever "they sure better include those curving tusks"

Damn right! We could finally settle the question of what they were for. Everyone who studies them seems to have a different theory. Let's turn 80,000 wooly mammoths loose on the tundra and see what they do with the tusks.
3
Reply
Male 1,540
semichisam This whole project seems crazy to me - so many ifs and maybes. Still, it's exciting what scientists are working on today.
1
Reply
Male 214
boredhuman "This whole project seems crazy to me"

Agreed. But is it crazy enough to be worth trying?
1
Reply
Male 2,473
semichisam "crazy enough to be worth trying"  you mean like the 2016   election? 

What could possibly go wrong?
0
Reply
Male 10,079
semichisam ~strokes chin~ Hmmmm.... it's so crazy, it just might work!
1
Reply
Male 214
squrlz4ever
Don't expect the wooly mammoth to look like the artists conception.


 
4
Reply
Male 46,107
I'm in favour of bringing them back. It's likely we hunted them to extinction so it would
be correcting an ancient error. 
2
Reply
Male 9,692
Gerry1of1 How about the Dodo, and the numerous other species "we" (by we i mean Humans) have hunted to extinction?
0
Reply
Male 46,107
normalfreak2 Of course the Dodo, and any other animal we killed off in recent times. Tasmania Tiger comes to mind. Only 2 white rhinos left, both female.
0
Reply
Male 1,867
Gerry1of1 before we decide to bring them back or not.....are they tasty?
2
Reply
Male 1,540
spanz Good question. They were hunted to extinction back in the day, when culinary standards were more... primitive. :P
Apparently elephant meat tastes like Spam. And that's what you should expect, since it would still be an elephant with added genes from the mammoth. 
1
Reply
Male 46,107
boredhuman    mmmmm Spam.  So if elephant tastes like Spam
it would be like getting some Ivory in every can ! Bring it on

Spam & Eggs
Diced Spam in fried rice
Mac&Cheese with diced Spam
Grilled Spam & Cheese sandwiches
Hawaiian Burger Recipe


1
Reply
Male 3,055
Gerry1of1 Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, eggs, bacon and spam. That’s okay dear I’ll have yours. I love it!
0
Reply
Male 10,079
Gerry1of1 Gerry, how long have you been in the United States? Follow-up question: Why are you using British spelling? You'd better be speaking with a British accent, too. None of these half-measures, thank you.
1
Reply
Male 2,473
squrlz4ever cultural appropriation:)
1
Reply
Male 10,079
0
Reply
Male 2,018
squrlz4ever Some of us hold dual citizenship.  It adds both flavour and colour to the mix . . .
0
Reply
Male 46,107
squrlz4ever Sorry, my accent is dull American. Not even anything interesting like Brooklyn or Southern.  I'm american made from british parts. My families english but I was brought up in California/Oregon.  I grew up best of both worlds... pork pies AND cheeze wiz !  Scotch eggs AND denver omlettes 
2
Reply
Male 10,079
Gerry1of1 Gerry, do you have dual citizenships? Or is this British spelling thing something you inherited from your mom and dad? ~Squrlz is deliberately being a bit of a jerk today...~
0
Reply
Male 46,107
squrlz4ever  I am happily a subject of Her Majesty and
embarrassed The Donald is my president...... groan

The US does not recognize dual citizenship but sod'em, the UK, does so I have both.  And yeah, I just grew up writing that way.
Like having both american and english food. I eat with the fork
in the left and other habbits etc.  I use the words and phrases
but american accent
1
Reply
Male 3,055
squrlz4ever As Schecky takes away his single malt and ahem cleans certain "learning" tools.
0
Reply
Male 214
scheckydamon Go easy on squrlz4ever. He's had a long, hard day moderating. He probably needs the single malt.
1
Reply