Variation: Sub-species

So what do these have in common?

Alvord cutthroat trout
Bonneville cutthroat trout
Coastal cutthroat trout
Colorado River cutthroat trout
Greenback cutthroat trout
Lahontan cutthroat trout
Rio Grande cutthroat trout
Snake River fine-spotted cutthroat trout
Westslope cutthroat trout
Yellowfin cutthroat trout
Yellowstone cutthroat trout

If you have a keen eye, you might have noticed that they are all, yes that's right, cutthroat trout!! Well, since you're on a roll, see if you can figure out this next one:

What do all these have in common?

Adriatic trout
Marmorata trout
Flathead trout
Brown trout
Ohrid trout
Sevan trout
Apache trout
Cutthroat trout
Gila trout
Golden trout
Rainbow trout
Aurora trout
Brook trout
Bull trout
Dolly Varden trout
Lake trout
Silver trout

Wow! You're on your game today. They're all trout! So why all the various species and subspecies of trout? In the end, aren't they all just...trout?

Well first, you've got these guys called Ichthyologists who do nothing all day long except studying fish. Anytime a topic receives that kind of attention by Harvard brain-washed scientists, it's going to be a bit over analyzed. I'm not really against the study of these fish, or even their categorization and sub-categorization that has become commonplace in the world of Biology.

All my objections come along in the second reason biologists of differing flavors tend to sub-divide species into smaller and smaller groups. See, it isn't very compelling when someone busts in the room and shrieks, "There are only 450 million trout left in the entire world!!!! We must do something!!!!!". However, when they call a press conference to lament the reduction in the number of Snake River fine-spotted cutthroat trout to only a few hundred thousand due largely to human interference, that grabs the headlines!

I think that the trout anology closely parallels the global warming trend, er...menace, ...er...crisis! Above all, most scientists just want to be worshipped. I tried to find a better word, but that's what it comes down to. They want to be obeyed unquestioningly, thought to be all wise, imputed with only the purest motives, and as famous, quoted, and discussed as deity!

They said the earth was cooling, people bought sweaters. They said the earth was warming, people ate more ice cream. They said there was climate change, but that wasn't even actionable. So what is a poor scientist to do? In search for relevance, they did what many children do when discussing their fathers: they engaged in a tit-for-tat to see which scientist could grab and hold the headlines.

They all sought the title of "foremost expert on climate change". And as the drive-by media is prone to do, they continually shoved the microphone into the face of the most dramatic alarmist. Scientist #1 said that global warming was happening, possibly at a rate of 1/10 of a degree per century; and people yawned. Scientist #2 said it was happening at a rate of 3 degrees per century; and ratings went up a bit. Reports became more dramatic and more alarmist until someone said that in the next 50 years, half of all species on earth would become extinct; and every news agency on earth carried the story!!!

But even that wasn't enough. Some out-of-step, but trend-following moron went and declared that it was just too late, that the damage was done and we must all now sit and wait for our impending doom. The room went silent and everyone just stared at each other. Then they all declared with one voice that the guy who said it was just an extremist.

Why? Why was he an extremist, but not the guy that said we had 50 years? Now can people who deal in billions of years really quibble over a 50 year gaff? Oooooh! Because if it's too late, then there's no need for scientists, no point in signing the Kyoto Accord, no need to spend billions of dollars on more stringent emissions standards, no need to waste further news cycles covering the next one-upist. We might as well eat, drink and be merry with what little time, and few trees we have left! I mean, what headline could be more alarming than "too late"? I know, "Scientist: Global Warming May Cause World-Wide Flood!!" Nah.

If you sub-divide species into smaller and smaller classes (see "smaller class sizes are good" by the NEA), a slight fluxuation in numbers of any one sub-species has a much greater impact than if it were rolled up into the world population.

Imagine the headlines if these sorts of tactis were used on the human population: "harvardous enlightenus conneticus americanus makes the endangered species list; traditional culling curbed in light of new evidence!"