140M years ago, before man, placental mammals, having identical physiological systems to ours, evolved and thrived under climate conditions far more severe and variable than we experience today. So, what, exactly, is the crisis we face in 10 years, let alone now? It is an unproven issue. What, exactly, is our ideal climate condition, seeing as how the earth does not share a singular climate? One answer to our "crisis" is an evolutionary detail everyone forgets exists to potentially prevent extinction: adaptation. It is what our early ancestors [pre-human] did. Are we dumber than they were? It is either that, or we have defrocked Saint Darwin. Which is it, progressives?
Why do climate alarmists ignore Darwin?
Posts
Total:
87
-->
@fauxlaw
Species survival is not necessarily the issue.
The issue is, the continuation of the comfortable existence that we have come to expect.
Darwin proposed a theory relative to organic development, more specifically concerning higher species development. That's a very small chunk of time, that doesn't take into consideration past or present inorganic development. More specifically, Darwin is not concerned with the concurrent inorganic technological development/evolution associated with Wise Man. It is therein that concerns lie.
So things might change, and we will no doubt adapt as a species whilst the Planet is as the Planet will do, until such times as it is engulfed by the Sun. By which time the purpose and conclusion (if there is one) of The Earth's evolutionary processes will hopefully have been achieved.
And Wise Men/Women/Gender fluid, may or may not have escaped their Earthly prison, though it probably won't matter if they haven't.
-->
@zedvictor4
The issue is, the continuation of the comfortable existence that we have come to expect.
No, the "comfortable existence" you insist upon only says you've ignored a basic fact which I stated by a question:
What, exactly, is our ideal climate condition, seeing as how the earth does not share a singular climate?
So, again, what is the "comfortable existence" in a global environment of many climates? Those many climates exist with or without the alleged anthropogenic cause. Which are "comfortable," and which are not? And how many are resolved by our adaptation to them, since we have occupied them?
-->
@fauxlaw
When I referred to a comfortable existence, I wasn't referring to comfortable climatic conditions.
I was referring to the "crisis" as being the possible disruption of what we have come to accept as the social norm, relative to any particular region or environment humans choose to call home.
So what crisis? Well I think that we agree, that in terms of species survival, there is no real crisis. Just change that we will adapt to.
-->
@zedvictor4
Thanks for clarifying. I agree.
climate alarmists love to fear over nothing as an excuse for their lazyness
Dont have kids?-saving the enviorement!!!
Wha?
-->
@fauxlaw
What, exactly, is our ideal climate condition, seeing as how the earth does not share a singular climate?
The ideal condition (assuming the goal is a healthy biosphere) is for things to stay relatively stable, changing as slow as possible in order to allow time for populations to adapt. Whether that means staying stable as a tropical jungle or staying stable as a frozen tundra or anything in between is not as important so long as it is some environment capable of supporting life.
Say for example an ecosystem is adapted to life in a climate with abundant water. If their water sources gradually dwindle over the course of several thousand years then as you say populations will be able to adapt their genes over the course of many generations. Now imagine that same water-dependent ecosystem with the water removed suddenly without giving any time for evolution to effect anything because the adaptations in question are not given sufficient time to take place. The negative impact on the ecosystem would be greater not because of the nature of the change but rather because of the rapidity with which it took place.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Granted. But why, then, are climate-dazed activists so certain that that the ocean's rise of x-mm is always a bad consequence? Or that the rise of temperature by 0.x C is always a bad consequence? Or that the relative level of methane in the atmosphere is always a bad consequence? How do we know that the scope we define as acceptable parameters are truly the hard limits we must maintain, or we are doomed? I contend that we do not yet know enough about climate to access all the variables that create climate and conclude that we are at critical mass stage. The science is not "in." If astronomy is not "in," and it makes no such claim, and its been around a lot longer than climate science, then climate science is not either.
The relevant scientific fields in this case would be biology and to a lesser extent geology. The currently ongoing Holocene extinction is very much a direct result of changes in the environment, as were the five other mass extinctions. Certainly various human influences play a role as well - such as the unintentional introduction of invasive species due to global trade, direct destruction of habitats via deforestation or construction of population centers/agricultural land, etc. - but rapid environmental changes such as spikes in ocean acidity destroying coral reefs (a prime habitat for marine life) and increased global temperatures have much more large scale and and deadly effects any direct human influences.
-->
@zedvictor4
Social norm? The social norm not only varies all over planet Earth, it has varied over time.disruption of what we have come to accept as the social norm
Humans 10,000 years ago had social norms differrent from social norms of humans 5000 years ago, 500 years ago, 100 years ago etc.
The industrial age has seen ever faster changing "social norms"and th eelectronic age has presented exponential change into the "social norms" planet wide for most of the 7.5 billion humans on Earth.
7.5 humans on Earth are having an impact on climate and those who ignore those facts know nothing about Darwin much less evolution.
The only ongoing "social norm" that continues is those whose education, and/or ego, keep them from accepting truth when it is presented to them in clear, rational, logical common sense ways.
-->
@ebuc
The social norm varies and has changed over time.....Obviously.
I was referring to the possible disruption to peoples current perception of the social norm in relation to where ever they might be.
We regard the past and also regard the future, but the moment that we tend to concentrate on and worry about the most is now.
-->
@ebuc
7.5 humans? Is there a multiplier missing? A 'B' I'm guessing. Sure, but every living organism on earth, plant and animal, is affecting our earth, yeah? Like the organisms in rice paddy fields, and natural wetlands, rivers, lakes, and oceans contributing more methane gas into the atmosphere than cows. So, should we eliminate rice, as is asked of cows? You think vegans might be as upset as those of us who happen to like our steaks? So, let's tome down just a bit on the anthropogenic effect, yeah? There's more of a lot of other living organisms of Darwin's "one form, or many" than Homo sapiens.
-->
@fauxlaw
Equating rice's impact on climate with humans only exposes your ignorance aka clueless. Sad :--(.....So, should we eliminate rice, as is asked of cows?....
Please share when you have any rational, logical common sense.
-->
@ebuc
<br>organisms in rice paddy fields, and natural wetlands, rivers, lakes, and oceans contributing more methane gas into the atmosphere than cows
Did you miss that line, or ignore that methane is one of your bugaboo greenhouse gasses?
-->
@fauxlaw
Methane is a greenhouse gas is science. You not interested in science, truth and facts ergo your basically ignorant, clueless fundamentalistic walking brain dead. Sad :--( lack of moral and intellectual integrity does nothing to aid humanity in their attempts to have a longer term existence on Earth with least amount of sufferring.Did you miss that line, or ignore that methane is one of your bugaboo greenhouse gasses?
-->
@ebuc
Cosmic Thinker - My avatar { Iconic profile } is 66 Lines-of-Relationship between any 12 vertexia/points/events ex 12 vertexes of both the 4-fold Cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron and the 5-fold Icosa{20}hedron. You not interested in science
For a cosmic thinker, why do you limit your avatar to your numbered lines, etc. to their finite forms, though repeated ad nauseam, as if it represented the infinite cosmos. Everybody likes reducing their cosmos to a finite graphic. Mathematics is the infinite language of the cosmos; use formulae, not graphics, if that is your aim.
As for my interest and knowledge in science, do not presume you know me. You do not. End of subject. Try also to maintain the same case of pronouns instead of wandering from me to "their." Language has a science, too, and it does not goosey, goosey, gander, whither shall it wander. Nor is the cosmos, by the way, contained by polyhedrons. Suffering would lessen far more if we just toned-down the rhetoric of our assumptions of how stupid everyone else is, but cosmic thinkers. You want facts; there's your science.
-->
@fauxlaw
You want facts; there's your science.
PLease share when you actually have any science, truth or facts.
Please share when you have any rational, logical common sense that adds too, or invalidates any concepts Ive presented.
You do not because you have not any rational, logical common sense that adds too or invalidates any concepts Ive presented.
You offer plenty of 'hot air' that has no significant or relevant value, in regards to any concepts Iver presented.
I'm a cosmic thinker and your appear to me to be fundamentally brain dead on global and cosmic issues.
-->
@ebuc
"Personal attacks will not be tolerated. The policy prohibiting personal attacks applies site-wide--in debates, forums, private messages, and everywhere else on the site." - Code of Conduct. You've been reported, my friend. Naught to add.
-->
@fauxlaw
Equating rice's impact on climate with humans only exposes your ignorance aka clueless. Sad :--(
This is seriously brain dead comment.
Please share when you have any rational, logical common sense.
-->
@ebuc
There is commentary on repetition expecting different results, but far be it from me to be coerced t explain it.
-->
@fauxlaw
That is ebuc's exact response to everyone who disagrees with him.
..........only exposes your ignorance aka clueless. Sad :--(
Please share when you have any rational, logical common sense.
He is a little, shall we say, challenged?
Also, if you disagree with him, he claims you're immoral. And for him, liberalism equals morality. And nothing brings him out of his little cosmic fantasy world.
-->
@ethang5
<br>he claims you're immoral.
I might be, but that's my business. Thanks
-->
@fauxlaw
There is commentary on repetition expecting different results, but far be it from me to be coerced t explain it.
"explain it". That is the last thing you will ever be able to do in regards to most of the irrational nonsense you post.
Rice being equal to humans impact on Earth is a brain dead comment, not rational, logical common sense. That you clueless is not an insult, it is a factual truth. Your ego keeps you in denial of truth and facts. Sad :--(
-->
@ebuc
What is this hang-up with rice? I merely said that rice paddies emit CH4 into the atmosphere, as do natural wetlands, rivers, lakes and oceans, not that it is more important than humans. Let's not exacerbate an obvious disagreement, or hurl epithets about what I know and don't know, because YOU DON'T KNOW BLOODY SQUAT ABOUT ME. Period. See https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/bgp/4_7_CH4_Rice_Agriculture.pdf
-->
@fauxlaw
"bugboo greenhouse gases"? Methane and all of your "bugboo greenhouse gases" are on rapid increase in atmosphere because of human activities.Did you miss that line, or ignore that methane is one of your bugaboo greenhouse gasses?
And that is just part of many negative impacts humans are having on Earth. You cant handle the truth.
Your clueless and lack moral integrity to accept and acknowledge factual truths when presented to you. Sad :--(
-->
@ebuc
One might think you think you created science! So why, pray tell, have levels of greenhouse gasses been higher in recorded geologic history prior to man? You can claim anthropogenic effect until cow farts are bottled, but theory is just theory. Sure, there probably is anthropogenic effect, but what is its tipping point of criticality? How does it compare to completely natural effects like vulcanism? Do we have a clue what an ideal climate should be, and by what measurement? Is there a single, ideal climate the whole earth should have? Is there a scrubbing mechanism the earth naturally has to cleanse itself, because it has been observed to do that, such as by the observed natural reduction of the ozone hole crisis a few decades ago, but which has not yet kicked in because critical phase has not yet been reached for your GHGs? Climate science, with all its claims of being "in" [while being barely a science at 200 years of age] has not the longevity of experience of physics, astronomy, and geology, none of which claim "in."
-->
@fauxlaw
One might think you think you created science! So why, pray tell, have levels of greenhouse gasses been higher in recorded geologic history prior to man?
PLease try and follow some rather simple, rational, logical common sense pathways of thought. Irrespective of the values above or how they got that way, just add 5,000 years of human influence to the number with special emphasis on human influence since rise of industrial age and beyond,
1} just the growing greenhouse effect > Global Warming > Rapid Climatic Changes, as they are just one of many ways humans are impacting Earth beyond a rice paddies, jet fuel, rocket blasts to outer space, a Jeep in 4.4 billion peoples driveway or pathway they call a parking outside their hut,
2} chances of human extinctions via hydrogen bombs,
3} chances of short term effects of ionizing radiation --create by humans-- immediately dispersed into our environment and ,
4} long term effects via the storage of nuclear waste near cities and wherever else on Earth,
5} PVC pollution of wildlife via oceans, rivers, lakes etc,
6} lets see what am I forgetting regarding humans detrimental influence on Earth?
Oh yeah, 7.5 billion people operating with and expanding with no consideration --or very little--- of any of the above.
For most part, humnainty, like you, are brain dead to their impact on Earth and the seriousness of it. Very similar to those who have called covid19 a 'hoax'. Walking talking brain dead
Never made any such comment. Your creating a false narrative.You can claim anthropogenic effect until cow farts are bottled,
Duhh, you apparrently missed the late 80's and 90's where humanity finally decided its M.A.D { Mutually Assured Destrution " to have the so much of humanities time, effort and money put into killing each other 24hrs a day!Sure, there probably is anthropogenic effect, but what is its tipping point of criticality?
Brain dead is associated with M.A.D and huanity came to their senses, at least partially. So much further to go. Pleas educate your self on history and crurrent affairs
We clues and facts to 7.5 billions impact on Earth but thewalking talking brain dead like you remain clueless.Do we have a clue what an ideal climate should be, and by what measurement? Is there a single, ideal climate the whole earth should have?
There are still brain dead walking around saying covid19 is a 'hoax'. OMG!