Global Warming - Science's Double-Standard ?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Thanks. Sorry for snapping.

I'm the one who should have sited a source so again sorry.

But we were talking about pH and your claim that a small change in pH would overwhelm the ability of ocean creatures to adapt.

I think the problem is this isn't a closed system, change in PH could overwhelm the ability of ocean creatures to adapt but it's also going to be in tandem with many other problems.

An extinction of the one species will create space for another to thrive immediately but if they are starting with much smaller numbers it will take time for them to appear in the fossil record. There is simply no data to support your claim that life on earth was at risk of dying out even during these events.

The extinction events I'm talking about generally wiped out over 50% of all species on earth and so most of the similar species where wiped out so it took a long while for new species to fill those niches, think of the amount of time it took between the large marine reptiles disappearing and whales appearing. The large marine reptiles died out around the same time as the dinosaurs and the earliest fully marine whale didn't evolve until 38 million years ago there was a line up but these where the first to obtain the size of the marine reptiles. Though I'm not sure this will be as bad as the big five.

Now finally I'm not so worried about the world as I am about us, an odd thing about extinction events is that the most widely spread animals tend to be the ones that get taken out easiest by these events, and no one can argue that we aren't the most widespread creature on this planet.

[Keepitsimple]

Now finally I'm not so worried about the world as I am about us, an odd thing about extinction events is that the most widely spread animals tend to be the ones that get taken out easiest by these events, and no one can argue that we aren't the most widespread creature on this planet.

Don't lose too much sleep. The last mass extinction occurred 65 million years ago and was caused by immediate catastrophic events - most likely an asteroid hitting the earth. With the AGW theory, we're talking about the earth's temperature going up by a couple of degrees over 100 years or more - and that's only if everything the IPCC says becomes reality - and we keep pumping out CO2. The pace of human evolution is incremental.....look back to 1810 and compare it to 1910.....and compare 1910 to 2010. Now imagine what wonders will emerge by 2110! Fusion power, among others is projected to be available by mid-century.....but the thing is, we adapt. If in the next 20 years, we actually find out that what the IPCC says is absolutely true, we'll adapt - we'll prioritize. There is no evidence that humans will be worse off with a warmer planet - as a matter of fact, there are convincing arguments that moderate warming will be beneficial.

[waldo]

Don't worry - be happy!

Adapt-R-Us! Doncha know... CO2 is plant food!

Close your eyes... and imagine... just imagine the wondrous world ahead! I can see 2110 - can you?

Simple is... as Simple does!

[eyeball]

Don't lose too much sleep. The last mass extinction occurred 65 million years ago and was caused by immediate catastrophic events - most likely an asteroid hitting the earth. With the AGW theory, we're talking about the earth's temperature going up by a couple of degrees over 100 years or more - and that's only if everything the IPCC says becomes reality - and we keep pumping out CO2. The pace of human evolution is incremental.....look back to 1810 and compare it to 1910.....and compare 1910 to 2010. Now imagine what wonders will emerge by 2110! Fusion power, among others is projected to be available by mid-century.....but the thing is, we adapt. If in the next 20 years, we actually find out that what the IPCC says is absolutely true, we'll adapt - we'll prioritize. There is no evidence that humans will be worse off with a warmer planet - as a matter of fact, there are convincing arguments that moderate warming will be beneficial.

Human's have always altered their environment but only on a micro scale i.e. we've put on a sweater or opened a window or two. While no one's proposing we build a ring-world or a Dyson-sphere which I imagine would also have a bit of an environmental impact, deliberately or knowingly warming up the entire atmosphere is a lot more like a Terra-forming project than loosening one's jacket or closing all the windows and cranking up the heat. The latter, at least in the polite company of most households, is usually preceded by first asking other people if they're too cold while allowing for suggestions that you put on a sweater instead. In the case of our planet however there is no debate, the windows are going down and the thermostat is going up whether anyone likes it or not.

[Keepitsimple]

Human's have always altered their environment but only on a micro scale i.e. we've put on a sweater or opened a window or two. While no one's proposing we build a ring-world or a Dyson-sphere which I imagine would also have a bit of an environmental impact, deliberately or knowingly warming up the entire atmosphere is a lot more like a Terra-forming project than loosening one's jacket or closing all the windows and cranking up the heat. The latter, at least in the polite company of most households, is usually preceded by first asking other people if they're too cold while allowing for suggestions that you put on a sweater instead. In the case of our planet however there is no debate, the windows are going down and the thermostat is going up whether anyone likes it or not. Just sayin'.

You're right....there has been very little debate. People have NOT been asked whether they want to pay the REAL price of meeting the "targets" that warmers say are required so that we do not destroy our way of life, if not our planet. If there truly was a debate over the drastic steps that would have to be taken to take the world's emissions below the Kyoto 1990 thresh-hold - if people were told what they would have to do and what it would cost......I don't think you'd like what their answers would be. But of course...as we're seeing, people will NOT be told - they will NOT be asked....because the warmers know what's best for everybody else and they will do everything they can to "save the world". If that means deception and excluding real debate about how it would truly affect individuals, so be it. People will always choose to "save the planet" - as long as it doesn't affect them personally. Ask people if they would give up air-conditioners in summer, use only half their heating capacity in winter, give up their cars, and send their taxes to other counries to help them get "green" - that's a debate - and lets see where it goes. Just sayin'.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

You're right....there has been very little debate. People have NOT been asked whether they want to pay the REAL price of meeting the "targets" that warmers say are required so that we do not destroy our way of life, if not our planet. If there truly was a debate over the drastic steps that would have to be taken to take the world's emissions below the Kyoto 1990 thresh-hold - if people were told what they would have to do and what it would cost......I don't think you'd like what their answers would be. But of course...as we're seeing, people will NOT be told - they will NOT be asked....because the warmers know what's best for everybody else and they will do everything they can to "save the world". If that means deception and excluding real debate about how it would truly affect individuals, so be it. People will always choose to "save the planet" - as long as it doesn't affect them personally. Ask people if they would give up air-conditioners in summer, use only half their heating capacity in winter, give up their cars, and send their taxes to other counries to help them get "green" - that's a debate - and lets see where it goes. Just sayin'.

paranoia runs supreme in Simpleworld! Oh my... a new term from Simple - "warmers"

the Simple "REAL PRICE" (whatever the Simple interpretation is???) will... wait for it... wait for it... "destroy our way of life, if not our planet"!!! Ya, ya, Simple ignores all the scientific evidence while speaking to doomsday scenarios that prevention/mitigation/adaption will, again, "destroy our way of life, if not our planet"! Oh my!

[Guest TrueMetis]

Don't lose too much sleep.

Just how fast do you think that catastrophic event was? It may have taken several thousand years. From an evolutionary point of view (you know actual evolution not what you were talking about) That's not enough time to adapt.

[jbg]

all you did is find some denier talking point and parrot it - per your usual self. Notwithstanding, of course, the D'Aleo quote you so fixated on, includes two distinctly different values, one Centigrade and the other Fahrenheit... without properly qualifying either.

*********************

We've spoken on this many, many times over, through various threads... usually the thread posting references originated by Simple as he parroted his favourite TV weathermen!

How could a three-time poster speak on anything "many, many times over"?

___________________

Best Dating Services

Dating Websites

Huh?

[TimG]

Huh?

Those are waldos words. LeeRain is a spammer who grabs random quotes from previous posts and adds links. I would delete your post to avoid encouraging them.