Gods will what? They'll allow us to send biodiversity into the crapper? They'll send another big flood? Ice age? Sit back and laugh at us? What will they do?
Socialists in a Panic
- Thread starter china
- Start date
Probably jump on their diesal tractor and shovel snow out of the drive way.
What are you doing this winter?
Youre basically just repeating yourself and ignoring what I said. So, let me repeat you too:
That is not what I have claimed. That's spin, that's strawman.
My tactics have been to put claims of impending doom into proper comparitive context. For example, the suggestion that increased CO2 concentrations will lead to runaway warming is not founded on reality. We already know that greater concentrations than those predicted have not led to such consequences so there is no way they will this time. Note that I don't say that any actions of ours are inconsequential because of past natural levels, I only point to CO2 concentrations then and now and future, and state that claiming that increased concentrations now and in the future will have an effect that they didn't have before is ludicrous. It makes no difference what the source is, CO2 in the atmosphere has the same effect whether it comes from us or from nature.
Human activities can and do have a detrimental effect on the environment and I have never denied that. THe only thing I deny are bogus claims of impending environmental doom with no basis in fact. As I said above,
You said,
That has never been my position.
Strawman indeed. Try arguing against what I actually claim for a change.
I did? I said life flourishes, I said we flourish, both of which are true, and cooling periods are generally harder on life and much harder on us, all of which is true.
Or if. You want to base policy on unknowns???:roll:
Of unknowns? I was referring to unknowns in that particular statement. How would we know?
I saw that list. I didn't say it was no big deal. I merely pointed out that it isn't as big a deal as doomsayers claim and by comparisson, is rather small.
See? We can so agree!:lol:
We are most definitely a factor and we have to be careful to maintain the integrity of the planet that we depend on. But we mustn't lose sight of the fact that our existance is also dependant on fighting nature.
I know exactly what the graph shows. You have demonstrated considerable intelligence so I can't understand why you don't.
You're saying the graph shows the rate of warming in degrees C.
OK, so what's the timeframe? Per year? Per decade? Per century? Per millenium? You gotta have one. Tell me what it is.
Oh I understand the simile, it just doesn't describe what I'm saying.
Yup, the time is on the bottom axis and displays it in linear form, actual passage of time. But if the left axis is a rate of warming there needs to be a timeframe
So what is the timeframe?
I've been sparing with Ton for quite some time. As a result I'm very familliar with strawman arguments. He is the master, after all.
Did you not mean what you said then Extra? Seems like a big concern over nothing? You said that after pointing out that in the past magnitudes have been larger.
If you want to amend what you said, here's a good opportunity to do so. Everyone here knows what a strawman is. I've quoted you directly saying what I asserted earlier.
If you want to amend what you said, here's a good opportunity to do so. Everyone here knows what a strawman is. I've quoted you directly saying what I asserted earlier.
Wrong. Flourishing is a relative term. There is a massive amount more life in the oceans than on land and all of it needs oxygen. Warm it and the oxygen goes. Add CO2 and it acidifies.
Quit being obtuse. Is that what I said? No.
It stands to reason that if we know of some species we've killed off and there is likely lots more species we haven't discovered yet, then we've killed off some we didn't know about. Has reason left you?
Which is basically saying that because there are millions of species, a couple dozen is no big deal. That's an inherent problem with comparisons.
As far as I know, we always did agree about that.
And so far we are failing dismally.
In general (but not all of us), we do fight nature and it's stupid. We can coexist with nature if we choose to. Fighting it is what the problem is.
RateS.
:laughing3:You mean all those dots in the graph came from one single instant?
The time frame appears to be from 1998 to 2008.
Last edited:
Actually it does. You seem to think that just because there's a smaller value of change than before it means that the temperature has cooled, It didn't. The temperature still increased, just hasn't increased by as much.
The left side is the change in temperature.
The time frame between each point on the graph appears to be 1 year.
Actually it looked to me as if you displayed a penchant for it and then tried twisting out of it by projecting it onto Tonington.
You enjoy twisting my words around.
The first sentence is yours, attributing that sentiment to me falsely. You use the second sentence of mine as evidence, but it won't wash. It was in referral to fearmongering about the amount of CO2 in the oceans. I pointed out that much larger levels were present in the past with no harm so current levels were nothing to be concerned about. Since I also pointed out that the current levels were due to natural causes, I fail to see how you could possibly twist that into a comment on the claims of harm due to our actions.
Is it even possible for you to NOT misrepresent me?
All of which happens naturally, yet life goes on. Since I live on land, and since additional CO2 enhances life on land, I'm quite happy with warming and rising CO2 levels.
It stands to reason that it's possible we have killed off species that we didn't know about, but then, we'll never know for certain if we did. Basing policy on unknowns is stupid.
That is not saying that a couple dozen is no big deal. What comparison does is put it all into perspective, which is useful to avoid rash decisions and actions.
I wouldn't say we're failing dismally. Our track record isn't anything to be proud of, but I wouldn't call it dismal.
Co-existing with nature requires that you fight it. If you don't, you won't survive.
OK, rateS, not that it matters.
So what are the rates?
THe time frame you refer to is the bottom axis of the graph, which is the time elapsed. I'm refering to the timeframe for the rate of change. The rate (or rateS) must have a timeframe, like degrees per century. What is it?
Wrong. It isn't a value of change, it's as if the actual temperatures had been used at the left axis. If (for example) the temperature for 2007 was 15.8C and the temp for 2008 was 15.3C, that's an actual drop in temperature.
Yes it is, and that's what it says it is. Change in temperature is what is being measured.
You're referring to the bottom axis, which is the elapsed time over which the temperature changed.
THe graph demonstrates changes in temperature over time. It does not demonstrate rate of change.
Increased CO2 benefits SOME botanical life on land and in a couple of instances it benefits life in the oceans, if it doesn't acidify the water too much.
Nonsense. Things have died before and we found out about it after they've died off. They leave traces.
Yes, basing policy on unknowns is foolish.
Unfortunately, one species dying off is not just one species dying off. It affects the entire ecologies of wherever those species had influenced. A lot of people just can't get that concept through their heads. Besides that, sometimes it is really hard to find the extent to which one species can effect other stuff.
*shrugs* Well, I think you are a bit myopic.
:roll: Wrong. You only have to fight a fraction of it. We don't kill every single coyote around here. If we fought that part of nature, we would. We allow them space and they allow us space. THAT is co-existence.
We fight climate enough to stay warm and dry, no more; otherwise we'd live in a huge perfectly controlled bubble.