joigus Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 On 5/24/2020 at 6:15 PM, drumbo said: It is ridiculous to believe that human beings could not survive in an environment where dinosaurs could, and any arguments built on that premise can be immediately rejected. What do you mean "survive"? As in we're at each other's throats for decades and there is a good 20 % of humanity that are last ones standing? Never mind inhabitants of Florida and many other coastal areas living underwater, etc? I'm not looking forward to that, really.
drumbo Posted May 28, 2020 Author Posted May 28, 2020 10 hours ago, joigus said: What do you mean "survive"? As in we're at each other's throats for decades and there is a good 20 % of humanity that are last ones standing? Never mind inhabitants of Florida and many other coastal areas living underwater, etc? I'm not looking forward to that, really. If the planet warms then for every plot of land that becomes infertile due to excessive heat there should be another plot of land that was once infertile due to excessive cold which becomes arable after it warms. The total amount of arable land could increase. Look at Canada and Russia, don't you think much of that frozen land would become arable if the planet warmed? Antarctica will probably become arable after a few hundred years too, a whole new continent to settle! Africans are used to the heat it won't bother them, and we can send them more food if they need it. That way the population of Africa can continue growing and natural resources can be continue being extracted and shipped here cheaply. As for coastal regions getting flooded, it will be a good opportunity to revitalize the infrastructure around our coasts and renovate while moving stuff away from the coast if necessary. I don't see a problem, it will all work out. -1
joigus Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 11 minutes ago, drumbo said: Africans are used to the heat it won't bother them, Ok. I was reading up to this point. What do we do with the penguins and the elk? Any plans?
drumbo Posted May 28, 2020 Author Posted May 28, 2020 4 minutes ago, joigus said: Ok. I was reading up to this point. What do we do with the penguins and the elk? Any plans? Elk should be able to shift their habitat north, but they can probably adapt to warmer temperatures anyway. Elk look kind of like impalas, so I don't see why they couldn't adapt to live in a warm climate. We can put the penguins in a zoo. -1
joigus Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 1 minute ago, drumbo said: Elk should be able to shift their habitat north, You do know there's no point further North of the North Pole, don't you? 1
drumbo Posted May 28, 2020 Author Posted May 28, 2020 3 minutes ago, joigus said: You do know there's no point further North of the North Pole, don't you? Why are you concerned with Elk? They are classified as a least-concern species by the IUCN. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least-concern_species -2
joigus Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 (edited) 2 minutes ago, drumbo said: Why are you concerned with Elk? You do sound to me inordinately unconcerned. Carry on. This is kinda fun. Edited May 28, 2020 by joigus addition
Curious layman Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 (edited) 'Africans are used to the heat it won't bother them, and we can send them more food if they need it. That way the population of Africa can continue growing and natural resources can be continue being extracted and shipped here cheaply' I'm not surprised Africa is turning to China when I read patronising crap like this. What decade do you live in? (drumbo) Edited May 28, 2020 by Curious layman 2
joigus Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 14 minutes ago, drumbo said: Elk look kind of like impalas, so I don't see why they couldn't adapt to live in a warm climate. Now that's PhD material.
drumbo Posted May 28, 2020 Author Posted May 28, 2020 7 minutes ago, joigus said: You do sound to inordinately unconcerned. Carry on. This is kinda fun. I'm not sure what this means. Elk are categorized by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) so that they do not qualify as threatened, near threatened, or (before 2001) conservation dependent.
joigus Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, drumbo said: I'm not sure what this means. Elk are categorized by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) so that they do not qualify as threatened, near threatened, or (before 2001) conservation dependent. No, no, no. Don't get me wrong. Elk, as they stand, are not threatened. It's you who's threatening them with your "plans." Not to mention the Africans. Why not send them to Venus? They sure can stand heat... Edited May 28, 2020 by joigus mistyped
drumbo Posted May 28, 2020 Author Posted May 28, 2020 9 minutes ago, joigus said: No, no, no. Don't get me wrong. Elks, as they stand, are not threatened. It's you who's threatening them with your "plans." This is such an absurd point of view. Any change necessarily threatens some organisms and creates new opportunities for others. Should we freeze in place and try to prevent all change lest it leave some slow to adapt organisms behind in the dust? That would be unnatural since terrestrial life has always experienced great change and stress. I find it ironic that those who tend to fear climate change the most also tend to align with political ideologies which claim to embrace change, but lately they seem to be the most fearful. How can anyone have faith in the liberal elite and all of their academic "expertise" after this lockdown fiasco? Can you not see that you are excessively fearful? You're right, I don't have PhD, but the world wasn't built by people with PhDs. It was built by foolish men who mixed chemicals together just to see what would happen, worked with dangerous electrical equipment to discover its properties (Michael Faraday didn't have a PhD and he made a far greater contribution to the world than a million useless 21st century PhDs that get churned out like toilet paper) , climbed into primitive airplanes, combustion engines powered by mini explosions, crossing seas and oceans in leaky wooden vessels, and all of the other stupid things people did which advanced humanity. And all the while there were always people tut-tuting in disapproval, "don't do that it's dangerous!!!" "you could get hurt!!!" If you're afraid then stay inside your house, we're going to keep doing dangerous stuff with or without you.
MigL Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 I'm located at 43.16 N latitude. Last week we had frost warnings at night, so I hadn't taken my lemon tree outdoors yet. This week, after bringing it outside, we've had three days of 35 deg C temperatures so far ( I remember when we had a Spring and fall ). The delicate new growth ( after pruning in March ) is having a tough time adapting to the sudden heat. No doubt there will be considerable adaptation involved with dealing with AGW, but it won't be easy. And losses will vastly outweigh the benefits. 1
iNow Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 The consistency of stupid claims being made by certain members in this thread is rather impressive. For those curious about adaptation of plants and animals, see here: https://skepticalscience.com/Can-animals-and-plants-adapt-to-global-warming.htm For those wondering if CO2 is just plant food anyway, try this one: https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-basic.htm 2
joigus Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 6 hours ago, drumbo said: This is such an absurd point of view. No. It's called irony. I automatically shift to irony when I see the rational discussion is hopeless. Read other members that came later. They haven't given up on giving you information yet.
Strange Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 6 hours ago, drumbo said: This is such an absurd point of view. Any change necessarily threatens some organisms and creates new opportunities for others. One problem is the rate of change. Evolution and adaptation is a very, very slow process. If environmental change happens too fast then there is no chance to adapt. And we know that the current changes are happening faster than at at any time in the past. 6 hours ago, drumbo said: I find it ironic that those who tend to fear climate change the most also tend to align with political ideologies which claim to embrace change, but lately they seem to be the most fearful. I find it strange that those whose political ideologies are aligned with using natural resources are so often opposed to managing those resources. 6 hours ago, drumbo said: How can anyone have faith in the liberal elite and all of their academic "expertise" after this lockdown fiasco? I am sorry, but after Brexit (a campaign run by an elite group of billionaires and public schoolboys in politics and the media) I find accusations against "the liberal elite" ludicrous. It has become the modern "political correctness" - a pathetic and meaningless insult to throw at people who you disagree with. In what sense are academics (who are experts because they have spent their careers studying a subject) "elite"? Even if they are "liberal" (gasp!!!) they are not in charge. They provide information and advice. It is up to governments to take action. The UK has one of the most extreme right wing governments for decades. Not one of them could be described as "liberal elite"; they are just elite - rich, entitled and not terribly clever. But even they see the need for lockdown (even if a little too late so they have killed many thousands of people). You may think you are incredibly strong, brave and street-smart (none of that stupid book-learning for me, thank you very much) but viruses don't care. You might be young, white and healthy, and therefore at low risk. But your selfish desire for "personal freedom" means you would put others at risk. If you think your personal freedom is more important than other people's survival then that makes you you are the "liberal elite". 7 hours ago, drumbo said: Elk should be able to shift their habitat north, but they can probably adapt to warmer temperatures anyway. Elk look kind of like impalas, so I don't see why they couldn't adapt to live in a warm climate. We can put the penguins in a zoo. 7 hours ago, drumbo said: Why are you concerned with Elk? They are classified as a least-concern species by the IUCN. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least-concern_species Nice goalpost shifting. "If Elk are in danger; they can just move" "So what if they can't move, who cares about them anyway" 2
Prometheus Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 And if Elk can just up and move, what's stopping the Africans? If Europeans think immigration is an issue now...
dimreepr Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 9 hours ago, drumbo said: This is such an absurd point of view. Any change necessarily threatens some organisms and creates new opportunities for others. Should we freeze in place and try to prevent all change lest it leave some slow to adapt organisms behind in the dust? The premise of your thread is based on there being benefits of AGW, that somehow balances the pitfall's; yet here are, on page 3, with no sign of a single example... That's absurd... You don't seem able to grasp the basics; As the heat increases, the livable habitats move north, so the animals that can, also moves north and invades the recently liveable habitat. Imagine what happens to the indigenous forna and flora, when competing with forna and flora that's suited to the new enviroment? Now imagine that scenario, in context!!!
drumbo Posted May 29, 2020 Author Posted May 29, 2020 (edited) 21 hours ago, MigL said: I'm located at 43.16 N latitude. Last week we had frost warnings at night, so I hadn't taken my lemon tree outdoors yet. This week, after bringing it outside, we've had three days of 35 deg C temperatures so far ( I remember when we had a Spring and fall ). The delicate new growth ( after pruning in March ) is having a tough time adapting to the sudden heat. No doubt there will be considerable adaptation involved with dealing with AGW, but it won't be easy. And losses will vastly outweigh the benefits. Anecdotal, and no proof of relation to AGW. Can we stick to facts please? 16 hours ago, joigus said: No. It's called irony. I automatically shift to irony when I see the rational discussion is hopeless. Read other members that came later. They haven't given up on giving you information yet. That's not irony, and I think you meant to say "I automatically pretend I was kidding around when I get called out for saying something ridiculous". If you don't have the energy to engage in a rational discussion then why don't you just comfort yourself with some platitude like "never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience" and exit the conversation? At least then you can feel like you "won". 16 hours ago, Strange said: we know that the current changes are happening faster than at at any time in the past. Patently false. The event which led to the extinction of the dinosaurs is hypothesized to have been cataclysmic. Perhaps a massive meteor impact or volcanic eruption. These events would have caused far more rapid and dramatic changes than AGW ever could. 12 hours ago, dimreepr said: yet here are, on page 3, with no sign of a single example I already mentioned a possible increase in arable land, and in the long term the benefits of colonizing Antarctica. Who knows how many natural resources Antarctica holds? For all we know unlocking it from it's icy grip could be they key to increasing human wealth and development. Edited May 29, 2020 by drumbo
joigus Posted May 29, 2020 Posted May 29, 2020 2 minutes ago, drumbo said: If you don't have the energy to engage in a rational discussion then Ok. Let's review some of your arguments. Apparently you want to engage me in a "rational" discussion. On 5/28/2020 at 2:28 AM, drumbo said: Africans are used to the heat it won't bother them, 23 hours ago, drumbo said: Elk look kind of like impalas, so I don't see why they couldn't adapt to live in a warm climate. We can put the penguins in a zoo. Do I need to say more? I gave you many rational arguments at the beginning of this thread. Many more people have. I haven't insulted you. I did pour scorn on your idea, not you. Your idea is silly, not necessarily you. Ideas come and go. Intelligent people have stupid ideas sometimes. But they dislodge them as soon as they recognize them as such. I've had stupid ideas many times, but I've thrown them away. Do you identify yourself with your previous ideas? "Elk look like impalas, so I don't see why they couldn't adapt to live in a warm climate." Is that an idea? Is that an argument? What the hell is that? How old are you?
drumbo Posted May 29, 2020 Author Posted May 29, 2020 11 minutes ago, joigus said: "Elk look like impalas, so I don't see why they couldn't adapt to live in a warm climate." Is that an idea? Is that an argument? What the hell is that? How old are you? Look at the attached pictures.Their body structures are so similar that they could take up each other's habitats without issue. The elk has a little bit more insulation, but there is probably enough genetic variance for fur growth in the elk species that shorter furred elk could be selected for quickly in order to adapt to a hot climate. -1
MigL Posted May 29, 2020 Posted May 29, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, drumbo said: Anecdotal, and no proof of relation to AGW. Can we stick to facts please? Wasn't meant as proof of relation to AGW. It was meant to show that adaptation/evolution is a slow arduous process, that, quite often fails, and leads to extinction. 1 hour ago, drumbo said: The event which led to the extinction of the dinosaurs is hypothesized to have been cataclysmic. Again, to emphasize the difficulty of adapting to rapid change, a lot of dinosaur species could not adapt, and died off, but not all did. A lot of small mammals/marsupial did survive. Along with a whole bunch of small dinosaurs, that you can probably hear 'chirping' and flying outside your window. Edited May 29, 2020 by MigL 1
dimreepr Posted May 29, 2020 Posted May 29, 2020 (edited) They're basically the same, a few tweaks and they could live anywhere... Edited May 29, 2020 by dimreepr 2
joigus Posted May 29, 2020 Posted May 29, 2020 3 hours ago, dimreepr said: They're basically the same, a few tweaks and they could live anywhere... +1. They "look similar" (to me) ergo they "can adapt" (in unspecified amount of time.) If you drop an elephant from an airplane, maybe it can evolve flight by becoming Dumbo. The latter was an hyperbole, meant only to illustrate the blatant flaw in an argument. Don't misinterpret my words again, please.
swansont Posted May 29, 2020 Posted May 29, 2020 On 5/24/2020 at 12:15 PM, drumbo said: It is ridiculous to believe that human beings could not survive in an environment where dinosaurs could, and any arguments built on that premise can be immediately rejected. If you mean any given human can survive, then the statement is trivially false, as we have already observed that humans die when it gets hotter, and areas of the globe would be uninhabitable. If you mean humans as a species, and that's all that matters, then this is an argument not in good faith, since nobody is arguing extinction of the species will be the result, or that the impact is limited to humans. Quote How much research is done on the possible benefits of climate change? If the answer is none, then climate scientists must admit that they begin their research with a pessimistic bias. Focusing on all of the possible downsides of change, proclaiming doom and gloom, and completely ignoring possible benefits of that change is alarmist. If they conclude that the temperature will go up by XºC over some span of time, under some set of conditions, that is neither an affirmative nor pessimistic bias. And, as scientists have discussed positive impacts, your argument to the contrary is moot. e.g. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/are-there-positive-benefits-global-warming On 5/27/2020 at 8:28 PM, drumbo said: Africans are used to the heat it won't bother them Why would you expect anyone to take this "argument" seriously? On 5/27/2020 at 8:28 PM, drumbo said: If the planet warms then for every plot of land that becomes infertile due to excessive heat there should be another plot of land that was once infertile due to excessive cold which becomes arable after it warms. Because land is evenly distributed on the globe? And arable land is all that matters? 2
Recommended Posts