[Victoribus Spolia]

Actually the topic was the OP and you haven't been wanting to debate that for several pages now after you more-or-less conceded all the points I made.

Now that your being pummeled on an entirely different topic, you would find no solace in appealing to the "topic"

You've been off-topic for quite some time.

[Pants-of-dog]

Actually the topic was the OP and you haven't been wanting to debate that for several pages now after you more-or-less conceded all the points I made.

No. At this point, you are saying that the only claim you ever made was about hypithetical climate chnages, and how they are always the same if we control for all the differences.

I have no problem conceding that.

I then repeated the four claims I made that were about the actual ongoing climate change, and you did not disagree when I assumed you conceded thise four points.

Now that your being pummeled on an entirely different topic, you would find no solace in appealing to the "topic"

You've been off-topic for quite some time.

TTP’s evidence for his conspiracy theory is two editorials and the incorrect belief that they are not independent because they all think ACC is real.

So, since I do not count opinions as evidence, and there is no logic to assume that people would secretly collude just because they happen to agree on a scientific issue, TTP has no real argument.

That is where we currently stand.

[Victoribus Spolia]

No. At this point, you are saying that the only claim you ever made was about hypithetical climate chnages, and how they are always the same if we control for all the differences.

I have no problem conceding that.

I then repeated the four claims I made that were about the actual ongoing climate change, and you did not disagree when I assumed you conceded thise four points.

Oh, so we agree then that climate change and a warming earth is, based on historical precedent, likely to yield higher bio-diversity if we control for direct (non-climate-related) human-caused ecological damage?

Good.

[Pants-of-dog]

Oh, so we agree then that climate change and a warming earth is, based on historical precedent, likely to yield higher bio-diversity if we control for direct (non-climate-related) human-caused ecological damage?

Good.

No. Here are the four arguments you conceded, for the third or fourth time.

1. There is no correlation between hothouse climate eras and increased biodiversity.

2. Current climate change is reducing biodiversity. And because of the continued human impact, this loss in biodiversity will continue for the foreseeable future.

3. The models are reliable and have made many correct predictions.

4. The current climate change is more rapid than most climate changes in the past.

The first one contradicts your claim about hypothetical climate changes in the future.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I never conceded #1, I conceded the first part of #2 and argued that we can't know about the second half of #2.

I never said either way regarding #3 and both I and @Truth To Power and @SolarCross have refuted your #4 several times even if its been irrelevant to broader conversation.

So NO.

You can't even get the conversation right, let alone the points under contention.

[Sivad]

there is no logic to assume that people would secretly collude just because they happen to agree on a scientific issue

They don't just agree on the issue, they all have an interest in maintaining the credibility of their institutions and protecting their careers and professional relationships their career trajectories depend on. It wasn't just a few reputations and careers on the line, it was every journal that published these guys, every scientist that cited them, every politician and policy that relied on their authority and integrity, it was the whole political and financial ecosystem that has developed around CACC. The establishment would pull out all the stops to minimize the damage from that scandal. Even if there was no wrongdoing the establishment wouldn't leave it to chance, they'd still rig the fucker to make double extra sure that it came out exactly the way they needed it to.

[Truth To Power]

If you want to debate about the debate, go ahead. It seems to be all the rage today.

Especially among those who instantly shriek, "Conspiracy theory!!" whenever anyone questions the Officially Approved Narrative.

I am going to stick to the topic of ACC.

So, no more accusations of conspiracy theories?

[Pants-of-dog]

I never conceded #1,

Then please post evidence showing that biodiversity is correlated with increasing temperatures.

I conceded the first part of #2 and argued that we can't know about the second half of #2.

The argument that humans will continue to reduce biodiversity through climate change and other impacts seems logical and true. Why do you think we cannot safely say this?

I never said either way regarding #3

So you concede it?

and both I and @Truth To Power and @SolarCross have refuted your #4 several times even if its been irrelevant to broader conversation.

You cited a link to the wiki article on the LIA. I took the graph from that link and showed how the current warming is about five times faster than the climate change at the first half of the LIA.

I also cited corroborating evidence from another source showing that the current change is significantly faster than most other climate changes.

You have yet to refute this, and TTP simply alluded to climategate without even explaining how this graph has anything to do with climategate.

Your move.

----------------

@Sivad

I think I have addressed all this already in the conspiracy theory thread.

If there is something I have missed, please bring it to my attention and I will respond to it in the conspiracy theory thread. Thank you.

[Victoribus Spolia]

So you concede it?

Please explain how what I said would amount to a concession.

Thanks.

Then please post evidence showing that biodiversity is correlated with increasing temperatures.

I did in the OP.

The argument that humans will continue to reduce biodiversity through climate change and other impacts seems logical and true.

"logical?"





Well, obviously we have the immediate reduction of bio-diversity correlated with our rising temperatures, but that correlation is likely due to direct human impact on the ecology and not on the temperature of the earth and amount of C02 in the atmosphere; especially since all past hot-houses had higher bio-diversity. Likewise, as a I argued, transitional periods between major ecological shifts due climate change always see the loss of lifeforms due to extinction (because of their inability to adapt); however, this does not imply that the future stable hot-house climate will not yield bio-diversity several generations from now. Precedent would show that is shall.

This has been the same argument the entire thread and you have yet to refute either points.

Your move.

TTP's post on August 31, 18:44 addressed the problem with your graph.

Please respond to his arguments.

[Pants-of-dog]

Please explain how what I said would amount to a concession.

Thanks.

I did not say it amounted to a concession. I asked you if you were conceding the point.

Are you?

I did in the OP.

No.

I already pointed out that it does not show any such correlation. Two things are not correlated just because they happen at the same time.

I also pointed out how the OP does not mention all previous warm eras, and so there may be many examples of climate change without increased biodiversity.

You have yet to refute these points.

Well, obviously we have the immediate reduction of bio-diversity correlated with our rising temperatures, but that correlation is likely due to direct human impact on the ecology and not on the temperature of the earth and amount of C02 in the atmosphere;

And I already addressed snd refuted this as wrll. I posted evidence showing that climate change is already causing biodiversity loss.

You ignored this evidence as well.

especially since all past hot-houses had higher bio-diversity.

Again, the OP is not a comprehensive list of all previous hothouse eras.

Likewise, as a I argued, transitional periods between major ecological shifts due climate change always see the loss of lifeforms due to extinction (because of their inability to adapt); however, this does not imply that the future stable hot-house climate will not yield bio-diversity several generations from now. Precedent would show that is shall.

This has been the same argument the entire thread and you have yet to refute either points.

Again, you are ignoring human impact.

So far, you have not said anything that I have not already dealt with.

TTP's post on August 31, 18:44 addressed the problem with your graph.

Please respond to his arguments.

I have.

If you need a review of that as well, please read the thread.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I did not say it amounted to a concession. I asked you if you were conceding the point.

Are you?

Did it sound like I was?

No.

I already pointed out that it does not show any such correlation. Two things are not correlated just because they happen at the same time.

You got your terms all mixed up buddy.

A correlation is defined as things occuring at the same time.

I am sure you mean to say that "correlation" does not imply "causation."

However, I am not claiming a cause, I am only claiming a correlation and the correlation is real. Correlations are important in science for establishing patterns in order to make inductive inferences. If you don't like correlations or induction, then we can discuss logic instead of science at which point I would refer you to my thread on Immaterialism.

All previous hot-houses are correlated with higher bio-diversity, I make no claim of causation, but in science, past correlations are used in making future predictions (induction).

And I already addressed snd refuted this as wrll. I posted evidence showing that climate change is already causing biodiversity loss.

You ignored this evidence as well.

Causation or correlation?

If you claim causation please show me the claim so I can refute it, as technically speaking, there is no such thing as an empirical cause. They are logically impossible.

Again, the OP is not a comprehensive list of all previous hothouse eras.

Which ones in particular were missed that you would like to discuss?

This has been the same argument the entire thread and you have yet to refute either points.

Again, you are ignoring human impact.

So far, you have not said anything that I have not already dealt with.

This is not a rebuttal and I already accounted for human impact.

I have.

If you need a review of that as well, please read the thread.

Nah, don't see it. You must have just imagined responding to it.....

[Pants-of-dog]

Did it sound like I was?

It sounds like you are evading the question.

When you think I do this, you get mad and start swearing.

I will simply assume that you have no argument about this.

You got your terms all mixed up buddy.

A correlation is defined as things occuring at the same time.

I am sure you mean to say that "correlation" does not imply "causation."

However, I am not claiming a cause, I am only claiming a correlation and the correlation is real. Correlations are important in science for establishing patterns in order to make inductive inferences. If you don't like correlations or induction, then we can discuss logic instead of science at which point I would refer you to my thread on Immaterialism.

All previous hot-houses are correlated with higher bio-diversity, I make no claim of causation, but in science, past correlations are used in making future predictions (induction).

No. Two things that happened at the same time are not necessarily correlated. Correlations are a form of dependent or associated relationship.

For example, Mary was wearing a red dress when she caught the plague. The dress and the plague happened at he same time, but there is no correlation.

Mary saw many rats when she caught the plague. The rats carry the fleas that spread the plague, so there is a correlation here, but not causation.

Causation or correlation?

If you claim causation please show me the claim so I can refute it, as technically speaking, there is no such thing as an empirical cause. They are logically impossible.

Which ones in particular were missed that you would like to discuss?

This is not a rebuttal and I already accounted for human impact.

Nah, don't see it. You must have just imagined responding to it.....

Please review the thread if you wish further information in the previous review.

How did you account for human impact in your refutation of my claim?

[Victoribus Spolia]

No. Two things that happened at the same time are not necessarily correlated. Correlations are a form of dependent or associated relationship.

For example, Mary was wearing a red dress when she caught the plague. The dress and the plague happened at he same time, but there is no correlation.

Mary saw many rats when she caught the plague. The rats carry the fleas that spread the plague, so there is a correlation here, but not causation.

cor·re·la·tion
/ˌkôrəˈlāSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
a mutual relationship or connection between two or more things.
"research showed a clear correlation between recession and levels of property crime"

There is a correlation between higher bio-diversity and hot-houses given this definition in the OP.

How did you account for human impact in your refutation of my claim?

I controlled for it as its not the same as climate change. You actually conceded this earlier in the thread.

[Pants-of-dog]

There is a correlation between higher bio-diversity and hot-houses given this definition in the OP.

I already refuted this. Please review the thread.

I controlled for it as its not the same as climate change. You actually conceded this earlier in the thread.

No.

You are confusing your argument with mine.

Here we are discussing how biodiversity will go down for the foreseeable future because of human impact. This is my argument.

You “controlled” for human impact in your claim that all hypothetical climate changes will be the same if we ignore all the differences.

Your dismissal of all differences, human or otherwise, in your claim has nothing to do with my claim about actual biodiversity loss from human impact right now.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Pants-of-dog,

I am going to quote your position against TTP as it represents my position now.

I am not doing this again.

You continuously ignore actual evidence, refuse to support your claims with evidence, and make outlandish claims about conspiracies.

Until you support your claims and criticisms with actual evidence, there is no point in “debating” this with you.

[Pants-of-dog]

Sure.

My refutations of your arguments still stand, as do my four arguments.

Please note that I presented evidence for my claims, and I have also reviewed how you fail to address my arguments.

[Sivad]

The Climategate Inquiries
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/g ... uiries.pdf

[Pants-of-dog]

@Sivad

Would you trust a source that refused to disclose where they get their funding?

[Sivad]

@Sivad

Would you trust a source that refused to disclose where they get their funding?

It has nothing to do with trust, the established facts in that report are enough to call bullshit on the entire charade. It was a fake inquiry conducted by establishment apparatchiks and we all knew the conclusions it would reach before it ever got underway. Before it even started I would have bet my house and my pension that they wouldn't find any significant wrongdoing. The whole thing's a fucking joke.

[Victoribus Spolia]

My refutations of your arguments still stand, as do my four arguments.

What refutations? I saw only concessions and double-speak.

Please note that I presented evidence for my claims, and I have also reviewed how you fail to address my arguments.

Please note that you failed to provide evidence for relevant arguments that actually addressed my claims.