[Victoribus Spolia]

Please provide evidence for this claim. No, the OP does not support this claim so it is not evidence.

Also, more water, CO2 and more heat does not kead to more biodiversity.

Its correlated with such in past hot-houses yes and this was explained by other posters such as @SolarCross who discussed the relationship between CO2, liquid water, warmer temps, and bio-diversity. Indeed, if one were to terraform a planet, a similar strategy would be employed. I am not repeating their claims for you, don't be a lazy sea-lion.

First of all, the point that humans reduce biodiversity through human impact is releavnt because it explains why there was more biodiversity in previous hothouse eras.

But if the sole reason bio-diversity was higher then was because of direct human interaction, that does nothing to support the claim you are making that hot-houses will decrease bio-diversity. Those are two separate things.

Secondly, we have already seen evidence that global warming is reducing biodiversity.

We have seen a correlation, but that might be part of a temporary transition as was discussed earlier by me and @SolarCross.

That is not logical.

If you claim that shooting pigs in the head causes them to die, and I say that this statement of yours does not account for other causes of pig deaths, does that make your claim wrong or irrelevant?

False-analogy; all previous hot-houses have been correlated to higher bio-diversity, you claim something different about a future unknown hot-house, the reason for it being different must be explained by direct analysis of the REAL (not make-believe) hot-houses we've had (Allegedly )

So you are dismissing your own claims about higher temperatures and more CO2 causing more biodiversity?

If I used the term causes, I am hereby arguing that I only meant correlation. Period.

[Pants-of-dog]

Its correlated with such in the U.S. hot-houses yes

Is this supposed to be a sentence? Would you like a chance to rewrite this in intelligible English?

and this was explained by other posters such as @SolarCross who discussed the relationship between CO2, liquid water, warmer temps, and bio-diversity. Indeed, if one were to terraform a planet, a similar strategy would be employed.

Since @SolarCross never supported his claims, I do not see why I should accpet his word as evidence.

But if the sole reason bio-diversity was higher then was because of direct human interaction, that does nothing to support the claim you are making that hot-houses will decrease bio-diversity. Those are two separate things.

Not really, since human impact is causing the higher temperatures. Therefore, they are not two separate things.

For more clarification, please read the Scientific American article youmjust quoted.

We have seen a correlation, but that might be part of a temporary transition as was discussed earlier by me and @SolarCross.

The global warming in recent decades - especially due to anthropogenic activity - already has a negative impact on biodiversity and in the future is expected to become a more significant threat for the future decades. In the present paper are analyzed detrimental consequences of this phenomenon on natural vegetation and fauna but also on the “artificial” vegetation (agricultural crops) on Earth. Thus, higher temperatures coupled with changing rainfall regime, lead to the extinction of species of plants and animals the later migrating into areas where conditions are more or less close to their needs. The paper outline the state of forest fires, the melting of glaciers and glacial ice caps at the poles, affecting aquatic biodiversity. It analyzes the appearance of aridity of more tracts of land areas of the world and in Romania, the lack of water which affects the life of the planet in general as well those of the people by restricting the decrease of arable land and agricultural production.

http://aos.ro/wp-content/uploads/2017/0 ... 1Art.1.pdf

False-analogy; all previous hot-houses have been correlated to higher bio-diversity, you claim something different about a future unknown hot-house, the reason for it being different must be explained by direct analysis of the REAL (not make-believe) hot-houses we've had (Allegedly )

No, there is no correlation between hothouse temperatures and higher biodiversity.

If I used the term causes, I am hereby arguing that I only meant correlation. Period.

Again, there is no correlation between hothouse temperatures and higher biodiversity.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Is this supposed to be a sentence? Would you like a chance to rewrite this in intelligible English?

I know, your grammar skills must be starting to rub off.

I fixed it in the post via edit. Thanks.

Not really, since human impact is causing the higher temperatures. Therefore, they are not two separate things.

For more clarification, please read the Scientific American article youmjust quoted.

It doesn't really matter if people or other phenomena are correlated to the change, the change has never been correlated with decreasing bio-diversity. The burden of proof is for you to explain why such a speculations about the future would be otherwise to what we know about ALL past hot-houses.

The global warming in recent decades - especially due to anthropogenic activity - already has a negative impact on biodiversity and in the future is expected to become a more significant threat for the future decades. In the present paper are analyzed detrimental consequences of this phenomenon on natural vegetation and fauna but also on the “artificial” vegetation (agricultural crops) on Earth. Thus, higher temperatures coupled with changing rainfall regime, lead to the extinction of species of plants and animals the later migrating into areas where conditions are more or less close to their needs. The paper outline the state of forest fires, the melting of glaciers and glacial ice caps at the poles, affecting aquatic biodiversity. It analyzes the appearance of aridity of more tracts of land areas of the world and in Romania, the lack of water which affects the life of the planet in general as well those of the people by restricting the decrease of arable land and agricultural production.

This article does not address permanent rather than transitional changes in bio-diversity.

No, there is no correlation between hothouse temperatures and higher biodiversity.

Actually yes, the OP stated these clearly.

[Pants-of-dog]

I know, your grammar skills must be starting to rub off.

I fixed it in the post via edit. Thanks.

Yes, it was odd and looked more like my fumble thumb typo mistakes.

I do not see a change in your post, though.

It doesn't really matter if people or other phenomena are correlated to the change, the change has never been correlated with decreasing bio-diversity. The burden of proof is for you to explain why such a speculations about the future would be otherwise to what we know about ALL past hot-houses.

I have already presented more than one piece of evidence showing how global warming is causing less biodiversity right now.

And I have already explained why such speculations about the future would be otherwise to what we know about ALL past hot-houses: the lack of human impact on environments in previous hothouse eras is what led to the biodiversity and this human impact is now present in the current warming.

This article does not address permanent rather than transitional changes in bio-diversity.

Yes, it does address permannent changes in biodiversity. That is what “extinction” means.

Actually yes, the OP stated these clearly.

Again, no. I have explained why many, many times.

I even did so again in this very post.

[Victoribus Spolia]

That is what “extinction” means.

You miss the point, some critters always kick the bucket after a major climate change, when was the last time you chased down a wooly mammoth or had to hide from a sabre tooth cat? Does the end of the ice age and the extinction of such animals imply that we entered into a permanent state of less bio-diversity? Absolutely not, just the opposite.

That was my point, some creatures dying in the interim transition is not proof that a new climate in the future will not yield great bio-diversity once the ecology stabilizes.

the lack of human impact on environments in previous hothouse eras is what led to the biodiversity and this human impact is now present in the current warming.

I already address this, the temperature/CO2/water are the "constant" between past and future hot-houses, human impact is the variable; thus, if humans are the cause of less bio-diversity, then the argument should be that humans directly killing animals and destroying the environment by deforestation are what eliminates biodiversity and NOT climate change (as that is the constant, not the variable factor).

That being the case, climate change itself cannot be correlated to less bio-diversity as the only thing correlated with less bio-diversity in this context is the presence of humans. Hence, the argument I made remains valid and the problem is with the people as a separate discussion.

[Truth To Power]

If Climate Change Is Real, I Want It.

Me too: Calgary just had a foot of global warming dumped on it, which nearly broke the record for one-day snowfall in October on just the second day of the month.

[Pants-of-dog]

You miss the point, some critters always kick the bucket after a major climate change, when was the last time you chased down a wooly mammoth or had to hide from a sabre tooth cat? Does the end of the ice age and the extinction of such animals imply that we entered into a permanent state of less bio-diversity? Absolutely not, just the opposite.

That was my point, some creatures dying in the interim transition is not proof that a new climate in the future will not yield great bio-diversity once the ecology stabilizes.

Yes, that could happen millenia from now.

That does not change the fact that global warming is currently leading to less biodiversity.

Nor does it change the fact that the cited study deals with permanent loss of species.

Not does it change the fact that previous episodes of global warming are not correlated with increased biodiversity, but instead increases in biodiversity are caused by a lack of human impact.

I already address this, the temperature/CO2/water are the "constant" between past and future hot-houses, human impact is the variable; thus, if humans are the cause of less bio-diversity, then the argument should be that humans directly killing animals and destroying the environment by deforestation are what eliminates biodiversity and NOT climate change (as that is the constant, not the variable factor).

Logic fail. The fact that human impact in ways other than climate change is also causing less biodiversity does not mean that human impact in the form of climate change is not causing a decrease in biodiversity.

That being the case, climate change itself cannot be correlated to less bio-diversity as the only thing correlated with less bio-diversity in this context is the presence of humans. Hence, the argument I made remains valid and the problem is with the people as a separate discussion.

I have already presented more than one piece of evidence showing how global warming is causing less biodiversity right now.

I have no idea why you keep repeating a claim that has already been disproven.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Yes, that could happen millenia from now.....That does not change the fact that global warming is currently leading to less biodiversity.

It could happen 100 years from now, how do you know that it won't?

the evidence indicates that it will. But even so, this is still a concession, for the whole point of the OP is that hot-house states are good for bio-diversity, you no longer deny this, only say that the transition could be bad for certain mal-adaptive lifeforms now, but I admitted this in the thread several times (even mockingly about polar bears), and has little to do with my argument.

Nor does it change the fact that the cited study deals with permanent loss of species.

Boo-hoo. Fuck polar bears, they have little market value.

Not does it change the fact that previous episodes of global warming are not correlated with increased biodiversity, but instead increases in biodiversity are caused by a lack of human impact.

Caused? Logic-Fail.

The fact that human impact in ways other than climate change is also causing less biodiversity does not mean that human impact in the form of climate change is not causing a decrease in biodiversity.

Thats my point though, you haven't even given a correlation in that regards, its all just speculation and contradicts the correlations that we do have for past hot-houses.

I also find it amusing how you claim a logic fail and turn right around and commit a cum-hoc fallacy. Great stuff.

I have already presented more than one piece of evidence showing how global warming is causing less biodiversity right now.

Not relevant, I never claimed otherwise.

I have no idea why you keep repeating a claim that I have not addressed.

There, fixed it for you.

[Truth To Power]

I have already presented more than one piece of evidence showing how global warming is causing less biodiversity right now.

No, because correlation is not causation. That's the fundamental error in all the CO2 AGW screaming. Biodiversity is decreasing mainly because of human transportation systems: isolation drives speciation, so when organisms hitch rides on boats or planes, they can invade, outcompete and displace previously isolated species.

And I have already explained why such speculations about the future would be otherwise to what we know about ALL past hot-houses: the lack of human impact on environments in previous hothouse eras is what led to the biodiversity and this human impact is now present in the current warming.

Warming is almost irrelevant to biodiversity, both losses, as explained above, and gains. Soon genetic technology will enable us to create all the new species we want, and the resulting proliferation of species will make all preceding natural biodiversity pale to insignificance.

Yes, it does address permannent changes in biodiversity. That is what “extinction” means.

No it doesn't. Extinction is the end of a given species, not a reduction in the total number of species.

[Pants-of-dog]

It could happen 100 years from now, how do you know that it won't?

the evidence indicates that it will. But even so, this is still a concession, for the whole point of the OP is that hot-house states are good for bio-diversity, you no longer deny this, only say that the transition could be bad for certain mal-adaptive lifeforms now, but I admitted this in the thread several times (even mockingly about polar bears), and has little to do with my argument.

No, speciation takes longer than a century for things more complex than a fruit fly.

And no, the evidence does not indicate that biodiversity is about to increase 100years from now.

And no, the OP does not say that hothouses are good for biodiversity. I could explain why for the eighth or ninth time, if you wish.

Boo-hoo. Fuck polar bears, they have little market value.

Your edgelord routine does not change the fact that the evidence shows that global warming is causing less biodiversity.

Caused? Logic-Fail.

No. Increasing biodiversity is caused partly by a lack of human impact.

Thats my point though, you haven't even given a correlation in that regards, its all just speculation and contradicts the correlations that we do have for past hot-houses.

I also find it amusing how you claim a logic fail and turn right around and commit a cum-hoc fallacy. Great stuff.

Again, I have already presented evidence that human impact in the form of climate change is causing a decrease in biodiversity.

Not relevant, I never claimed otherwise.

There, fixed it for you.

Then what are you arguing?

[Truth To Power]

No, speciation takes longer than a century for things more complex than a fruit fly.

It has little to do with complexity, more to do with generation length. A century is sufficient for speciation if the generations are much less than a year long.

And no, the evidence does not indicate that biodiversity is about to increase 100years from now.

Yeah, more like 20 years.

Your edgelord routine does not change the fact that the evidence shows that global warming is causing less biodiversity.

No, because correlation is not causation.

No. Increasing biodiversity is caused partly by a lack of human impact.

It's absurd to claim that the biodiversity explosions that followed each previous extinction event were caused by "lack of human impact," as if they were just waiting for humans to exist.

Again, I have already presented evidence that human impact in the form of climate change is causing a decrease in biodiversity.

Correlation is not causation.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Pants-of-dog , what he said ^

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power has made the claim that the inquiries that investigated climategate were not independent.

He has yet to provide evidence for this claim.

So, @Victoribus Spolia, you should look to your own arguments. If you want to parrot TTP instead of actually addressing my criticisms, go ahead.

[Victoribus Spolia]

So, @Victoribus Spolia, you should look to your own arguments. If you want to parrot TTP instead of actually addressing my criticisms, go ahead.

Poor pants feeling outnumbered?

Its not "parroting" to concur with a rebuttal from a different poster. Don't be daft.

Its not becoming of a person to play at being a victim all the time.

[Pants-of-dog]

Poor pants feeling outnumbered?

Why would I?

You have yet to address the arguments and rebuttals I have made.

@Truth To Power has yet to privide evidence for the claims he has made.

As far as I can tell, I am beating both of you.

Its not "parroting" to concur with a rebuttal from a different poster. Don't be daft.

Its not becoming of a person to play at being a victim all the time.

It is parroting if you uncritically just say ditto and do not add anything of value.

If you agree with him, then make the same arguments and I will address thise after you deal with what is laready on your proverbial plate.

Unless you want to get evidence for TTP’s claims, and which point I will addres those instead.

Can we now end this boring debate about the debate and get back to the actual topic?

You still have not made a sensible argument concerning the models, for example.

[Victoribus Spolia]

As far as I can tell, I am beating both of you.

It is parroting if you uncritically just say ditto and do not add anything of value.

If you agree with him, then make the same arguments and I will address thise after you deal with what is laready on your proverbial plate.

Unless you want to get evidence for TTP’s claims, and which point I will addres those instead.

Can we now end this boring debate about the debate and get back to the actual topic?

You still have not made a sensible argument concerning the models, for example.

Triggered.

But yes, lets discuss how you have failed to address the OP's claims.

[Pants-of-dog]

Triggered.

But yes, lets discuss how you have failed to address the OP's claims.

If you wish to think I am emotional about this, go ahead. My arguments and rebuttals still stand, while your claims have been shown to be wrong.

If I missed an argument, such as this one from the OP to which you allude, please present it and I will address it.

[Victoribus Spolia]

If you wish to think I am emotional about this, go ahead.

I shall.

My arguments and rebuttals still stand, while your claims have been shown to be wrong.

You've made none, so I don't know what you are talking about.

If I missed an argument, such as this one from the OP to which you allude, please present it and I will address it.

Please provide evidence that, if humans stopped harming bio-diversity directly (while continuing carbon emissions); that the ensuing hot-house (after the transition) would be entirely unlike ALL other previous hot-houses by having a net-negative amount of bio-diversity in its ecology.

Thanks.

[Pants-of-dog]

]I shall.

You've made none, so I don't know what you are talking about.

This post is still being ignored:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=174394&start=240#p14950804

And you still have not written a sensible argument concerning models,and previous hothouse eras.

Please provide evidence that, if humans stopped harming bio-diversity directly (while continuing carbon emissions); that the ensuing hot-house (after the transition) would be entirely unlike ALL other previous hot-houses by having a net-negative amount of bio-diversity in its ecology.

Thanks.

No, I never made this argument, so there is no reason for me to provide evidence for it.

Please note that I have laready provided evidence for my real claim: current global warming is already causing a loss of biodiversity. You have not addressed this claim in any substantial way.

[Victoribus Spolia]

This post is still being ignored:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=174394&start=240#p14950804

TTP addressed that.

And you still have not written a sensible argument concerning models,and previous hothouse eras.

I don't even know what you are talking about here. The models thing was me using your language, I was referring the Scientific American article, which you have not adequately defended against my critique.

No, I never made this argument, so there is no reason for me to provide evidence for it.

So we agree then that there is no reason to believe that a future hot house era is in-and-of-itself going to have lower bio-diversity (controlling for human activity)?

current global warming is already causing a loss of biodiversity.

I never denied this, I argued it was irrelevant as to whether a future hot-house epoch will have lower bio-diversity as a net loss to our current epoch. If you are simply saying that crops and animal populations will suffer in the transition, i've admitted this the whole time. It the stable epoch itself I have been arguing for based on previous epochs we have actual evidence for.

This is the claim I made, your claim is quite irrelevant, please address my actual argument if you want to debate.

Otherwise, quit wasting my time.