If Global Warming Is Real, I Want It. - Page 14 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14950987
Victoribus Spolia wrote:TTP addressed that.


No, he just made a laundry list of unsupported claims.

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.


So we agree that the models are fine. Okay.

The SA article is not wrong just because it does not mention previous hothouse eras.

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)?


Yes and no.

Is it theoretically pissible that some future warming millenia from now will not lead to a loss of biodiversity? Sure, but that is not relevant.

Current warming is causing a loss in 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.


I am not discussing imaginary future hothouse eras.

We are discussing global warming as it is happening right now.
#14950990
Pants-of-dog wrote:Is it theoretically pissible that some future warming millenia from now will not lead to a loss of biodiversity? Sure, but that is not relevant.


Well since that is my argument, it is entirely relevant.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I am not discussing imaginary future hothouse eras.


Well that is what I am and have been discussing.

My argument has been:

[Guiding Assumptions: Induction is a valid method in science, greater bio-diversity is good, and short-term sacrifice is a legitimate trade-off for a better future long-term]

Premise One: All Previous Hot Houses Have Had More Bio-Diversity and More "edenic conditions."

Premise Two: Global Warming is creating a future hot-house.

Conclusion: Therefore global warming is creating a future with greater bio-diversity and more edenic conditions.

NOTE: whether global warming is causing less bio-diversity in the interim is irrelevant to my argument.
#14950998
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Well since that is my argument, it is entirely relevant.


It is not relevant to a discussion abot the current global warming.

Well that is what I am and have been discussing.

My argument has been:

[Guiding Assumptions: Induction is a valid method in science, greater bio-diversity is good, and short-term sacrifice is a legitimate trade-off for a better future long-term]

Premise One: All Previous Hot Houses Have Had More Bio-Diversity and More "edenic conditions."


This is not necessarily true.

Premise Two: Global Warming is creating a future hot-house.


This is not exactly correct either.

Is creating a current hothouse.

Conclusion: Therefore global warming is creating a future with greater bio-diversity and more edenic conditions.


This simplistic argument if yours ignores a lot.

So much so that it is wrong.

I have already provided evidence that the current warming is causing a loss of biodiversity.

I also pointed out that the previous hothouse eras had something the current and future eras do not: a lack of human impact.

NOTE: whether global warming is causing less bio-diversity in the interim is irrelevant to my argument.


So, the fact that reality itself disproves your argument is irrelevant to your argument?
#14951003
Pants-of-dog wrote:It is not relevant to a discussion abot the current global warming.


Actually it is, as it takes current global warming to get to a future hothouse. :eh:

Pants-of-dog wrote:This is not necessarily true.


This was in the OP, feel free to disprove it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This is not exactly correct either.

Is creating a current hothouse.


This is non-sensical, if two years from now will be a hot-house of higher temps and atmospheric CO2 than RIGHT NOW, that would be a case of a future hot house following current global warming. :lol:

Don't be argumentative for argument's sake, it makes you sound petty.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I have already provided evidence that the current warming is causing a loss of biodiversity.


Yes, but that is covered in the guiding assumptions of the syllogism under the short-term sacrifices. Why do I got to keep repeating this to you?

Pants-of-dog wrote:I also pointed out that the previous hothouse eras had something the current and future eras do not: a lack of human impact.


Sure and I already demonstrated how that is not relevant to my point, because that only proves that if there is less bio-diversity in a future hot-house, it will be in spite of the hot-house itself and not because of the hot-house, for in that case the cause of less bio-diversity is not the hot-house conditions, but human action. Which is besides the actual point.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So, the fact that reality itself disproves your argument is irrelevant to your argument?


Its irrelevant because current global warming as an ecological transition (as the last cold era ended in the mid 19th century) is not proof that a stabilized future hot house will or will not have more biodiversity. You yourself have admitted this transition was "rapid" and so a rapid transition's negative effects are not proof that a future hot-house "epoch" will have net-loss negative ecological consequences.

Thus, your argument, which I never denied but rather affirmed, is not relevant to the OP or my point regarding the OP.
#14951008
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Actually it is, as it takes current global warming to get to a future hothouse. :eh:


Are you discussing the cirrent blobal warming or not?

If so, then your claim is wrong because the current warming us already leading to less biodiversity.

If not, then your argumnet is not relevant to the current warming.

This was in the OP, feel free to disprove it.


Not all previous warming eras were discussed in the OP.

Therefore, any blanket claims about previous hothouse eras is not necessarily correct due to the possibility of previous eras that do not have higher biodiversity.

This is non-sensical, if two years are not will be a hot-house of higher temps and atmospheric CO2, that would be a future hot cause following current global warming.

Don't be argumentative for argument's sake, it makes you sound petty.


I cannot understand the first sentence here.

If you are saying that the current warming will cause a future hothouse era, then my point is that the current warming has already put us in a hothouse era.

And this current hothouse era is already dealing with a loss in biodiversity.

Yes, but that is covered in the guiding assumptions of the syllogism under the short-term sacrifices. Why do I got to keep repeating this to you?


Why do you assume that the current loss in biodiversity is short term? That seems like an incorrect assumption.

Sure and I already demonstrated how that is not relevant to my point, because that only proves that if there is less bio-diversity in a future hot-house, it will be in spite of the hot-house itself and not because of the hot-house, for in that case the cause of less bio-diversity is not the hot-house conditions, but human action. Which is besides the actual point.


No,it is relevant because the continued human impact will result in continued loss of biodiversity, which is why your assumption (about the current loss of biodiversity being only short term) is incorrect.

Its irrelevant because current global warming as an ecological transition (as the last cold era ended in the mid 19th century) is not proof that a stabilized future hot house will or will not have more biodiversity. You yourself have admitted this transition was "rapid" and so a rapid transition's negative effects are not proof that a future hot-house "epoch" will have net-loss negative ecological consequences.


So you are admitting that the current global warming will not necessarily lead to more biodiversity.

The rapidity of the change is only relevant insofar as there is less time for species to adapt, so there will be more loss of biodiversity than if the transition was slower.
#14951010
Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you discussing the cirrent blobal warming or not?


Only as a means to an end.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Not all previous warming eras were discussed in the OP.

Therefore, any blanket claims about previous hothouse eras is not necessarily correct due to the possibility of previous eras that do not have higher biodiversity.


:roll:

Pants-of-dog wrote:I cannot understand the first sentence here.

If you are saying that the current warming will cause a future hothouse era, then my point is that the current warming has already put us in a hothouse era.

And this current hothouse era is already dealing with a loss in biodiversity.


You must have responded before I edited the sentence.

I was only ever talking about a future hothouse and have regarded our current rapid transition as leading into it. I have been consistent on this from the start of this thread.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Why do you assume that the current loss in biodiversity is short term? That seems like an incorrect assumption.


Because there have always been losses in animal life in major ecological transitions between hot and cold epochs.

This is called precedent.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No,it is relevant because the continued human impact will result in continued loss of biodiversity, which is why your assumption (about the current loss of biodiversity being only short term) is incorrect.


Its not relevant as to whether hot-houses will or will not result in higher bio-diversity because what you are talking is not about hot-houses at all, but humans destroying animals.

That has nothing to do with my argument, it just doesn't.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So you are admitting that the current global warming will not necessarily lead to more biodiversity.


You are equivocating here. I am saying that in a transitional period that global warming (and the same with global cooling) will result in the net loss of bio-diversity, this has always been true, as many critters cannot survive the ecological transition; however, this SAME global warming will eventually result in more bio-diversity (long-term) based on precedent in how previous hot-houses have been (controlling for other factors, like human action).

Pants-of-dog wrote:he rapidity of the change is only relevant insofar as there is less time for species to adapt, so there will be more loss of biodiversity than if the transition was slower.


Agreed.
#14951013
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Only as a means to an end.

:roll:


Well, it seems like the argument about some imaginary future hothouse era is irrelevant.

If we are discussing the current warming, then the argument is wrong.

You must have responded before I edited the sentence.

I was only ever talking about a future hothouse and have regarding our current rapid transition as leading into it. I have been consistent on this from the start of this thread.


If the loss of biodiversity continues as it already is doing, then the future hothouse era will have less biodiversity.

Because there have always been losses in animal life in major ecological transitions between hot and cold epochs.

This is called precedent.


Perhaos, but why do you thnk the current loss will only be short term?

Its not relevant as to whether hot-houses will or will not result in higher bio-diversity because what you are talking is not about hot-houses at all, but humans destroying animals.

That has nothing to do with my argument, it just doesn't.


It is a fact that contradicts your argument.

Dismissing it as irrelevant does not change the fact that reality is proving your argument wrong.

You are equivocating here. I am saying that in a transitional period that global warming (and the same with global cooling) will result in the net loss of bio-diversity, this has always been true, as many critters cannot survive the ecological transition; however, this SAME global warming will eventually result in more bio-diversity (long-term) based on precedent in how previous hot-houses have been (controlling for other factors, like human action).


There is no evidence that global warming, natural ot otherwise, will result in increased biodiversity.

Your precedents are not causative relationships. They are not even correlations. They are coincidental.
#14951025
Pants-of-dog wrote:Well, it seems like the argument about some imaginary future hothouse era is irrelevant.


Actually, since that is what i've always been discussing, your argument is irrelevant.

ITs my OP after all, I know what I was arguing for.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If the loss of biodiversity continues as it already is doing, then the future hothouse era will have less biodiversity.


If that is the case, then why did a loss of bio-diversity with the end of the ice age not remain permanent? :lol:

You say some really dumb shit sometimes.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Perhaos, but why do you thnk the current loss will only be short term?


It will be only as short or long as the precedent would seem to indicate.

Pants-of-dog wrote:It is a fact that contradicts your argument.

Dismissing it as irrelevant does not change the fact that reality is proving your argument wrong.


It can't contradict my argument if its irrelevant to it. I never argued about human intervention in ecology directly, I argued that if future hothouses are like previous hot house they will have higher bio-diversity, human environmental destruction is an entirely separate matter.

Controlling for human action, there is no reason to believe the future hot houses will be different than the past ones.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Your precedents are not causative relationships. They are not even correlations. They are coincidental.


Well, I actually agree with this, which is why I don't actually believe that the eras I am discussing even exist or that there is physical causation at all. This is all just a fun hobby topic for purposes of my amusement, like the race reductionist thread is. I don't even believe in human evolution.

So if you want to stop talking science and get into the philosophy of causation and whether material objects have any existence independent of the mental, we can go there. It would be my pleasure.
#14951035
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Actually, since that is what i've always been discussing, your argument is irrelevant.

ITs my OP after all, I know what I was arguing for.


Sure.

I was under the impression that you were discussing actual global warming.

If that is the case, then why did a loss of bio-diversity with the end of the ice age not remain permanent?


As I said, there is now significant human impact causing loss of biodiversity, which was not present in other transitions.

At the end of the last ice age, humans were relatively few, and agriculture was just emerging.

If you want to ignore this and assume that biodiversity will not continue to be affected by human impact for the foreseeable future, go ahead.

But you would be wrong to do so, unless your imaginary hotbouse era also includes no human impact.

It will be only as short or long as the precedent would seem to indicate.


You are still ignoring human impact, which is ignored in your precedent.

So the prediction that biodiversity loss will be short term is almost certainly incorrect.

It can't contradict my argument if its irrelevant to it. I never argued about human intervention in ecology directly, I argued that if future hothouses are like previous hot house they will have higher bio-diversity, human environmental destruction is an entirely separate matter.

Controlling for human action, there is no reason to believe the future hot houses will be different than the past ones.


The current global warming does include human impact, as does every other one in the foreseeable future.

Yes, if we magically did away with human impact, as well as any other differences between climate changes, future climate changes would be the same as previous ones. This is true, but since we cannot magically do away with human impact, it is also not relevant to any discussion about the actual global warming at hand.

Well, I actually agree with this, which is why I don't actually believe that the eras I am discussing even exist or that there is physical causation at all. This is all just a fun hobby topic for purposes of my amusement, like the race reductionist thread is. I don't even believe in human evolution.

So if you want to stop talking science and get into the philosophy of causation and whether material objects have any existence independent of the mental, we can go there. It would be my pleasure.


No. Thank you.
#14951048
Pants-of-dog wrote: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.

No, you just have an idiosyncratic idea of what constitutes evidence and argument.
#14951056
Pants-of-dog wrote:As I said, there is now significant human impact causing loss of biodiversity, which was not present in other transitions.

At the end of the last ice age, humans were relatively few, and agriculture was just emerging.

If you want to ignore this and assume that biodiversity will not continue to be affected by human impact for the foreseeable future, go ahead.

But you would be wrong to do so, unless your imaginary hotbouse era also includes no human impact.


Oh good, so you are no longer talking about climatology but about anthropology. Got it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You are still ignoring human impact, which is ignored in your precedent.

So the prediction that biodiversity loss will be short term is almost certainly incorrect.


I'm not ignoring human impact, i'm controlling for it. There is a difference.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, if we magically did away with human impact, as well as any other differences between climate changes, future climate changes would be the same as previous ones. This is true,


Well since this is all I ever argued for, I suppose this concession grants me the victory I had from the start. Thanks.

Pants-of-dog wrote: it is also not relevant to any discussion about the actual global warming at hand.


Only in the sense of anthropogenic contributions to carbon emissions and atmospheric temperature increases; otherwise, NO.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. Thank you.


:lol:

Smart Man.

Trust me, that is not an arena you want to enter. You are better off fighting me in areas where I am arguing for positions I don't actually believe, like this one.

:lol:

Truth To Power wrote:No, you just have an idiosyncratic idea of what constitutes evidence and argument.


I can hardly think of a truer statement ever uttered on POFO.
#14951095
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Oh good, so you are no longer talking about climatology but about anthropology. Got it.


I am discussing the current actual climate change. It covers many fields of study. If you wish to categorize our discussion as belonging to a specific field of study, go ahead. It has no impact on the veracity of our claims.

I'm not ignoring human impact, i'm controlling for it. There is a difference.


Not quite.

In your supposed “original” argument, you are only discussing some hypothetical climate change in some imaginary future where you miraculously will be around to enjoy some benefits even though there is no human impacts.

In this particular tangent, we are discussing the length of time that the current biodiversity loss will last. You argued that it would be short because of “precedent” by which you mean the few examples cited in the OP.

I then pointed out that the precedent you used is not a good basis for predicting our current crisis because of the lack of human impact.

Well since this is all I ever argued for, I suppose this concession grants me the victory I had from the start. Thanks.


Sure. I have no problem conceding that climate changes will be the same if we ignore every difference between climate changes, which is what you are saying.

And since you were not discussing actual climate change, I suppose this clarification grants me the victory on the following issues:

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.

Only in the sense of anthropogenic contributions to carbon emissions and atmospheric temperature increases; otherwise, NO.


Since anthropogenic contributions to carbon emissions are one of the most significant factors in the current climate change, it seems that your argument does not apply to our current reality.
#14952548
Pants-of-dog wrote:1. There is no correlation between hothouse climate eras and increased biodiversity.

But biodiversity is being lost almost exclusively for reasons unconnected to climate, and it's not at all clear that it is a bad thing. We are also losing linguistic diversity. But that just means people are speaking more popular and useful languages rather than less useful ones. Occasional loss of biodiversity is an implication of evolution.
2. Current climate change is reducing biodiversity.

Not compared to non-climate factors, especially human transportation systems, which de-isolate populations.
And because of the continued human impact, this loss in biodiversity will continue for the foreseeable future.

And there is no reason to be concerned about it.
3. The models are reliable and have made many correct predictions.

The models are reliably wrong, and only make "many correct predictions" in the same sense that models in neoclassical economics make many correct predictions: "the recent trend will continue" might well be a pretty safe bet, but it conveys minimal understanding of the phenomenon in question.
4. The current climate change is more rapid than most climate changes in the past.

But that HAS to happen SOMETIMES as an inherent characteristic of chaotic systems. History records numerous rapid climate changes, and the cooling periods have been unambiguously more harmful than the warming ones.
Since anthropogenic contributions to carbon emissions are one of the most significant factors in the current climate change,

That is question begging, and not supported by empirical evidence.
it seems that your argument does not apply to our current reality.

At least it's better than the CO2 AGW screaming.
#14952589
Pants-of-dog wrote:I see you ignored my request for evidence that the climategate investigations were not independent.

I thought it was obvious: the majority of the members of each "investigative" committee were CO2 AGW believers, and were selected on that basis. In some cases they were well known advocates of AGW theory. See Clive Crook's excellent analysis of the farcical climategate whitewash in The Atlantic:

"I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even wilfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... lie/59709/

The UEA investigation was headed by Lord Oxburgh, an anti-carbon activist and PROFITEER OF CAP AND TRADE.

Forbes also looks askance at the inquiries, noting that the Penn State committee got its information about Michael Mann's activities from such illustrious "outside" (ahem) sources as "Dr. Gerald North, a professor at Texas A&M and first author of the NAS 2006 report regarding Mann's research, and Dr. Donald Kennedy, a professor at Stanford and former editor of Science Magazine. Both were Mann's friends, and both defended him.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/ ... 9445d62220

But of course, in PoD-Land, none of this is evidence....
#14952600
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Its nice to see entire arguments ignored just because you want to have the last post in a thread.

Lame.


This thing where you follow me around just to comment on my character is weird.

———————————

Truth To Power wrote:I thought it was obvious: the majority of the members of each "investigative" committee were CO2 AGW believers, and were selected on that basis. In some cases they were well known advocates of AGW theory. See Clive Crook's excellent analysis of the farcical climategate whitewash in The Atlantic:


So anyone who believes that ACC is a thing is automatically part of the conspiracy and willingly hides the nefarious lies of climatologists?

Sure.

"I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even wilfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... lie/59709/


The only that quote says is that Clive Crook thinks the inquiries were wrong.

It does not say they were not independent.

The UEA investigation was headed by Lord Oxburgh, an anti-carbon activist and PROFITEER OF CAP AND TRADE.


This does not mean that the second UEA investigation was not independent.

It also ignores the fact that the UEA made two investigations: one about whether or not there was evidence of collusion in the emails, and the second re-reviewing the CRU papaers that had laredy been published.

Lord Oxburgh chaired the latter. The former (i.e. the one that is actually about your claim) was chaired by Muir Russell.

Forbes also looks askance at the inquiries, noting that the Penn State committee got its information about Michael Mann's activities from such illustrious "outside" (ahem) sources as "Dr. Gerald North, a professor at Texas A&M and first author of the NAS 2006 report regarding Mann's research, and Dr. Donald Kennedy, a professor at Stanford and former editor of Science Magazine. Both were Mann's friends, and both defended him.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/ ... 9445d62220

But of course, in PoD-Land, none of this is evidence....


An editorial from a noted denialist is not evidence. At best, it would be a first step to finding evidence.
#14952603
Pants-of-dog wrote:This thing where you follow me around just to comment on my character is weird.


Don't flatter yourself.

I generally subscribe to the threads that I start, since this is one of them, I was aware of your childish post the moment it was placed.

Your feelings about my commentary are irrelevant to the accuracy of it.
#14952604
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Don't flatter yourself.

I generally subscribe to the threads that I start, since this is one of them, I was aware of your childish post the moment it was placed.

Your feelings about my commentary are irrelevant to the accuracy of it.


:roll:

Let me know if you have anything to say about global warming.
#14952605
Pants-of-dog wrote:Let me know if you have anything to say about global warming.


You'll be the first to know.

Also, you should probably ignore me and get back to getting refuted by @Truth To Power.

:lol:
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 18
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls No. Your perception of it is not. I g[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I'd be totally happy for us to send ground troop i[…]

Any of you going to buy the Trump bible he's promo[…]

There were formidable defense lines in the Donbas[…]