- 03 Oct 2018 19:11
#14950767
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.
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.
We have seen a correlation, but that might be part of a temporary transition as was discussed earlier by me and @SolarCross.
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 )
If I used the term causes, I am hereby arguing that I only meant correlation. Period.
"It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals... is incompatible with freedom."
- Patrick Henry
Pants-of-dog wrote: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.
Pants-of-dog wrote: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.
Pants-of-dog wrote: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.
Pants-of-dog wrote: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 )
Pants-of-dog wrote: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.
Last edited by Victoribus Spolia on 03 Oct 2018 19:26, edited 1 time in total.
"It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals... is incompatible with freedom."
- Patrick Henry