Lol. Thanks for being open-minded and giving this powerful information a chance!
Is Global Warming a Myth?
by Sirona 80 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Abaddon
Thi Chi
The fact is if their food supply is reduced in the winter, the sparrows may not be making as many trips to the park as they once did....
Way to go in not understanding the point.
The sparrows had stable year-round food supply in the park, courtesy of tourists, day-trippers, and 'regulars'. They also had many nesting sites available to them, for all the central city park context.
There are still tourists, day-trippers, and 'regulars'. Nothing was done to stop the feeding of sparrows.
And there are virtually no sparrows.
So, the change-of-use argument doesn't really fit all cases, does it? Especially as the tree sparrow (country) and house sparrow (city) are two different subspecies and you quoted the reason for the tree sparrows decline as being the same as the house sparrows.
Again, not reading or understanding what you use or C&P in a discussion and making mistakes as a result. Sloppy. Very funny, but sloppy.
Again, you speak in generalities. I can say with confidence that the Mayan?s did not cease to exist because of vehicle emissions.Or excessive CO2, or any modern technology.
Is there any purpose stating that arguments WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN MADE are wrong? Surely you wouldn't be trying to detract from a counter argument by suggesting arguments that have not been made by the other side have been made by them? You might not be directly attributing them, but what's your intent?
If you weren't trying to do this why on earth would you say something no one has said is not true?
Is there a straw man quota you and Yeru have to meet, or something?Mayans only came into it in a quote I made as you (amazingly) did not know of any examples of extinction due to habitat loss. But as you don't seem to know much about the Maya either;
It appears that at the time of their collapse, the Maya had cut down most of their trees.
... isn't it interesting that when deforestation is thought to be a mechanism you don't attack the evidence supporting such a stance, but instead try to create a trail of red herrings away from deforestation doing harm? Maybe the people studying the subject would have other theories if there was evidence to support them.
Why not produce a credible crictism of the deforestation argument and a credible alternate mechanism (or mechanisms). Don't make 'generalisations'. At least mine (on species loss) have some weight behind them in the form of realistic estimates made from research.
But deforestation of Mayan territories is not the topic. To refresh your memory, this is about whether Global Warming is a myth or not.
I have merely been asking you to prove things properly (i.e. global figures for global discussions), and pointing out (yawn) that;
- in light of releasing 47% of the carbon ever released by human deforestation activities in the past 154 years,
- in additon to releasing carbon by consumming fossil fuels at five times the rate we release carbon by deforestation (funny how you don't despute this),
- and arguable signs of climate and environmental change,
... it might be wise to be prudent - rather than shrug it all off as you tend to do.
But, again you seek to diverge from this as you're unable to counter the rather reasonable chain of logic arriving at prudence. For example;
Has "species loss" always been an occurrence in Earth?s history?
What has this to do with global warming? No one has said it IS 'an occurrence in Earth?s history' or NOT.
The topic is 'Is Global Warming a Myth?'.
And besides, only a fool would try to argue that species loss has not been an occurance in Earth's history so trying to attribute or associate it to the opposite side only ('in a butter-wouldn't-melt-on-my-keyboard' fashion) highlights the weakness of your argument.
If one responds to a Democrat (for example) saying;
'I can say with confidence that Republicans do not have sex with animals. Or household appliances.'
...and that Democrat has never said such things or quoted such statements as facts, the impression given to the reader can be that the Republkican is defending themselves from such accusations.
Do you think that's a clever way of making a straw man argument without actually directly and falsely attributing arguments to someone? The fact you mention nonsence and seem to hope some of it is taken as the other side's argument (as you've not much of one to go on yourself), and do it repeatedly really makes me wonder...
Oooo, I really should do some work but this is funny...
-
Realist
thichi,
the book is based on pure speculation. Nobody knows how the climate change will affect us.
Most reasonable people agree that it would be better not to take the risk of might happen.
I don't think global warming will whipe out humanity but i would rather keep the environment as it is just in case things don't work out as your idol predicted.
-
ThiChi
""Way to go in not understanding the point.
The sparrows had stable year-round food supply in the park, courtesy of tourists, day-trippers, and 'regulars'. They also had many nesting sites available to them, for all the central city park context.""
The claim was ?we do not know why the Sparrow population has been decimated.? This claim was in a long discourse related to the "sky is falling" mentality.
I only proved that we do know why the sparrow population has dropped. In fact, it proves my point that wild animals fair better in close proximity to Man.
Would you not appreciate the fact that Man?s actions inflated the Sparrow?s numbers, and now the numbers may represent the true, natural balance.
Realist:
Regarding the Book, you make the claim without reading the information, nor the studies it presents. Agian, very telling.
So, your viewpoint, while amusing, is really irrelevant.
-
Abaddon
Thi Chi
Again, you fail to understand simple English. Either that or you think by pretending you don't understand you'll make other people think I'm wrong. Stupidity or dishonesty; you choose what you are.
You provided information relating to the reasons believed to be behind the fall in populations of tree sparrows. This does not explain the same drop seen in the other sub-species of sparrow in the UK, the house sparrow.
Even in areas where house sparrows had stable year round artificial food supply, the numbers have still dropped.
No one knows the mechanism behind the drop in house sparrow populations, and the fact
- virtually genetically identical sub-species can
- suffer an identical fall
- in different circumstances
- at the same time
... suggests the theory that tree sparrow populations have fallen due to agricultural changes is a theory. It could be that the unknown mechanism that has caused the house sparrow population drop is the one actually causing the tree sparrow population loss.
I notice that you don't mention your habit of making statements regarding arguments that have not been made I commented on in my last post. As there is no verbiage denying it, can I assume your agree with my assesment of your behaviour? Or are you simply avoiding dealing with the issue as you know there's no reasonable justification for that behavior, and want to let it drop without admitting your fault? God knows if you thought you could disagree with it you would...
You are still at it in your last post; your comment;
the "sky is falling" mentality.
... as compared to the position I have taken throughout this thread is;
- in light of releasing 47% of the carbon ever released by human deforestation activities in the past 154 years,
- in additon to releasing carbon by consumming fossil fuels at five times the rate we release carbon by deforestation (funny how you don't despute this),
- and arguable signs of climate and environmental change,
... it might be wise to be prudent
... which proves you are - again - falsely characterising my argument. Is the dishonesty neccesary due to the fact you have nothing other than an ideological fixation to defend, no matter what the evidence for or against it? Or are you simply dishonest despite your religious pretentions? Or are you unaware that you arge dishonestly?
Now you've three choices; monomaniac, dishonest, or stupid?
Which is it Thi Chi?
You may also notice that you have not provided one piece of evidence that indicates a prudent course of action is not called for.
Yes, climate change may not be as large as some believe and undoubtedly has natural trends as well as those caused by man. But we are releasing massive quantities of CO^2.
You ignore the unique characteristic of this time period on the basis of an assumption millions of tons of extra carbon in the atmosphere won't influenece climate in a way that will cause problems.
And you have a right to make that assumption, but you've yet to prove it's anything other than an assumption.
I'm not saying there will be harmful change; but I am saying we should be careful in light of the unique characteristic of this time period, as IF those unique characteristics are a major mechanism. we are already quite comprehensively fucked.
But unless you can maintain an honest discussion, you're simply not worth talking to. If I want a dishonest discussion I can always as for a visit from a JW.
-
justhuman
Could be a myth. Earth has been from ice age to global warming many times. Humans are on this plannet for hundreds of thousand years. Remember the story of global flood. This was result when ice age ended 10.000 ago.
-
Realist
thichi,
Regarding the Book, you make the claim without reading the information, nor the studies it presents.
so what? neither have you.
-
Cicatrix
"In fact, there is about the same amount of forest cover today as there was 100 years ago, even though we consume more wood per capita than any other region in the world. Isn't this proof positive that forests are renewable and sustainable?"
Not if you consider the state of the forests 100 years ago. It was during this period in which much of the forests had been logged off, leaving new problems to deal with, such as erosion.Have you seen pictures from this era? I've seen pictures from that era, and I would have to agree that it IS begining to look the same again, at least in the state where I used to live-huge areas of clear cut that stretches over hundreds of acres. And we're not talking poplar, which regenerates from the root system. These are red pine and other fairly slowly maturing species that are being cut down and chipped up at an incredible rate in comparison to the rates of harvest in the past (those machines cost millions of dollars and someone has to make the payments on them somehow-even if it does mean more acres of clear cut have to be produced to pay for them).
A lot of the wood that is "consumed" in the US today is being imported, and that's why we can "consume more wood per capita than any other region in the world."
http://www.endgame.org/gtt-indo-imports.html
These are some stats from a few years back, but illustrate what I mean concerning imports.
Also, forestry manufacturers are now in a trend where they are merging into huge corporations to (in the words of an article in the October 2004 Southern Lumbermen magazine), "achieve significant cost synergies as well as market clout with customers and suppliers."
The small foresters, who usually live in the area where they are harvesting, are now being replaced by larger corporations whose headquarters are often based well out of the areas they are cutting. I think this disconnection could be worrisome, in that there may be less awareness of the impact of clear cutting in the areas where a lot of clear cutting is being done, both environmentally AND esthetically (how many of you would enjoy living in an area that is nothing but acres and acres of stumps? I HAVE, by the way).
Now before you start hurling the "fear monger" label at me, let me tell you a few things. My family has been involved in the forestry industry for several generations. I have had members work for both small forestry firms and very large forestry firms.I AM a tree hugger, in that I will always be concerned about the state of the forests and the impact of humans upon them, but I'm not the type to think we ought to abandon the use of forest products altogether. I do know that ideology and politics sometimes outweigh our ability to sit down and really think things through, though.
The forests are renewable and sustainable if you don't harvest more than the capacity of the trees that are mature and ready to be harvested. When firms start to merge to "achieve SIGNIFICANT cost synergies as well as MARKET CLOUT with customers and suppliers" this makes me stop and think. -
Abaddon
justhuman
You claim the Biblical Flood;
was result when ice age ended 10.000 ago.
You do realise there is no credible evidence for your claim?
Feel free to post stuff to prove me wrong
-
ThiChi
Here is what you said: ""But even the 'smallest' things we do (the switch to unleaded petrol lead to massive drop in numbers of predatory birds preying on small mammals by highways in the UK, DDT, the sparrow population in the UK is 5% it was twenty year ago and no one knows why, Chernobyl) have an impact." The claim I addressed is clear. You made a false claim that "no one knows why.." I did not even touch the implication/context you were trying to pass on us. I proved that this was false (like most of your claims). Why don't you just suck it up and admit it? """You do realise there is no credible evidence for your claim?"" lol there you go agian!!! I give up!! lol Cicatrix: One can tell you did not read the information posted. If you did, you would have realized that your point is lacking Historical geologic perspective.....Please read the evidence presented....