40% of animals on Planet Earth are gone thanks to us

[Thebesteva]

WWF reporting that we are destroying nature and our most important economic capital, planet earth. While there may or may not be some things slightly exaggerated here, it goes without denying that our species is toast. Not in our lifetime, or our childrens, but its obviously that within a few 1000 years this stuff will come back to destroy our kind.

The problem is, we cant envision that because we are slightly in a calmer and more in control time so the idea of destroying the planet seems like 'hippie PETA shit'. I really do hope the other side is right, and that this is all just fear mongering, nothing would make me happier than to know theres nothing to worry about.

But destroying the oceans and this planet has nothing to do with hippie BS. This is really sad

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/30/business/wild-life-decline-wwf/index.html?hpt=hp_c4

[Chinook]

Um, that's not true. Ninety percent of all species that have been on this planet died before we even left the caves.

I like conservation as much as anyone, but we need to keep things in perspective.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL8HP1WzbDk

[Warlord23]

^ Different argument, Chinook. Species which have vanished were replaced by other species. Survival of the fittest will result in extinction.

The article is talking about a steep reduction in the population of animal life. 76% reduction in the quantity of freshwater creatures, 83% reduction in wildlife population in Central and South America ... these are staggering figures. Not surprising given the amount of deforestation, hunting, fishing needed to support a colossal human population.

[Chinook]

^ Different argument, Chinook. Species which have vanished were replaced by other species. Survival of the fittest will result in extinction.

Nah, it's the same argument, but in slow motion. What we've been doing is nothing close to the Cambrian extinction or even the KT boundary extinction. Creatures die off an get replaced by new ones, but it doesn't happen instantaneously. Once humans die off, then the planet will correct itself. And sentient life in a billion years will consider this just a blip on the radar.

[Brazil]

Nah, it's the same argument, but in slow motion. What we've been doing is nothing close to the Cambrian extinction or even the KT boundary extinction. Creatures die off an get replaced by new ones, but it doesn't happen instantaneously. Once humans die off, then the planet will correct itself. And sentient life in a billion years will consider this just a blip on the radar.

so what gives ? we don't give a fuck and wait humans to disappear...

great logic

a meteor did it in matters of seconds, we are doing it in matters of couple of hundred years so yeah... nothing to be worried about

[Chinook]

so what gives ? we don't give a fuck and wait humans to disappear...

great logic

a meteor did it in matters of seconds, we are doing it in matters of couple of hundred years so yeah... nothing to be worried about

Not saying that at all. Saying it depends on perspective. The earth will recover no matter what we do (short of literally blowing the planet apart). So conservationism is a selfish human desire, and not an altruistic one. We want to save the planet for us, or for the things that make us happy. We don't want to save it because we're actually at risk of destroying it.

And yes, I am a conversationalist (political leaning, not job description) who went to college to study ecology.

[Brazil]

Not saying that at all. Saying it depends on perspective. The earth will recover no matter what we do (short of literally blowing the planet apart). So conservationism is a selfish human desire, and not an altruistic one. We want to save the planet for us, or for the things that make us happy. We don't want to save it because we're actually at risk of destroying it.

And yes, I am a conversationalist (political leaning, not job description) who went to college to study ecology.

no

we want to save it because it is ethical to do so, we want to do it because species are important part of eco system that is important for water supply, oxygen... whatever you can imagine... that's the opposite of being selfish and I'm not even talking about the famous "next generation" concern. All this logic sucks: being skeptical and questioning everything... the wolves, it's not 40% it is x%, meteor did worst, natural explanation on global warming more relevant than human activities blablabla lead to inaction and lack of accountability.

yeah that sucks and sorry to say that but it is very american, good excuse to do nothing tbh...

[Warlord23]

Nah, it's the same argument, but in slow motion. What we've been doing is nothing close to the Cambrian extinction or even the KT boundary extinction. Creatures die off an get replaced by new ones, but it doesn't happen instantaneously. Once humans die off, then the planet will correct itself. And sentient life in a billion years will consider this just a blip on the radar.

Agree that human existence is finite and short-lived. The difference between our current situation and prior extinction events is that those were caused by forces that are not self-aware (e.g. oxygen depletion, asteroid impact, glacial cooling etc). The human race knows what it is doing, but for various reasons will do nothing to stop it till it becomes too late.

[Chinook]

we want to save it because it is ethical to do so, we want to do it because species are important part of eco system that is important for water supply, oxygen...

Same thing.

People want to do it because it's better for them to do so. That's a perfectly legitimate reason to do anything. I support that, as well as supporting conservationism because I want animals and plants to survive.

The point, however, is that we aren't currently destroying the planet with our actions. We're destroying ourselves. People should accept that conservationism is a selfish, anthropocentric movement and get off their moral high ground. Maybe it would reach more people if it wasn't being packaged as an obligation (like taxes) and not some sort of charity.

And lay off the anti-American slants on this, all right? I'd say most of the nation supports at least moderate conversationalist efforts. We may have a government controlled by industry, but it's not like we're China when it comes to pollution standards.

[Chinook]

Agree that human existence is finite and short-lived. The difference between our current situation and prior extinction events is that those were caused by forces that are not self-aware (e.g. oxygen depletion, asteroid impact, glacial cooling etc). The human race knows what it is doing, but for various reasons will do nothing to stop it till it becomes too late.

Sure, but that difference is pretty minute in the grand scheme. People aren't destroying the environment because they want to. It's just the result of the needs of an ever-growing population. We can slow down the destruction by taking certain measures. We've already done that and need to continue to do so. But we will eventually reach a point where the planet can no longer sustain us, and we'll crash. That's just regular old ecology right there.

[Warlord23]

'Tis ironic that this planet has hosted only one species that is aware of the rarity of sentient life in the universe, but that same species will accelerate the demise of sentient life in its habitat. Life on the planet is not going to be forever ... our sun turning into a red giant, another ice age, an asteroid hitting us etc ... but we will further shorten that window of existence because of our inability to overcome our evolutionary shortcomings (insatiable desire to consume, selfishly optimizing our own lifespan rather than that of our descendants, etc)

[cantthinkofanything]

'Tis ironic that this planet has hosted only one species that is aware of the rarity of sentient life in the universe, but that same species will accelerate the demise of sentient life in its habitat. Life on the planet is not going to be forever ... our sun turning into a red giant, another ice age, an asteroid hitting us etc ... but we will further shorten that window of existence because of our inability to overcome our evolutionary shortcomings (insatiable desire to consume, selfishly optimizing our own lifespan rather than that of our descendants, etc)

We'll continue on. Just not on earth. Unless something happens first.

[Malik Hairston]

Good arguments in this thread, but when it comes to the decline of animal life, I like to keep it simple, tbh: blame Asians..

[Brazil]

Same thing.

People want to do it because it's better for them to do so. That's a perfectly legitimate reason to do anything. I support that, as well as supporting conservationism because I want animals and plants to survive.

The point, however, is that we aren't currently destroying the planet with our actions. We're destroying ourselves. People should accept that conservationism is a selfish, anthropocentric movement and get off their moral high ground. Maybe it would reach more people if it wasn't being packaged as an obligation (like taxes) and not some sort of charity.

And lay off the anti-American slants on this, all right? I'd say most of the nation supports at least moderate conversationalist efforts. We may have a government controlled by industry, but it's not like we're China when it comes to pollution standards.

I don't get your "People want to do it because it's better for them to do so". Most people know that actions taken now will have positive effect when they will be dead. What we are doing now is not for us right now it is for future. You have few examples of measure giving immediate result so again I don't see your point, in what universe it is selfish to do something that will be beneficial for others ?

Governments are making it an obligation because the system showed it is incapable to self regulate because short term most individuals give little shit and companies give 0 shit if no money can be made out of it.

For your last point, now the new standard is to be compared to China ? really ? so US is much better than China globally on those topics so it's all good ? A standard should be taken on best in class not lowest in class. From best in class to US there is a fucking world regarding actions and ambition.

just an example regarding ambition on a domain I know quite well:

http://www.valeo.co.jp/cws-content/www.valeo.jp/medias//images/group/en/vision/reglementation_VGB.jpg

[Brazil]

BTW on C02 US are making a significant business mistake... industries are working their ass off to find solutions to reduce emissions because of regulation. Innovation in that domain (hybrids, new radiators generation, smaller compressors, electrical vehicles, stop and go starters etc...) is coming from Asia and Europe. US market has 10 years delay on it. When you want to talk about hybrid, electrical vehicles you go see Toyota, Hyundai, Honda... not Ford, Chrysler or GM.

[Chinook]

I don't get your "People want to do it because it's better for them to do so". Most people know that actions taken now will have positive effect when they will be dead. What we are doing now is not for us right now it is for future. You have few examples of measure giving immediate result so again I don't see your point, in what universe it is selfish to do something that will be beneficial for others ?

In every universe, actually. You act altruistically because you want do. Doing something because you want to is selfish.


Governments are making it an obligation because the system showed it is incapable to self regulate because short term most individuals give little shit and companies give 0 shit if no money can be made out of it.

And that's the way it should be. It's the government's job to mediate our selfish desires and do what's best for everyone. We don't pay taxes because it gives us the fuzzies. We do it because the government makes us. Same should be true for conservation.


For your last point, now the new standard is to be compared to China ? really ? so US is much better than China globally on those topics so it's all good ? A standard should be taken on best in class not lowest in class. From best in class to US there is a fucking world regarding actions and ambition.

No, but there's little reason to argue that my view that conservationism is somehow American because it considers people to be relatively insignificant when compared to the whole planet. I've said over and over that I support conservation. It makes me sad that the world is the way it is now. The same is true for a lot, probably even most Americans. I just know that Earth will be fine when all is said and done. It's us who won't be.

Isn't that graphic a "good" thing? It seems like we'd be able to drastically reduce CO2 emissions in just 10 years. What's that supposed to show me?

[Aztecfan03]

In every universe, actually. You act altruistically because you want do. Doing something because you want to is selfish.



And that's the way it should be. It's the government's job to mediate our selfish desires and do what's best for everyone. We don't pay taxes because it gives us the fuzzies. We do it because the government makes us. Same should be true for conservation.



No, but there's little reason to argue that my view that conservationism is somehow American because it considers people to be relatively insignificant when compared to the whole planet. I've said over and over that I support conservation. It makes me sad that the world is the way it is now. The same is true for a lot, probably even most Americans. I just know that Earth will be fine when all is said and done. It's us who won't be.

Isn't that graphic a "good" thing? It seems like we'd be able to drastically reduce CO2 emissions in just 10 years. What's that supposed to show me?

So altruism is selfish?

[Brazil]

In every universe, actually. You act altruistically because you want do. Doing something because you want to is selfish.

Doing something beneficiating to others is selfish... English is not my first language so I'm walking on eggs here... I know this definition of selfish: (Of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one’s own personal profit or pleasure. So we do stuff to protect environment that won't beneficiate us but this is selfish. Where is the personal profit or pleasure and lack of consideration for other people ?



Isn't that graphic a "good" thing? It seems like we'd be able to drastically reduce CO2 emissions in just 10 years. What's that supposed to show me?

First this graphic is showing today US cars are emiting 1,5 times more C02 per km than Japanese cars and that US is the worst in that domain by far. Not sure how this is a good thing.
Second this graphic is showing US ambition is still to be the worst in 2020 by a significant margin and to reach a still worst level in 2025 that Europe 95 and Japan 105 will reach in 2020.

Graphic is illustrating this comment: "From best in class to US there is a fucking world regarding actions and ambition."

On top of that US gave an indication and did not commit on those targets as they did not sign Kyoto.

[spurraider21]

Brazil, basically Chinook's argument can be summed up with bees.

We personally don't give a flying fuck about bees themselves, nor should we. Nobody wants to save the bees for the sake of saving bees. But we know that if the bees die off, it can lead to unwanted effects down the line that can/will negatively affect us.

We are saving the bees because their extinction will be an inconvenience to us, not for the altruistic sense of saving bees just for the ethical sake of saving bees.

At least that's how i've interpreted it. Feel free to correct me if i'm off-base here, Chinook (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=37557)

[Chinook]

Yes, saving our particular state of Earth is selfish. We're not saving Earth in general, as it will be fine. We save animals for our benefit and for the pleasure it brings us. There's nothing wrong with that. But it's not inherently virtuous. Conservationism is about making our lives easier, or the lives of our descendants. We should treat like we do taxes. It's not an ethical thing for individuals to do. It's a necessary thing for society as a whole to do if we want to have our species survive as long as we can.

[Brazil]

Brazil, basically Chinook's argument can be summed up with bees.

We personally don't give a flying fuck about bees themselves, nor should we. Nobody wants to save the bees for the sake of saving bees. But we know that if the bees die off, it can lead to unwanted effects down the line that can/will negatively affect us.

We are saving the bees because their extinction will be an inconvenience to us, not for the altruistic sense of saving bees just for the ethical sake of saving bees.

At least that's how i've interpreted it. Feel free to correct me if i'm off-base here, Chinook (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=37557)

I heard him

not sure you heard me... The unwanted effects down the line will negatively affect next generations not ours. If you consider human race as an entity with life time of thousand years ya ok let's say it is selfish on that way but this human race entity does not exist, individuals are taking decisions for future of the specie. This does not make these individuals selfish, they are not acting for their profit but for profit of someone else... that's being altruist.

Now responding to chinook Its a necessary thing to do if we want our species survive I agree, it will take unselfish individuals taking decisions that will be lower their comfort for a future benefit they won't see. Again opposite of selfishness

[Chinook]

Now responding to chinook Its a necessary thing to do if we want our species survive I agree, it will take unselfish individuals taking decisions that will be lower their comfort for a future benefit they won't see. Again opposite of selfishness

That's not selflessness. Is it selfless for a mother octopus to let her offspring eat her when they hatch? What about the penguins who fast for weeks to protect their eggs? Or the meerkat who gets picked up by the eagle because he was screaming his head off warning the others? Humans looking forward are still selfish, chasing what makes them feel good. Even if you don't buy that, they're still obviously anthropocentric, so the species as a whole is selfish.

[Brazil]

That's not selflessness. Is it selfless for a mother octopus to let her offspring eat her when they hatch? What about the penguins who fast for weeks to protect their eggs? Or the meerkat who gets picked up by the eagle because he was screaming his head off warning the others? Humans looking forward are still selfish, chasing what makes them feel good. Even if you don't buy that, they're still obviously anthropocentric, so the species as a whole is selfish.

Here you are making a confusion between survival instinct and selfishness. Individualities are still moved by instincts nobody is denying it but you are characterizing instinct with human feelings, that does not work.

[Chinook]

Here you are making a confusion between survival instinct and selfishness. Individualities are still moved by instincts nobody is denying it but you are characterizing instinct with human feelings, that does not work.

Of course it does. Humans are selfish like everything else is.

[Brazil]

Of course it does. Humans are selfish like everything else is.

Nope selfish is human feeling octopus is not selfish like cat is not cruel

[Chinook]

Nope selfish is human feeling octopus is not selfish like cat is not cruel

It's not (or may not be). But looking out for you kids is selfish in the same way that an animal sacrificing their lives to save their kin is in their best interests. It "altruistic" behavior were not beneficial to individuals, then it would not have been selected. So that's why humans as a group looking toward future generations isn't selfless. It's just gene preservation on a large scale.

But individually, people do good things because it makes them feel good. I've never heard of a person continually volunteering a soup kitchen who hates doing it and who gets no benefit from the experience.

[Brazil]

You mean find pleasure and feels good being altruist ? Of course but the initial purpose is altruism, feeling good is a reward not the motor of an altruist action. I dislike carrying my own bags for shopping but I do it because that's the right thing to do, it's a small inconvenient for an higher purpose. Then I feel good about it that's my sweetener not the motive of my action. Selfish people will continue use plastic bags because they don't give a damn and don't want to handle dat small annoyance.

[lefty]

Plastic bags FTW


Fuck Earth

[SnakeBoy]

Sure, but that difference is pretty minute in the grand scheme. People aren't destroying the environment because they want to. It's just the result of the needs of an ever-growing population. We can slow down the destruction by taking certain measures. We've already done that and need to continue to do so. But we will eventually reach a point where the planet can no longer sustain us, and we'll crash. That's just regular old ecology right there.

No, populations expanding and contracting is regular old ecology. No doubt there are pandemics in our future that will take out 30-50% of the population and natural disasters that will take their toll but it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which humans go extinct as long as the planet is capable of sustaining life. We are one of the most adaptable organisms on the planet and at this point we are too advanced to simply fade away from lack of resources.

[rogues]

:lol Chinook is one of the most overrated posters on the site, tbh..shitty, paragraph long takes about subjects he knows nothing of..

[TDMVPDPOY]

i blame the chinese or asian slant eye gooks who believe in eating exotic animals will give them some long health benefits...

[SnakeBoy]

i blame the chinese or asian slant eye gooks who believe in eating exotic animals will give them some long health benefits...

They mostly do it in hopes of making their dicks bigger .

[spurraider21]

:lol Chinook is one of the most overrated posters on the site, tbh..shitty, paragraph long takes about subjects he knows nothing of..
:lol forgotten pup wants attention, trying to stir shit up to no avail

[Thebesteva]

They mostly do it in hopes of making their dicks bigger .


i blame the chinese or asian slant eye gooks who believe in eating exotic animals will give them some long health benefits...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isqOzB0OtOw

[Chinook]

No, populations expanding and contracting is regular old ecology. No doubt there are pandemics in our future that will take out 30-50% of the population and natural disasters that will take their toll but it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which humans go extinct as long as the planet is capable of sustaining life. We are one of the most adaptable organisms on the planet and at this point we are too advanced to simply fade away from lack of resources.

What part of "crash" means completely die-off? If you don't think that losing half the population to in a short period of time is a crash, I don't know what to tell you.

I think you missed the point, though. I was saying that humans will continue to destroy the planet as long as they keep growing. They can slow down the rate of destruction with conservationist measures, but until the population reaches a point where the planet can no longer sustain us, we'll have to keep moving toward killing off everything else. You're right that we're not like other animals, that we are adaptable. That's why we'll drive the planet to extinction. Most animals begin to die off when they run out of space in their preferred environment or food in their area. We adapt by changing the environment and forcing more food into the area. So we'll have to bleed the planet dry before we crash.

[Chinook]

:lol Chinook is one of the most overrated posters on the site, tbh..shitty, paragraph long takes about subjects he knows nothing of..

Only one who's bothered to rate me is your boy Harlem. Sorry that I can't have your glorious bandwagon takes.

[Chinook]

You mean find pleasure and feels good being altruist ? Of course but the initial purpose is altruism, feeling good is a reward not the motor of an altruist action. I dislike carrying my own bags for shopping but I do it because that's the right thing to do, it's a small inconvenient for an higher purpose. Then I feel good about it that's my sweetener not the motive of my action. Selfish people will continue use plastic bags because they don't give a damn and don't want to handle dat small annoyance.

There are multiple ways to be selfish. It's not just about getting the immediate benefit. It's also about doing thing that make you happy. I can pretty much guarantee you that if being altruistic felt terrible to you, if the idea that you're doing something for a bigger cause made you sick, that you wouldn't keep doing it. At some level, you're being altruistic because it benefits you, physically, emotionally, intellectually, financially. There's nothing wrong with that idea, either.

[SnakeBoy]

What part of "crash" means completely die-off? If you don't think that losing half the population to in a short period of time is a crash, I don't know what to tell you.


The part where you said "once humans die off". You haven't been talking about a population decline in this thread.


I think you missed the point, though. I was saying that humans will continue to destroy the planet as long as they keep growing. They can slow down the rate of destruction with conservationist measures, but until the population reaches a point where the planet can no longer sustain us, we'll have to keep moving toward killing off everything else. You're right that we're not like other animals, that we are adaptable. That's why we'll drive the planet to extinction. Most animals begin to die off when they run out of space in their preferred environment or food in their area. We adapt by changing the environment and forcing more food into the area. So we'll have to bleed the planet dry before we crash.

Cool story but we aren't killing off "everything else". We're having an effect on the environment and because of that some species are struggling while others are thriving. You can go look at an invasive species list for examples of plants and animals that are thriving because of the actions of mankind despite our efforts to try to kill them off.

[Brazil]

There are multiple ways to be selfish. It's not just about getting the immediate benefit. It's also about doing thing that make you happy. I can pretty much guarantee you that if being altruistic felt terrible to you, if the idea that you're doing something for a bigger cause made you sick, that you wouldn't keep doing it. At some level, you're being altruistic because it benefits you, physically, emotionally, intellectually, financially. There's nothing wrong with that idea, either.

we already went through this

yes at some level it benefits you but in a way but in most of the case of plastic bags or other topic linked to environment that's not the motor of your action, altruism is

[rogues]

Only one who's bothered to rate me is your boy Harlem. Sorry that I can't have your glorious bandwagon takes.
:lol The only reason Harlem sees you in a positive light is because you use advanced metrics in most of your basketball takes, which is understandable..in other threads, like this one, you speak out of your ass..

[Chinook]

:lol The only reason Harlem sees you in a positive light is because you use advanced metrics in most of your basketball takes, which is understandable..in other threads, like this one, you speak out of your ass..

Nah. He actually liked that I agreed with him on Memphis being an awful team last year. If I recall correctly, that's what I said that made you "call me out" initially.

[Chinook]

we already went through this

yes at some level it benefits you but in a way but in most of the case of plastic bags or other topic linked to environment that's not the motor of your action, altruism is

I just think you're being a little disingenuous with yourself, no offense. Altruism itself is not a motivator just like "good food" isn't. You do altruistic things because it satisfies you in some way.

[Chinook]

The part where you said "once humans die off". You haven't been talking about a population decline in this thread.

Humans will die off eventually. It's just inevitable. I guess we can agree to disagree on that.


Cool story but we aren't killing off "everything else". We're having an effect on the environment and because of that some species are struggling while others are thriving. You can go look at an invasive species list for examples of plants and animals that are thriving because of the actions of mankind despite our efforts to try to kill them off.

Yes. I studied ecology in school. Some species are going well, and some are dying off. But we haven't even begun to hit the critical stages of population growth yet. It will get a lot worse than it is now if the population keep expanding without our territory expanding along with it.

[The Reckoning]

check mate, mother nature

[gnsf0946]

So nature can survive an asteroid and ice age but it can't survive cows farting?

[spurraider21]

So nature can survive an asteroid and ice age but it can't survive cows farting?
Humans can get punched shot and stabbed and survive but they can't survive a little virus?

[russellgoat]

Why the fuck should I give a shit about future generations if I'm not going to have children anyway. Not to mention the percentage of human population of people I dislike (Nigerians, Filipinos) is increasing.

[Franklin]

^ you're my comrade, nigga :tu

[z0sa]

Not saying that at all. Saying it depends on perspective. The earth will recover no matter what we do (short of literally blowing the planet apart). So conservationism is a selfish human desire, and not an altruistic one. We want to save the planet for us, or for the things that make us happy. We don't want to save it because we're actually at risk of destroying it.

And yes, I am a conversationalist (political leaning, not job description) who went to college to study ecology.

There wont be any more sentient life - indeed, there may be no life at all - if we affect climate changes on the scope of completely eliminating our own species. You dont need to "blow the earth apart" to permanently end any chance of life thriving on its surface. This idea of the earth inevitably recovering regardless of how much we fuck it up is contrary to scientific fact. Cosmically speaking, examples of this abound - just look at Venus for a once earth like planet that is now permanently unhabitable due to atmospheric changes. This is why the issue of transitioning our civilization from reliance on fossil fuels into clean energy sources is so incredibly important. As an amateur (I hope) ecologist, you should be more than aware of this.

[Chinook]

There wont be any more sentient life - indeed, there may be no life at all - if we affect climate changes on the scope of completely eliminating our own species. You dont need to "blow the earth apart" to permanently end any chance of life thriving on its surface. This idea of the earth inevitably recovering regardless of how much we fuck it up is contrary to scientific fact. Cosmically speaking, examples of this abound - just look at Venus for a once earth like planet that is now permanently unhabitable due to atmospheric changes. This is why the issue of transitioning our civilization from reliance on fossil fuels into clean energy sources is so incredibly important. As an amateur (I hope) ecologist, you should be more than aware of this.

Venus is not Earth. It's too close to the sun to support life. Mars is too far away. Not to mention that Mars doesn't have an atmosphere and Venus has superheated gasses that are almost liquid due to their density. Nothing that we're projected to due with CO2 levels comes close. The Old Earth had a much higher CO2 concentration (due to freaking volcanoes shooting out poisonous gasses for billions of years), and it was just fine. The reason why we were able to evolve is because the wildlife/microbes balanced out the gasses. They'll do so again when we're no longer around. Humans (Earth humans, anyway) will die off long before the world does.

If you were an ecologist, you would know what I'm talking about, instead of buying the mainstream argument that we're risking all life on the planet. What we're risking is the paradigm that has allowed all to take over a thrive. But we're nowhere near putting the Earth in a position like it was 200 Million years ago, and especially 2 Billion years ago.

[Jacob1983]

Instead of bitching about this on a message board designed for fans to talk about the San Antonio Spurs, why not get off your ass and do something about it?

[z0sa]

Venus is not Earth. It's too close to the sun to support life. Mars is too far away. Not to mention that Mars doesn't have an atmosphere and Venus has superheated gasses that are almost liquid due to their density. Nothing that we're projected to due with CO2 levels comes close. The Old Earth had a much higher CO2 concentration (due to freaking volcanoes shooting out poisonous gasses for billions of years), and it was just fine. The reason why we were able to evolve is because the wildlife/microbes balanced out the gasses. They'll do so again when we're no longer around. Humans (Earth humans, anyway) will die off long before the world does.

If you were an ecologist, you would know what I'm talking about, instead of buying the mainstream argument that we're risking all life on the planet. What we're risking is the paradigm that has allowed all to take over a thrive. But we're nowhere near putting the Earth in a position like it was 200 Million years ago, and especially 2 Billion years ago.

Venus isn't earth? I wasn't aware until this very moment; thanks for enlightening me!

This post is beyond pitiful. Appealing to your own (unconfirmed, at that) authority, really? Projection concerning "buying in" to some mainstream conspiracy, without ANY evidence to support such a claim? Implying quite broadly that the sun is responsible for Venus and Mars lacking lifeforms, without even referencing any evidence once again? Worst of all, twisting early earth's CO2 levels to support your own pseudo scientific bullshit claims?

You're not even worth an honest response.

You're no ecologist. When an internet (sports) forum becomes so important to you you must lie about your own credentials ...

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/155/834/plz-stop-post.jpg

[DarrinS]

This is a highly dubious claim

[Chinook]

You're not even worth an honest response.

Pretty much you just looking for an excuse not to give one. You have a stupid political agenda, but instead of admitting that to yourself, you are trying to twist my view into something you can attack.

What a loser response. I bet you haven't picked up an ecology book in your life, and I doubt even more that you read any real papers on it. Why actually research, though? It's much easier to make posts like yours when people disagree with you.

[spurraider21]

You're no ecologist.
iirc one of chinook's main areas of studies was ecological/evolutionary bio. makes him more qualified than most members on this board

[z0sa]

Pretty much you just looking for an excuse not to give one.

ROFL. I shall then, if only to convince others of your complete lack of expertise in the field. And please note, all of the following responses - like my first, and unlike any of yours thus far - are deeply rooted in accepted, provable science.


You have a stupid political agenda,

More projection, you cannot prove this, I have only in MOST general terms even outlined my own opinion on the issue. This is a GIGANTIC tell that you are full of shit, as anyone who has half a brain and is reading this can now tell. I'm sorry that I'm destroying your little bubble of confidence, but that is assuredly what I am doing.


but instead of admitting that to yourself, you are trying to twist my view into something you can attack.

Attack? I've made no offensive moves. I've taken your own words and argued that they do not explain the facts, nothing else. It is I who am DEFENDING legitimate science in the face of your ignorance.

You've yet to demonstrate you have more than the most basic of understandings about, well, anything related to your field in this thread, dear "ecologist."


What a loser response.

ROFL. Yet another pitiful answer to my assertions that you are incapably unscientific.

Let me repeat for you these assertions, which using any of your posts previous to this one, you CANNOT overcome:

1) You have appealed to yourself as an authority and used that as evidence for multiple unproven/generalized statements and attacks on both science and myself - not only egotistical and completely unheard of in any modern scientific argument, a bonafide logical fallacy. When you demand I submit to your grander knowledge and even go so far as to say "I wouldn't understand because of my lower stature as a scientific peon," you become the equivalent of an internet bully. When you spout bullshit, at some point, it WILL be called. And it has been, for which, you of course, have no answer other than to deflect.

2) Guilty of being conscious of your own inane ramblings, you have unconsciously now twice psychologically projected a conspiracy theory upon me despite absolutely zero evidence proving this, other than a very general statement on behalf, which all serious ecologists agree with, that statement being (and I paraphrase, for you are worth no more), "The transition from fossil fuels to clean energy is vitally important for our ecosystem."

Like all psychological projectors, YOU are the one buying into and selling the egregiously unscientific theory that the earth can withstand any amount of environmental pressure, with NO actual ecological theories postulated on your behalf. You have only made wide bearing statements REEKING of your kind's ignorance. You are but a tiny step up from the global warming deniers. Even the most basic research into the topic tells us massive changes are due within only centuries. You do think humans will still be here in a few hundred years, don't you?

2B) Moreover, you have continued generalizing using utterly ridiculous generalizations that within the context of your statements, require certain explanation, examples being:

"Venus is too close to the sun. Mars is too far from the sun."

Why? I know this blows your mind, but the earth's distance from the sun is only one of MANY factors that contribute to its ability to coalesce and nurture the existence of life forms. Implying some "God in the Stars" controls directly, at all times, whether or not any planet (or MOON, which doesn't even register in your head) in the solar system can harbor life implies you sir, are quite ignorant of the field you supposedly have chosen, among many others.

You should take this to heart:


I bet you haven't picked up an ecology book in your life, and I doubt even more that you read any real papers on it. Why actually research, though? It's much easier to make posts like yours when people disagree with you.

[z0sa]

iirc one of chinook's main areas of studies was ecological/evolutionary bio. makes him more qualified than most members on this board

If you are open minded, you will find that at least to some degree, I have cast those assumed credentials into doubt.

[Chinook]

ROFL. I shall then, if only to convince others of your complete lack of expertise in the field. And please note, all of the following responses - like my first, and unlike any of yours thus far - are deeply rooted in accepted, provable science.

I'm cutting out most of your post, because it's full of try-hard, Internet tough guy crap. The whole, "My claims are supported by science" assertion that is not backed up by any evidence by you is hilarious.


1) You have appealed to yourself as an authority and used that as evidence for multiple unproven/generalized statements and attacks on both science and myself - not only egotistical and completely unheard of in any modern scientific argument, a bonafide logical fallacy.

First, you have no idea what a logical fallacy is. Second, I didn't appeal to myself as an authority. I merely rejected you as one. I don't have to be an expert to know more than you about this stuff.


2) Guilty of being conscious of your own inane ramblings, you have unconsciously now twice psychologically projected a conspiracy theory upon me despite absolutely zero evidence to the contrary, other than a very general statement on behalf, which all serious ecologists agree with, that statement being (and I paraphrase, for you are worth no more), "The transition from fossil fuels to clean energy is vitally important for our ecosystem."

I imagine you mean something along the lines of "despite absolutely zero evidence to support it" rather than what you said. This stuff tends to happen to folks who try so hard to score points on the Web that they don't think about what they're typing.

Other than that, I was calling out your agenda because you demonstrate a lack of understanding about the science involved in researching greenhouse gasses. Your statement about fossil fuels is one I agree with (obviously as a conservationist).


YOU are the one buying into and sellingthe egregiously unscientific theory that the earth can withstand any amount of environmental pressure, with NO actual ecological theories postulated on your behalf. You have only made wide bearing statements REEKING of your kind's ignorance.

You just sound like an idiot here, not to mention some kind of prejudicial asshole with your bolded part.


2B) Moreover, you have continued generalizing using utterly ridiculous generalizations that within the context of your statements, require certain explanation, examples being:

"Venus is too close to the sun. Mars is too far from the sun."

Lol, first you can only find one example to support your claim. Second, you missed the point of my assertion. Venus was never an Earth-like planet that fell into disarray due to greenhouse gases. Or at least no one has any reason to assert that. We can't even land on the planet's surface. To compare it to Earth is ludicrous.


Why? I know this blows your mind, but the earth's distance from the sun is only one of MANY factors that contribute to its ability to coalesce and nurture the existence of life forms. Implying some "God in the Stars" controls directly, at all times, whether or not any planet (or MOON, which doesn't even register in your head) in the solar system can harbor life implies you sir, are quite ignorant of the field you supposedly have chosen, among many others.

Didn't even remotely imply that. In fact, I've stated the opposite many times. That's why you sound like a prejudicial idiot with a political agenda. I'm not some bible-thumping global warming denier. I'm a conservationist who actually knows what the stakes are. The fact that you are trying to explain anything on this subject to me is frankly hilarious.

I'll ask you seriously this time: Have you ever seriously picked up an ecology book, or any scientific textbook past high school? This doesn't have to be an offensive question. Just answer it, and we can perhaps continue the discussion.

[z0sa]

Of course you would use ad hominem and call me an idiot for categorically dismissing your perspective as ignorant. It's a classic response that you are only the latest to use.

Hell YES I am prejudiced against people who twist science to fit their pseudoscientific BS. Hell YES I am disgusted by a person lying about being an ecologist when they demonstrate remarkably little discerning knowledge in their supposed field. Hell YES that is worth making clear. And unfortunately for you, I WAS one of those people not long ago, and have done extensive research into both ecology and evolutionary biology in the past decade because of my search for knowledge. I know how you think and I'm in your head because I was on your level.

That's not internet tough guy shit. It's simple pattern recognition.

You're cutting out most of my post and focusing on editing errors because ...? No matter, it is pointless, which is why I said you are not even worth an honest response - and I have proven satisfactorily.

You DID imply the sun is solely, or at least mostly responsible for the lack of life on Mars and Venus. You make no mention of myriad tapestries of scientific knowledge completely contrary to that assertion. Although the sun's place is gigantic, it is far from the only reason Mars and Venus do not have life.

PS.... we HAVE landed on Venus, and we DO know, like mars, it contained an atmosphere and oceans for at least some period of time in its early history. More ignorance being shown on your part, which is why this shall indeed be my last response to you, other than to periodically destroy future assertions you will undoubtedly make (I do hope you change your ways and come out with the fact you are no scientist - it will be freeing for you and at that point, progress towards real scientific discussions can be made).

You DID use yourself as an authority. Your reliance on this most heinous of logical fallacies when arguing science by continuing to imply I'm the scientific equivalent of a plebeian with your continued attempts to push the "discussion" (more like me lecturing you on why your entire disposition is contrary to typical scientific approach and methodology) down the path of a metaphorical pissing contest. I am not the one calling myself an ecologist, nor am I the one making my stand upon the sand of ignorance while demanding someone else make theirs as well.

You CONTINUE to project some conspiracy, even going further in this last post I do not understand how greenhouse gasses are being researched, which by itself may be your "rejection of my authority," except you have combined it with callous implications of your unproven authority with your talking down to me. Not once have you elaborated as to why my position - which "your" field agrees with almost universally - directly implies I am the ignorant one and not you. No worries though. I have made my attempt to cast your credentials into shadow, and I will continue to make such attempts as I see fit. Continue on without the threat of my existence for the time being of the rest of this thread, Mr. Scientist and Stuff.

[spurraider21]

If you are open minded, you will find that at least to some degree, I have cast those assumed credentials into doubt.
you've given no reason to doubt it... your "i'm going to crush you for everyone to see" type of comment was very thunderup esque. congrats :lol

[spurraider21]

and have done extensive research into both ecology and evolutionary biology in the past decade because of my search for knowledge
where did you conduct this extensive research in these fields? just out of curiosity

[z0sa]

where did you conduct this extensive research in these fields? just out of curiosity

The library, classroom, and internet.

BTW, crushing someone ruthlessly in a basketball discussion (IIRC that's who thunderup was, an NBA forum poster) that's meaningless in the broader scheme has little parallel to discrediting someone in a field of science directly relevant to our way of living.

[z0sa]

you've given no reason to doubt it...

ok

[spurraider21]

BTW, crushing someone ruthlessly in a basketball discussion (IIRC that's who thunderup was, an NBA forum poster) that's meaningless in the broader scheme has little parallel to discrediting someone in a field of science directly relevant to our way of living.
thunderup never crushed anybody in basketball discussion :lol

he would just say things like "im going to crush you. dont mess with big dog" and other random bits of WWF style rhetoric. that's essentially what that wall of text you posted was. all you did was talk about how you are going to crush and discredit chinook, without actually having done so. empty chatter


The library, classroom, and internet.
in the classroom, so you're still in school? what degree are you pursuing?

[z0sa]

thunderup never crushed anybody in basketball discussion :lol

he would just say things like "im going to crush you. dont mess with big dog" and other random bits of WWF style rhetoric. that's essentially what that wall of text you posted was. all you did was talk about how you are going to crush and discredit chinook, without actually having done so. empty chatter

ok

don't forget to high five chinook on your way out of the thread

[Chinook]

Of course you would use ad hominem and call me an idiot for categorically dismissing your perspective as ignorant. It's a classic response that you are only the latest to use.

You also need to learn what an ad hominem fallacy is. Calling you an idiot while attacking your points is not it.


Hell YES I am prejudiced against people who twist science to fit their pseudoscientific BS. Hell YES I am disgusted by a person lying about being an ecologist when they demonstrate remarkably little discerning knowledge in their supposed field. Hell YES that is worth making clear. And unfortunately for you, I WAS one of those people not long ago, and have done extensive research into both ecology and evolutionary biology in the past decade because of my search for knowledge. I know how you think and I'm in your head because I was on your level.

This was the kind of crap that I cut out. It says nothing, except, "I'm not incompetent, honest!"


You DID imply the sun is solely, or at least mostly responsible for the lack of life on Mars and Venus. You make no mention of myriad tapestries of scientific knowledge completely contrary to that assertion. Although the sun's place is gigantic, it is far from the only reason Mars and Venus do not have life.

I'm failing to see how pointing out one major (and easy to observe) reason for something is equivalent to asserting that it's the sole reason.


PS.... we HAVE landed on Venus, and we DO know, like mars, it contained an atmosphere and oceans for at least some period of time in its early history. More ignorance being shown on your part, which is why this shall indeed be my last response to you, other than to periodically destroy future assertions you will undoubtedly make (I do hope you change your ways and come out with the fact you are no scientist - it will be freeing for you and at that point, progress towards real scientific discussions can be made).

Probes landed on the surface 30 years ago and were broken within 65 minutes due to how harsh it was there. I guess point for you. I had indeed assumed those broke in the atmosphere like the earlier ones had. But I was talking more about a Mars rover.


You DID use yourself as an authority. Your reliance on this most heinous of logical fallacies when arguing science by continuing to imply I'm the scientific equivalent of a plebeian with your continued attempts to push the "discussion" (more like me lecturing you on why your entire disposition is contrary to typical scientific approach and methodology) down the path of a metaphorical pissing contest. I am not the one calling myself an ecologist, nor am I the one making my stand upon the sand of ignorance while demanding someone else make theirs as well.

Again, relying on yourself as an authority is not a fallacy. You're doing so right now by providing no evidence to support your claims. But I'm the one who's not making the claim that global warming will destroy the planet if unchecked. I'm merely rejecting your understanding of the landscape. You've yet to provide any evidence for your claims.


You CONTINUE to project some conspiracy, even going further in this last post I do not understand how greenhouse gasses are being researched, which by itself may be your "rejection of my authority," except you have combined it with callous implications of your unproven authority with your talking down to me. Not once have you elaborated as to why my position - which "your" field agrees with almost universally - directly implies I am the ignorant one and not you. No worries though. I have made my attempt to cast your credentials into shadow, and I will continue to make such attempts as I see fit. Continue on without the threat of my existence for the time being of the rest of my thread, Mr. Scientist and Stuff.

Dumb. Nothing else to say. Here are some pictures for you.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

Ohs noes, how is the Earth ever going to survive our 400ppm CO2 concentration.


http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/co2-levels-over-time1.jpg

Wait, that concentration would still be lower than it has been for more than 30 Million years (and one eighth of what it was in lush forests of the Jurassic). And that terrible 14-degree temperature that's risking making Earth another Venus is an entire eight degrees lower than it was during the Mesozoic eras. I guess the Earth itself is rather used to having more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Maybe global warming is a big deal just because humans could not possibly survive under those conditions.

[Chinook]

he would just say things like "im going to crush you. dont mess with big dog" and other random bits of WWF style rhetoric. that's essentially what that wall of text you posted was. all you did was talk about how you are going to crush and discredit chinook, without actually having done so. empty chatter

He's too busy appealing to authority (and making a logically fallacy by doing so) without understanding what that authority is saying.


ok

don't forget to high five chinook on your way out of the thread

:cry no one else agrees that I'm totally owning this noob :cry

[z0sa]

Look a graph that shows CO2 levels were much higher right before and after most of the life on earth went extinct in the biggest mass extinction(s) in planetary history! Checkmate, dummy!

:lol you can't make this shit up.

It's funny watching you act like I said the earth would become like Venus because of humans, or any of the other non sense in that post. I don't think the earth will be like. I do think runaway greenhouse gasses could stop the development of sentient life on earth, which is the very point I made in the first post. THAT is what your field agrees with, and I never made any other arguments. This constant pissing contest bullshit is simply that, bullshit. You want to act like an entirely unscientific concept - runaway greenhouse gasses having no effect on the future of the planet - is rooted in science. I've made it most clear through the use of terms like "pseudoscience" that is what you're trying to do. You can argue about logical fallacies not existing, my own appeal to authority when I never made an original argument myself, only related the fact your opinion is far from the norm, etc all you want. It doesn't make what you have been saying all thread true.

[Chinook]

Look a graph that shows CO2 levels were much higher right before and after most of the life on earth went extinct in the biggest mass extinction(s) in planetary history! Checkmate, dummy!

:lol you can't make this shit up.

:lol not understanding why mass extinctions drop CO2 levels.

:lol thinking the Jurassic era was right before or after a major extinction event.

:lol not understanding greenhouse gasses at all, despite years of self-discovery on the matter.

[z0sa]

:lol not understanding why mass extinctions drop CO2 levels.

Edit: Let me rephrase, we're CO2 levels at their HIGHEST right before the biggest mass extinction event in history? Simple question with a simple answer.


:lol not understanding greenhouse gasses at all, despite years of self-discovery on the matter.

:lol using a ST meme to deflect from the fact that you are an ecologist who denies the very reason clean energy is so important

[Chinook]

Edit: Let me rephrase, we're CO2 levels at their HIGHEST right before the biggest mass extinction event in history? Simple question with a simple answer.

No. They were at their highest during one of the biggest spurts of radiation in history (Cambrian Explosion).


:lol using a ST meme to deflect from the fact that you are an ecologist who denies the very reason clean energy is so important

:lol being so agenda'd that you can't even see that I agree with your policies
:lol again, not understanding greenhouse gasses despite years of self-discovery

[z0sa]

No. They were at their highest during one of the biggest spurts of radiation in history (Cambrian Explosion).

The question was too general, unfortunately, my first was more apt. That is, right before and during and immediately after the biggest mass extinction event, were CO2 levels higher or lower than in the era it destroyed? The answer is directly related to my parallel with Venus, as I'm sure you know by now.


:lol being so agenda'd that you can't even see that I agree with your policies

You're the one who has an agenda, sir - which is to spread a pseudoscientific claim that is contrary to the realistic explanation of the facts. I never said humans alone would cause all extinction on earth - runaway greenhouse effect may, however, wipe out higher forms of life, as it already has. That is where you seem to be having the disconnect. You say sentient life will look back in a billion years on a much different earth and say, it really didn't affect the earth like they thought it would. but that's not true at all, since mass extinction could have once against thrown all life forms back once or many times. What is so hard to understand about why you cannot appeal to your own authority as an ecologist on this subject, and why it is so far from the norm of your field? It boggles the mind.


:lol again, not understanding greenhouse gasses despite years of self-discovery

I haven't had years of self discovery in green houses gasses, actually... this is a recent phenomenon for most of us. I spent my years researching the much more personally important fields of biology, which is of course, directly related to ecology. However in such searches the above has become manifestly obvious. And while I realize CO2 devouring organisms are the reason oxygen devouring higher forms of life exist, it still once again, boggles the mind to think that you would be completely unaware of the fact that a big enough mass extinction, related with greenhouse gasses, could destroy all life on earth due to the inability of heat to escape from our atmosphere. I mean, like I said originally, cosmically, examples of this abound - the most obvious being Venus. This is why you're credentials are truly called into question. You should not be ignorant to this fact, nor should you be so sure life on earth will continue to evolve regardless of how much life on earth (combined with the environment, of course) fucks itself up.

[Chinook]

It's funny watching you act like I said the earth would become like Venus because of humans, or any of the other non sense in that post. I don't think the earth will be like. I do think runaway greenhouse gasses could stop the development of sentient life on earth, which is the very point I made in the first post. THAT is what your field agrees with, and I never made any other arguments. This constant pissing contest bullshit is simply that, bullshit. You want to act like an entirely unscientific concept - runaway greenhouse gasses having no effect on the future of the planet - is rooted in science. I've made it most clear through the use of terms like "pseudoscience" that is what you're trying to do. You can argue about logical fallacies not existing, my own appeal to authority when I never made an original argument myself, only related the fact your opinion is far from the norm, etc all you want. It doesn't make what you have been saying all thread true.

I'm starting to think you haven't actually read my posts. The post you initially took interest in stated clearly both that greenhouse gasses are a problem we need to deal with and that humans will die off if we don't control global warming. My point was that the Earth itself would recover after we went extinct and move on. You disagreed, with nothing to support your claim but the comparison to Venus, which was never in the same boat as Earth.

So you won't miss it this time: I'm a conservationist, and a believer in lowering the emission of greenhouse gasses. I feel we need to do so in order to protect the planet as we know it. I want to also protect the other species that are on Earth now. However, I don't believe we will destroy all of life simply by raising CO2 levels. The world will become uninhabitable for us long before it is for life in general.

[RD2191]

Errbody chill out. God has this. Humans will never cease to exist. It's in the Bible.

[Chinook]

The question was too general, unfortunately, my first was more apt. That is, right before and during and immediately after the biggest mass extinction event, were CO2 levels higher or lower than in the era it destroyed?

No. The CO2 levels rose steadily during the Cambrian period and peaked during the Cambrian Explosion. The exact opposite of what you're trying to insinuate. The pre-Cambrian era had a concentration of 2000ppm less than it did during the Cambrian Explosion.


You're the one who has an agenda, sir - which is to spread a pseudoscientific claim that is contrary to the realistic explanation of the facts.

You don't even seem to get what that claim is, honestly.


runaway greenhouse effect may, however, wipe out higher forms of life, as it already has.

When the hell did that happen?


You say sentient life will look back in a billion years on a much different earth and say, it really didn't affect the earth like they thought it would. but that's not true at all, since mass extinction could have once against thrown all life forms back once or many times.

Didn't say that. Said they won't know the difference between a human-induced mass extinction and a natural one, because our existence is so short compared to that of the planet.


I haven't had years of self discovery in green houses gasses, actually... this is a recent phenomenon for most of us. I spent my years researching the much more personally important fields of biology, which is of course, directly related to ecology. However in such searches the above has become manifestly obvious.

Global warming has been a mainstream issue for a lot longer than that. Hell, An Inconvenient Truth came out eight years ago.

[spurraider21]

Errbody chill out. God has this. Humans will never cease to exist. It's in the Bible.
its all encoded in the banana

[z0sa]

-_- whatever man. Like I said, a dishonest response cannot be countered with an honest one. You say I don't know the meaning of pseudoscience, yet you make the very pseudoscientific prediction claiming the earth will be fine regardless of what happens (again, while probable that all life won't be extinguished, this is contrary to scientific fact both ecologically and astronomically speaking). You say we should lower carbon emissions, yet you also made the claim that we should "keep things in perspective" - apparently, keeping things in perspective means being indifferent to the destruction of most of life on earth, including ourselves, which defeats the purposes of lowering carbon emissions. To attempt to avoid this fate, which we can control, isn't even altruistic in your eyes, which borders on the either sarcastic or cynical. You don't look or sound like any scientist.

[Chinook]

-_- whatever man. Like I said, a dishonest response cannot be countered with an honest one.

You've given no honest answer, just attempts to look cool with zingers. You perhaps just got what I was saying, and now you're backpedaling.


You say I don't know the meaning of pseudoscience, yet you make the very pseudoscientific prediction claiming the earth will be fine regardless of what happens (again, while probable that all life won't be extinguished, this is contrary to scientific fact both ecologically and astronomically speaking).

I never questioned you're understanding of the word "pseudoscience".

Anyway, you haven't provided a single bit of evidence to support your side, only hints that the evidence would support you if you provided it. That IS a logical fallacy called Appeal to Authority.


You say we should lower carbon emissions, yet you also made the claim that we should "keep things in perspective" - apparently, keeping things in perspective means being indifferent to the destruction of most of life on earth, including ourselves, which defeats the purposes of lowering carbon emissions.

Perhaps you should rethink your interpretation of the bolded part. Then you'd see a consistent view instead of a contradiction like you're currently assuming is there.


To attempt to avoid this fate, which we can control, isn't even altruistic in your eyes, which borders on the either sarcastic or cynical.

Guess I'm a meanie then. Not going to apologize for suggesting that we stop treating conservation as a voluntary, moral thing and instead make it a mandate.


You don't look or sound like any scientist.

How the hell do you know what I look like? Do you even know what a scientist sounds like? They're all different types of people who have dramatically different world-views. Maybe you should stop trying to put people in boxes.