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

[Jacob1983]

Instead of ing 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 bull 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 ...

[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 , 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 bull , 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.

YES I am prejudiced against people who twist science to fit their pseudoscientific BS. YES I am disgusted by a person lying about being an ecologist when they demonstrate remarkably little discerning knowledge in their supposed field. 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 . 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

[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

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

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.

YES I am prejudiced against people who twist science to fit their pseudoscientific BS. YES I am disgusted by a person lying about being an ecologist when they demonstrate remarkably little discerning knowledge in their supposed field. 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.



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




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

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

[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!

you can't make this 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 bull is simply that, bull . 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!

you can't make this up.

not understanding why mass extinctions drop CO2 levels.

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

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

[z0sa]

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.

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

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).

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

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

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.

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) s 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 bull is simply that, bull . 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 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. , An Inconvenient Truth came out eight years ago.