Why do climate alarmists ignore Darwin?

Author: fauxlaw ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 75
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 1,795
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Nemiroff
    That's not evolutionary adaptation. 

    Inuit's have adapted to successfully survive within the arctic circle, whereas Bedouin's have successfully adapted to survive within the Arabian Desert.

    Yes, technically and therefore biologically they would be able to swap places, but that's not the point.

    The rate of adaptation is also obviously relative to the rate of climatic and environmental change....  What you propose is simply, immediate over exposure to hostile conditions.
  • Nemiroff
    Nemiroff avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 192
    0
    3
    9
    Nemiroff avatar
    Nemiroff
    --> @zedvictor4
    The rate of adaptation is also obviously relative to the rate of climatic and environmental change....  What you propose is simply, immediate over exposure to hostile conditions.
    Native species do not find the conditions hostile. The necessity for gradual adaptation only proves my point that we are not already adapted to those conditions biologically.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 1,795
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Nemiroff
    What is a native species?

    Homo Sapiens is the only species in question and Homo Sapiens has adapted to live in most regions of the earth.

    Though Homo Sapiens doesn't adapt biologically, it uses it's brain to adapt and utilise environment and resources.

    No doubt it will continue to do so, for as long as environmental conditions remain tolerable and there are still sufficient resources available for it to adapt and utilise.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 629
    2
    3
    9
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Nemiroff
    It's really pretty simple. You like to use ranges of data to explain rapid climate change, but I cannot use the same principle to explain placental mammals? You 80 to 140M years is a range. You used it. That's your data. I'm saying the range includes 140M years, meaning that evolution of placental mammals cold have begun as early as that. You do not get to truncate that range and say it only occurred 80M years ago. Just like your ilk want to claim a 30-year span as an example of rapid climate change. You ask why 1981 to 2020, which is actually 40 years, but that's beside the point. Because they first established 1950 to 1980, and decided to change it it to 1981 to 2020, that's why. When one model doesn't fit their data, they change the model. That's how climate science works, which is why it is not "in."

    i dont think anyone is only looking at the last 30 years.
    Yeah, no one. Just NOAA, and IPCC. Nobodies. I'll accept that.

    So, where;'s your citation that the earth has never seen temperatures and sea levels like we see today? You keep claiming it. Show me.

    Is CO2 a greenhouse gas. Of course it is. Does man contribute to it. Of course. But, is it at the highest levels ever seen on earth? Show me.

    How often is man dropped, or takes himself, to a dessert or the arctic without clothes and without his tech? That's a straw man argument if ever there was one. Try an argument of some practicality. Savanna banana. Yeah, that's a pretty good climate, but it's obvious man has adapted to more severe climates in both directions, and survives with clothes and other tech. Take it away, sure, many will die. So, that's how we explain a threshold of climate today to justify the Green New Deal, for example? Take everything away? Well, that is the proposal of the GND: net-zero. Sure, great argument. So take your net zero out of every green energy turbine in existence on earth. What to you have? No energy, that's what. No petroleum to lubricate the turbine; no energy. No petroleum to make your plastics parts in electric cars and solar panels, none of them, either. Al Gore has not yet invented his green gooey juice, yet. Why not?



  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 1,795
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @fauxlaw
    Things have become as things have become, so consequently things are as they are.

    Do you think that things could have been done differently?...…. Or is that really just the futile question that it is?


    Similarly, things will become as they will become and the duration of events will render what will have occurred, irreversible.

    Does this not suggest that things were always going to occur in the way that  they did?

    And therefore things will continue to occur in the way that they will?


    Maybe everything is inevitable.....The god principle, without all the singing and dancing as it were.

     
  • Nemiroff
    Nemiroff avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 192
    0
    3
    9
    Nemiroff avatar
    Nemiroff
    --> @fauxlaw
    It's really pretty simple. You like to use ranges of data to explain rapid climate change, but I cannot use the same principle to explain placental mammals? You 80 to 140M years is a range. You used it. That's your data. I'm saying the range includes 140M years, meaning that evolution of placental mammals cold have begun as early as that.
    I wasnt criticizing your use of ranges, but your misinterpreting your own citation as the article later pointed out the 80 to 140 mil was an old estimate and updated data agreed with my 65 mil statement. 

    You do not get to truncate that range and say it only occurred 80M years ago. 
    Again, i never said 80mil. It was you who truncated the range to only and exactly 140 myo. From post 39

    140M years ago, before man, placental mammals, having identical physiological systems to ours, evolved and thrived under climate conditions far more severe and variable than we experience today. 
    The exact number of millions of years is mmorather irrelevant to the argument at hand, so let's move on.

    i dont think anyone is only looking at the last 30 years.
    Yeah, no one. Just NOAA, and IPCC. Nobodies. I'll accept that.

    So, where;'s your citation that the earth has never seen temperatures and sea levels like we see today? You keep claiming it. Show me.
    I never said it was never hotter, i think it was during dinosaur eras. Definitely in early earth. I said the temperature *hasnt shifted this much this fast* since the time large animals came out of the water, except for some cataclysmic event (that resulted in mass extinctions, like a meteor).

    I cant demonstrate something never happened, thats impossible. I can cite sources saying it hasnt happened since the cataclysmic meteor:


    If the Earth stays on its current course without reversing greenhouse gas emissions, and global temperatures rise 5 degrees Celsius, as scientists say is possible, the pace of change will be at least 50 times and possibly 100 times swifter than what's occurred in the past, Field said. The numbers are imprecise because the comparison is to an era 55 million years ago, he said.
    "The planet has not experienced changes this rapid in 65 million years," Field said. "Humans have never seen anything like this."
    I would assume noaa and ipcc updated their time frame to give a more accurate representation of current events. Also because things got worse. What is wrong with updating a model and showing more recent dates? 

    How often is man dropped, or takes himself, to a dessert or the arctic without clothes and without his tech? That's a straw man argument if ever there was one. 
    You are talking darwin, and evolution. Biology and genetics. Do you know how to aquire materials for and make all of these techs? Is it in your dna?

    Things learned from experience are not evolution my friend. When asking how we evolved, we are naked, although not alone. 

    We did not evolve school, e=mc2, or gun powder. We discovered/invented them.

    to justify the Green New Deal, for example? Take everything away? Well, that is the proposal of the GND: net-zero

    Gnd is not a proposal. It was orignally a brainstorm meant to start a conversation. There was no mandate or timeline to "eliminate all airtravel" or whatever, but that would reduce carbon and maybe we should consider alternatives, like superfast mag trains to reduce airtravel... sounds sensible to me. Yall twist everything. 
  • Nemiroff
    Nemiroff avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 192
    0
    3
    9
    Nemiroff avatar
    Nemiroff
    --> @zedvictor4
    Though Homo Sapiens doesn't adapt biologically, it uses it's brain to adapt and utilise environment and resources.
    Evolution uses the two biological mechanisms of mutation and natural selection. Since our non biological adaptation has nothing to do with either mutations or natural selection, it has nothing to do with Darwin or evolution, which is the association being made by fauxlaw
  • Nemiroff
    Nemiroff avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 192
    0
    3
    9
    Nemiroff avatar
    Nemiroff
    --> @zedvictor4
    In other words. Yes we adapted, but it was not through evolution. 
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 1,795
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Nemiroff
    In other words we adapt but not within a Darwinian context.

    The question is, would we adapt quickly enough to keep pace with a potentially increased rate the rate of environmental change. 

    And  yes, climate alarmists will probably ignore Darwin, because Darwinian evolution is contextually irrelevant.
  • Nemiroff
    Nemiroff avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 192
    0
    3
    9
    Nemiroff avatar
    Nemiroff
    --> @zedvictor4
    As a species, most likely. Short  of any run off feedback loop.
    But species survival is a very low bar for acceptable outcome. 
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 629
    2
    3
    9
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Nemiroff
    which is the association being made by fauxlaw
    Did I say that? No. Darwin specifically avoided the subject of human brain function as a process of evolution in On the Origin of Species, and you'd know that if you read it completely, but in no way did he allege that it was not a factor of evolution. At the time, he did not know how to deal with it, and his notes on the subject confirm that. However, when he wrote The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex [have you read that?], he did entertain it. I'll let you figure out how, but don't make accusations in ignorance of the facts. You might go back and review the title of this string, and who launched it.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 6,623
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @zedvictor4
    We already have historical evidence where terrestrial climate change occurred over a matter of days, not years such as with meteor impacts and supervolcano eruptions. Humans survived one such sudden climate change 70,000 years ago with stone tool technology. 

    To claim the current climate change threatens the human species ignores a vast amount of known historical fossil, geographical, and anthropological data, not to mention the technological explosion in the last century.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 629
    2
    3
    9
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Greyparrot
    spot on!
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 6,623
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @fauxlaw
    In 2015, there were approximately 141 million births.

    In 2015 around 57 million people died. The world population, therefore, increased by 84 million in 2015.

    Due to climate change-related food shortages alone, the world could see a net increase of 529,000 adult deaths by 2050.

    This is the LEAST conservative death toll I was able to find due to climate change.

    84 million subtracted by .5 million = 83.5 million increase in the human population per year.

    Climate change has as much power to slow the growth of the human species as a fly has the power to stop a car by smashing into the windshield.



    Even Covid-19 is a royal joke at slowing that juggernaut. COVID probably won't even reach 1 million GLOBAL deaths for 2020.

    Now stack that against the 84+ million ADDITIONAL humans being added to the planet EVERY year. It would take something 100 times more deadly than Covid-19 just to put the human species into homeostasis, let alone actually reduce the population

    And people think there are actual threats to the human species? Give me a break.


  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 1,795
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Greyparrot
    What may or may not have occurred 70,000 years ago is pure conjecture.

    I assume that you are referring to what is known as the Toba catastrophe.

    What may or may not have occurred 66million years ago is also pure conjecture.

    The assumptions are similar and the assumed outcomes indicate that in both incidences there were niche survivalists, whether that be plant, animal, insect etc.

    I'm not sure what these facts or human technological development (including stone tools) actually goes to prove other than the above.

    And I have always agreed that species will either adapt or just simply survive for as long as environmental conditions on Planet Earth allow.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 6,623
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @zedvictor4
    What about post 64?

    The most recent greatest man-made catastrophe, Communism, was only able to affect about 10 million additional deaths a year.

    That's far above any of the dire predictions of death due to climate change, yet still falls 74 million deaths short of homeostasis.

    What do you think it will take?
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 6,623
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @fauxlaw
    Another man-made disaster World War II still doesn't come close.

    the 60 million humans killed during the 6-year war was easily replaced IN A SINGLE YEAR in 2015 with the 84 million newborn net people added to the planet. 

    What do you think it will take to achieve homeostasis?

  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 629
    2
    3
    9
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Greyparrot
    If you mean homeostasis as a population factor, I'd say never. We don't have a world population excess problem, anyway. What we have is a distribution problem in population, in water and food. Consider that if the entire world population were collected on just cultivated and arable [able to be cultivated, but  not currently], leaving urban, forest, arctic, desert, and mountainous regions completely unpopulated by humans, there would be enough land for every man, woman and chid to have about 1.2 acres, each.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 6,623
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @fauxlaw
    Since the planet is not getting any bigger, eventually homeostasis of the human species must occur at some point. Maybe not in your lifetime.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 1,795
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Greyparrot
    Well.... I needed to check how homeostasis is defined and the key words were "relatively stable equilibrium"......A tad woolly and a tad ambiguous really.....It could  easily be suggested that homeostasis in a global environmental context is therefore an ongoing situation for as long as all species do not become extinct....The same principles would also seem to apply to the homeostasis of the human species, though global environment and humanity are somewhat inextricably linked anyway.

    So I would suggest that homeostasis is current and ongoing.

    The real question is, at what point will Planet Earth cease to be life sustaining?

    And will we have successfully adapted to a homeostatic environment elsewhere?
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 6,623
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @zedvictor4
    The real question is, at what point will Planet Earth cease to be life sustaining?

    When all the tardigrades are gone of course.

    Until climate alarmists get their shit together and come up with some real deathy numbers, it, as Avenatti would say, " doesn't move the needle for me."

    We need some real alarmists with the balls to use the B word, considering the 85 million net new babies being dumped annually on the planet like an open fire hydrant in the street.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 629
    2
    3
    9
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Greyparrot
    Like I said, we are not overpopulated; we are poorly distributed, and so is our fresh water and food. Fix that; your fire hydrant dribbles, at best.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 1,795
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Greyparrot
    I'm not sure that all the new babies is the whole problem. Or in fact a problem at all.

    Medical advancements and interventions that result in an ever more aged population is the flip side of the coin. Not much more than 100 years ago, average life expectancy was around 25years, whereas today it's probably in the 70's. Infant mortality was extremely high and common diseases and infections were killers....  Couple this with modern consumerist  expectations and the demands for ever improving  infrastructure and technology and that is more likely to be where the cause of the assumed problem lies. 

    Nonetheless:
    If everything has no purpose then what does anything matter anyway?

    If everything has a purpose, then surely everything that occurs is purposeful?

    I would therefore suggest, that a greater purpose would be far greater than us...Though, that is not to say that our role in a greater purpose would be inconsequential....

    So maybe everything happens as it does for a reason, or not....Who knows?
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 6,623
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @zedvictor4
    Homeostasis will occur at some point, probably not in our lifetimes, but probably way before we can find a way off this rock before we drown in our own feces.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 1,795
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Greyparrot
    As I attempted to suggest previously.  I think you misunderstand the term "homeostasis"....Look it up and have a think about it.

    Nonetheless:
    Getting of this rock and leaving this solar system,  ironically should be the ultimate achievement of evolving and existing upon it.

    Nonetheless....I currently rest with the idea that the universe has a preordained certainty or sequentiality, therefore the evolution of the organic, organic life and organic intelligence is only a part of a bigger sequence, so maybe our techno developments herald the next phase of the sequence. 

    Maybe we were never meant to leave this rock or solar system....In our current form anyway.

    I think that it is foolish to assume that we are the be all and end all of everything. Who knows what the possibilities are for material evolution in the next million years or so?

    Maybe knowledge and data is the key to everything.