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.