Environment gets Bushed

[BasketCase]

We're not talking about doomsday scenarios.

Since Global Warming does not mean it will doom the human race.

Every other global warming alarmist in CFC already HAS called global warming a Doomsday scenario.

So, no dice.

Besides, many Doomsday scenarios do NOT result in the destruction of humanity. Set back to the Stone Age, usually. Extinction? Not all the time.

Got anything better than minor quibbles about definitions from the dictionary? No? Didn't think so.

You'd need to find examples of people predicting life becoming more unpleasant.

Humans are almost always wrong about those too. The anthrax attack in 2001 was my favorite. People had been fretting about bioweapons attacks for years before that happened, and when it finally did? The death toll was approximately FIVE people.

That was the second most pathetic excuse for a "disaster" in the history of mankind.

 

[BasketCase]

And now for something completely different.

Whenever somebody puts me in a bad mood, I like to post a good one-two punch and make life difficult for everybody. Since Ziggy put me in a bad mood (again) here's the second punch in that one-two combo: I'm now gonna torpedo the old saw about the rainforests providing most of the planet's oxygen. And I'm gonna do it with two sentences.

People are always talking about how much oxygen is provided by the abundant plant life in the rainforests. Well, why do they never mention the large amount of oxygen CONSUMED by the equally abundant ANIMAL life in the rainforests.....?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Every other global warming alarmist in CFC already HAS called global warming a Doomsday scenario.

I really don't care what other people call it. I'm only responsible for my own opinions

But it's really cute you need to lump people into the extreme positions, instead of their own, to have a rebuttal.

the rainforests providing most of the planet's oxygen.

Algea in the oceans produce way more.

 

[BasketCase]

I really don't care what other people call it.

Yeah, well, I don't care what you call it.

All the other global warming advocates call global warming a Doomsday scenario.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

No they don' t.

 

[BasketCase]

Yes they do.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Yes they do.

1.5-3 Degrees tempature increase over the next 100 years. == Doomsday
Were Dooommed, DOOOMMMMEEEDDDDD.

What next Saddam was going to provide Alqeda with Nukes and America is about to be destroyed ??? ..... Oh wait

 

[BasketCase]

See? Even my arch-enemy FriendlyFire agrees with me.

 

[Loki130]

Personally I'm hoping people like BasketCase win this argument, so mankind learns its lesson and perhaps the animals will get a little breathing space.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Just be glad that the arguments here have no influence on decisionmaking whatsoever.

 

[Loki130]

Just be glad that the arguments here have no influence on decisionmaking whatsoever.

I mean the overall Global warming argument. Let the coasts flood, the wars start, and the cities burn. I'll be investing in a really good boat.

 

[FriendlyFire]

See? Even my arch-enemy FriendlyFire agrees with me.

As long as we take sustainabilitie steps and dont leave it too late. We can build massive co2 capturing structures to trap and store carbon. We will need to build them by the tens of thousands but should temps hit the 3 degrees and we start suffering (15% farmable land lost) plenty of time to head it off.

 

[BasketCase]

Personally I'm hoping people like BasketCase win this argument

Since temperature is going up by something like one degree every century, you and I will never know. We will be dead before any noticeable effects occur.

And, since I'm an atheist and don't believe in the afterlife, you and I won't be around to argue about it in whichever afterlife you might happen to believe in. Frankly, if there was a Heaven, it would have to be a place where you always won arguments--but you and I couldn't possibly win all our arguments (since one of us must be the loser) and that's clearly impossible, which pretty well proves there's no afterlife.....

so mankind learns its lesson and perhaps the animals will get a little breathing space.

Having seen things on the Discovery Channel such as male lions killing lion cubs in order to get the females to mate, and orcas playing soccer using a wounded sea lion for a ball--no friggin' thanks.

 

[Loki130]

Having seen things on the Discovery Channel such as male lions killing lion cubs in order to get the females to mate, and orcas playing soccer using a wounded sea lion for a ball--no friggin' thanks.

Are we really all that much better? I've heard stories that my ancestors invented an early form of soccer using the heads of the English.
BTW, I'm atheist too.

 

[Simple Simon]

People are always talking about how much oxygen is provided by the abundant plant life in the rainforests. Well, why do they never mention the large amount of oxygen CONSUMED by the equally abundant ANIMAL life in the rainforests.....?

You always talk about how you are soooo smart - why are you not able to explain this then?



(hint for the less-gifted-than-BasketCase: he has smuggled a little lie in there: 'as abundant' is supposed to suggest that the animal biomass is so big that it uses up the excess oxygen production of the plant biomass. In fact, it is much smaller. Since BC is soooo smart [says he], I must conclude that he is here trying to mislead people intentionally. Liar liar ass on fire!)

 

[Simple Simon]

Yeah, well, I don't care what you call it.

All the other global warming advocates call global warming a Doomsday scenario.

I don't.


BasketCase is wrong again . Maybe now he will learn not to make sweeping statements without checking the facts!

 

[Ammar]

Nor did I. Who are you actually talking about?

 

[BasketCase]

<deleted>

I should have said that ALMOST all global warming advocates call global warming a devastating disaster. The word "Doomsday" leaves too much room for misinterpretation.

I'm sorry for assuming that everybody in here would have the common sense to see past the dictionary. Now, if you're done arguing about typos and linguistic errors.....?

hint for the less-gifted-than-BasketCase: he has smuggled a little lie in there: 'as abundant' is supposed to suggest that the animal biomass is so big that it uses up the excess oxygen production of the plant biomass. In fact, it is much smaller.

Prove this.


Edit: I retract my apology (the deletion up top). I already said that "Doomsday" does not equate to human extinction. And I know all of you who are arguing against me over it consider global warming to be a devastating disaster, because if you didn't, you wouldn't be in here arguing against me about it.

 

[BasketCase]

Are we really all that much better?

Yes--merely from the fact that you asked yourself that. Human beings are the only species on Earth that cares. All others go right ahead and do whatever they want without feeling guilty or shameful.

I prefer my lawn nicely mowed, I like the flowers and bushes planted in neat rows, and I don't care if that tree in my back yard was imported from halfway across the U.S. and isn't native to my home state (I frankly have no idea where it came from, and I don't care--it look nice). And I like my steaks neatly cut into convenient slabs by the butcher--it's vastly preferable to having to head out into the bush and go kill myself a cow by hand or with a gun. Also less traumatic for the cow because a pack of wild wolves would simply tear its throat out and start eating it while it was still alive.

 

[El_Machinae]

How about showing me a real effect of CO2 causing the climate to heat up. The last few years have been stagnant despite more CO2. CO2 is lagging behind temp in all the graphs. Maybe bring me a real study not based on the massively flawed ICPP report. CO2 does have an effect. Show me some proof that the CO2 that makes up a fraction of a fraction of the air and isn't even the most effective green house gas out there was making the temp rise before it leveled out and so far this year even gone down. And make sure its man made CO2 witch is a fraction of CO2.




You can believe all the Nobel prize winning junk science you want to.

You didn't answer my question. You just railed for a paragraph for some reason.

What does the AGW theory predict will happen, such that (if it happened) you'd think that the theory was actually correct?

Basketcase and Ainwood are also free to answer this question.