Assuming it was a hoax, what would be the goal of the global warming hoax?

[CultureCitizen]

Any actual data to back that up? Of course not. More unfounded, unsupportable garbage... Clearly you hold your position as a result of politics....nothing whatsoever to do with science led you to where you are now.

That was just figuritative: Yes, many species are discovered, because the exploration of plant and animal species is not finished and is a continuous tasks. Many of those species are difficult to account for ( insects , nematodes, plants ).

For accounting purposes we should stick to vertebrates, which are way easier to keep track of.

"Although 875 extinctions occurring between 1500 and 2009 have been documented by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,[1] the vast majority are undocumented. According to the species-area theory and based on upper-bound estimating, the present rate of extinction may be up to 140,000 species per year"

"Stuart Pimm stated "the current rate of species extinction is about 100 times the natural rate" for plants.[12] Mass extinctions are characterized by the loss of at least 75% of species within a geologically short period of time."

Holocene extinction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So , there you have the sources, now I would very much like to have any links from your part prooving that we humans are NOT the cause for a mass extinction event.

I hate to break it to you but using wiki as your source is less than compelling. What's funny is even they can't agree on if it is happening, and this is a propaganda piece. You really need to do better than this.

Do you have any references showing the oposite : current extinction level is business as usual ?
You are currently supporting your statements with thin air, unless you are a biologist by trade , in whose case I would assume you've written one or two papers about the topic.

No. I am supporting my position based on the fact that YOUR people can't provide one iota of factual data to support what they say. In science the people making the claim MUST prove it. It is impossible to prove a negative. Or didn't you know that?

Not acceptable.
I agree there's quite a debate amongst the scientific community about whether or not weather warming is caused by human activity and the role of CO2, but you will not find any scientific claiming human triggered extinction is a hoax. No sir.

"It is not imposible to proove a negative", that's inaccurate . It is imposible to prove a universal negative .

Proove the world is NOT flat : cakewalk.
Prove there are NO pink elephants : hard as hell because you have to sample every existing elephant.

Many species are too small to be counted efectively so , I would rather reduce the discussion to vertebrates which are easier to count.
So here it goes :vertebrates populations declining by 30% in 40 years.

"The Evolution Lost report, published in the journal Science by more than 100 of the world's leading zoologists and botanists, found that populations of mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian and fish species had declined by an average of 30% in the past 40 years."

"Future extinctions risks are projected to be high, but the biodiversity crisis is much more than extinctions,"

One-fifth of world's back-boned animals face extinction, study warns

 

[westwall]

Any actual data to back that up? Of course not. More unfounded, unsupportable garbage... Clearly you hold your position as a result of politics....nothing whatsoever to do with science led you to where you are now.

That was just figuritative: Yes, many species are discovered, because the exploration of plant and animal species is not finished and is a continuous tasks. Many of those species are difficult to account for ( insects , nematodes, plants ).

For accounting purposes we should stick to vertebrates, which are way easier to keep track of.

"Although 875 extinctions occurring between 1500 and 2009 have been documented by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,[1] the vast majority are undocumented. According to the species-area theory and based on upper-bound estimating, the present rate of extinction may be up to 140,000 species per year"

"Stuart Pimm stated "the current rate of species extinction is about 100 times the natural rate" for plants.[12] Mass extinctions are characterized by the loss of at least 75% of species within a geologically short period of time."

Holocene extinction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So , there you have the sources, now I would very much like to have any links from your part prooving that we humans are NOT the cause for a mass extinction event.

I hate to break it to you but using wiki as your source is less than compelling. What's funny is even they can't agree on if it is happening, and this is a propaganda piece. You really need to do better than this.

Do you have any references showing the oposite : current extinction level is business as usual ?
You are currently supporting your statements with thin air, unless you are a biologist by trade , in whose case I would assume you've written one or two papers about the topic.

No. I am supporting my position based on the fact that YOUR people can't provide one iota of factual data to support what they say. In science the people making the claim MUST prove it. It is impossible to prove a negative. Or didn't you know that?

Not acceptable.
I agree there's quite a debate amongst the scientific community about whether or not weather warming is caused by human activity and the role of CO2, but you will not find any scientific claiming human triggered extinction is a hoax. No sir.

"It is not imposible to proove a negative", that's inaccurate . It is imposible to prove a universal negative .

Proove the world is NOT flat : cakewalk.
Prove there are NO pink elephants : hard as hell because you have to sample every existing elephant.

Many species are too small to be counted efectively so , I would rather reduce the discussion to vertebrates which are easier to count.
So here it goes :vertebrates populations declining by 30% in 40 years.

"The Evolution Lost report, published in the journal Science by more than 100 of the world's leading zoologists and botanists, found that populations of mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian and fish species had declined by an average of 30% in the past 40 years."

"Future extinctions risks are projected to be high, but the biodiversity crisis is much more than extinctions,"

One-fifth of world's back-boned animals face extinction, study warns

Did you even bother to look at the cause? I highlighted it for you....

"A separate study coordinated by the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew suggested that just over one-fifth of plant species are threatened – mostly in the tropics – due to man-made habitat loss. But the extent of the risk remains unclear.

 

[Crick]

That does nothing but support his contention. Where is your evidence that extinction rates are at normal levels?

 

[SSDD]

That does nothing but support his contention. Where is your evidence that extinction rates are at normal levels?

Where are the bodies that would prove that extinction rates are above normal? For all the claims of mass extinctions, those making the claims don't seem to have many corpses...as usual, all they have are computer models which people are suppose to accept with the same faith as they would with actual corpses? Sorry....again, the opposite of skeptical is gullible and you certainly aren't skeptical.

 

[SSDD]

Do you have any references showing the oposite : current extinction level is business as usual ?
You are currently supporting your statements with thin air, unless you are a biologist by trade , in whose case I would assume you've written one or two papers about the topic.

All you seem to have are computer models...where are the bodies...can you provide any actual, observed proof that extinction is happening at the rate you claim?

 

[Crick]

Duck and dodge like a fucking PRO!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Mann's tree ring says the extinction rates are Super High!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Did you see the data from OCO? It was quite clear that the equatorial rain forests are net sources of CO2...not the CO2 sink that you seem to believe that they are.

Does it ?
You should include the article associated with the map and not just the map and draw your own skewed conclusions from it.
"It shows hotspots of carbon dioxide over northern Australia, southern Africa and eastern Brazil.
These carbon spikes could be explained by agricultural fires and land clearing — practices that are widespread during spring in the Southern Hemisphere, OCO-2 scientists said."
If you watch the video, you will find they say the map is the average of 5 weeks of data, so that particular map does not tell the whole story.

NASA Satellite's 1st CO2 Maps of Earth Revealed

It tells 5 weeks of the story, the next 5 weeks shows the concentration are high above the Arctic Circle-- then NASA goes dark

You might not like that burning the rain forests is the main causes CO2, but that's just tough on you

You not liking a data set does not negate it

 

[SSDD]

Duck and dodge like a fucking PRO!

Sorry guy, I am afraid that it is you and yours who are ducking and dodging....We asked to see the bodies...or some observational evidence of a mass extinction....none will be forthcoming...why, because like the empirical evidence proving that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming, it does not exist...it is entirely the product of computer models...models which, by the way, are based on unproven assumptions.

 

[Crick]

You ask to see the bodies and claim that's from your need for empirical data?. Are you actually that stupid?

 

[SSDD]

You ask to see the bodies and claim that's from your need for empirical data?. Are you actually that stupid?

You claim a mass extinction is happening...wiping out tens of thousands of species but you can't even name 50...and yet you apparently believe the claim....are you actually that stupid? Let me answer...of course you are.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You ask to see the bodies and claim that's from your need for empirical data?. Are you actually that stupid?

You claim a mass extinction is happening...wiping out tens of thousands of species but you can't even name 50...and yet you apparently believe the claim....are you actually that stupid? Let me answer...of course you are.

"About 8.7 million (give or take 1.3 million) is the new, estimated total number of species on Earth -- the most precise calculation ever offered -- with 6.5 million species on land and 2.2 million in oceans"

Google

But for global climate warming change, there's be BEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelions of species; I know it, the models confirm it

 

[Billy_Bob]

You ask to see the bodies and claim that's from your need for empirical data?. Are you actually that stupid?

Are you actually that naive? You believe fantasy models and when you are asked for real proof you have NONE!

That lack of empirical evidence is called NOT HAVING SCIENCE to back up your claims! Computer models are SWAG (WILD ASS GUESSes - with very little science)

 

[westwall]

That does nothing but support his contention. Where is your evidence that extinction rates are at normal levels?

The claim is that AGW is causing the dying. That is unsupported by ANY empirical data. Whenever the cause of a particular critters stress is looked at it is NEVER AGW related, it is invariably habitat loss. Habitat loss COULD be controlled if you assholes weren't stealing all of the money that could be otherwise used for habitat preservation. Instead, your corporate masters want the peoples money, the politicians want the power that comes with the laws they get to pass and the environment continues to suffer because you assholes don't care about the environment. It is merely a tool that you use for political gain.

 

[westwall]

Duck and dodge like a fucking PRO!

No. You have made the claim. If there was a mass extinction going on there would be corpses littering the globe. The fact that there aren't says that the idea we are in a global holocaust is ridiculous.

 

[westwall]

You ask to see the bodies and claim that's from your need for empirical data?. Are you actually that stupid?

Are you actually that naive? You believe fantasy models and when you are asked for real proof you have NONE!

That lack of empirical evidence is called NOT HAVING SCIENCE to back up your claims! Computer models are SWAG (WILD ASS GUESSes - with very little science)

He's not naive. Science doesn't matter to him because he's a political operative. Facts don't matter one bit to people like him.

 

[CultureCitizen]

That was just figuritative: Yes, many species are discovered, because the exploration of plant and animal species is not finished and is a continuous tasks. Many of those species are difficult to account for ( insects , nematodes, plants ).

For accounting purposes we should stick to vertebrates, which are way easier to keep track of.

"Although 875 extinctions occurring between 1500 and 2009 have been documented by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,[1] the vast majority are undocumented. According to the species-area theory and based on upper-bound estimating, the present rate of extinction may be up to 140,000 species per year"

"Stuart Pimm stated "the current rate of species extinction is about 100 times the natural rate" for plants.[12] Mass extinctions are characterized by the loss of at least 75% of species within a geologically short period of time."

Holocene extinction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So , there you have the sources, now I would very much like to have any links from your part prooving that we humans are NOT the cause for a mass extinction event.

I hate to break it to you but using wiki as your source is less than compelling. What's funny is even they can't agree on if it is happening, and this is a propaganda piece. You really need to do better than this.

Do you have any references showing the oposite : current extinction level is business as usual ?
You are currently supporting your statements with thin air, unless you are a biologist by trade , in whose case I would assume you've written one or two papers about the topic.

No. I am supporting my position based on the fact that YOUR people can't provide one iota of factual data to support what they say. In science the people making the claim MUST prove it. It is impossible to prove a negative. Or didn't you know that?

Not acceptable.
I agree there's quite a debate amongst the scientific community about whether or not weather warming is caused by human activity and the role of CO2, but you will not find any scientific claiming human triggered extinction is a hoax. No sir.

"It is not imposible to proove a negative", that's inaccurate . It is imposible to prove a universal negative .

Proove the world is NOT flat : cakewalk.
Prove there are NO pink elephants : hard as hell because you have to sample every existing elephant.

Many species are too small to be counted efectively so , I would rather reduce the discussion to vertebrates which are easier to count.
So here it goes :vertebrates populations declining by 30% in 40 years.

"The Evolution Lost report, published in the journal Science by more than 100 of the world's leading zoologists and botanists, found that populations of mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian and fish species had declined by an average of 30% in the past 40 years."

"Future extinctions risks are projected to be high, but the biodiversity crisis is much more than extinctions,"

One-fifth of world's back-boned animals face extinction, study warns

Did you even bother to look at the cause? I highlighted it for you....

"A separate study coordinated by the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew suggested that just over one-fifth of plant species are threatened – mostly in the tropics – due to man-made habitat loss. But the extent of the risk remains unclear.

As far as I can recall we were not debating the cause, rather the effects of human activity.
I fail to see your point . Can you ellaborate ?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Did you see the data from OCO? It was quite clear that the equatorial rain forests are net sources of CO2...not the CO2 sink that you seem to believe that they are.

Does it ?
You should include the article associated with the map and not just the map and draw your own skewed conclusions from it.
"It shows hotspots of carbon dioxide over northern Australia, southern Africa and eastern Brazil.
These carbon spikes could be explained by agricultural fires and land clearing — practices that are widespread during spring in the Southern Hemisphere, OCO-2 scientists said."
If you watch the video, you will find they say the map is the average of 5 weeks of data, so that particular map does not tell the whole story.

NASA Satellite's 1st CO2 Maps of Earth Revealed

It tells 5 weeks of the story, the next 5 weeks shows the concentration are high above the Arctic Circle-- then NASA goes dark

You might not like that burning the rain forests is the main causes CO2, but that's just tough on you

You not liking a data set does not negate it

"These carbon spikes could be explained by agricultural fires and land clearing — practices that are widespread during spring in the Southern Hemisphere, OCO-2 scientists said."

It is not the rain forest causing CO2 but human activity.
Do you have reading comprehension problems Frank ?

 

[SSDD]

As far as I can recall we were not debating the cause, rather the effects of human activity.
I fail to see your point . Can you ellaborate ?

Because there are real problems facing us....pollution, deforestation....land misuse....problems that we could address and probably make headway towards correcting...but nothing can get done because the AGW hoax is sucking all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers....they are talking about over a trillion dollars in taxes and fees that may, assuming the AGW hypothesis is correct (and I don't believe it for a second) make a fraction of a degree difference per century....the cost to benefit ration makes it a losing proposition....all that money put towards things that might actually make a difference makes far more sense don't you think?

 

[CultureCitizen]

As far as I can recall we were not debating the cause, rather the effects of human activity.
I fail to see your point . Can you ellaborate ?

Because there are real problems facing us....pollution, deforestation....land misuse....problems that we could address and probably make headway towards correcting...but nothing can get done because the AGW hoax is sucking all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers....they are talking about over a trillion dollars in taxes and fees that may, assuming the AGW hypothesis is correct (and I don't believe it for a second) make a fraction of a degree difference per century....the cost to benefit ration makes it a losing proposition....all that money put towards things that might actually make a difference makes far more sense don't you think?

Sory , you are preaching to the wrong guy , I had already agreed on the fact that these problems have to be addressed and we should wait until we have more conclusive data on the co2 problem (I arbitrarily set the date to 2020) before taking any taxing measures.

That said , I see no harm in going green on individual level : using a solar heater or solar cell in your roof, and using a fuel efficient car, and going vegan or reducing meat consumption as an individual choice ( probably a healthy choice if you are eating a pound of meat per day).