Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Thaluikhain]

I believe this mindset is what allows people to sleep at night. And who am I to suggest that robbing the vulnerable (anyone smaller than me) should lead to a teeny tiny bit of the old insomnia?

Of course, it means if people do manage to cross the border, we should go after border patrols, not the people crossing.

 

[Baffle]

Of course, it means if people do manage to cross the border, we should go after border patrols, not the people crossing.

One might suggest some sort of defunding option, as a punishment.

 

[Ag3ma]

You, like Silvanus, have a serious misunderstanding of how quickly the world can change. It doesn't take millions of years for everything to change. The variations in people and domesticated animals across the globe are from the last few millenia. The food you eat didn't exist in the form it is now a few centuries ago. Huge swaths of nature are being challanged by "invasive species", with whole ecosystems being overturned within a decades. Nature does not move slowly.

Sure, nature does not move slowly in the sense that if you introduce rats and cats to New Zealand where before it had none, they overrun it very quickly and make a load of the native bird species near-extinct. Secondly, the fact you are relying on human alterations of the world around them is a little bit iffy to defend concept of "nature" moving quickly.

However, nature moves extraordinarily slowly in other ways. Selective breeding of crop plants and domesticated animals, and much human diversity has indeed occurred relatively quickly. But these are in many ways minor differences. For instance, natives of northern Europe have no problems interbreeding with natives of China or Angola. Dogs can successfully mate with the grey wolves they descended from.

If we wipe out half the world's species, nature won't produce the same level of biodiversity again until a period of time that is orders of magnitude greater than human written history.

 

[Silvanus]

That's actually the pattern, Silvanus. Glacial periods set in slowly for long periods of ice, then the globe heats rapidly back towards thaw. The term is Dansgaard Oeschger events. When the most recent glacial period receded, the temperature in Greenland is estimated to have spiked 8 degrees C over just 40 years.

That describes interglacials within an ice age, but our best understanding of ice ages on the full geological time scale have a similar pattern of slow cooling periods descending into ice ages and relatively rapid heating periods ending them.

The temperature within Greenland ice cores showed that magnitude of change, not Greenland necessarily. D-O events are not shown to have driven a corresponding shift in global mean temperatures. You're dramatically overstating the conclusions the researchers found.

Not to mention the fact they haven't taken place in well over 10,000 years, and you're comparing them with an entirely artificial phenomenon. Why does it even matter to our man-made climate change whether or not the climate also changed quite quickly 11,000 years ago? Wildfires occasionally happen naturally, too; is this an argument to allow arsonists to devastate the Amazon?

You, like Silvanus, have a serious misunderstanding of how quickly the world can change. It doesn't take millions of years for everything to change. The variations in people and domesticated animals across the globe are from the last few millenia.

Dude, those are the changes in distribution and variety of humanity and the species that we are largely controlling. Species extinction and ecosystem collapse outside of that are at a monumental high. Are you solely concerned about species that you can directly benefit from? Is there no wider consideration for life on earth for you? Not to mention how you're pointing to human variation that took well over a thousand years to show how we can deal with a change wrought in less than 2 centuries-- with a population many times the size.

The fact is that while you bleat about how we have "serious misunderstanding", the fluff you're peddling is directly at odds with the dire warnings of climateologists.

---

Edit:

Ice cores and climate change - British Antarctic Survey

Introduction Ice cores are cylinders of ice drilled out of an ice sheet or glacier. Most ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland, and the longest ice cores extend …

www.bas.ac.uk

Measurements from older ice cores (discussed below) confirm that both the magnitude and rate of the recent increase [in CO2] are almost certainly unprecedented over the last 800,000 years (Fig. 2). The fastest natural increase measured in older ice cores is around 15ppm (parts per million) over about 200 years. For comparison, atmospheric CO2 is now rising 15ppm every 6 years.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Are you solely concerned about species that you can directly benefit from? Is there no wider consideration for life on earth for you?

Even if they are, such species are not immune to climatic disasters. The Dustbowl comes to mind.

(Oh, and snide comments about how evolution does work that fast, the X-Men films said so)

 

[tstorm823]

So, you're fine with catastrophic global biodiversity loss and the collapse of all existing ecosystems because you don't see the difference between biodiversity and a bunch of slightly different looking cows?

I would argue the opposite is what's going on: you're offended by biodiversity that's related to humans and refuse to count it.

Think about this one for a second. Where, in this scenario, do you imagine that the energy to heat the oceans (and only the oceans) was coming from?

It takes a lot more energy to heat water than to heat air.

The energy comes from the sun, like always. Your argument works against you. The high air temperatures happen due to the direct impact of the sun, the energy output of which hasn't particularly changed in Earth's history. A bright sunny summer day now is being heated by the same sun as a bright sunny summer day 90 million years ago, all else being equal, that heat is the same. Water takes energy to heat because it holds a lot of heat energy, In large volumes, it stays closer to the annual average temperature of a region because of this. The temperature of the water isn't changing the effects of the sun on a sunny summer day. It can just absorb some of that summer heat and hold onto it in the winter for you, which is exactly what models suggest the cretaceous period had happen: melted poles, less temperature variation by latitude, and higher minimum temperatures.

If we wipe out half the world's species, nature won't produce the same level of biodiversity again until a period of time that is orders of magnitude greater than human written history.

Maybe, but that's by relatively arbitrary conceptions of "species", and is moot in an argument about the climate changing being some inherent evil. The high temperatures Terminal is talking about are thought to have caused in exceptional explosion of life and diversity in the long run, and were also associated with previously exposed landmasses being flooded by inland seas. There were undoubtedly some species that lost habitats and died in that process, but it would be insanely silly to suggest it would be better if it hadn't happened and the Earth just kept slowly cooling forever.

Not to mention the fact they haven't taken place in well over 10,000 years, and you're comparing them with an entirely artificial phenomenon. Why does it even matter to our man-made climate change whether or not the climate also changed quite quickly 11,000 years ago? Wildfires occasionally happen naturally, too; is this an argument to allow arsonists to devastate the Amazon?

Why does it matter if it's man-made? Do you just consider humanity an inherent evil, and the idea of it being done by people makes it bad?

Controlled burns are a legitimate form of environmental preservation. I worked for a bit with an environmental group that was working on creating habitat for the regal fritillary butterfly. We did so by stopping trees from growing in an open meadow, and burning them down was a consideration. The regal fritillary used to have a much bigger habitat, but in specifically Pennsylvania, it lost its habitat, because it lives in prairies, and humans have done such a good job stopping forest fires, there is almost no prairie left in the state for it to live. It's not overdevelopment, 60% of Pennsylvania is forest, that's like a forest the size of the entirety of Ireland. It's cause the butterflies used to live where the forest had died, and now we keep it alive. Their biggest habitat in the state is an army base where they cleared the land for (and by) things like artillery training.

Is it bad that those butterflies have a habitat that is completely man-made? They'd be locally extinct without it.

 

[Silvanus]

Why does it matter if it's man-made? Do you just consider humanity an inherent evil, and the idea of it being done by people makes it bad?

It being man-made-- and the fact we have identified the mechanism by which it happens-- means we have the ability to mitigate it by changing our own behaviour.

This is like arguing that an active shooter is under no moral obligation to put down his gun, because sometimes people get injured without getting shot, and humans aren't inherently evil.

Controlled burns are a legitimate form of environmental preservation.

worked for a bit with an environmental group that was working on creating habitat for the regal fritillary butterfly. We did so by stopping trees from growing in an open meadow, and burning them down was a consideration. The regal fritillary used to have a much bigger habitat, but in specifically Pennsylvania, it lost its habitat, because it lives in prairies, and humans have done such a good job stopping forest fires, there is almost no prairie left in the state for it to live. It's not overdevelopment, 60% of Pennsylvania is forest, that's like a forest the size of the entirety of Ireland. It's cause the butterflies used to live where the forest had died, and now we keep it alive. Their biggest habitat in the state is an army base where they cleared the land for (and by) things like artillery training.

Is it bad that those butterflies have a habitat that is completely man-made? They'd be locally extinct without it.

Equating controlled burns with devastating wildfires is a line of argument that's so incredibly foolish, the fact you've stooped to it at all suggests you know you're on nonexistent ground.

 

[Ag3ma]

Maybe, but that's by relatively arbitrary conceptions of "species",

I think this is the kind of thing said by someone who knows very little about the topic he's discussing.

and is moot in an argument about the climate changing being some inherent evil. The high temperatures Terminal is talking about are thought to have caused in exceptional explosion of life and diversity in the long run, and were also associated with previously exposed landmasses being flooded by inland seas. There were undoubtedly some species that lost habitats and died in that process, but it would be insanely silly to suggest it would be better if it hadn't happened and the Earth just kept slowly cooling forever.

Right. So what happens is that if conditions remain largely stable, or change slowly, things generally have time to adapt through evolution. The point of an extinction event is that the environment changes rapidly, too rapidly for species to adapt, so they die out. Then, over time with stability, the diversity expands back out again. It's not a factor of "heat", it's a factor of rapid change in any key factor. The last major extinction event wasn't the last ice age, it was 65 million years ago.

And what on earth you're talking about with "slowly cooling forever", I refer you to my sentence above about seeming to know little about the topic.

The obvious problem with rapid change is that rapid environmental alteration is the results are potentially... very bad. For humans, never mind anything else. Likely impacts are severe disruption to areas, particularly food-producing regions, which cannot be readily replaced with development of new land. This will result in regions experiencing loss of habitability, scarcity, economic damage, thus leading to potentially conflict and mass migration which will spread chaos far wider.

I'd love to say the world might pull together in a big humanitarian effort, but then I've also seen all the right-wing rhetoric and it's not big on international humanitarianism.

 

[Silvanus]

I think this is the kind of thing said by someone who knows very little about the topic he's discussing.



Right. So what happens is that if conditions remain largely stable, or change slowly, things generally have time to adapt through evolution. The point of an extinction event is that the environment changes rapidly, too rapidly for species to adapt, so they die out. Then, over time with stability, the diversity expands back out again. It's not a factor of "heat", it's a factor of rapid change in any key factor. The last major extinction event wasn't the last ice age, it was 65 million years ago.

And what on earth you're talking about with "slowly cooling forever", I refer you to my sentence above about seeming to know little about the topic.

The obvious problem with rapid change is that rapid environmental alteration is the results are potentially... very bad. For humans, never mind anything else. Likely impacts are severe disruption to areas, particularly food-producing regions, which cannot be readily replaced with development of new land. This will result in regions experiencing loss of habitability, scarcity, economic damage, thus leading to potentially conflict and mass migration which will spread chaos far wider.

I'd love to say the world might pull together in a big humanitarian effort, but then I've also seen all the right-wing rhetoric and it's not big on international humanitarianism.

We don't even need to predict future devastation to comprehensively debunk the farcical idea that climate change is beneficial to life on earth -- there's also been no adequate addressing of the undisputed fact that species are going extinct-- and ecosystems collapsing-- at a very high pace, directly linked to climate change, right now. The effects are already extant, known, and demonstrable. And they're godawful.

 

[Baffle]

Elon Musk is going to save us by providing everyone with personal submarines we didn't ask for, on the proviso that he's allowed to call everyone a paedophile if they don't laugh at his ungodly shit jokes.

 

[Ag3ma]

We don't even need to predict future devastation to comprehensively debunk the farcical idea that climate change is beneficial to life on earth -- there's also been no adequate addressing of the undisputed fact that species are going extinct-- and ecosystems collapsing-- at a very high pace, directly linked to climate change, right now. The effects are already extant, known, and demonstrable. And they're godawful.

Tstorm's argument seems to me to have an element of "Even if we wreck the environment, life will continue". This akin to arguing that if the Earth is obliterated by massive impact and shatters into an asteroid belt, then no big deal, the galaxy will merrily continue along its stately way.

It's not exactly looking at what might be really important to people.

 

[tstorm823]

It being man-made-- and the fact we have identified the mechanism by which it happens-- means we have the ability to mitigate it by changing our own behaviour.

I'm not saying we shouldn't, but you see it as damage mitigation, where I see it as opportunity. Man-made climate change is like baby's first steps to global environmental stewardship. A toddler walking can cause extra trouble, but you still see it as a good thing in the long run.

I'd love to say the world might pull together in a big humanitarian effort, but then I've also seen all the right-wing rhetoric and it's not big on international humanitarianism.

This is just the thought process of a cynical pessimist. You don't have more knowledge than me on this, you just have no hope. There's is where my rant about actual progressivism comes in; how can one even think of making the world better while believing humanity incapable of even just not destroying itself?

 

[Silvanus]

I'm not saying we shouldn't, but you see it as damage mitigation, where I see it as opportunity. Man-made climate change is like baby's first steps to global environmental stewardship. A toddler walking can cause extra trouble, but you still see it as a good thing in the long run.

"Stewardship" implies protective, benign control. As has already been pointed out numerous times, anthropogenic climate change is anything but that. The effects are mass extinction, colossal suffering, ecosystem collapse.

A toddler's steps are seen as promising because they indicate the toddler is learning. But responses like yours indicate that humankind is generally failing to learn from climate change. This is more akin to a toddler learning to walk, and accidentally colliding its head with the table, and the parent concluding that head injuries are beneficial.

This is just the thought process of a cynical pessimist. You don't have more knowledge than me on this, you just have no hope.

By equating controlled burns with wildfires, human variation over >2,000 years with forced displacement over <200 years, and shifts in ice core temperature 11,000 years ago with global rises in temperature now, you've shown quite handily that you have almost no grasp on how to approach the data available to you, and a cuckoolander's understanding of climateology and its effects.

 

[Ag3ma]

This is just the thought process of a cynical pessimist.

It's the thought process of seeing how a lot of people behave and act. Whose own country pulled itself out of a mutually beneficial trade union with its closest partners because of a mindset I think probably best summarised as "screw foreigners", whilst over the pond an authoritarian president was elected on xenophobia and wall-building and only lost the next election because he was also a chaotic, corrupt windbag.

India, for instance, continues to mine low grade coal and fill power stations with it, even as it's own people choke. On its border, Bangladesh is the most flood-threatened country in the world, and India's current leaders have already said no Bangladeshis are welcome, presumably even if the whole country goes underwater.

I don't think it's all over - there's a lot of goodwill out there too, and even in terms of naked cynicism, some people may be wise enough to realise their profit and advantage is in not letting others go under. But when the chips are down, it's not going to be easy to say whether people reach out and pull together or whether they start pulling up the drawbridges and hoping everyone else dies most / first.

I am confident in saying the current right wing are the latter, and if those types are dominant in crisis points, they'll try to hold on to everything they have in the hope others burn. I'm showing my optimism and working for a better world every time I vote against them.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Sigh.

We could go slowly with that (kurzgesagt is good at balanced vulgarization).


Or we could go with recent assesments.

More than 800m Amazon trees felled in six years to meet beef demand

Investigation involving Guardian shows systematic and vast forest loss linked to cattle farming in Brazil

www.theguardian.com

But it's pointless, isn't it. It's just a matter of sides, for you. Just like for gun violence, where you and your gang have decided that, by definition, any solution involving gun control would be (absolutely has to be) pointless, it's simply : You like beef, therefore beef is not an issue. Libs criticize beef overproduction, therefore beef is not an issue. From the conclusion up.

But no matter how baffling it is for the conservative mindset, there are people who like meat (who may even prefer meat over other food components), and YET, OMG, have the honesty to face the related issues. Some people accept that sometimes scientific realities don't go the most convenient way. Not everybody filter out realities based on personal comfort or profit.

But yeah, enough people do for this planet to be utterly fucked. And it's all the more pathetic to behold that those who do, those who profit from denial, those who have motives to cheat with reality, seek motives to attribute to others. Profit and short-term comfort is blatantly on the side of pollution and careless consumption, so reservations and scientific warnings must be driven by... hmmm... foreign-driven sabotage, self-loathing, anti-profit spite, agendas-for-the-sake-of-agendas...

Anyway, there are many forumers in here that are way more patient than me in front of collectively-cemented, self-serving, partisan bad faith. They probably believe that it can be overcome with data and arguments. That's not how it works. As long as there's something to gain in ignorance and denial, the subculture of navel-gazing will dismiss any global perspective. Yeah, go you. All is fine. Don't let the spoilsports rain on your parade(s). They are just meanies who detest freedom and happiness.

Beef is not an issue in the UNITED STATES (maybe a rather minor issue but nothing to get up in arms about). I actually don't have much preference to beef vs other meats, though I will kill you if you try to take my cheese . A friend made tacos for us board gamers a couple weeks back and used ground turkey instead of ground beef and I literally couldn't care less. I do prefer meat over other food components because they are the healthiest and most nutritious food component you can eat. I don't even know what your argument is because I don't even like guns (don't own one, probably never will), but doing stuff that helps lower crime will lower gun violence much more than more guns laws and the stuff that lowers crime will overall just make communities better as well; bigger picture vs small picture. For example, switching to nuclear energy will be far far far far far far more helpful to the environment than whatever extremely minor effects of going after cows will yield.

Sure, so there were an estimated 45 million buffalo in North America. Extrapolating out, if the density of cows / buffalo / etc.were the same globally that would be about 250 million. Except of course there would be significantly fewer, because large tracts of the globe were not reasonably habitable by such creatures, or at least at nothing like the same density.

Now to put this into context, there are currently an estimated 1-1.5 billion cows in the world.

The reason that you are wrong to think a similar number of cows (or equivalent) existed in times past is that you have failed to consider modern agriculture, which allows vastly increased production of foodstuffs... for livestock as well as humans. In fact, it's estimated that over a third of all the crops grown by humankind are fed to livestock. Obviously, we grow calorie-intensive plants to a far greater degree than they ever existed in the wild. Secondly, part of agriculture is that we protect them from predation, sickness, etc. These factors mean that they exist in numbers vastly greater than they would have done in an era when our descendants were hunter-gatherers.

Simply tell me what the GHG emissions of animals were before human interventions and now. It's just not cattle, deer for example release more methane (pound for pound) than cattle. The point that cows account for 15% of GHG emissions is basically a pointless metric because it has no context. With the same type of metrics, you can say humans population growth is a massive issue in GHG emissions as well. You're gonna have to tell me how much GHG is being produced from animals (including humans obviously) today vs say 1,000 years ago and how much the environment can take in/repurpose. Give me that metric (is there a surplus and how big is said surplus if there is one) and that is actually useful.

"But with" random numbers means "but without" self-evaluation.

Self evaluation was a core part of the original study.

So without it, the study was not replicated. With me? Saying it was "replicated but with random numbers" is like saying a triathlon was replicated but with trees. The substitution has made it literally impossible.



I think you are an extremely compelling example.

Do you not understand how re-doing a study with random numbers means for the validity of a study like Dunning-Kruger is? If something is a HUMAN bias and we find the same bias with random numbers, it's not a human bias...

While I hate how the far right has a field day with it I will concede that the ''Cleopatra was secretly black despite coming from a Greek colonial dynasty that almost exclusively procreated by inbreeding'' is indeed a funny event of the woke world.

Its also a self defeating move when you do a series about African queens. Because if you almost immediately resort to depicting Greek colonialists as quintessential black African icons you give the impression you don't have enough African rulers to work with. And that's just not true. The Ethiopian queen who resisted Italian colonialism for instance sounds very fascinating.

But making it such a big deal after almost two thousand years of norwegian jesus is ridiculous.

Jesus is a fictional character though.

Is Phoeniximgs contractually obliged to be totally wrong about everything all the time, or is it a hobby?

Not much proof from you guys on most things here. I ask for data for things and no one provides it. And then a place like Cochrane (the gold standard) comes out with their mask review and says there's no proof masks do anything. But yeah, you guys on a gaming forum are right and Cochrane is wrong, whatever ya'll wanna believe. Do you think Tamiflu also works because literally the same guy from Cochrane analyzed the data and found Tamiflu doesn't work?

It's normal for a person to be sucked into one conspiracy to fall for a bunch of other conspiracies

You do realize in today's world, conspiracies usually have about 6 months until they are actually facts.

Elephants have digestive systems similar to our own, where whatever they eat goes straight into their single stomach, gets digested, and then whatever is left moves into the intestine.

Cattle, again, are ruminants. They have multiple stomach compartments, two of which are used to ferment plant matter before digesting it. This is how they are able to digest grass, which most animals can't. Again, the problem is not animals farting, it is cattle specifically burping out the methane produced in their pre-digestion process.

45 million buffalo is certainly a lot, but it is still less than half the number of cattle in the US today. Those cattle are almost all factory farmed, meaning very few of them are eating grass. Instead they are primarily being fed grain, which produces a lot more methane. Industrial farming also means industrial quantities of shit, which becomes harder to dispose of. A lot of it ends up dumped in artificial lakes, where it continues to give off methane and can poison groundwater.

Ruminants have always produced methane. Many natural processes in the world produce significant quantities of methane. The problem is that human action is producing far more methane at a time when the climate is already warming due to CO2. We can't do very much about the warming from CO2 except wait a few centuries. Methane is far more immediate in its effects, and thus may make a significant difference to the ability to humans to adapt to climate change in the next few decades.



According to the White House Office of domestic climate policy, Enteric Fermentation (the digestive process of ruminants) accounts for 27% of methane emissions in the US. Manure management accounts for another 10%. This makes the total methane emissions from livestock around the same as the total amount released by the fossil fuel industry.

Methane does make up a relatively small proportion of total greenhouse gas emissions in the US by volume, but again. It is vastly, vastly more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2, which makes up the vast majority of emissions by volume. Thus, its impact on the global temperature is proportionally very high (according to the international energy association, 30% of the rise in global temperatures since the industrial revolution is due to increased production of methane).

Again, I really cannot stress this enough. If fusion power was invented tomorrow and everyone completely stopped burning fossil fuels, the climate would continue to deteriorate. We are kind of locked in, at this point, when it comes to carbon. In terms of action we can take to minimize human deaths within the next few decades, cutting methane emissions would be far, far more productive.

Why are you going into stomach dynamics and such? Deer (which I doubt have a cow's digestive system) emit more methane (pound for pound) than a cow.

Grass-fed cows emit more methane.

Grain-Fed Beef vs. Grass-Fed Beef – Greenhouse Gas Emissions | New Zealand Meats

I'm willing to guess that number is from EVERYTHING that goes into beef and diary production like the original number from Livestock's Long Shadow that was beyond ridiculous and was later changed.

 

[Ag3ma]

Simply tell me what the GHG emissions of animals were before human interventions and now. It's just not cattle, deer for example release more methane (pound for pound) than cattle. The point that cows account for 15% of GHG emissions is basically a pointless metric because it has no context. With the same type of metrics, you can say humans population growth is a massive issue in GHG emissions as well. You're gonna have to tell me how much GHG is being produced from animals (including humans obviously) today vs say 1,000 years ago and how much the environment can take in/repurpose. Give me that metric (is there a surplus and how big is said surplus if there is one) and that is actually useful.

See below graphs.

The first would strongly suggest global methane was roughly constant until about 1800. The second shows the increase in production of methane by humanity since 1860, which is around a fivefold increase; livestock emissions roughly three- to fourfold. This manmade production almost certainly accounts for the majority if not pretty much all of the increase in total global methane since 1800, although general warming processes may also contribute (for instance by releasing methane trapped in land that was previously frozen.)

Without doing much precise number crunching, putting these together would very, very strongly suggest that methane emissions from animals have increased heavily since 1800 (or 0 A.D. when man's impact on the overall animal population of the world was probably negligible). Either way, livestock farming is a major contributor to high global methane production.

Also, who knew rice farming was so bad?

 

[Silvanus]

Do you not understand how re-doing a study with random numbers means for the validity of a study like Dunning-Kruger is? If something is a HUMAN bias and we find the same bias with random numbers, it's not a human bias...

Yes, but that didn't happen.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Sure, nature does not move slowly in the sense that if you introduce rats and cats to New Zealand where before it had none, they overrun it very quickly and make a load of the native bird species near-extinct. Secondly, the fact you are relying on human alterations of the world around them is a little bit iffy to defend concept of "nature" moving quickly.

Far be it for me to point out we're comparing events in Earth's history like "hungry bacteria turned the Earth into a giant snowball", "continent-sized lava flows blocking direct sunlight and turning the oceans into anoxic acid", and "a meteor the size of downtown Manhattan", to..."barely a century of human industrial activity".

 

[tstorm823]

"Stewardship" implies protective, benign control. As has already been pointed out numerous times, anthropogenic climate change is anything but that. The effects are mass extinction, colossal suffering, ecosystem collapse.

A toddler's steps are seen as promising because they indicate the toddler is learning. But responses like yours indicate that humankind is generally failing to learn from climate change. This is more akin to a toddler learning to walk, and accidentally colliding its head with the table, and the parent concluding that head injuries are beneficial.

By equating controlled burns with wildfires, human variation over >2,000 years with forced displacement over <200 years, and shifts in ice core temperature 11,000 years ago with global rises in temperature now, you've shown quite handily that you have almost no grasp on how to approach the data available to you, and a cuckoolander's understanding of climateology and its effects.

You can point all you want at your own silly opinions, they aren't getting any more convincing. Every time you disagreed, I presented evidence that you don't know what you're talking about in the slightest, while you repeatedly said the opposite of the facts you claim I don't understand.

We agree the climate is changing, and on average the Earth is warming. We agree that the best way forward is to embrace largescale changes in behavior that would control or counteract those effects. As best as I can tell, the only practical issue you have with what I'm saying is that it doesn't contain sufficient fear and loathing.

I'm showing my optimism and working for a better world every time I vote against them.

There's a lot more in your response than just this snip about to be covered by the next sentence. It sounds very much like your priority is only political resentment, and climate change is more a rationalization for that in your mind than it is an actual priority. The hope for a better world is not any of the amazing technologies being developed that will make a literally more manageable globe for humans to inhabit, it's voting against the right.

 

[Silvanus]

You can point all you want at your own silly opinions, they aren't getting any more convincing. Every time you disagreed, I presented evidence that you don't know what you're talking about in the slightest, while you repeatedly said the opposite of the facts you claim I don't understand.

You haven't done that in the slightest; this is delusional self-aggrandisement. Not once have you addressed the fact that species extinction and ecosystem collapse are already at a massive high as a direct result of climate change. Your feeble, nonsensical counterargument to that was... to point to human and domesticated animal variation over the last 1000+ years as proof we're adaptable (!?), and then completely ignore the question about whether we have any responsibility to avoid driving all the others to extinction.

Elsewhere you pointed at D-O events, and lauded the 8 degree rise, while completely ignoring the facts presented in response that make clear the image isn't so rosy: that it didn't accompany a corresponding rise in global mean temp, and that the levels of released Co2 has experienced a rise unprecedented in 800,000 years.

We agree the climate is changing, and on average the Earth is warming. We agree that the best way forward is to embrace largescale changes in behavior that would control or counteract those effects. As best as I can tell, the only practical issue you have with what I'm saying is that it doesn't contain sufficient fear and loathing.

...because this isn't primarily a discussion about practicalities. We're discussing climatology, not policy.

"Silly opinions", says someone flying utterly in the face of the overwhelming consensus of the climatology community. Give me a break, because your grasp of the topics thus far has genuinely been embarrassingly poor (equating wildfires with controlled burns being a particular low point).