Are climate doomsayers being selective in their reasoning?

When it comes to climate change and the harm to species there is an obvious correlation between environmental changes and the effects on various life forms and I couldn't help noticing that while the Earth warms, certain species decline while others rise to take their place.

Certain species of birds or insects, sea creatures such as jellyfish and many others have no problems adjusting to a rise in temperature while others will ultimately die out.

It seems to me that many people progressing the notion of climate change being a negative for life on Earth are basing this on their opinion of what species they wish to share the Earth with, not necessarily that all life will suffer from it. It appears that life may actually flourish as the Earth warms and although you may not like jellyfish, grasshoppers, crickets, camels or rattlesnakes, they are indeed animals that will increase as the weather warms up.

Those advocating to keep the temperature low in order for life to prosper seem to be pushing for their preference, not for the good of the Earth.

reply to post by Spookybelle


How about if we just go with the really selfish and safe anthropocentric view and say that it wouldn't be good for the species we care most about, homo sapiens.

reply to post by theantediluvian


If you wish to pursue that avenue than I would ask you, why not?

How would a temperature increase of say 10 degrees annually affect humans? I live in Arizona so that would still leave the majority of the world far cooler than what I experience.

We live just fine in Arizona by the way.

Spookybelle
reply to post by theantediluvian

 

If you wish to pursue that avenue than I would ask you, why not?

How would a temperature increase of say 10 degrees annually affect humans? I live in Arizona so that would still leave the majority of the world far cooler than what I experience.

We live just fine in Arizona by the way.

My wife and I have vacationed in the Bullhead City, AZ/Laughlin, NV area several times in recent years and we love Arizona. I believe the shift in terminology from "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Change" was made to more adequately reflect to scope of change. Here's a few off the top of my head:

1. Droughts & floods
2. Sea level rise
3. Heat waves
4. Ocean acidification
5. Diseases

What can we put in the benefit column for humans?

Well, it's true that some species will flourish in warmer weather but most, the ones we need for food, will die off. I don't especially like eating grasshoppers even though the chocolate covered ones taste pretty good. Earthworms don't taste bad fried. Cleaning the crap out of them before frying them is kind of gross. cut squeeze and slide then rinse. When you have to clean them.....you're not hungry anymore.

reply to post by Spookybelle


Climate change will never sell.

Rebrand it to global pollution control. Show these pictures.

www.chinahush.com...





and watch how fast we get change.

reply to post by Spookybelle


Isn't the reasoning behind keeping a low temp based on keeping the ice from melting, and subsequently flooding us out?

I believe the shift in terminology from "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Change" was made to more adequately reflect to scope of change.

A question: Why do you believe, and not know?

Regarding the change in terminology - it occurred at exactly the point the doomsayers/propagandists realized the reality, namely that predictions made as far back as 1972 are much more likely (that being we will experience a cool period), rather than the myth they are trying to perpetuate about CO2 causing "run-away climate change" (ergo, infinite warming).

For a system to run away it must tend to one value, in this case it must be infinite, otherwise the system is stable or the predictions are in the wrong sign (mathematically), but stability is not what is predicted in the negative version of future version of events (if we believe the BS that is MMGW).

Tucket
reply to post by Spookybelle

 

Isn't the reasoning behind keeping a low temp based on keeping the ice from melting, and subsequently flooding us out?

HA! You really think limiting atmospheric CO2, aka playing God and being greater than nature, will prevent the inevitable?

Do you even know what a history book is? I suggest you find out, and start reading, because in the past, it was much warmer, and sea levels much higher, all with lower atmospheric CO2 than today...

You might be interested to know that today, right now, the Antarctic ice sheet is growing in mass, and it is getting colder on average at the South Pole.

www.washingtonpost.com...
Note carefully the wording used here!!!!

They can't accept the data that is the coldest ever recorded, so they have to start attacking the fact it was measured with the demonstrably more accurate satellites, yet officially not recognized method of monitoring temperature (odd - it is perfectly acceptable for every space mission ever launched to distant planets and we have decades of experience to get it right). Oh no... they have to say that it is the coldest, but officially not, so move along MMGW is real because the official record doesn't officially recognize the unofficial measurements.

You can bet the farm that had the satellites shown any warming, it would be another dire warning of the future climate!

Personally, I'm sick of the blatant cherry-picking of facts. FACT: it is the coldest ever recorded. They are still trying to lie to you. Get over it, and wake up.

edit on 20-12-2013 by mirageofdeceit because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Spookybelle


It is irrelevant what we do to try and battle climate change. Climate change has led to at least three ice ages before we were even bacteria. I also remember a very respected climate change expert around 5 years or so ago revealed that humans are only responsible for less than 5% of the greenhouse gasses which lead to climate change and major shifts in climate. His view didn't fit and I've not heard anything since then. Censored?

reply to post by theantediluvian


A better tan in the summer and more snow to play with in the winter

It's certainly a matter of preference, and entirely selfish, but that should be obvious, and besides the point. This "selfishness" is simply anthropocentric. For the best good of the species (homo sapiens) kind of deal.

The rate of extinction is approximately 3 orders of magnitude greater than pre-agriculture times. That's not sustainable. Yes, other life will take it's place, until it doesn't. There are tipping points which could make life rather uninhabitable for the vast majority of species.

I don't think any scientifically minded individual actually ever thought we could "kill" the planet (although some do think the Venus syndrome could be triggered in extreme scenarios). That's just a sound bit for laymen.

I have an article which sums up the state of climate change rather well. Might be an interesting read for some here. Especially those who think 10F degree increase in temp will simply be a little hotter, no worries, LOL!

Climate Change Summary and Updates

mirageofdeceit

 

HA! You really think limiting atmospheric CO2, aka playing God and being greater than nature, will prevent the inevitable?

So by your reasoning, the anthropogenic rise in atmospheric CO2 is already playing God, as in your point is negated.

Do you even know what a history book is? I suggest you find out, and start reading, because in the past, it was much warmer, and sea levels much higher, all with lower atmospheric CO2 than today...

This reasoning has been debunked many times, even on ATS. There was regional warming higher than today, but not globally. No credible scientist claims that CO2 greenhouse is the only mechanism by which the earth can warm.. as in, more bunk reasoning.

You might be interested to know that today, right now, the Antarctic ice sheet is growing in mass, and it is getting colder on average at the South Pole.

The SURFACE of the ice sheet IN THE SEA has grown, however the total sea ice volume has been on a steady decline. There is a lie by omission here in that this doesn't indicate the state of ice on land, rather a migration from ice on land to the sea. As for the South Pole becoming colder, I'm not so sure of that, though it wouldn't be outside of the AGW theory, as weather patterns change, with an overall warming trend, and pockets of cold fluctuating as the system dynamics change over time.

This may help to clear up the confusion:

Is Antarctica Losing or Gaining Ice?

First an apology. I didn't mean to be as hostile as that when replying to you! I really was in a bad mood that day...

ntrs.nasa.gov...

Publication Date: Jul 14, 2012

I guess we could play counter-argument all day, but NASA took these measurements, not some blog post.

You're going to have to do better than a pro-MMGW website.

When you come across the next global wa-- er, climate change UN report thumper, ask them what they're doing about China and India. They're not doing anything. They aren't trying to do anything. All they want to do is impose more taxes, impose more artificial regulations, get more grant money to study things and fund "alternative energy". All at your expense. And all without any demonstrable results or end in sight. Ever.

None of them are doing anything about the biggest pollution sources in the world -- China and India -- and growing uncontrollably. Nope. They don't have any plans to do anything about them. Not a damn thing. Now why is that? Ask them that. Hold their feet to the fire until you get a straight answer or they run away.

reply to post by Spookybelle


Environmentalism is not a matter of temperature but rather of permanent damage to the planet and the earthlings on it mainly due to pollution and abuse by the human race.

To cut a long story shory and give you an easy answer to your question:

NOPE!

(That is excluding the objectives of a certain notion called the A2 1)

Sincerely,
George

An average 10 degree F increase? Here is some info on what to expect with a few degree average increase.

climate.nasa.gov...

A hot day here and there is great but you also want to have your drinking water replenished, a way for food to grow, and perhaps some meat on your dinner plate. So when it comes to figuring out which species matter - and why the government is interested in it - think of our own species (humans). We eat plants; animals eat plants; plants need water - but not too much. Disease, forest fires, flooding in some areas; water shortages in others, etc.. Rising ocean temperatures = weather anomalies and big fish kills. Birds eat fish - we eat birds and fish. Fish eat algae, bugs, other fish.. - everything is connected.

I don't want to see anything die from dehydration, starvation, or disease. It isn't about choosing but if I absolutely had to I would like to see less Mosquitos, flies, and whatever those beetles are that are killing trees in N. America - not more of them. I would really like to keep the honey bee around and see bats survive because both are critical to the balance of life (food sources, medicine, pest control). I would be sorely disappointed if we had no more elephants or gorillas but I fear their time is limited so let's enjoy while we can. We can't be so full of ego to think we could choose anyway. The reason its a concern is because if it's too fast or too extreme it could mean mass suffering and extinction.

We also can't cool the planet down. It isn't like turning a thermostat on or off. It wouldn't hurt to stop polluting so much though since it is always at another species expense - and if we don't know the effects of Co2 we should be smart and err on the side of caution. That part amazes me - we are the Stewarts of this planet yet continue to argue about whether it truly hurts the planet, while continuing to inundate the planet with the stuff we're not certain is safe. I guess that's how we think though - do it now and find out later.
In the end - it isn't about being selective - we don't have that much power. If it happens too fast or is too extreme it will mean a mass extinction of multiple species - including us.