#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
If we found a planet like Earth that was 1 degree hotter...
Cilmate change killed it
Side Score: 53
|
 |
We'd be happy we found it
Side Score: 60
|
|
It depends, is this planet in climate equillibrium? Are the ecosystems and animals of the planet atuned to the temperature range of the planet? Or is the planet undergoing a major climate shift, with rapid heating that is disrupting the major ecosystems of the planet due to one of the local species releasing vast quantities of greenhouse gas into its atmosphere? Side: Cilmate change killed it
One degree might not sound significant, but when a one degree global increase happens over a small period (ca 150 years), that has drastic effects on ecosystems which have not had time to adapt and evolve to survive in the changing conditions. One degree temperature increase overall tends to be disproportionately represented in the warmest regions. So while northernmost climates and southernmost climates may only see slight average rises, the warmest regions see significant temperature rises. Like Australia, or Equatorial Africa. These places are already becoming uninhabitable for many species. Side: We'd be happy we found it
Every question you are asked you reinterpret so as to deliver yet another mini lecture ( copy and pasted) so you can hold forth with your own rambling musings which demonstrate you’re a puffed up egotist .......you were asked ...... If we found a planet like Earth, and it was one degree hotter than here, would we scrap it, or say it was perfect? I guess another mini lecture is on the way regarding something totally unrelated Side: Cilmate change killed it
"One degree hotter", is a buzz-phrase in climatology. The reason being, our global temperature has risen by one degree in about 150 years. Quite obviously this debate is related to the discussion of the climatology of our own planet. As you can see in the post I replied to, the Earth is directly mentioned. If you aren't interested in learning or discussing, why are you here? Who is copying and pasting? I don't need to steal other peoples' words. They are my own. Side: We'd be happy we found it
”One degree hotter", is a buzz-phrase in climatology. The reason being, our global temperature has risen by one degree in about 150 years. Quite obviously this debate is related to the discussion of the climatology of our own planet. As you can see in the post I replied to, the Earth is directly mentioned. If you aren't interested in learning or discussing, why are you here? Who is copying and pasting? I don't need to steal other peoples' words. They are my own. You still avoid answering what was actually asked in favour of your lofty opinion pieces , you don’t debate you lecture others as to your thoughts on what you think is being asked in avoiding what was actually asked as in .....If we found a planet like Earth, and it was one degree hotter than here, would we scrap it, or say it was perfect? Side: Cilmate change killed it
The question, like pretty much every question Bronto asks is a dishonest, loaded question 1.) We would not say the discovered planet was perfect if it was going through major rapid climate change, we would say it was undergoing major rapid climate change. 2.) Nor would we scrap it; why would we? It’s 1 degree hotter, we needed to live on it as our only option, and it was undergoing rapid climate change due to problems we cause: the scientist - and most normal people - would probably suggest that we do everything in our power to fix it so as not to render the planet uninhabitable: but probably not scrap it. Side: We'd be happy we found it
It's not an "opinion piece", Jody. Climatology is scientifically sound. At any rate, I ask myself what the intent of the question is. Clearly this is intended to stimulate debate on climatology, or, to make some half-baked point about how one degree isn't significant enough for humanity to discard a discovered planet with that exact temperature difference, ergo, the OP might extrapolate: then why is it an issue on the planet we live on? Cue Brontoraptor slobbering: Durr durr "climate changes all the time" durr durr "one degree is nothing" durr, durr. You clearly dislike people who are scientifically minded or insightful in any meaningful way. That's a personal issue. Not my problem. I will always be two steps ahead of you; the fact that you can't keep up is of no consequence to me. As I said, I wasn't attempting to directly answer the question, anyway. I was responding to Amarel's comment, contextualizing the significance of one degree average temperature difference across the planet. If you can't see the relevance, then you're either thick or you're playing thick. It's either intellectual dishonesty or lack of intellect. as for the question: would we discard a planet like Earth, but 1 degree hotter? Obviously fucking not. The OP has no interest in that answer though, because he quite obviously, too, isn't asking an intellectually honest question. There's an agenda. But you failed to see any of that. Side: We'd be happy we found it
It's not an "opinion piece", Jody. Climatology is scientifically sound. I have not given or stated an opinion on climate change or challenged its “soundness “ or not At any rate, I ask myself what the intent of the question is. Clearly this is intended to stimulate debate on climatology, or, to make some half-baked point about how one degree isn't significant enough for humanity to discard a discovered planet with that exact temperature difference, ergo, the OP might extrapolate: then why is it an issue on the planet we live on? 1 degree is not that significant and it seems counties who have signed up to addressing these issues agree as they’re trying to limit a rise and it’s capped at 2 and a half to 3 degrees Cue: Durr durr "climate changes all the time" durr durr. You clearly dislike people who are scientifically minded or insightful in any meaningful way. That certainly rules you out and I don’t , I dislike bullshitters like you That's a personal issue. Not my problem. I will always be two steps ahead of you. Didn’t fare out so well for you so far As I said, I wasn't attempting to directly answer the question, anyway. I was responding to Amarel's comment, contextualizing the significance of one degree average temperature difference across the planet. If you can't see the relevance, then you're either thick or you're playing thick. It's either intellectual dishonesty or lack of intellect. You constantly accuse others of your lack of intellect and dishonesty , but no doubt anther mini lecture is on the way If the O P has an agenda I’m sure it will be revealed , how is another’s opinion deemed an “agenda “ compared to yours? Side: Cilmate change killed it
I have not given or stated an opinion on climate change or challenged its “soundness “ or not You called my summary of scientific evidence on the gravity of a one degree global temperature increase an "opinion piece". I think that alone illustrates your view on the "soundness" of climate science. 1 degree is not that significant Climatologists and environment scientists almost unanimously disagree. and it seems counties who have signed up to addressing these issues agree as they’re trying to limit a rise and it’s capped at 2 and a half to 3 degrees It is capped at 2. 2 degrees is tipping point. That certainly doesn't mean that one degree is irrelevant. At any rate, the countries who have signed up to this agreement have been fucking told by climatologists it isn't enough. That they "agree" to cut emissions before we get to a 2 degree rise, says fuck all about whether or not 1 degree is significant. What DOES say something about it, is that species highly adapted to heat, are fucking dying by the hundreds of thousands every summer in hot climates. Directly because of the heat. That didn't happen fifty years ago. Climatologists are the scientific authority here, not governments. That certainly rules you out and I don’t , I dislike bullshitters like you I've given more informed information in my last reply alone than you have in any of this thread. Your focus is on me, not the topics at hand. What does that say? You constantly accuse others of your lack of intellect and dishonesty , but no doubt anther mini lecture is on the way If the O P has an agenda I’m sure it will be revealed , how is another’s opinion deemed an “agenda “ compared to yours? Brontoraptor is a climate science denier (by definition, a person who ignores scientific evidence). It's always an agenda when he posts a question like this. Side: We'd be happy we found it
You called my summary of scientific evidence on the gravity of a one degree global temperature increase an "opinion piece". I think that alone illustrates your view on the "soundness" of climate science. You mean your scientific chosen source of evidence regarding the gravity of 1 degree , I’m not a climate science denier by any means incidentally Climatologists and environment scientists almost unanimously disagree. Regards 1 degree? It is capped at 2. 2 degrees is tipping point. I read three is the mark That certainly doesn't mean that one degree is irrelevant. I never made that claim I think you’re the one who is asserting a doomsday like relevance At any rate, the countries who have signed up to this agreement have been fucking told by climatologists it isn't enough. That they "agree" to cut emissions before we get to a 2 degree rise, says fuck all about whether or not 1 degree is significant. What DOES say something about it, is that species highly adapted to heat, are fucking dying by the hundreds of thousands every summer in hot climates. Directly because of the heat. That didn't happen fifty years ago. Climatologists are the scientific authority here, not governments. Which species are dying by the hundreds of thousands I've given more informed information in my last reply alone than you have in any of this thread. Your focus is on me, not the topics at hand. What does that say? I asked you you directly address the question asked of you you refused to do so Brontoraptor is a climate science denier (by definition, a person who ignores scientific evidence). It's always an agenda when he posts a question like this. That term “denier” is always used to somehow lump those who disagree in with people like holocaust deniers which is unfair , why not ask Bront why he’s not convinced instead of leveling accusations? One thing I do know it’s a massive industry where the ordinary Joe gets fleeced by government on waste taxes , carbon taxes and anything to do with renewable energy , big business of course is mostly left alone to destroy the planet when idiots like the ordinary Joe are accused and punished for the sins of big industry Side: Cilmate change killed it
You certainly sound like a climate science denier to me. The fact that renewables might be big business and that current big business gets away with spoiling climates, says nothing about the science nor the validity of it. Oil is undoubtedly bigger business. I would suggest you watch David Attenborough's "Climate Change: The Facts", for a small window into the devastation that can be caused by a one degree temperature rise within a small timeframe. It shows various animals suffering devastating consequences from climate change. If you are interested at all in further reading, the IPCC has all the information you could want. Side: We'd be happy we found it
You certainly sound like a climate science denier to me. But I’ve denied nothing , except your totally exaggerated claim regards 1 per cent The fact that renewables might be big business and that current big business gets away with spoiling climates, says nothing about the science nor the validity of it. It certainly does , do you not think those involved in the business might not like you make wildly exaggerated claims? Oil is undoubtedly bigger business. And? How is it “undoubtedly”so? I would suggest you watch David Attenborough's "Climate Change: The Facts", for a small window into the devastation that can be caused by a one degree temperature rise within a small timeframe. It shows various animals suffering devastating consequences from climate change. You mean the hundreds of thousands of animals you avoided naming when asked? If you are interested at all in further reading, the IPCC has all the information you could want. I’m more interested in why for the last 20 years in Europe we have embraced recycling , smokeless fuels , unleaded petrol etc , etc , and it has not made one jot of difference yet it’s made many extremely wealthy , also how can you reverse what many say is inevitable as it’s gone to far , what’s the big plan that every country in the world is going to embrace to save the planet? Side: Cilmate change killed it
1.) Unleaded petrol is comprehensively unrelated to climate change. This change was made as it was determined that massive amounts of lead were building up in children and the environment. Unleaded petrol has made a phenomenal impact in reducing this toxic heavy metal in our children. 2.) Recycling plastic, again, is all about pollution and reducing toxic and damaging waste into the environment - it is not a climate change policy. 3.) smokeless fuels is again more related to particulate pollution rather than climate change. Efforts to reduce particular emissions have made major differences in reducing incidents of smog and acid rain. So the three examples are completely irrelevant to the topic - and are also clearly false. Side: We'd be happy we found it
Everything I mentioned is to do with and related with climate change you Oaf , go back to school you clot Harmful chemicals and greenhouse gasses are released from rubbish in landfill sites. Recycling helps to reduce the pollution caused by waste By giving motorists incentives to buy more diesel than petrol cars the EU hoped this would help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. ... The tax on diesel fuel is also lower than petrol. The United Nations has proposed wood burning in the developing world should be phased out due to negative impacts on air quality and climate change Here is a link to assist you in learning about steps to take regards climate Chang strategies .......https://davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-can-stop-climate-change/ https://davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/ Side: Cilmate change killed it
You mentioned recycling, the removal of leaded petrol, and the introduction of smokeless fields. You said they hadn’t made “one jot” of a chance None of these changes, and policies are specifically to combat climate change. To imply or claim that they are is deliberately and ridiculously dishonest. All of them have to do with reduction of waste and general pollution more specifically; and all of them have had relatively major impacts to those areas; and NONE of the items you mentioned were created and billed exclusively or even primarily as a method of combatting climate change The lead in the environment has greatly reduced; the amount of plastic waste is still high; but is dropping. The incidence of acid rain and smog have all gone done. So no: you’re either being dishonest or ignorant when you imply these has anything to do with climate change: are being equally dishonest and ignorant if you claim these have had little impact in their respective areas: and you’re being exceptionally dishonest for insulting me for calling you out on it Side: We'd be happy we found it
You mentioned recycling, the removal of leaded petrol, and the introduction of smokeless fields. You said they hadn’t made “one jot” of a chance They haven’t yet we were told they would make a huge change None of these changes, and policies are specifically to combat climate change. To imply or claim that they are is deliberately and ridiculously dishonest. All of them have to do with reduction of waste and general pollution more specifically; and all of them have had relatively major impacts to those areas; and NONE of the items you mentioned were created and billed exclusively or even primarily as a method of combatting climate change Nonsense , did you ever hear of greenhouse gasses? I left a link for you educate yourself The lead in the environment has greatly reduced; the amount of plastic waste is still high; but is dropping. The incidence of acid rain and smog have all gone done. What’s your point? What about the hundreds of thousands of animals wiped out by 1 degree change your buddy mentioned but neither of yous will clarify? So no: you’re either being dishonest or ignorant when you imply these has anything to do with climate change: They have , remember greenhouse gasses? are being equally dishonest and ignorant if you claim these have had little impact in their respective areas: But you said they have nothing to do with climate change? and you’re being exceptionally dishonest for insulting me for calling you out on it I didn’t insult you as you are an Oaf it’s a statement regarding your lack of intelligence, you attempted to bullshit your way through a topic which you have no knowledge off .....you’re dismissed Side: Cilmate change killed it
“They haven’t yet we were told they would make a huge change“ https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/ So please explain your logic for why a 99.7�crease in the amount of lead in the atmosphere is “not one jot” of a change There has also been major decreases in incidents of smog and acid rain - directly linked to particulate emissions. “Nonsense , did you ever hear of greenhouse gasses? I left a link for you educate yourself.” Lead in cars, recycling of plastics and promotion of smokeless fuels have specifically been related to reduction in pollutants - not reduction in greenhouse gasses. Your conflating policy for reducing various pollutants with climate change policy; and complaining that they do nothing to address climate change. This is flagrantly dishonest, and the fact that you have gone multiple posts making this same, false attribution and absurd defence of it is why you are specifically a science denier. At this point if you don’t appreciate or won’t acknowledge how lead in petrol or not has nothing to do with climate change; there’s not a lot I can do here Side: We'd be happy we found it
“They haven’t yet we were told they would make a huge change“ https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicatorpdf.cfm?i=13 So please explain your logic for why a 99.7�crease in the amount of lead in the atmosphere is “not one jot” of a change How many degrees has warming gone down since these changes were forced on us ......I’m waiting? Lead in cars, recycling of plastics and promotion of smokeless fuels have specifically been related to reduction in pollutants - not reduction in greenhouse gasses. Oddly enough real scientists agree with me not you , try educating yourself I sent you a link .....it’s sciencey though maybe it’s not for you....... Your conflating policy for reducing various pollutants with climate change policy; and complaining that they do nothing to address climate change. I’m not , I’m correcting you ......Hey what about these hundreds of thousands of animals wiped out by an extra one degree temperature what species were they? This is my 5th time asking......I’ll wait ...... This is flagrantly dishonest, and the fact that you have gone multiple posts making this same, false attribution and absurd defence of it is why you are specifically a science denier. Yet I’ve sent you a link citing actual science , making you the science denier ....... At this point if you don’t appreciate or won’t acknowledge how lead in petrol or not has nothing to do with climate change; there’s not a lot I can do here You’ve done nothing so far as you’re a science denier back to your conspiracy channels with you Interesting also that fossil fuels according to you are not responsible for greenhouse gases. Also apart from having no answer to my question of the eradication of animals you also don’t know what humanity can do to resolve the problem I’ve asked this 4 times now ,,,,,I’ll wait again ...... Side: Cilmate change killed it
Let’s deal with these one at a time Unleaded petrol was made mandatory to remove lead from the atmosphere. It has been very successful at it. Unleaded petrol was not made mandatory to solve climate change. The fact that you are implying it did, is unbelievably ridiculous. I call bullshit. Show me the proof. Quote me any specific governmental source about unleaded petrol policy that state the intention of mandatory unleaded petrol was to deal with climate change. Side: We'd be happy we found it
Let’s deal with these one at a time Unleaded petrol was made mandatory to remove lead from the atmosphere. It has been very successful at it. Unleaded petrol was not made mandatory to solve climate change. The fact that you are implying it did, is unbelievably ridiculous. I call bullshit. Show me the proof. Quote me any specific governmental source about unleaded petrol policy that state the intention of mandatory unleaded petrol was to deal with climate change. You’re bullshitting again ........ Diesel and unleaded petrol petrol were promoted as a more environmentally friendly fuel as part of the EU's response to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO₂). ... The fine particulate matter (PM) that diesel engines produce also causes cancer and can have acute respiratory effects. Side: Cilmate change killed it
Unleaded petrol was not promoted as a solution to climate change. It was primarily promoted because having lead breathed in by children was bad. It was banned as part of a wide push for emission standards in 1998. You see; the difference between unleaded petrol and leaded petrol - is that the latter puts more LEAD into the atmosphere. They both put as much co2; hence why it wasn’t promoted as reducing carbon emissions. Fuel economy - that does indeed reduce emissions. Which has lead to a decrease of 2.5% in co2 emissions from Europe as a whole in 2018. Which is 2.5% more than “not one not”. Side: We'd be happy we found it
You’re bullshitting again ........ The E U promoted it you idiotic troll ......... Diesel and unleaded petrol petrol were promoted as a more environmentally friendly fuel as part of the EU's response to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO₂). ... The fine particulate matter (PM) that diesel engines produce also causes cancer and can have acute respiratory effects. Side: Cilmate change killed it
You’re literally insane if you believe I that lead in petrol was banned for climate change. The ban on phased down and removal of Leaded petrol was famously to so wirh the fucking lead in the petrol you ridiculously cretin. Leaded vs unleaded petrol makes almost no difference in co2 output. But given that LEADED petrol has LEAD in it, and LEAD causes major health effects in children, there was a massive push to eradicate it from the 70s. BECAUSE PEOPLE FIGURED OUT BREATHING LEAD IS BAD. It leads to depressed IQ and, presumably making stupid and dishonest arguments such as that lead was banned from petrol because climate change. By all means, feel free to link any example from a government that shows it was banned because of climate change. https://www.nytimes. Banned as part of a clean air policy... not climate change https://www.independent.co.uk/life- Phases out and Banned around the eu because of lead... https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/ Lead http://europa.eu/rapid/press-releaseIP-99-999en.htm Lead Climate cha... jk lol: LEAD https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ Still lead... No, you voluminous cretin: all contemporary sources state that Lead in petrol was banned because of the lead being dangerous - not as a response as to Kyoto - which is not mentioned by ANY of the contemporary sources. On this point you are flat out, categorically objectively wrong. Also; even if you were specifically correct: you’re still flat out wrong, as the EU has managed to drop its emissions in 2018 by 2.5%: so all these climate change policies are having at least some effect that is exactly 2.5% more than not-a-jot. This is why you’re a science denier. Facts don’t seem to matter. It doesn’t matter that you’re wrong about lead (and particulate pollution motivation from smokeless fuels, etc), you’re wrong about the impact of climate change policies: and you’re also wrong about Brontos stupid dishonest question. Side: We'd be happy we found it
You’re literally insane if you believe I that lead in petrol was banned for climate change. I said it was part of a strategy you idiot The ban on phased down and removal of Leaded petrol was famously to so wirh the fucking lead in the petrol you ridiculously cretin. Leaded vs unleaded petrol makes almost no difference in co2 output. Yet European governments disagree with you which is why we have carbon taxes you troll , .......from the Times ......Almost every aspect of our daily lives will be affected by a new climate strategy launched by the Government today. Motorists and businesses will feel the brunt of tax hikes unless they actively invest in going green. The Government plans to force petrol and diesel cars off our roads, introduce new buildings regulations and change the school curriculum in a bid to counteract climate change. Did you read that you dummy? But given that LEADED petrol has LEAD in it, and LEAD causes major health effects in children, there was a massive push to eradicate it from the 70s. BECAUSE PEOPLE FIGURED OUT BREATHING LEAD IS BAD. It leads to depressed IQ and, presumably making stupid and dishonest arguments such as that lead was banned from petrol because climate change. By all means, feel free to link any example from a government that shows it was banned because of climate change. https://www.nytimes. Banned as part of a clean air policy... not climate change https://www.independent.co.uk/life- Phases out and Banned around the eu because of lead... https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/ Lead http://europa.eu/rapid/ Lead Climate cha... jk lol: LEAD https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ Still lead... Blah ,blah , blah maybe the European governments really don’t want petrol cars of the road and it’s a big conspiracy like 9/11 🤣🤣 No, you voluminous cretin: all contemporary sources state that Lead in petrol was banned because of the lead being dangerous - not as a response as to Kyoto - which is not mentioned by ANY of the contemporary sources. On this point you are flat out, categorically objectively wrong. I gave you the link to Kyoto you science denier Also; even if you were specifically correct: you’re still flat out wrong, as the EU has managed to drop its emissions in 2018 by 2.5%: so all these climate change policies are having at least some effect that is exactly 2.5% more than not-a-jot. How many degrees has the planet dropped since these innovations that’s what I asked? This is why you’re a science denier. Facts don’t seem to matter. It doesn’t matter that you’re wrong about lead (and particulate pollution motivation from smokeless fuels, etc), you’re wrong about the impact of climate change policies: and you’re also wrong about Brontos stupid dishonest question. I’ve defeated you again and you’re still left with the three questions you and your buddy have ignored 8 times now let’s try again ....... 1: Name the hundreds of thousands of species killed after a 1 degree temperatures drop? 2: How many degrees has the earths temperature dropped since governments and people were issued with carbon taxes and other measures to combat climate change 3: How can what is be reversed? Side: Cilmate change killed it
2
points
Yet European governments disagree with you European governments aren't disagreeing with him. YOU are disagreeing with him. Are you somehow under the impression that you qualify as a European government? LOL! The Government plans to force petrol and diesel cars off our roads, introduce new buildings regulations and change the school curriculum Spare us your paranoid conspiracy theories you utter fucking retard. Blah ,blah , blah That's a great response to categorical proof that you are wrong. Jesus Christ Jody, you're so fucking stupid. Side: We'd be happy we found it
European governments aren't disagreeing with him. YOU are disagreeing with him. Are you somehow under the impression that you qualify as a European government? LOL! They are and they do, let’s continue your education ...... Paris agreement New petrol and diesel car sales in Europe must be phased out before 2030 if the auto sector is to play its part in holding global warming to the Paris agreement’s 1.5C goal, a new analysis has found.😱 Spare us your paranoid conspiracy theories you utter fucking retard. Right , the Paris agreement is part of your latest conspiracy theory 🤣🤣👉Changing accounts makes you look even stupider if that’s possible That's a great response to categorical proof that you are wrong. Jesus Christ Jody, you're so fucking stupid. Let’s gloat again .....Paris agreement New petrol and diesel car sales in Europe must be phased out before 2030 if the auto sector is to play its part in holding global warming to the Paris agreement’s 1.5C goal, a new analysis has found.😱 I’ve defeated you again and you’re still left with the three questions you and your buddy have ignored 9 times now let’s try again ....... 1: Name the hundreds of thousands of species killed after a 1 degree temperatures rise? 2: How many degrees has the earths temperature dropped since governments and people were issued with carbon taxes and other measures to combat climate change 3: How can what is be reversed? At least give it a shot you coward you can get help if you wish Side: Cilmate change killed it
You said that unleaded petrol policywas due to climate change and the Kyoto protocol . That is horseshit. You’re now talking about phasing our petrol by 2030 due to the Paris accords. This is a completl to different argument. As you’ve now completely changed what you’re arguing, I presume that you’ve conceded that what you were talking about before is complete bullshit. By all means, I await you linking a reference to Kyoto and how unleaded petrol was a response Obviously you can’t, because it wasn’t. Now, Europe dropped co2 emissions by 2.5% last year, and if memory aeres, it’s now 26�low 1990s emissions. The reason temperatures aren’t going down? The matter is complex, but let me boil it down: Europe is one part of the planet. There are other parts of the planet that also emit greenhouse gasses. If Europe emits less, but other sources emit more - then co2 is going to go up and temperatures are not going to go down. For temperatures to go down: co2 ppm needs to go down, which means a broad reduction of emissions, and additional removal of co2 from the atmosphere by carbon sinks. We also need to hope we haven’t triggered a long term runaway change; but hey, possibly fucked whilst reducing co2 is better than definitely fucked if we don’t. Side: We'd be happy we found it
Stop it you clown you and your buddy didn’t know what greenhouses gases were and claimed fossil fuels had nothing to do with climate change , then you said Europe was involved in a conspiracy theory , you’re full of shit ......Paris agreement New petrol and diesel car sales in Europe must be phased out before 2030 if the auto sector is to play its part in holding global warming to the Paris agreement’s 1.5C goal, a new analysis has found.😱 I’ve defeated you again and you’re still left with the three questions you and your buddy have ignored 9 times now let’s try again ....... 1: Name the hundreds of thousands of species killed after a 1 degree temperatures drop? 2: How many degrees has the earths temperature dropped since governments and people were issued with carbon taxes and other measures to combat climate change 3: How can what is be reversed? At least give it a shot you coward you can get help if you wish Side: Cilmate change killed it
Wow. You stated the move from leaded to unleaded petrol was due to climate change and the Kyoto accords: this is completely false, and objectively untrue. You’re now completely changing your argument to something relating to regular petrol and the Paris agreement. I accept this obvious concession here by your complete changing of your argument that your original claims was made up horseshit. Side: We'd be happy we found it
Wow. Wow You stated the move from leaded to unleaded petrol was due to climate change and the Kyoto accords: this is completely false, and objectively untrue. Nonsense , you still don’t know what greenhouse gases are or what they have to do with climate change 😱 You’re now completely changing your argument to something relating to regular petrol and the Paris agreement. I’m not you claimed fossil fuels hade zero effect on climate change and the European Union was involved in s conspiracy plot I accept this obvious concession here by your complete changing of your argument that your original claims was made up horseshit You mean the concession from you and your buddy who have ignored and failed to answer three simple questions , another whipping for you son , I’m starting to feel sorry for you 🤣🤣🤣 Side: Cilmate change killed it
You said: “Diesel and unleaded petrol petrol were promoted as a more environmentally friendly fuel as part of the EU's response to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO₂).” This is horseshit. Despite you having gone about a dozen or so posts saying it: you’ve now stopped. Thank you for the concession that you realize how wrong you were. So much so that you refuse to even acknowledge what you were talking about even a few hours ago! Now, while I appreciate your feelings were hurt having to admit to yourself that you were objectively wrong when you Claimed: “Diesel and unleaded petrol petrol were promoted as a more environmentally friendly fuel as part of the EU's response to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO₂).” There is no need to continue to make things up. For example: petrol and usage of petrol in cars has a major issue for climate change as it produces major amounts of co2 that aren’t easily mitigated. At no point, anywhere here, or any other debate, debate site claimed that this is not the case. I did say that there’s no greenhouse gas difference between leaded and unleaded petrol - which is true: but this is a challenge to your false claims. Perhaps the issue is that you don’t really understand what leaded vs unleaded petrol is? Or the effects it has? Your confusion does not interest me: what interested me is your claim: “Diesel and unleaded petrol petrol were promoted as a more environmentally friendly fuel as part of the EU's response to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO₂).” This is objectively false: I demonstrated it was objectively false: you’ve now completely changed your argument, and appear to want to retroactively modify your on argument, and mine to be talking about fossil fuels in general. Which we weren’t. Just because you’ve doublethinked you old argument away - doesn’t mean my argument is not referring to your original claim. Side: We'd be happy we found it
So; multiple contemporary sources stating that made no mention of Kyoto, climate change or global warming with regards to removing leaded petrol. You shared one link, that has nothing to do with Kyoto, and didn’t mention lead in petrol at all. At this point; it’s pretty clear facts are irrelevant to you. Lead in petrol is unrelated to action against climate change; you idiot. The obvious science of it demonstrates this and the sources all say this. This is why you’re a denier. All of these facts against you- and you still cling to the original claim. Side: We'd be happy we found it
I’m more interested in why for the last 20 years in Europe we have embraced recycling , smokeless fuels , unleaded petrol etc , etc , and it has not made one jot of difference yet it’s made many extremely wealthy , also how can you reverse what many say is inevitable as it’s gone to far , what’s the big plan that every country in the world is going to embrace to save the planet? Are you seriously saying that smokeless fuel/recycling etc. are pointless? So clean energy has the same polluting capability as dirty energy? Obviously fucking not. The world needs to stop using fossil fuels and stop farming so much meat. They are the two biggest hurdles, and the two biggest ways to stop the release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. They are the systemic changes that need to be implemented by law, worldwide. In terms of material pollution: plastic is the big one. That's the next hurdle. Halting all manufacture of plastic worldwide, or at least the manufacture of single-use plastics, to begin with. Side: We'd be happy we found it
Are you seriously saying that smokeless fuel/recycling etc. are pointless? So clean energy has the same polluting capability as dirty energy? Obviously fucking not. No I didn’t say that , I asked since all these innovations have come in how many degrees has the earths temperature lowered? That’s what my “not one jot is referring to The world needs to stop using fossil fuels and stop farming so much meat. They are the two biggest hurdles, and the two biggest ways to stop the release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. They are the systemic changes that need to be implemented by law, worldwide. In terms of material pollution: plastic is the big one. That's the next hurdle. Halting all manufacture of plastic worldwide, or at least the manufacture of single-use plastics, to begin with. Yes , but will it make any difference has it not gone to far? Incidentally my 3 questions remain unanswered as in .......... 1:Why have we not seen a reduction in temperatures with all the changes with our practices made over the years? 2: What are the names of the hundreds of thousands of species you mentioned that were wiped out through global warming? 3: What are the solutions? Side: Cilmate change killed it
“No I didn’t say that , I asked since all these innovations have come in how many degrees has the earths temperature lowered? That’s what my “not one jot is referring to” Firstly; you referenced recycling - unleaded petrol - and smokeless fuel as ways global warming is being combated : completely failing to recognize that these things have not been adopted to fight global warming. You angrily shouted it multiple times: then appear to have run away once your claims had been categorically disproven. Secondly: your being a typical disengenuous, intellectually dishonest climate change denier: If Europe’s emissions are going down; and the worlds total emissions are going up - why would you expect the worlds global temperature to be decreasing? It’s retarded logic: It’s like claiming cutting budget deficits don’t work, by showing that you’re still in debt after you’ve slashed deficit. Side: We'd be happy we found it
Firstly; you referenced recycling - unleaded petrol - and smokeless fuel as ways global warming is being combated : completely failing to recognize that these things have not been adopted to fight global warming. Which is why European governments adopted these initiatives and continue to do so as my previous piece demonstrated , you said it was “all a conspiracy plot” ......remember? You angrily shouted it multiple times: then appear to have run away once your claims had been categorically disproven. Angrily? I posted a piece from the European Union about fossil fuels which you claimed are nothing to do with climate change Secondly: your being a typical disengenuous, intellectually dishonest climate change denier: Who’s denying it you troll? You’re the one called it a conspiracy plot If Europe’s emissions are going down; and the worlds total emissions are going up - why would you expect the worlds global temperature to be decreasing? So the innovations have not made one jot of difference thank you for at last admitting this
It’s retarded logic: It’s like claiming cutting budget deficits don’t work, by showing that you’re still in debt after you’ve slashed deficit. You seem to be fighting with yourself and I see you still cannot answer even one of the 3 questions I asked , bet you cannot even attempt one? Side: Cilmate change killed it
“Which is why European governments adopted these initiatives and continue to do so as my previous piece demonstrated , you said it was “all a conspiracy plot” ......remember?” For the very first claim, I produced at least a half dozen contemporary sources - non of which said it was due to climate chance. You then completely changed your argument - and are now attempting to pretend you didnt. If you’re not going to acknowledge what either of us said in the last couple of days, and simply try and pretend you weren’t shown to be completely wrong - go ahead: but that’s what makes you a denier, it’s the insane logic and intellectual dishonesty. Side: We'd be happy we found it
For the very first claim, I produced at least a half dozen contemporary sources - non of which said it was due to climate chance. You claimed Europe was involved in a conspiracy plot , all your sources claimed fossil fuels had nothing to do with Climate change ......like wow! You then completely changed your argument - and are now attempting to pretend you did not I didn’t , I said the earths temperature has not reduced with all the changes you agreed ......remember? If you’re not going to acknowledge what either of us said in the last couple of days, and simply try and pretend you weren’t shown to be completely wrong - If you’re not going to acknowledge what either of us said in the last couple of days, and simply try and pretend you weren’t shown to be completely wrong go ahead: but that’s what makes you a denier, it’s the insane logic and intellectual dishonesty. go ahead: but that’s what makes you a denier, it’s the insane logic and intellectual dishonesty. I note you cannot still answer even one of my 3 easy questions , can you even attempt your best shot at one .....you can get help if you want ...... Side: Cilmate change killed it
You started off saying that banning leaded petrol was to deal with climate change because of Kyoto. Now you’re saying that your argument is that Europe is phasing our petrol in general to deal with the Paris accords. I never claimed any sort of conspiracy - this is just you making stuff up to try and hide the fact that you’re argument completely changed after you were proven wrong Side: We'd be happy we found it
you started off saying that banning leaded petrol was to deal with climate change because of Kyoto. I didn’t maybe read what I actually said instead of what you think I said Now you’re saying that your argument is that Europe is phasing our petrol in general to deal with the Paris accords. Where did I mention phasing out petrol , I said the Paris accord states that alternatives to petrol operated vehicles will be implemented you said this was nonsense as fossil fuels have nothing to do with climate change I never claimed any sort of conspiracy You did , you said fossil fuels had nothing to do with climate change , you haven’t a clue about the topic this is just you making stuff up to try and hide the fact that you’re argument completely changed after you were proven wrong But I’ve thrashed you easily yet again .....do you want more proof? 18 times now and you still cannot answer even one of the 3 questions I asked ......It gets tiring whipping you son Side: Cilmate change killed it
You said: “Diesel and unleaded petrol petrol were promoted as a more environmentally friendly fuel as part of the EU's response to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO₂).” The promotion of unleaded (and ban on leaded) petrol has nothing to do with climate change. So yeah - this is pretty much exactly what you said. I’m sorry you’re wrong; but don’t try and pretend you’ve been making a different argument all along - you basically started the moment I showed a half dozen links that demonstrated your claims were wrong. Side: We'd be happy we found it
Btw - I’ve answered your main questions about half a dozen times throughout here. Btw - You never answered my main questions despite being asked half a dozen times throughout here. Guess you’re too fixated in trying to claim I said something I didn’t because you said something dumb and got called on it multiple times. Guess you’re too fixated in trying to claim I said something I didn’t because you said something dumb and got called on it multiple times. Side: Cilmate change killed it
I answered your main questions at least three times: why aren’t temperatures dropping despite the EU reducing its emissions to 26�low 1990s levels? Because world emissions are still going up as a whole due to other countries. Why on earth would temperatures be coming down if co2 was continuing to rise? Of course - go ahead and pretend I never said this. Side: We'd be happy we found it
I answered your main questions at least three times: You didn’t because you couldn’t why aren’t temperatures dropping despite the EU reducing its emissions to 26�low 1990s levels? Because world emissions are still going up as a whole due to other countries. Why on earth would temperatures be coming down if co2 was continuing to rise? Exactly my point , I stated with all the efforts so far not one bit of difference has occurred to lower temperatures, how the hell can it change in the future
Of course - go ahead and pretend I never said this. You’ve been exposed once again Side: Cilmate change killed it
1
point
You started off saying that banning leaded petrol was to deal with climate change because of Kyoto. You started out saying fossil fuels and admissions had nothing to do with climate change when I sent you a link to ten initiatives set out by European governments which cited fossil fuels you claimed it was a big conspiracy plot. It’s the same with you every time you never agree with anyone or anything except your half a million alt accounts , you’re just a useless idiotic troll who’s insanity is escalating daily Side: Cilmate change killed it
You started out saying fossil fuels and admissions had nothing to do with climate change when I sent you a link to ten initiatives set out by European governments which cited fossil fuels you claimed it was a big conspiracy plot. I didn’t say any of that: you cretinous idiot. I said that the push for unleaded petrol has nothing to do with climate change - which it didn’t (and i showed it). Everything else you just said, is due to your not understanding that you’re wrong. Side: We'd be happy we found it
I didn’t say any of that: you cretinous idiot. You did you idiotic troll but like all your debates you’re only interested in trolling I said that the push for unleaded petrol has nothing to do with climate change - which it didn’t (and i showed it). Yet you still deny fossil fuels are part of the problem you said it was a “conspiracy plot” Everything else you just said, is due to your not understanding that you’re wrong. You’ve been schooled again troll away with you and lick your wounds Side: Cilmate change killed it
1
point
So you’ve gone dozens of posts telling me how I’m somehow saying fossile fuels aren’t related to climate change; but can’t provide a single quote? You just need one tiny quote. A twenty tiny quote to prove I’m lying. Quote where I said fossil fuels aren’t related to climate change. Side: We'd be happy we found it
So you’ve gone dozens of posts telling me how I’m somehow saying fossile fuels aren’t related to climate change; but can’t provide a single quote? You just need one tiny quote. Here you go buddy from my piece in the Times regards government initiatives ........ I stated .......The Government plans to force petrol and diesel cars off our roads, introduce new buildings regulations and change the school curriculum...... You replied .......Spare us your paranoid conspiracy theories you utter fucking retard. In your own words you claim European policy on climate change is a “ conspiracy “ you’re whipped again son A twenty tiny quote to prove I’m lying. Quote where I said fossil fuels aren’t related to climate change. It’s a conspiracy you said ....remember? Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha Side: Cilmate change killed it
Yes: you’re confusing me with another user. I’m not You’re denial is typical It seems that this is a go-to argument when you have been demonstrably wrong, and called on it. I’m never wrong but you are consistently which is why I enjoy whipping you in debate Side: Cilmate change killed it
While I would love to engage with you absurd paranoia - I have a single account here: and if the only argument you have against me is to accuse me of being another user with no evidence xe; there’s not much I’m really able to so! How about this though, let’s see if we can pin you down; rather than your absurd attempts to duck the question: Do you think that lead in petrol banned by the EU to combat climate change in response to the Kyoto Protocol? Side: We'd be happy we found it
Here you go buddy from my piece in the Times regards government initiatives ........ I stated .......The Government plans to force petrol and diesel cars off our roads, introduce new buildings regulations and change the school curriculum...... You replied .......Spare us your paranoid conspiracy theories you utter fucking retard. In your own words you claim European policy on climate change is a “ conspiracy “ you’re whipped again son Side: Cilmate change killed it
Someone else replied with that, not me. The basis for entire argument here, is assuming that another user is me, without evidence or really any justification. This is just rabid paranoia, nothing more. Now; I’ll ask again: do you think lead in petrol banned as a response to climate change and the Kyoto protocol? Side: We'd be happy we found it
Here you go buddy from my piece in the Times regards government initiatives ........ I stated .......The Government plans to force petrol and diesel cars off our roads, introduce new buildings regulations and change the school curriculum...... You replied .......Spare us your paranoid conspiracy theories you utter fucking retard. In your own words you claim European policy on climate change is a “ conspiracy “ you’re whipped again son Side: Cilmate change killed it
Are you retarded? Or simply mentally ill? Seriously: your only argument is to say I’m another user - with literally no evidence or explanation. You can’t answer any simple question: you’ve changed your arguments, and I’ve disproven your position. At this point, I’ll let your batshit craziness speak for itself. Side: We'd be happy we found it
Here you go buddy from my piece in the Times regards government initiatives ........ I stated .......The Government plans to force petrol and diesel cars off our roads, introduce new buildings regulations and change the school curriculum...... You replied .......Spare us your paranoid conspiracy theories you utter fucking retard. In your own words you claim European policy on climate change is a “ conspiracy “ you’re whipped again son Side: Cilmate change killed it
Will you accept my concession that I’m unable to show where or how I thought I was right Well I did say so from the start .....let that be another lesson to you son don’t toy with your betters you will always come off a loser .......Hey did you ever think of jining an under 6 debating group ......wait that to might be a step to far as yet ...... Side: Cilmate change killed it
As I said. You started talking about unleaded petrol and Kyoto. Then started talking about fossil fuels and the Paris accords. Then got side/tracked by confusing me with another person - and apparently have been under this confusion for the last two days. Hence why I asked - now for the third time - do you believe that leaded petrol was made mandatory because of climate chance and Kyoto. Of course, I suspect you won’t answer that as you've started dodging that point the moment I disproved your original claim. At this point, I have no clue what you’re doing; but someone with your pathological inability to concede your own failure is getting kinda hilarious at this point. Side: We'd be happy we found it
You say a lot and you lie every time you open your mouth you change accounts when cornered , you’re quiet obviously mentally unwell let’s revisit for a laugh and see what you actually stated it’s a classic .......Here you go buddy from my piece in the Times regards government initiatives ........ I stated .......The Government plans to force petrol and diesel cars off our roads, introduce new buildings regulations and change the school curriculum...... You replied .......Spare us your paranoid conspiracy theories you utter fucking retard. In your own words you claim European policy on climate change is a “ conspiracy “ you’re whipped again son Side: Cilmate change killed it
There you go again. Just you blurting our that I’m someone else doesn’t make it true. Repeating yourself instead of answering the question, providing evidence, justification and simply idiotic and paranoid accusations is exactly why I can happily claim you’re unable to deal with any of the specifics; and instead have to change your argument, repeatedly ignore basic questions and hurl irrational accusations - kinda shows you’ve conceded on the actual key points. Side: We'd be happy we found it
Take your beating like a man Nom , the alternative is spend the next 24/7 posting up spite debates.....So I guess it’s the spite debates for you as you’re so predictable........ So what’s your next conspiracy theory apart from your latest as in Europe being involved in a massive climate change conspiracy? Side: Cilmate change killed it
Again: I’m not Nom. You’re just a ridiculous idiot who has to claim that because you can’t answer the question. You said that unleaded fuel was promoted because of climate change and Kyoto. Bullshit. Shown to be Bullshit. You changed your argument. And are now making insane accusation because it’s been shown you’re just making up ridiculous nonsense. Side: We'd be happy we found it
, I’m not Nom. You still are you idiot wait and you bring on Nom to defend Nom ....oh dear This is just your outrageous own paranoia, and your desire to avoid the devastating refutation you’ve been spending the last two days trying to sodge Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha of course Nom that must be it 👌 Side: Cilmate change killed it
Saying in Nom over and over again doesn’t make its true. Lol - it’s hilarious paranoia - everyone who disagrees with you is the same person! So: you says unleaded petrol was promoted by the EU to deal with climate change. This is bullshit. This was proven bullshit. You changed your argument; won’t answer basic questions; you deny stuff you objectively says, and are now just name. Telling. This seems pretty typical right wing nujobbery on your part; your insults and deflection sound so intellectually honest! Side: We'd be happy we found it
1
point
1
point
1
point
Here you go buddy from my piece in the Times regards government initiatives ........ I stated .......The Government plans to force petrol and diesel cars off our roads, introduce new buildings regulations and change the school curriculum...... You replied .......Spare us your paranoid conspiracy theories you utter fucking retard. In your own words you claim European policy on climate change is a “ conspiracy “ you’re whipped again son Side: Cilmate change killed it
1
point
1:Why have we not seen a reduction in temperatures with all the changes with our practices made over the years? Because our net output of greenhouse gases is still higher than the various organisms of the Earth can offset. AKA. It isn't enough. 2: What are the names of the hundreds of thousands of species you mentioned that were wiped out through global warming? Watch the documentary. It gives you a glimpse. I'm not going to sit and write every species that has been made extinct through climate change. Don't be ridiculous. Pick up a scientific paper or ten on the topicc 3: What are the solutions? Can you not read? Stopping fossil fuel use and drastically reducing meat farming, are the big ones. Side: We'd be happy we found it
Because our net output of greenhouse gases is still higher than the various organisms of the Earth can offset. AKA. It isn't enough. As I said all mans efforts have not made one jot of difference yet we continue paying taxes to address the problem a complete waste of time Watch the documentary. It gives you a glimpse. I'm not going to sit and write every species that has been made extinct through climate change. Don't be ridiculous. Pick up a scientific paper or ten on the Ah you cannot name them I thought so I knew you were exaggerating, Can you not read? Stopping fossil fuel use and drastically reducing meat farming, are the big ones. It’s made no difference so far so good luck with the “crusade “ Side: Cilmate change killed it
As I said all mans efforts have not made one jot of difference yet we continue paying taxes to address the problem a complete waste of time This is really starting to get on my nerves. I explained this to you. Our outputs of greenhouse gasses are still too high, compared to the natural world's ability to offset them. If we stop producing fossil fuel products, stop using fossil fuels, and stop all the meat farming, anthropogenic greenhouse gas outputs will drop to levels that the living world can cope with. Ah you cannot name them I thought so I knew you were exaggerating That's terrible logic. Because I won't list hundreds of thousands of species, the claim that climate change is contributing to their extinction is false? Ludicrous. SeanB: Can you not read? Stopping fossil fuel use and drastically reducing meat farming, are the big ones. Jody: It’s made no difference so far so good luck with the “crusade “ Have we stopped using fossil fuels? Last I checked, humanity's fossil fuel use is higher than ever. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ Side: We'd be happy we found it
This is really starting to get on my nerves. I explained this to you. Our outputs of greenhouse gasses are still too high, compared to the natural world's ability to offset them. If we stop producing fossil fuel products, stop using fossil fuels, and stop all the meat farming, anthropogenic greenhouse gas outputs will drop to levels that the living world can cope with. If .....good luck with that ......so tell me all the efforts so far have been for what That's terrible logic. Because I won't list hundreds of thousands of species, the claim that climate change is contributing to their extinction is false? It’s not , I’m pointing out the obvious fact ( except to you ) you’re totally exaggerating Ludicrous. You are yes Have we stopped using fossil fuels? Last I checked, humanity's fossil fuel use is higher than ever. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ Right so the big plan is get the whole world to stop using fossil fuels ......brilliant Side: Cilmate change killed it
The term “denier” is normally used for people who reject commonly accepted solutions for illogical, irrational or intellectually dishonest reasons. For example: Brontos question here is inherently loaded and dishonest; yet for some reason you’re pretending as if it is a legitimate question, showing you’re either ignorant, dishonest or both. Likewise in another thread, bronto cited the famous ex scientist, and dowser who rejects climate change; and cited his credentials for why he should be listened to: and for some reason ignoring the credentials of the thousands of scientists who disagree with this view. You’re a science denier, not because you’re simply skeptical, it’s you reject conclusions, authorities, data, evidence and information that disagrees with you for tenuous and irrational reasons : then hold up conclusions, authorities, data, evidence as information that agrees with you; yet suffer from those same issues. The denial part stems primarily from you having chosen your preferr conclusion; then selecting which evidence you want to accept as valid based upon it, rather than the other way around. Side: We'd be happy we found it
The term “denier” is normally used for people who reject commonly accepted solutions for illogical, irrational or intellectually dishonest reasons. You mean like people who think 9/11 was an inside job? For example: Brontos question here is inherently loaded and dishonest; yet for some reason you’re pretending as if it is a legitimate question, showing you’re either ignorant, dishonest or both. Talk about hanging someone without a trial Likewise in another thread, bronto cited the famous ex scientist, and dowser who rejects climate change; and cited his credentials for why he should be listened to: and for some reason ignoring the credentials of the thousands of scientists who disagree with this view. Well it’s seems you have an axe to grind You’re a science denier, not because you’re simply skeptical, it’s you reject conclusions, authorities, data, evidence and information that disagrees with you for tenuous and irrational reasons : then hold up conclusions, authorities, data, evidence as information that agrees with you; yet suffer from those same issues. I don’t deny science but there’s a lot of horseshit being peddled regarding climate also as it’s huge business and of course the ordinary Joe is the one penalised. The horseshit is your buddy claiming hundreds of thousands of animals were wiped out by 1degree change
The denial part stems primarily from you having chosen your preferr conclusion; then selecting which evidence you want to accept as valid based upon it, rather than the other way around. That’s exactly what your at I still haven’t denied climate change but I reject the more sensationalist claims , so do try answer what your buddy refuses to how do you turn it round what’s the big plan Side: Cilmate change killed it
A heat wave in Australia in November 2018 killed almost a third of the entire population of flying foxes on the continent. To name one specific, shocking example. The people who run the conservations in the areas they inhabit remark about walking through forest for days and seeing adult bats dead everywhere. The infants lose body heat faster and so tended to be more resilient. So there were just tens of thousands of infant bats, orphaned, crying out on the ground. That's just one example. Bees are drastically affected by higher temperatures which force them to remain in cooler climates for longer periods, meaning less time to pollinate, meaning less food. Whales' mating cycles run partly via water temperature. These are negatively affected. Add to this habitat loss, which has obvious negative impacts; dying reefs, which cut off food for many many species; global decrease in insect populations which are the bedrock of nearly every ecosystem on Earth; higher ocean acidity which causes shell corrosion and makes certain waters uninhabitable for native species; toxic water pollution which not only affects other animals, but humans too; deforestation, which ahs obvious negative consequences; melting ice caps, which have caused a drastic decrease in polar bear populations; the list goes on and on. We lose at a conservative estimate, an average of more than 100 species of life-form every day, which is orders of magnitude above the natural rate. Why? Because such rapid changes in climate don't leave time for evolution to catch up. Side: We'd be happy we found it
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
