Beating Guam Guy At His Own Game

Political discussions
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59296
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Beating Guam Guy At His Own Game

Post by kalm »

And sea level rise is due to rocks tumblimg into the ocean. Makes sense.

Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) said scientists said in the 1970s that the Earth was cooling, a popular talking point of climate skeptics and the subject of a fake Time magazine cover that has become a meme. Duffy corrected him and said that was essentially an outlier position at the time and that scientists long ago determined that humans were warming the planet.

Posey also asked how carbon dioxide could be captured in permafrost in the periods before humans existed. Duffy told him that it was from non-decayed organic matter. Human activity is now causing the Arctic to warm and thaw the ground, releasing the carbon into the atmosphere, Duffy said.

Posey then asked about theories related to warming being beneficial for habitats and to people.

"What do you say to people who theorize that the Earth as it continues to warm is returning to its normal temperature?" Posey asked.

"Look, if you want to characterize a temperature above today's temperature as normal, you're free to do that, but that doesn't mean that's a planet we want to live on," Duffy said.

"I don't want to get philosophical; I'm trying to stay on science here," Posey said.

"I'm not getting philosophical; I'm getting extremely practical," Duffy said. "I'm being extremely practical — if we let the planet warm 2 or 3 degrees, we will have tens of meters of sea-level rise, and the community where I live will essentially cease to exist."
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/ ... level-rise
Image
Image
Image
CAA Flagship
4th&29
4th&29
Posts: 38526
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:01 pm
I am a fan of: Old Dominion
A.K.A.: He/His/Him/Himself
Location: Pizza Hell

Re: Beating Guam Guy At His Own Game

Post by CAA Flagship »

kalm wrote:And sea level rise is due to rocks tumblimg into the ocean.
:nod: :nod:
Erosion. The flattening of the earth. Mountains are getting smaller.
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60482
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Beating Guam Guy At His Own Game

Post by Ibanez »

God - those "lawmakers" come to some dumb conclusions. Rep. Mo Brooks says NASA, in his state, tells him something else. There isn't any climate research conducted there. It's a research center and support for Kennedy Space Center. He takes the "word" of jet propulsion experts over scientists with NOAA? What a moron.
Last edited by Ibanez on Fri May 18, 2018 6:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Beating Guam Guy At His Own Game

Post by JohnStOnge »

Republicans do make themselves look bad in sessions like this. They need to get a statistician to run for office ang get elected, put him on one of these committees, and make him the guy that talks to the scientists whether it's climate change or any other issue. A statistician would be good because statistics is basically the backbone of all inferential science. A statistician can address issues of cause and effect inference in just about any field.

Having said that the comment about tens of meters of sea level rise might be a bit much. If you look at the NASA sea level projection portal at https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding ... rojections you'll see this:
Projections of global sea level rise by 2100, the year upon which climate modelers typically focus, vary widely depending on modeling methods and on assumptions—the rate of increase in greenhouse gas emissions, for example, and especially how ice sheets will respond to warming air and ocean water. Recent projections range from 0.2 meters to 2.0 meters (0.66 to 6.6 feet)
What's the projected temperature change associated with that? The EPA page at https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/c ... emperature has this statement:
Increases in average global temperatures are expected to be within the range of 0.5°F to 8.6°F by 2100, with a likely increase of at least 2.7°F for all scenarios except the one representing the most aggressive mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.[
So saying that an increase in 2 or 3 degrees global temperature would mean a tens of meters rise in sea level does appear to be an exaggeration with respect to what's expected. Also note that there is a lot of uncertainty in the projections. If you read around those two web pages I linked a little bit you can see that.

This is an example, I think, of media bias. It's pretty easy to critically evaluate what the guy giving the testimony was saying and raise questions about that statement on sea level rise. But I don't think most media people are interested in that. I think they just accept what people like that say. Meanwhile if somebody on the other side says something they critically evaluate it to the nth degree. I don't think it's a conscious thing. But I think it happens all the time.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60482
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Beating Guam Guy At His Own Game

Post by Ibanez »

JohnStOnge wrote:Republicans do make themselves look bad in sessions like this. They need to get a statistician to run for office ang get elected, put him on one of these committees, and make him the guy that talks to the scientists whether it's climate change or any other issue. A statistician would be good because statistics is basically the backbone of all inferential science. A statistician can address issues of cause and effect inference in just about any field.
Charisma is usually a factor in getting a politician elected. I'm going to guess that most statisticians aren't. :twocents: 8-)
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59296
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Beating Guam Guy At His Own Game

Post by kalm »

Ibanez wrote:
JohnStOnge wrote:Republicans do make themselves look bad in sessions like this. They need to get a statistician to run for office ang get elected, put him on one of these committees, and make him the guy that talks to the scientists whether it's climate change or any other issue. A statistician would be good because statistics is basically the backbone of all inferential science. A statistician can address issues of cause and effect inference in just about any field.
Charisma is usually a factor in getting a politician elected. I'm going to guess that most statisticians aren't. :twocents: 8-)
Image
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Gil Dobie
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 30939
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:45 pm
I am a fan of: Norse Dakota State
Location: Historic Leduc Estate

Re: Beating Guam Guy At His Own Game

Post by Gil Dobie »

I always look back to the poll that said 7% of American's believe chocolate milk comes from brown cows, when articles like this come out.
Image
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59296
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Beating Guam Guy At His Own Game

Post by kalm »

Gil Dobie wrote:I always look back to the poll that said 7% of American's believe chocolate milk comes from brown cows, when articles like this come out.
Why? :?

These guys are supposed to be slightly ahead of the average Bizon fan. They're our representatives.
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Beating Guam Guy At His Own Game

Post by JohnStOnge »

"What do you say to people who theorize that the Earth as it continues to warm is returning to its normal temperature?" Posey asked.

"Look, if you want to characterize a temperature above today's temperature as normal, you're free to do that, but that doesn't mean that's a planet we want to live on," Duffy said.
I don't know if "normal" applies but we are indeed well below what the average of believed temperatures over the time since large vertebrates started to thrive on land. Here is a graphic:

Image

One could disagree about what's meant by the time during which large vertebrates have lived on land but I would say for sure that was happening during the Permian period and arguably during the Carboniferous period. So you're talking about about 360 to 290 million years ago. And you can see that the global temperature now is believed to be lower than it's been during most of the time since then. And it'll be lower than it's been most of the time since then even if global temperatures rise by the upper limits of the uncertainty intervals associated with current projections by the climate science community.

So what the politician was saying was basically referring to an accurate point.
Last edited by JohnStOnge on Fri May 18, 2018 6:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
Gil Dobie
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 30939
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:45 pm
I am a fan of: Norse Dakota State
Location: Historic Leduc Estate

Re: Beating Guam Guy At His Own Game

Post by Gil Dobie »

kalm wrote:
Gil Dobie wrote:I always look back to the poll that said 7% of American's believe chocolate milk comes from brown cows, when articles like this come out.
Why? :?

These guys are supposed to be slightly ahead of the average Bizon fan. They're our representatives.
You have more faith in the elected ones than I do.

Image
Last edited by Gil Dobie on Fri May 18, 2018 6:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59296
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Beating Guam Guy At His Own Game

Post by kalm »

JohnStOnge wrote:
"What do you say to people who theorize that the Earth as it continues to warm is returning to its normal temperature?" Posey asked.

"Look, if you want to characterize a temperature above today's temperature as normal, you're free to do that, but that doesn't mean that's a planet we want to live on," Duffy said.
I don't know if "normal" applies but we are indeed well below what the average of believed temperatures over the time since large vertebrates started to thrive on land. Here is a graphic:

Image

One could disagree about what's meant by the time during which large vertebrates have lived on land but I would say for sure that was happening during the Permian period and arguably during the Carboniferous period. So you're talking about about 360 to 290 million years ago. And you can see that the global temperature now is believed to be lower than it's been during most of the time since then. And it'll be lower than it's been most of the time since then even if global temperatures rise by the upper limits of the uncertainty intervals associated with current projections by the climate science community.

So what the politician was saying was basically referring to an accurate point.
How many humans were walking around during the carboniferous?
Image
Image
Image
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59296
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Beating Guam Guy At His Own Game

Post by kalm »

Gil Dobie wrote:
kalm wrote:
Why? :?

These guys are supposed to be slightly ahead of the average Bizon fan. They're our representatives.
You have more faith in the elected ones than I do.
:lol:
Image
Image
Image
houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 23233
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: Beating Guam Guy At His Own Game

Post by houndawg »

kalm wrote:And sea level rise is due to rocks tumblimg into the ocean. Makes sense.

Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) said scientists said in the 1970s that the Earth was cooling, a popular talking point of climate skeptics and the subject of a fake Time magazine cover that has become a meme. Duffy corrected him and said that was essentially an outlier position at the time and that scientists long ago determined that humans were warming the planet.

Posey also asked how carbon dioxide could be captured in permafrost in the periods before humans existed. Duffy told him that it was from non-decayed organic matter. Human activity is now causing the Arctic to warm and thaw the ground, releasing the carbon into the atmosphere, Duffy said.

Posey then asked about theories related to warming being beneficial for habitats and to people.

"What do you say to people who theorize that the Earth as it continues to warm is returning to its normal temperature?" Posey asked.

"Look, if you want to characterize a temperature above today's temperature as normal, you're free to do that, but that doesn't mean that's a planet we want to live on," Duffy said.

"I don't want to get philosophical; I'm trying to stay on science here," Posey said.

"I'm not getting philosophical; I'm getting extremely practical," Duffy said. "I'm being extremely practical — if we let the planet warm 2 or 3 degrees, we will have tens of meters of sea-level rise, and the community where I live will essentially cease to exist."
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/ ... level-rise

Well shit, where did he think the rocks were going when the island tipped over?
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59959
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Beating Guam Guy At His Own Game

Post by AZGrizFan »

JohnStOnge wrote:
"What do you say to people who theorize that the Earth as it continues to warm is returning to its normal temperature?" Posey asked.

"Look, if you want to characterize a temperature above today's temperature as normal, you're free to do that, but that doesn't mean that's a planet we want to live on," Duffy said.
I don't know if "normal" applies but we are indeed well below what the average of believed temperatures over the time since large vertebrates started to thrive on land. Here is a graphic:

Image

One could disagree about what's meant by the time during which large vertebrates have lived on land but I would say for sure that was happening during the Permian period and arguably during the Carboniferous period. So you're talking about about 360 to 290 million years ago. And you can see that the global temperature now is believed to be lower than it's been during most of the time since then. And it'll be lower than it's been most of the time since then even if global temperatures rise by the upper limits of the uncertainty intervals associated with current projections by the climate science community.

So what the politician was saying was basically referring to an accurate point.
Hold up. You're telling me that at those high temps, with no ice, there was still land available? :lol:
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image
User avatar
Chizzang
Level5
Level5
Posts: 19273
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:36 am
I am a fan of: Deflate Gate
A.K.A.: The Quasar Kid
Location: Soon to be Eden Prairie...

Re: Beating Guam Guy At His Own Game

Post by Chizzang »

Image
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59959
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Beating Guam Guy At His Own Game

Post by AZGrizFan »

Chizzang wrote:Image
By rocks, he means ice rocks. In liquid form. :thumb:
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image
User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 18033
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: Beating Guam Guy At His Own Game

Post by GannonFan »

I think we established pretty well during the Facebook hearings that generally speaking, on both sides of the political aisle, that our elected representatives are not ever going to be confused with being the "smartest people in the room".
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
User avatar
Pwns
Level4
Level4
Posts: 7273
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:38 pm
I am a fan of: Georgia Friggin' Southern
A.K.A.: FCS_pwns_FBS (AGS)

Re: Beating Guam Guy At His Own Game

Post by Pwns »

JohnStOnge wrote: One could disagree about what's meant by the time during which large vertebrates have lived on land but I would say for sure that was happening during the Permian period and arguably during the Carboniferous period. So you're talking about about 360 to 290 million years ago. And you can see that the global temperature now is believed to be lower than it's been during most of the time since then. And it'll be lower than it's been most of the time since then even if global temperatures rise by the upper limits of the uncertainty intervals associated with current projections by the climate science community.

So what the politician was saying was basically referring to an accurate point.
I get that the science could be wrong. It's almost certainly more complex than climate scientists make it out to be. I just don't think it's going to be a political winner to focus on that.

You want to hit liberals on the issue of CO2 emissions and energy, you should focus on their favoring of feel-good policies like:
1. The Paris Climate Deal
2. Vehicle Emission standards
3. Cap and Trade proposals
4. Renewable energy

All of those things amount to slowing down the bleeding of a severed artery. The renewable energy issue is an especially good one to hit because the more places like Germany and California get involved with renewables the more it becomes apparent that it's going to be much more expensive and difficult and slow to reach 100% renewable energy than a lot of greenies think.

There are other reasons to eliminate fossil fuels besides climate change, and "the science could be wrong" isn't going to cut it.
Celebrate Diversity.*
*of appearance only. Restrictions apply.
HI54UNI
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 12387
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:39 pm
I am a fan of: Firing Mark Farley
A.K.A.: Bikinis for JSO
Location: The Panther State

Re: Beating Guam Guy At His Own Game

Post by HI54UNI »

Chizzang wrote:Image
Alabama. Nothing more needs to be said.
If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism. Ronald Reagan, 1975.

Progressivism is cancer

All my posts are satire
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Beating Guam Guy At His Own Game

Post by JohnStOnge »

kalm wrote:How many humans were walking around during the carboniferous?
My bet would be that our species would never have evolved if temperatures hadn't cooled. Here is a chart showing global temperature estimates during the Age of Mammals (Cenozoic Era) from an on line textbook at https://opentextbc.ca/geology/chapter/1 ... s-history/:

Image

I think that even slight changes in the history of the climate would have meant completely different evolutionary outcomes. Our Family, Hominidae, arose when it was very cool in terms of geologic time. Had it never gotten that cool I doubt that the exact same family would have arisen. And I think it even less likely that our specific species would ever have arisen. That's just because we are the product of a unique history and I think that if you change anything about that history the specific set of circumstances that led to our existence...well...you see.

However, now that we are here, we are extremely adaptable. Even before technology we lived in environments ranging from the equatorial tropics to the Arctic. We lived in rain forests. We lived in deserts. We lived on the tundra. Live generally as we know it has thrived under much warmer circumstances than we have now and under much warmer circumstances than we're going to have in 2100 if the projections are correct. I don't think the kind of temperature increase represented by even the upper end of the uncertainty range of the projections is going to kill the planet and I don't think it's something our species can't adapt to and thrive in.

I think there are bigger threats to the survival of our species than Climate Change.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Beating Guam Guy At His Own Game

Post by JohnStOnge »

Pwns wrote:
JohnStOnge wrote: One could disagree about what's meant by the time during which large vertebrates have lived on land but I would say for sure that was happening during the Permian period and arguably during the Carboniferous period. So you're talking about about 360 to 290 million years ago. And you can see that the global temperature now is believed to be lower than it's been during most of the time since then. And it'll be lower than it's been most of the time since then even if global temperatures rise by the upper limits of the uncertainty intervals associated with current projections by the climate science community.

So what the politician was saying was basically referring to an accurate point.
I get that the science could be wrong. It's almost certainly more complex than climate scientists make it out to be. I just don't think it's going to be a political winner to focus on that.

You want to hit liberals on the issue of CO2 emissions and energy, you should focus on their favoring of feel-good policies like:
1. The Paris Climate Deal
2. Vehicle Emission standards
3. Cap and Trade proposals
4. Renewable energy

All of those things amount to slowing down the bleeding of a severed artery. The renewable energy issue is an especially good one to hit because the more places like Germany and California get involved with renewables the more it becomes apparent that it's going to be much more expensive and difficult and slow to reach 100% renewable energy than a lot of greenies think.

There are other reasons to eliminate fossil fuels besides climate change, and "the science could be wrong" isn't going to cut it.
I wasn't doing the science could be wrong thing in that post. My intent was to say that if the science is right we are well below what global temperatures have typically been during the history of life on this planet so in a sense the politician was right in saying we would be moving more towards what has been "normal" if the global temperature rises some.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 25460
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Beating Guam Guy At His Own Game

Post by CID1990 »

JohnStOnge wrote:
kalm wrote:How many humans were walking around during the carboniferous?
My bet would be that our species would never have evolved if temperatures hadn't cooled. Here is a chart showing global temperature estimates during the Age of Mammals (Cenozoic Era) from an on line textbook at https://opentextbc.ca/geology/chapter/1 ... s-history/:

Image

I think that even slight changes in the history of the climate would have meant completely different evolutionary outcomes. Our Family, Hominidae, arose when it was very cool in terms of geologic time. Had it never gotten that cool I doubt that the exact same family would have arisen. And I think it even less likely that our specific species would ever have arisen. That's just because we are the product of a unique history and I think that if you change anything about that history the specific set of circumstances that led to our existence...well...you see.

However, now that we are here, we are extremely adaptable. Even before technology we lived in environments ranging from the equatorial tropics to the Arctic. We lived in rain forests. We lived in deserts. We lived on the tundra. Live generally as we know it has thrived under much warmer circumstances than we have now and under much warmer circumstances than we're going to have in 2100 if the projections are correct. I don't think the kind of temperature increase represented by even the upper end of the uncertainty range of the projections is going to kill the planet and I don't think it's something our species can't adapt to and thrive in.

I think there are bigger threats to the survival of our species than Climate Change.
That's an interesting theory -

but I'd be curious to see that same data, limited to central and southern Africa

from what we know about the position of that region during the time that our early ancestors evolved (before the Homo genus), the climate was more stable than the overall world average climate - the region has been largely subtropical for a few hundred million years if memory serves


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Beating Guam Guy At His Own Game

Post by JohnStOnge »

CID1990 wrote:
JohnStOnge wrote:
My bet would be that our species would never have evolved if temperatures hadn't cooled. Here is a chart showing global temperature estimates during the Age of Mammals (Cenozoic Era) from an on line textbook at https://opentextbc.ca/geology/chapter/1 ... s-history/:

Image

I think that even slight changes in the history of the climate would have meant completely different evolutionary outcomes. Our Family, Hominidae, arose when it was very cool in terms of geologic time. Had it never gotten that cool I doubt that the exact same family would have arisen. And I think it even less likely that our specific species would ever have arisen. That's just because we are the product of a unique history and I think that if you change anything about that history the specific set of circumstances that led to our existence...well...you see.

However, now that we are here, we are extremely adaptable. Even before technology we lived in environments ranging from the equatorial tropics to the Arctic. We lived in rain forests. We lived in deserts. We lived on the tundra. Live generally as we know it has thrived under much warmer circumstances than we have now and under much warmer circumstances than we're going to have in 2100 if the projections are correct. I don't think the kind of temperature increase represented by even the upper end of the uncertainty range of the projections is going to kill the planet and I don't think it's something our species can't adapt to and thrive in.

I think there are bigger threats to the survival of our species than Climate Change.
That's an interesting theory -

but I'd be curious to see that same data, limited to central and southern Africa

from what we know about the position of that region during the time that our early ancestors evolved (before the Homo genus), the climate was more stable than the overall world average climate - the region has been largely subtropical for a few hundred million years if memory serves


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I was not aware of that but the big thing is that we are here and we are extremely adaptable. We can obviously survive and even thrive in a variety of environments and that was the case even before we had technology. My understanding is that the belief is that there were people living in the Arctic 40,000 years ago. And, of course, people were living near the equator well before that. We are an extremely adaptable species.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 25460
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Beating Guam Guy At His Own Game

Post by CID1990 »

JohnStOnge wrote:
CID1990 wrote:
That's an interesting theory -

but I'd be curious to see that same data, limited to central and southern Africa

from what we know about the position of that region during the time that our early ancestors evolved (before the Homo genus), the climate was more stable than the overall world average climate - the region has been largely subtropical for a few hundred million years if memory serves


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I was not aware of that but the big thing is that we are here and we are extremely adaptable. We can obviously survive and even thrive in a variety of environments and that was the case even before we had technology. My understanding is that the belief is that there were people living in the Arctic 40,000 years ago. And, of course, people were living near the equator well before that. We are an extremely adaptable species.
Well our adaptability is certainly a feature - back in the days when we were adapting in terms of morphology (like Neanderthals having physical adaptations for the cold) it took tens of thousands of years to select for those traits

now, we don't adapt our bodies - we just hit fast forward on the process with technology - and adapt our immediate environment (put an AC unit in the window)

The problem is that if the effects of climate change are adverse to the point that it require physical adaptations to survive them, we won't have time to do it because the changes won't be a as gradual as something like an encroaching ice age. So we'll have to deal with it through the use of technology and cooperation - I'm not sure we will be capable of that in ways that will allow us to thrive at our current levels. But our species will certainly survive (and we might come out the other side better for it)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
User avatar
Chizzang
Level5
Level5
Posts: 19273
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:36 am
I am a fan of: Deflate Gate
A.K.A.: The Quasar Kid
Location: Soon to be Eden Prairie...

Re: Beating Guam Guy At His Own Game

Post by Chizzang »

At some point the argument has to be as simple as "isn't it time we moved on anyway"
in regards to new energy and fuel sources

If money wasn't the single most important "thing" on earth (it is and I get that)
We could allow ourselves to actually entertain scientific development and growth in earnest

The question:
Why every building below 40 degrees N doesn't have a solar panel on it to this day... is shameful
We could NOT build the 300 M1 tanks the Military already DOESN'T want
and pay for that in 3 months

We're our own worst problem - that cannot be argued - regardless of which side of "science" you debate
and all the other stuff aside - we are ultimately our biggest problem... Even Jesus knew that
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
Post Reply