Or it could just be the case for Anthropomorphic Climate Change is dubious at best... filled with decades of outrageous claims that have never come to pass. Its hard to believe a few more parts per billion of plant food in the atmosphere is going to destroy an ever evolving and living system that has supported life for over 3 Billion years.
13 comments
Anthropomorphic climate change... Okay, that's a new one, and I've known my share of therians and otherkin.
Also, while the paleoclimate record does indicate that the planet has taken more dense CO2 levels, that doesn't mean that it's a good idea. Things have changed a bit in the last 70 million years. Like the position of continents, for example, which do have bearing on global climate. Also, look into the theories on the Permian-Triassic extinction, aka the Great Dying. You'd be surprised about the suspected role of climate change.
Anthropomorphic? Do you mean human-made?
It's not the least bit dubious. Humans aren't the sole cause for the change, but our actions the last two hundred years have sped it up. The debate is whether we can do anything to reduce or turn back our impact, and whether it's already too late.
Nobody, of any functioning brain power, thinks that anthropogenic climate change will destroy the biosphere. They do, however, believe that human society will experience substantial negative consequences.
It also "could be" that the science of global warming, which has been understood for over a century and is accepted by almost every climatologist worldwide, is correct. Life on earth will continue (for some species), but it is going to be even harder for the humans who live on the edge. More flooding and more storms means more displaced people who simply have no home to go to. Unpredictable weather means more crop failure, thus more famines. Hungry and homeless people mean mass migrations....and war, almost inevitably.
We have lived, most of us comfortably, in a world with predictable weather. What do we do when there is no "normal" anymore?
Anthropomorphic Climate Change image
Its hard to believe a few more parts per billion of plant food in the atmosphere is going to destroy an ever evolving and living system that has supported life for over 3 Billion years.
HJ seems to miss the fact, other than what was pointed out previously, that it's the rate of climate change that's the main problem. If it changes too rapidly, you know, by continuously pumping billions of tons of previously sequestered CO² into the atmosphere, it outpaces the biospheres ability to adapt to it. Life will go on, but there are going to be some severe consequences.
That's not even getting into one specific problem that's soon to present itself with the "shelled" life in the oceans losing the ability to create their shells because the CO² absorption is well on it's way to lowering the pH to levels low enough that calcium won't form. This, much like the problems we are going to have to face with losing some of our pollinators, is going to be disastrous to the food chains. While pollinator loss has multi-faceted causes which include climate change, like pesticide use for instance, the acidification of the oceans does not.
This is not "rocket science".
(Also, the whole "plant food" nonsensical talking point is dumb as fuck, HJ. It's kinda like telling people whose homes are being threatened by a rising flood not to worry because the water is good for their lawn. Don't be that idiot.)
image
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
