• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Renewable Energy Reported to Threaten Biodiversity

Deuce said:
It can't be unrelated because they're making a comparison. But hey, it's an understandable mistake for you to make when you aren't even reading entire sentences.
Click to expand...

Meh. It's not their point and you know it, but you're grasping at straws. Carry on.
 
Jack Hays said:
Meh. It's not their point and you know it, but you're grasping at straws. Carry on.
Click to expand...

You're grasping at literal sentence fragments. :lamo
 
Deuce said:
You're grasping at literal sentence fragments. :lamo
Click to expand...

Actually, it's a full sentence and the conclusion of the abstract.

". . . Mining threats to biodiversity will increase as more mines target materials for renewable energy production and, without strategic planning, these new threats to biodiversity may surpass those averted by climate change mitigation."
 
Jack Hays said:
Actually, it's a full sentence and the conclusion of the abstract.

". . . Mining threats to biodiversity will increase as more mines target materials for renewable energy production and, without strategic planning, these new threats to biodiversity may surpass those averted by climate change mitigation."
Click to expand...

Without strategic planning, is the part you keep ignoring. Yes, yes, I know. Jack Hays has not personally seen strategic planning for climate change mitigation efforts that aren't actually happening, somehow that means... something important, I dunno.
 
Deuce said:
Without strategic planning, is the part you keep ignoring. Yes, yes, I know. Jack Hays has not personally seen strategic planning for climate change mitigation efforts that aren't actually happening, somehow that means... something important, I dunno.
Click to expand...


Keep up the good work.
 
Deuce said:
:lamo

Not even pretending to argue anymore. Good day then!
Click to expand...

There's nothing to argue. You are trying to make a point out of nothing. I don't blame you for trying, but I'm not obliged to indulge your desperation.
 
Jack Hays said:
There's nothing to argue. You are trying to make a point out of nothing. I don't blame you for trying, but I'm not obliged to indulge your desperation.
Click to expand...

Oh no, I've already proven my point. Thank you for your concern.
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]Species Extinction Rate Plummets Whopping 96% During Warming, Elevated CO2[/h]By P Gosselin on 8. July 2016
By Kenneth Richard Last month, National Geographic and other news organizations ran the disheartening headline “First Mammal Species Goes Extinct Due to Climate Change“1. The small rat, whose only habitat was “a single island off Australia,” hasn’t been spotted since 2009. Bramble cay melomy Melomys rubicola. In 2016 declared extinct on Bramble cay. Photo: State […]
Click to expand...


I don't know what you're trying to say that refutes the substance of my post that climate change is a top threat to biodiversity, refuting the claim in the post to which I replied. They typical impertinent misdirection distractive posting of Jack Hays that says nothing on point.
 
bluesmoke said:
I don't know what you're trying to say that refutes the substance of my post that climate change is a top threat to biodiversity, refuting the claim in the post to which I replied. They typical impertinent misdirection distractive posting of Jack Hays that says nothing on point.
Click to expand...
Your claim was inaccurate.
 
bluesmoke said:
I don't know what you're trying to say that refutes the substance of my post that climate change is a top threat to biodiversity, refuting the claim in the post to which I replied. They typical impertinent misdirection distractive posting of Jack Hays that says nothing on point.
Click to expand...
Yes, the climate has always wreaked havoc on the life on this planet. It has for thousands of millennia, and it will continue to do so for all of time. What makes you think our puny actions make much different outside of your obvious indoctrination?
 
"Well well well. Looks like we're in for some "Green on Green" combat. "

Cripple fight! Contact all your friends funniest fight in the world coming up!

P.S. How do you do quotes now?
 
Jack Hays said:
Your claim was inaccurate.
Click to expand...


My claim was that climate change is a top threat to biodiversity and I cited evidence to support that claim, which you can't refute. Some degree of inaccuracy, which you can't show either, does not change the substance of the claim nor the validity of the supporting evidence.
 
bluesmoke said:
My claim was that climate change is a top threat to biodiversity and I cited evidence to support that claim, which you can't refute. Some degree of inaccuracy, which you can't show either, does not change the substance of the claim nor the validity of the supporting evidence.
Click to expand...
What species will likely to be made extinct by the warming as per the IPCC's climate forcasts?

Just name one. Just one which would be endangered by the warming aqt max.
 
bluesmoke said:
My claim was that climate change is a top threat to biodiversity and I cited evidence to support that claim, which you can't refute. Some degree of inaccuracy, which you can't show either, does not change the substance of the claim nor the validity of the supporting evidence.
Click to expand...
From the link in #12:

1970 to 2016 = 3 extinctions, or 0.7 extinctions per decade, 0.07 extinctions per year

We can conclude, then, that the species extinction rate has been 96% lower in the last approx. 45 years — when global warming has been rapid and CO2 concentrations have supposedly reached “dangerous” levels — than it was in the 470 years prior to 1970, when temperatures and CO2 were at cooler, “safer” levels.
 
Jack Hays said:
From the link in #12:

1970 to 2016 = 3 extinctions, or 0.7 extinctions per decade, 0.07 extinctions per year

We can conclude, then, that the species extinction rate has been 96% lower in the last approx. 45 years — when global warming has been rapid and CO2 concentrations have supposedly reached “dangerous” levels — than it was in the 470 years prior to 1970, when temperatures and CO2 were at cooler, “safer” levels.
Click to expand...
It's almost as if the enrichment of plant growth due to increased CO2 is a massive boon to life all across the world.
 

Attachments

  • change_in_leaf_area.jpg
    change_in_leaf_area.jpg
    80.6 KB · Views: 1
bluesmoke said:
The first two sentences of your excerpt are flat-out statement of the necessity of renewable energy production to halt climate change despite the threat to biodiversity. The last sentence is nothing more than a statement of the realm of possibility of what may happen in the worst event to biodiversity that is better explained by the last summation of the article, not given in your excerpt: “However, the ultimate impacts to biodiversity will depend on the mix of technologies used, their mineral needs and methods used to mine them, and the effectiveness of efforts to manage their environmental impacts.” Such is a standard statement of how well we manage matters being the determinant in how well is the outcome of our efforts, whatever is the subject of concern, in this case the benefit of renewable energy halting negative climate change vs the threat of environmental impact on biodiversity.

Are you against renewable energy production? Do you believe it will bring more damage to the environment, given such possibility as explained in your article, than the benefit of halting climate change? It's your OP. Do you even have a position in this matter?
Click to expand...
What is the originating power source now for electric cars? How are the batteries made? What from? How many electric plants are solar or wind powered?

You folks never think things through.
 
Paradoxical said:
What is the originating power source now for electric cars? How are the batteries made? What from? How many electric plants are solar or wind powered?

You folks never think things through.
Click to expand...
And look at the high death rates surrounding wind power.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, the climate has always wreaked havoc on the life on this planet. It has for thousands of millennia, and it will continue to do so for all of time. What makes you think our puny actions make much different outside of your obvious indoctrination?
Click to expand...


That man hasn't been on earth for those thousands of millennia and is so would be no longer given the havoc you mention previously wreaked. CO2, though, has not been higher since 1950 going forward for the last 800,000 yrs, which pretty much covers how long humans have been around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom