5 ms·

> we make the conditions worse for all species That's your deduction. We should correlate the "dying" to other times in the last millions/billions of years whe

> we make the conditions worse for all species That's your deduction. We should correlate the "dying" to other times in the last millions/billions of years where the temperature rose tis "quickly". I really feel humans think they change way more than they do.

palata 2y ago
> That's your deduction It's not. > I really feel humans think they change way more than they do. In 2025 this is either extremely uninformed or super dumb. Start reading, maybe.
- jeffhuys 2y ago
  I wish we could discuss this in a more professional manner. I might be informed by sources that contradict the sources you read. That doesn't mean I'm wrong, or you're wrong, but it would be nice to just discuss this as humans. I do understand that this is a sensitive subject to some, so I apologize for any distress I seem to have caused.
  - palata 2y ago
    > That doesn't mean I'm wrong, or you're wrong There are things where the scientific consensus is so big that even if you "disagree" with it (whatever that means), you have to assume that you are wrong until you prove you aren't. Maybe gravity doesn't exist, maybe we live in the Matrix. But for all intents and purposes, gravity does exist. If you disagree, you're wrong unless you come with evidence that shakes the scientific consensus. I mean evidence, not a mere belief that maybe gravity doesn't exist because you've read it somewhere. If you don't believe that we humans are the cause of the biodiversity loss and climate change, today, you're wrong. And if you can't recognise that... well join a Flat Earther convention and have fun there, I don't have time for this here.
- subjectsigma 2y ago
  Ah, the classic “Anyone smart thinks exactly like I do, so you must be dumb.” I read his comment as an admission that nature is currently too wonderful and complicated for us to understand or control, not an assertion that global warming isn’t real or whatever you think he said. Humans created global warming and mass extinctions and it seems like the best way to stop it is to get more smart and dedicated humans, which aren’t rare but are uncommon. You better start hoping we pop out more people
  - palata 2y ago
    > Ah, the classic “Anyone smart thinks exactly like I do, so you must be dumb.” Not at all, but that's the thing: it's very difficult to have a discussion with people who reason like you. Because you can believe something does not make it right. Saying "my sources are different" is just a way to justify your beliefs. "Well, I believe in some people, you believe in others, that makes us equal". That's how people like Trump get elected. He keeps saying everything and its contrary, and people just believe in him. Where all the facts suggest that he is a dangerous (yet charismatic) moron. The scientific way to approach it is this: "There is a large consensus about X. I don't know much about X, so I could believe Y and Z. I want to get informed, so I need to read and understand X (not Y and Z, not yet). Once I do understand X, I can start to question it by reading about Y and Z". You'll find that usually, after you have some reasonable understanding of this large consensus, Y and Z usually are at least less consistent, usually vague, generally believed by people who don't have much knowledge about X. I am not saying that you need to have 3 postdocs in X to give an opinion. But you have to make the difference between scientific consensus and beliefs. And if you want to change the scientific consensus, you have to be pretty damn well informed, you can't just repeat Y and Z because you read it on some social network. Now I get your next answer: I'm just a nobody on the Internet, why would you believe me instead of Trump? But again, I don't need you to trust me. I need you to do your due diligence and read about the scientific consensus before you feel entitled to say "my opinion is worth just as much as yours". And now you say: "and why do you think you're right?". I studied environmental chemistry, and I can tell you that the consensus is goddamn consistent, whereas the climate denier claims are systematically uninformed.
    - 2y ago
itishappy 2y ago
> We should correlate the "dying" to other times in the last millions/billions of years where the temperature rose tis "quickly". We certainly would if we found evidence of any similar events in the past. Do you have contradictory info? > As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming. > Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/pag... > The findings also reveal that the Earth's current global temperature of 59 degrees Fahrenheit is cooler than Earth has been over much of the Phanerozoic. But greenhouse gas emissions from human-caused climate change are currently warming the planet at a much faster rate than even the fastest warming events of the Phanerozoic, the researchers say. That speed of warming puts species and ecosystems around the world at risk and is causing a rapid rise in sea level. Some other episodes of rapid climate change during the Phanerozoic have sparked mass extinctions. https://news.arizona.edu/news/study-over-nearly-half-billion-years-earths-temperature-has-changed-drastically-driven-carbon https://news.arizona.edu/news/study-over-nearly-half-billion... https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk3705 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk3705
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> We should correlate the "dying" to other times in the last millions/billions of years where the temperature rose tis "quickly" They’re doing a bad job of arguing a good point. Let me try. We are objectively in a mass-extinction event [1].The sixth or seventh in our planet’s billion-plus year history of life. Its most-intense phase lines up with industrialisation [2]. That said, we obviously don’t make life worse for all species. Cattle, cats, dogs, pigeons, rodents, roaches, influenza et cetera are doing quite well with humans. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Acceleration https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Acceleration
- palata 2y ago
  I guess cattle is doing quite well if your metrics is the number of individuals. But you're right that we don't make life worse for all species. Just almost all of them.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > guess cattle is doing quite well if your metrics is the number of individuals I live in ranch country. Cattle do fine. They’re wild animals that live much like the bison, on the same land as the bison, except they get food and medicine and don’t have to worry about predators tearing them apart alive. In exchange, we kill them relatively young (though not that young risk adjusted), and that varies from place to place. (Dairies are more industrialised.)
    - palata 2y ago
      Sure, it's not bad everywhere.

palata 2y ago

> That's your deduction It's not. > I really feel humans think they change way more than they do. In 2025 this is either extremely uninformed or super dumb. Start reading, maybe.

jeffhuys 2y ago
I wish we could discuss this in a more professional manner. I might be informed by sources that contradict the sources you read. That doesn't mean I'm wrong, or you're wrong, but it would be nice to just discuss this as humans. I do understand that this is a sensitive subject to some, so I apologize for any distress I seem to have caused.
- palata 2y ago
  > That doesn't mean I'm wrong, or you're wrong There are things where the scientific consensus is so big that even if you "disagree" with it (whatever that means), you have to assume that you are wrong until you prove you aren't. Maybe gravity doesn't exist, maybe we live in the Matrix. But for all intents and purposes, gravity does exist. If you disagree, you're wrong unless you come with evidence that shakes the scientific consensus. I mean evidence, not a mere belief that maybe gravity doesn't exist because you've read it somewhere. If you don't believe that we humans are the cause of the biodiversity loss and climate change, today, you're wrong. And if you can't recognise that... well join a Flat Earther convention and have fun there, I don't have time for this here.
subjectsigma 2y ago
Ah, the classic “Anyone smart thinks exactly like I do, so you must be dumb.” I read his comment as an admission that nature is currently too wonderful and complicated for us to understand or control, not an assertion that global warming isn’t real or whatever you think he said. Humans created global warming and mass extinctions and it seems like the best way to stop it is to get more smart and dedicated humans, which aren’t rare but are uncommon. You better start hoping we pop out more people
- palata 2y ago
  > Ah, the classic “Anyone smart thinks exactly like I do, so you must be dumb.” Not at all, but that's the thing: it's very difficult to have a discussion with people who reason like you. Because you can believe something does not make it right. Saying "my sources are different" is just a way to justify your beliefs. "Well, I believe in some people, you believe in others, that makes us equal". That's how people like Trump get elected. He keeps saying everything and its contrary, and people just believe in him. Where all the facts suggest that he is a dangerous (yet charismatic) moron. The scientific way to approach it is this: "There is a large consensus about X. I don't know much about X, so I could believe Y and Z. I want to get informed, so I need to read and understand X (not Y and Z, not yet). Once I do understand X, I can start to question it by reading about Y and Z". You'll find that usually, after you have some reasonable understanding of this large consensus, Y and Z usually are at least less consistent, usually vague, generally believed by people who don't have much knowledge about X. I am not saying that you need to have 3 postdocs in X to give an opinion. But you have to make the difference between scientific consensus and beliefs. And if you want to change the scientific consensus, you have to be pretty damn well informed, you can't just repeat Y and Z because you read it on some social network. Now I get your next answer: I'm just a nobody on the Internet, why would you believe me instead of Trump? But again, I don't need you to trust me. I need you to do your due diligence and read about the scientific consensus before you feel entitled to say "my opinion is worth just as much as yours". And now you say: "and why do you think you're right?". I studied environmental chemistry, and I can tell you that the consensus is goddamn consistent, whereas the climate denier claims are systematically uninformed.
  - 2y ago

itishappy 2y ago

> We should correlate the "dying" to other times in the last millions/billions of years where the temperature rose tis "quickly". We certainly would if we found evidence of any similar events in the past. Do you have contradictory info? > As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming. > Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/pag... > The findings also reveal that the Earth's current global temperature of 59 degrees Fahrenheit is cooler than Earth has been over much of the Phanerozoic. But greenhouse gas emissions from human-caused climate change are currently warming the planet at a much faster rate than even the fastest warming events of the Phanerozoic, the researchers say. That speed of warming puts species and ecosystems around the world at risk and is causing a rapid rise in sea level. Some other episodes of rapid climate change during the Phanerozoic have sparked mass extinctions. https://news.arizona.edu/news/study-over-nearly-half-billion-years-earths-temperature-has-changed-drastically-driven-carbon https://news.arizona.edu/news/study-over-nearly-half-billion... https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk3705 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk3705

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> We should correlate the "dying" to other times in the last millions/billions of years where the temperature rose tis "quickly" They’re doing a bad job of arguing a good point. Let me try. We are objectively in a mass-extinction event [1].The sixth or seventh in our planet’s billion-plus year history of life. Its most-intense phase lines up with industrialisation [2]. That said, we obviously don’t make life worse for all species. Cattle, cats, dogs, pigeons, rodents, roaches, influenza et cetera are doing quite well with humans. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Acceleration https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Acceleration

palata 2y ago
I guess cattle is doing quite well if your metrics is the number of individuals. But you're right that we don't make life worse for all species. Just almost all of them.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > guess cattle is doing quite well if your metrics is the number of individuals I live in ranch country. Cattle do fine. They’re wild animals that live much like the bison, on the same land as the bison, except they get food and medicine and don’t have to worry about predators tearing them apart alive. In exchange, we kill them relatively young (though not that young risk adjusted), and that varies from place to place. (Dairies are more industrialised.)
  - palata 2y ago
    Sure, it's not bad everywhere.