No, I showed the current trends and extended them over a a few times more. There's no valid reason for them not to be extended that far.
I can appreciate extrapolating a few degrees into the near future. But you're claiming that Earth will practically become Venus in terms of its climate within due time. Earth never became Venus even when all of the CO2 was in the atmosphere several billion years ago! Again, support this claim with reason (other than 'there's no reason to take this graph to the extreme') or accept that you've got nothing.
The lifespan is relevant because you're assuming they all live long enough to be able to populate the world.
Just quoting this for posterity. The very point behind the analogy (which again was lost on you) was this very thing.
The only "woo" here is you. Your tactics remind me of creationists. Arguing that there's no rational reason to prevent extinction? Oh yes, How critical...
Strawman. I never said there was no rational reason to prevent extinction. I said that in many cases, the rationality used for some species does not exist, and instead it becomes an emotional argument. This is significant, as species such as pandas and whales are used as poster-children for the 'save our planet' cause, when these species don't carry the same weight of rationality as more key species do.
The very fact you need to misrepresent my argument demonstrates your dishonesty in debate.
So? Subjective things can't be rationalized? This doesn't make one bit of sense.
Maybe not to you.
If I argue 'I want to save this painting from the fire because it is beautiful', and another says 'I want to throw this painting into the fire because it is ugly', both are using subjective reasoning in support of their decisions. The thing is, neither reason can be demonstrated as factual as it relies on the subjective opinions.
What definition of "Subjective" are you using? Provide a link. I can't find a single definition of the word that fits the way you're using it.
It's not a complicated definition; subjective, as in 'Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world' (
http://www.answers.com/topic/subjective). Aesthetics is a subjective opinion.
This is irrelevant. The argument is whether or not you have the right to take away what I find beautiful. I.E. wildlife. and whether or not my and many others admiration of it can be a reason to keep it. Which it can.
Of course. And I never suggested otherwise. This is not rational logic, but rather emotional justification.
Here's the difference; it is logical to say if I kill an animal, you will be sad, therefore if I do not wish you to be sad I should not kill the animal. There is an objective and reasonable outcome to which I can anticipate the ramifications of my decision. This becomes invalid if I don't care whether you're sad or not.
Yet simply saying animals should not be killed as I will be sad is not a logical rationalisation, but an emotional one. It falls short of being a rational and objective argument.
In the end emotional pleas only take on weight if the opinion of the masses is taken into account.
The problem here, Dustin, is that you're so desperate to argue a case you'll rage against any and all counter arguments. Personally, I also don't want to see species go extinct. However, if I try to use faulty logic and bad reasoning in support of this belief, my desire will not be taken seriously. Yet if I admit that it is an emotional plea based on my aesthetics, and can convince others to have that same emotional foundation, then I have a chance at promoting changes in opinion. In the end it's a battle of values anyway; the emotional ties individuals have to economy versus the emotional ties individuals have for biodiversity.
In other words, you're shooting yourself in the foot with bad rationalisation and ignorant arguments. Rather than take your persuasion seriously people will see only folly in your views and discredit them.
Could be many. Hasty generalization in particular. You're taking a tiny tiny sample of planets and then using that as evidence other planets won't have oxygen since those don't.
Strawman. I never said anything about lacking oxygen. A different ratio of oxygen to other gases would be incompatible with life (oh god why am I arguing this with you...)
So if a planet had a gravity difference of 5% more and an oxygen ratio difference of 30% more, we could not survive on it?
Not only is your logic faulty, so are your facts.
Here's a practical way of demonstrating a variation in oxygen levels; try climbing to several thousand metres above sea level. The difference in oxygen concentration is but a few percent less. See how you feel. Then, to be real daring, go where there is an oxygen difference of more than 30%. At this point I'd love to see it.
Good grief, You're the one arguing from ignorance here. My argument was simply that we should protect humpbacks because we don't know what effect their extinction would have on oceanic ecosystems.
This has to be one of the most tragic statements of the year.
WHAT EVIDENCE? The "Lack of" evidence? Please tell me you're not claiming that the "lack of" evidence humpbacks extinction will negatively affect the ecosystems is evidence it won't....
No. It's a non-claim. If you want to claim that they will, you need evidence.
Well done. You might learn a few manners yet.
Athon
