For Lin Lyons. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...
If you mean human evolution, it would take a very long time for that to happen
Evolution?! Ha! Ha! Who believes that anymore? If anything, man has devolved. Just look at the south side of Chicago. Many of those residents look and act more archaic than any Cro-magnon. Just look at our leaders and compare them to what we had when this nation of the US was founded.
If you believe in Evolution and Catastrophic Climate Change you have a double dose of insanity.
This is probably relevant background:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...
https://www.google.com/#q=6th+extinction
When there is a significant die-off, that creates environment for new species. New species come into being all the time. Most of the time, they face too much competition, and do not survive. When there's an extinction, there's lots less competition, so more "new" species survive. That's evolution.
What's been happening is that in our time, a significant number of species will die out. It's already happening, and the conditions that cause it are increasing. Global warming is some of that. Humans taking over more and more of the earth's surface, to grow food and provide lumber, are, at the moment, the more important element. However, as global warming increases, it will tend toward the primary cause.
Considering Kano's argument that more CO2 is good, one might note that he's made that statement, conservatively, dozens of times. And never a shred of evidence to back it up. Never. He's repeatedly asked for "proof" of global warming. But it would seem that he thinks he shouldn't be held to that same standard. We already have 40% more CO2. If there was going to be an increase in plant activity, it should already be obvious. It is not. Because the argument is not true. There really are no environments in which CO2 is the limiting growth factor. As such, having more provides no benefit at all.
