Mass extinction folly

[guardian]

I'm following up on a post from the General Discussion forum. Some DUers are claiming that the planet is currently experiencing a mass extinction event. I disagree.

1. I followed various links discussing "mass extinction" found them to be hysterical rants about coming doom and gloom with no real supporting data. Just a bunch of crap claiming a species goes extinct every "20 minutes" or another claims "137 species go extinct everyday" which equates to one every 10 minutes. The primary extinction link given by one DUer says "one half of all species of life on earth will be extinct in less than 100 years." This works out to about one extinct species every 6-7 minutes. The gross disparity between these estimates (read as pulled straight from their ass) shows just how much they are guessing. Just mindless emotional ranting and no empirical data.

2. Some posters and websites claim "the 6th mass-extinction we're in now" is already underway. Yet at best I can only find a few lists of named extinct species that list a few dozen species. A few dozen species out of the estimated 5-30 million currently living species represents a fraction of one percent (i.e., 0.000333%). Stated another way for the math challenged, in the last century 99.6666% of all species are still alive!

HARDLY A "MASS EXTINCTION" EVENT.

Even then, how does this extinction rate compare with the natural average historical extinction rate? Duh. You have no answer for that one either.

And of those few dozens species a significant part was to do over hunting and not due to climate or habitat destruction. Maybe pushing for awareness to the Asian culture to start using Viagra instead of tiger penis or rhinoceros horn we can save a few more.

The global warming gloom and doom people need to get clue and stop with these unfounded hysterical rantings. I think Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace) is right on track with an environmental philosophy. Let's focus on real problems and solutions. The U.S. is doing pretty good with environmental protections. Sure there is room for improvement. But we are not in a crisis.

Worldwide, the worst environmental problems come from developing countries like China, India, those in Africa, and other places that have zero environmental controls and are clear cutting forests for cooking fuel and heating. The effort and awareness messages should be on that, and not some mythical global warming pile of shit.

[ixion]

1. whether we're going through one now is debatable, for sure, however

the concept of mass extinctions is a constant. That is, no species stays dominant in a system forever.

[CBGLuthier]

2. The U.S. is doing pretty good with environmental protections.?

Well you lost me at that one there. That and anyone who uses the word "duh" as part of their argument.

Nice try though.

[Turbineguy]

6. The US is doing fairly well

although we would have done much, much better without the rebubs for the last 8 years.

All things are relative. We do fairly well for the size of our economy.

And at the very least there is concern and awareness.

[wtmusic]

9. We do slightly better than China, which is piss poor

2006 Chinese carbon output was 6% greater than ours; their gdp was $3T less.

Using population as a standard we are at the bottom of the barrel.

[quidam56]

10. Appalachia is turning into a toxic waste dump third world America

Thanks to Presidebt Bush and THE COAL INDUSTRY. http://www.wisecountyissues.com

[wtmusic]

7. The "global warming pile of shit" is a red flag too

Drill baby drill!

[TheWraith]

3. Kicked and recommended!

I hate the paranoia that people demonstrate based on shoddy soundbytes presenting themselves as science.

[wtmusic]

4. I think this, I think that. Good for you.

Provide some links.

"By 2050 Warming to Doom Million Species, Study Says

According to the researchers' collective results, the predicted range of climate change by 2050 will place 15 to 35 percent of the 1,103 species studied at risk of extinction. The numbers are expected to hold up when extrapolated globally, potentially dooming more than a million species.

"These are first-pass estimates, but they put the problem in the right ballpark … I expect more detailed studies to refine these numbers and to add data for additional regions, but not to change the general import of these findings," said Hannah.

Writing in an accompanying commentary to the study in Nature, J. Alan Pounds of the Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve in Costa Rica, and Robert Puschendorf, a biologist at the University of Costa Rica, say these estimates "might be optimistic." "

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0107_040107_extinction.html

[MineralMan]

5. Hmm...I hate to ask, but

can you give us an idea of what your credentials are to make such a judgment? I'm not saying you're wrong, but lots of people who make it their lives' work seem to think you are.

So, other than doing a couple of web searches, do you have a particular educational specialty or significant self-study to warrant our trusting you with these statements?

[amdezurik]

8. why the only credentials the OP's type needs

a freeptard "brain" and the "Guts" to type it anonymously on a web site, and of course FAUX anti-news told him so...why do you hate Amurika?

[Kali]

11. the main reason the US "is doing pretty good with environmental protections"

is because we have outsourced so much of our dirty work (mining/manufacturing)

[wtmusic]

12. Excellent point

Our CO2 production lags China's, yet if we factor in the amount of manufacturing contracted to China by American companies we would undoubtedly win the (dubious) honor.

[guardian]

22. Jeeez. EVERYTHING is global warming

Why is there this single minded focus on CO2? Maybe you are not aware of this, but there are other types of emissions. Ever heard of cyanide, arsenide, heavy metals like mercury, sulfur, carbon MONOxide, raw sewage, other industrial wastes, etc etc etc

As far I as am concerned, CO2 is not a pollutant.

[MineralMan]

27. Again, tell us what your expertise is to enable you

to make such statements as "CO2 is not a pollutant?" Why should we listen to you. Surely you can offer at least that much, right?

[guardian]

28. what is YOUR expertise to claim it is

[MineralMan]

30. I'm claiming nothing at all, dear...

It is you who are making the claims here. I am asking you to tell us your credentials, so we can make an assessment about your ability to make your claims. You appear to be unwilling to do that.

You will find that I have made no statements about global warming whatever. My question is to you so that I can decide whether your statements are even worthy of consideration. So far, the answer seems to be no.

[guardian]

35. Some background on why I disagree

As someone who loves our planet, nature, and being outside I’ve been interested in global warming for a long time now (10- 15 – 20 years: I don’t remember). In my former career as a software engineer worked at the Space Forecast Center which monitored the effects of the Sun on the Earth and the near-Earth environment. This gave me an introduction to the effects of various phenomena on the planet. We used to get and use data and resources from places such as NOAA. So I’ve had an interest in the subject.

I pretty much read/watch most everything I see on the subject (both for and against). I’ve actually downloaded and read the two IPCC reports pretty much cover to cover. I’ve read and watched “An Inconvenient Truth”. I read the various newspaper and magazine stories, watch documentaries. Even when I’m watching Nat Geo, TLC, Discovery, History channel I tend to listen for things related to climate change even when the show is not focused on climate change. So if they are talking with archeologists who mention how the sea level was higher/lower at a certain period—I pay attention. Same for migration patterns, agriculture, extinction events or what have you. Certain shows such as “The Little Ice Age: Big Chill” on the History Channel I find particularly interesting. I’ll listen to what they say and relate it to what I hear/see/read about contemporary climate/weather conditions.

I think what started me on the path of skepticism was how shrill and closed minded the adherents of anthropogenic global warming are and their claim that “there is no dissent” or that dissent only comes from nut balls or people in the employ of Exxon. I know this isn’t true because I’ve read enough from well educated experts (e.g., meteorologists, climatologists, physicists, etc.) who disagree. There IS dissent. For example Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. I don't know him from Adam, but it seems to me that he seems like he has reasonably credible credentials--at least as good as Jim Hansen of NASA. But to hear the global warming adherents, you’d think the only dissenters are fundamentalist Christian whackos or Harry the hotdog vender with no scientific background.

Anyway, you asked for some references from me. So here are few.

1. The Great Global Warming Swindle, http://en.sevenload.com/videos/UsTF3KX-The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle
2. The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud, By Lawrence Solomon
3. The Politically Correct Guide to Global Warming, by Christopher C. Horner
4. The Petition Project http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf
5. Quick synopsis: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

There are more of course. Just search the Internet or Amazon books for anti-global warming references and you’ll find hundreds of thousands, if not millions of references. Some are better than other, some are plain crap. Based on my personal informal research I don’t believe global warming is an immediate problem, and feel that any human impact on global climate is insignificant.
Now I’ve taken the time to respond in a serious manner. But I fully expect most to (1) either ignore my comments, (2) respond with ad hominem attacks, (3) shift the subject to something else, or (4) claim I'm some agent for Exxon.

I’ve now wasted enough of my life on this post.

[wtmusic]

37. I can't think of worse references.

Dr Carl Wunsch of MIT who was featured in The Great Global Warming Swindle, had this to say after viewing the film:

"I'm somewhat troubled that TV companies around the world are treating it as though this were a science documentary. It's not. It's a tendentious political propaganda piece of the sort I really could imagine the Bush Administration in this country could have put out on its own to throw raw meat to their believers. It's not a science film at all. It's a political statement."

Also:

"In an official judgement issued on 21 July 2008 the British media regulator Ofcom declared that the final part of the film dealing with the politics of climate change had broken rules on "due impartiality on matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy". Ofcom also backed complaints by Sir David King, stating that his views were misrepresented, and Carl Wunsch, on the points that he had been misled as to its intent, and that the impression had been given that he agreed with the programme's position on climate change. Ofcom further ruled that the IPCC had not been given an adequate chance to respond to adverse claims that its work was politicised and that it had made misleading claims about malaria."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

As much as you tend to dismiss the idea that global warming skeptics are "agents of Exxon", if you were to look through a list of them you would find that a good 2/3 are research geologists with little training in climatology and whose departments receive significant funding from Big Oil. Among the most vocal of the remainder are rightwing weatherman personalities like John Coleman. But the bottom line: probably 9/10 of the world's climatologists are in full accord that anthropogenic global warming is a real and ultimately dangerous trend. You haven't provided any specific refutation of the evidence I've provided and instead have provided junk sources which have been debunked here repeatedly.

[depakid]

38. OISM???

:rofl:

The so called "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" is a little stand of sheds run by fundy nutters out in middle of nowhere near Cave Junction, Oregon.



OISM describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war....

"The OISM website also offers educational links to a creationist website and an online discussion group called RobinsonUsers4Christ, "for Bible & Trinity-believing, God-fearing, 'Jesus-Plus-Nothing-Else' Christian families who use the Robinson Curriculum to share ideas and to get and give support."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

[Barrett808]

44. Dude, really, those are pretty sad sources

I'm surprised you didn't cite Bjorn Lomborg.

[Barrett808]

46. What did you expect, posting right-wing crankery in the DU Environment group?

Maybe you'd be more comfortable with the faith-based crowd over at Powerline.

[jpak]

50. Dr. Richard S. Lindzen LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!1111

Richard Lindzen's "Adaptive Iris" hypothesis was falsified by independent research groups USING HIS OWN DATA.

Other research groups confirmed those findings.

Lindzen also makes pronouncements on global warming to the media - BASED ON NO DATA WHATSOEVER.

Lindzen is a LOON with a capital L.

:rofl:

[hatrack]

54. Well, I know now all I need to know

Toodles.

[wtmusic]

33. No, not everything is CO2

but right now everything points to it as the most damaging compound to the earth's climate and ecosystems.

As far as you are concerned? Awful full of yourself, aren't you? Get back to me when you can refute #4, otherwise "as far as I am concerned" you are blowing smoke.

[jpak]

49. The climate science community and Supreme Court sez it is

trollin' trollin' trollin'

[Dead_Parrot]

13. And besides, god can always make NEW species to fill in the gaps!

I know what you mean. Seriesly, Who has time to research stuff like that? Mom won't let buy a subscription to Nature with her Amex, and the parking spaces at the library are way to small for the Navigator. Anyway, those science journals always use long words and don't have enough pictures. "Phylogenetic diversity"? WTF does that mean? I thought they were a grunge group from Wichita.

It all makes my head hurt. Me, I'm off to burn down a forest and barbecue some dolphins in the embers: It's fun watching them trying to swim away! Rofl.

Everyone invited, bring your own beer.

[wtmusic]

14. .

:fistbump:

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. *snarf*

[Dogmudgeon]

15. Let's review the evidence

1. You followed "various links" Which links? How many?

2. You found them to be "hysterical rants" What constitutes "hysterical"? (You use the term more than once, in fact.)

3. You found "no real supporting data". You don't even review the data, though you do cite some numbers, e.g., a rate of 137 per day. Yet there is no context, or even a single link, to any of the numbers.

4. You seem to imply that there should be an Official Central Register of species that have gone extinct, although modern taxonomy and cladistics rely heavily on statistical inference. In other words, if 5% of the species we know are in a clade have gone extinct, or 5 out of 100, but we are pretty sure that there are a total of 1000 species in that clade, we infer that 50 species have gone extinct, and we are just seeing the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Numerous studies of the validity and accuracy of this method have shown its value. For example, we know the average human brain contains about 14 billion neurons, though no one has ever counted the exact number of neurons in anyone's brain.

5. You found "just a bunch of crap claiming ..." (insert claims here). Why are these claims about extinction crap? Where is this "crap", so we can decide for ourselves?

6. You claim a "gross disparity" between (among) the estimates, but you provide no evidence of the disparity, either.

7. You characterize the issue as "some mythical global warming pile of shit". (No hysteria there!) In other words, incorrect. Why?

And we're supposed to believe all this because you say so ... ?

No one expects you to write a monograph suitable for a major journal, but you've given us nothing except ... how can I describe it?

Oh, yes ...

"Just mindless emotional ranting and no empirical data."

I agree wholeheartedly!

I know that this is your opinion, but you would have done as well to write, "Global Warming blows dead goats, and Science is bullshit, too!"

--p!

[guardian]

18. Okay. Convince me that we are experiencing "mass extinction"

It was a post from a DUer claiming that the planet is already experiencing a mass extinction of species. In particular the poster pointed me to the following links in support of his assertion:

http://www.well.com/user/davidu/extinction.html
http://oneplanetonelife.com/opol/index.php?option=com_c...

So the above links, and the secondary links on those pages were the ones on which I was commenting. Many claim we are currently undergoing a mass extinction; I want to see empirical evidence, not theoretical projections of what might happen in 50 or 100+ years. That is not the argument they are making. They claim it is going on now and has been for some time. If it is indeed the crisis they claim, and MASS extinction is going on it should be easy to point boundless examples of species that have gone extinct in recent decades. And I don't consider 0.000033% extinction rate a MASS extinction rate. I consider that hyperbole and misrepresentation the facts.

If people want to claim there is a theory that something might happen in the future, that is one thing. To claim it is going on now, that is another. It's like claiming Bill Gates is bankrupt because he might die in the next 50 years.

I challenge you or any other DUer to point me to a link, book, article that you feel provides the most convincing, cogent, coherent argument purporting that we are undergoing a global mass extinction.

I promise to read in and provide my review/comments. Convince me. Make me a supporter.

[kristopher]

19. Go to google scholar

here is the first page of responses to the query "climate change extinction".
If you are interested, the material is there. If you are just a jerk looking to stir the pot...

Scholar All articles - Recent articles Results 1 - 10 of about 99,800 for climate change extinction. (0.09 seconds)

►Extinction risk from climate change - Article Express
CD Thomas, A Cameron, RE Green, M Bakkenes, LJ … - Nature, 2004 - planet.botany.uwc.ac.za
... Extinction risk from climate change ... Existing areas were considered, so we present
only the extra extinction attributable to climate change. ...
Cited by 859 - Related articles - View as HTML - Web Search - BL Direct - All 50 versions

►Future projections for Mexican faunas under global climate change scenarios - Article Express
AT Peterson, MA Ortega-Huerta, J Bartley, V … - Nature, 2002 - cria.org.br
... Community turnover Each species was predicted to experience local extinction and
colonization, depending on the climate-change scenario and dispersal ...
Cited by 258 - Related articles - View as HTML - Web Search - BL Direct - All 10 versions

Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe - ►pnas.org - Article Express
W Thuiller, S Lavorel, MB Araujo, MT Sykes, IC … - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2005 - National Acad Sciences
... model variability. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change storylines |
species extinction | species turnover | niche-based model. ...
Cited by 180 - Related articles - Web Search - All 12 versions

Climate change in Australian tropical rainforests: an impending environmental catastrophe - Article Express
SE Williams - Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2003 - journals.royalsociety.org
... Keywords: biodiversity; climate change; extinction; range size; montane; rainforest ...
Page 2. 1888 SE Williams and others Climate change and species extinction ...
Cited by 89 - Related articles - Web Search - BL Direct - All 6 versions

Abrupt Climate Change and Extinction Events in Earth History - ►tamu.edu - Article Express
TJ Crowley, GR North - Science, 1988 - sciencemag.org
... (1986), p. 170. 46. M. R. Frankel, ibid., p. 176. Abrupt Climate Change and Extinction
Events in Earth History THOMAS J. CROWLEY AND GERALD R. NORTH ...
Cited by 62 - Related articles - Web Search - All 7 versions

Ecological responses to recent climate change - ►colostate.edu - Article Express
GR Walther, E Post, P Convey, A Menzel, C Parmesan … - Nature, 2002 - nature.com
... by the dilemma of climate-forced range change and low likelihood of finding distant
habitats to colonize, ultimately resulting in increased extinction rates. ...
Cited by 1128 - Related articles - Web Search - BL Direct - All 35 versions

Assessing the vulnerability of species richness to anthropogenic climate change in a biodiversity … - ►uwc.ac.za - Article Express
GF Midgley, L Hannah, D Millar, MC Rutherford, LW … - Global Ecology & Biogeography, 2002 - Blackwell Synergy
... nbict.nbi.ac.za Key words bioclimatic model, climate change, extinction risk, Fynbos,
global change, HadCM2, Proteaceae, range displacement, South Africa. ...
Cited by 103 - Related articles - Web Search - BL Direct - All 7 versions

►Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability
JJ McCarthy, Working Group II - 2001 - unep.no
... grasslands). In addition, climate change is expected to threaten some species
with greater pro bability of extinction. Potential ...
Cited by 605 - Related articles - View as HTML - Web Search - Article Express - Library Search - All 14 versions

Reducing uncertainty in projections of extinction risk from climate change - Article Express
MB Araujo, RJ Whittaker, RJ Ladle, M Erhard - Global Ecology & Biogeography, 2005 - Blackwell Synergy
... Full Text. RESEARCH PAPER. Reducing uncertainty in projections of extinction risk
from climate change. ... & Williams, SE ( 2004) Extinction risk from climate change ...
Cited by 58 - Related articles - Web Search - BL Direct - All 3 versions

Climate change hastens population extinctions - ►pnas.org
JF McLaughlin, JJ Hellmann, CL Boggs, PR Ehrlich - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2002 - National Acad Sciences
... 40). Climate change forecasts also warn of growing extinction risks caused
by shifts in the abiotic environment (2, 3, 11, 40-42). ...
Cited by 109 - Related articles - Web Search - Article Express - BL Direct - All 14 versions

[guardian]

21. Wake up.

I didn't ask for 99,800 search results. I've read numerous books and reports on both sides of the spectrum for years now.

I challenged you to point me to the ONE reference that you felt most convincing.

Also, in reviewing the search results you posted most refer to some sort of prediction or future problem. Again I want evidence that it is going on NOW as many claim.

Wake and follow directions or shut up.

Citing a bunch of search engine results doesn't prove anything:

Google search phrase "global warming junk science" 402,000 results
Google search phrase "global warming hoax" 1,670,000 results
Google search phrase "global warming scam" 3,630,000 results

Using this "logic" I must be right because my searches resulted in more internet hits

[kristopher]

23. Screw you and your "directions".

There is a significant difference between what you've referred to as your sources and the ones I pointed you to. Apparently you don't understand what it is.

[guardian]

25. what differences?

Your "extensive research" consisted of a cut and paste of the first 10 Google hits on a search phrase. If Google had served up something different you would have cut and pasted a different list.

Don't try to bullshit me that your references are superior in any way.

[Dead_Parrot]

24. Yeah, it's a well known fact that reality is defined by Google results

I just googled my mother and discovered she's a figment of my imagination. That was a bit of shock, but not as bad as finding out I've been to prison in Australia for murder.

On the other hand, aliens from Zeta Reticuli are fucking everywhere.

Hey, why don't you ask them? They must be clever. :shrug:

[guardian]

26. Back to the original challenge

Point me to a convincing reference. Still waiting..........

Let's see. The collective supporting arguments for mass extinctions being a problem thus far in this thread consist of:

1. Saying that ever using the word "duh" negates everything that one might say.
2. Blaming Bush. (He's to blame for a lot, but not something that doesn't exist.)
3. Comparing USA vs China CO2 output.
4. Saying Appalachia is a toxic waste dump.
5. "Drill baby drill"
6. One link to an article talking (yes I actually followed your link) saying if climate changes, and if their models are correct, that millions of species are at risk.
7. Implication that if my "credentials" aren't sufficient to your standards then I can't have an opinion different from yours. What "credentials" do you have that allows you to have an opinion that global warming or mass extinction is a problem?
8. a complaint about outsourcing of manufacturing jobs
9. a sarcastic comment against Christians. (Knock yourself out. I'm an atheist and could care less if you insult a religion)
10. a weird smiley face graphic
11. *snarf* (whatever the fuck that means)
12. overwhelming evidence of 99,800 Google hits on a search phrase. (BTW a Google Search of "leave britney alone" generated nearly four times the number of results. It just shows how silly the implication of search results as a supporting argument is.)
13. "Screw you"
14. "freeptard brain"

Wow! Those are really convincing arguments of mass extinction. What bunch of fucking dolts. This is typical of global warming supporters. Circumvent real questions. Ad hominin attacks. Change the subject. Sarcasm.


One bright note: Pigwidgeon actually gave a decent response and actually resembled a discussion. As such I responded seriously to him/her. Pigwidgeon took me to task my various comments and characterizations. Some of that on my part was letting some of my frustration come through and because it seems like some only respond when you become a little belligerent.

[MineralMan]

29. "Wake and follow directions or shut up."

OK, then. Real good, then. And we should follow your "directions" for what reasons, exactly. Someone posted a bunch of citations. You have read none of them.

You have read books, you claim. Cite them. Give us the titles and authors. No doubt, some of us have read the same books and will be able to discuss them with you.

You offer no information, only blind criticism. Who are you?

[guardian]

31. All I asked for was

Your best reference supporting your opinion. This was so I could go read it. Still waiting......

And don't give me 16 gazillion Google hits. That's a smoke screen.

[MineralMan]

32. I've given no opinion, dear.

I think I've said that already. I have, as yet, formed no opinion on this subject. I'm still reading about it. But...I'm reading material from identifiable experts. There is some disagreement amongst them.

The Institute for Creation Research, however, is not a source I would give any credence to, among many others. They haven't actually done any research, unless Google searches for things one agrees with counts.

Experts in climatology, plant and animal ecology, and the like, based at major universities, are the sources I like to read. Some of the papers in that short list above are examples of that type of material.

It's rather dense material, so I often look for people who normally write such papers, but who also write for a broader audience.

But, you see...I still don't know who you are. I don't know whether you actually have studied any of these subjects in any depth. Since you haven't offered any citations from your studies, I have no way to know whether you have any expertise at all. I'm beginning to think you do not, though, since you have consistently refused to answer anyone's questions for specific citations.

Indeed, I'm beginning to believe that you are simply echoing material from some sites like that ICR organization I mentioned earlier. Is that why you aren't linking to your sources?

Again, I have no decided opinion on the issue. So, if you would convince me, you'll have to step up and describe your background.

[guardian]

36. Never heard of ICR organization

I have no idea why you thought I used the "Institute of Creation Research" as a basis for my opinion. Never heard of them. I don't go to religious sites for anything for various personal reasons. Pretty much I infer from your reply post that you are just trying to discredit me as some religious nut job. However, to mimic your predilection for assertions about people's background and motivations:

Indeed, I'm beginning to believe that your are simply echoing material from some sites like those who blindly dismiss any dissent or are bigoted against Christians.

Also, for someone who says they are reading about the subject I question if you've read ANY dissenting writings.

As far as my background I posted that to another reply in this topic. Maybe you'll reciprocate on your background and describe "who you are" or explain is you "have any expertise at all" as to why I should believe anything you say on the subject.

[depakid]

34. "don't give me 16 gazillion Google hits."

OK- how about 1 book, by a renowned paleontologist:

Under a Green Sky: Global Warming, the Mass Extinctions of the Past, and What They Can Tell Us About Our Future

http://www.amazon.com/Under-Green-Sky-Warming-Extinctions/dp/0061137928/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228098066&sr=1-2

About the author: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ward_(paleontologist)
-------------

Optional reading: With Speed and Violence: Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in Climate Change (Paperback)

http://www.amazon.com/Speed-Violence-Scientists-Tipping-Climate/dp/0807085774/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_k2a_2_txt?pf_rd_p=304485601&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-2&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=006113791X&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=03YKZEMSJVVT2YV12QR4

[Nihil]

40. Also ...

Further book recommendations:

"Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet" (by Mark Lynas)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Six-Degrees-Future-Hotter-Planet/dp/0007209045


"The Sixth Extinction: Patterns of Life and the Future of Humankind"
(by Richard E. Leakey & Roger Lewin)
http://www.amazon.com/Sixth-Extinction-Patterns-Future-Humankind/dp/0385468091


Of course, there is the get-out clause favoured by most deniers when they
encounter comments like this:
> Leakey argues that perhaps as much as 50% of known species will be driven
> to extinction within the next few decades.

"It's not all happened yet so we must be OK!"

:eyes:

[stuntcat]

17. Holocene extinction

knowing the name (which anyone can google for lots of people's silly opinions) will help in discussing how false or unimportant it is!

[guardian]

20. No. It is not.

The Holocene period started about 100,000 years ago. So the Holocene extinction includes things like the extinction of the woolly mammoth and saber toothed tiger. This not the anthropogenic "mass extinction" to which they cite as a crisis.

Get YOUR facts straight.

[jpak]

51. Teh Google sez the Holocene began 10,000 years ago

Teh Google commands you to get your facts straight!!!!1111

:rofl:

[jpak]

52. Teh Google sez we are in the Anthropocene - which is characterized by mass extinctions

among other things

And Teh Google also sez teh Blitzkrieg Hypothesis postulated that humans were responsible for much, if not all, early Holocene megafauna extinctions especially in North America.

Teh google iz not yer friend

:rofl:

[stuntcat]

53. Anthro..

that's it.. the word's about humans.

[Systematic Chaos]

39. As a public service, and to help minimize the confusion, I give you this convenient thread summary:

[Barrett808]

41. Please watch Jeremy Jackson's "Brave New Ocean":

http://progressive.atl.playstream.com/nakfi/progressive/Sackler/sackler_12_07_07/jeremy_jackson/jeremy_jackson.html

Then tell me there's no mass extinction underway.

[Barrett808]

42. For the contrary scientific opinion, see E. O. Wilson:

The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth
http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Appeal-Save-Life-Earth/dp/0393062171

[Barrett808]

43. IUCN Red List of Endangered Species:

http://iucn.org/about/work/programmes/species/red_list/index.cfm

[stuntcat]

45. great link, thank you

I like the video, with the tasmanian devil in it!! I love those guys.


I'm bookmarking it, thanks.

[Barrett808]

47. They do a great job, glad you like. n/t

[jpak]

48. Patrick Moore is Loon with a capital L

as is anyone who believes a word he says.

One quarter of all mammal species are threatened or endangered.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7651981.stm

One quarter of shark species are endangered.

http://www.surfersvillage.com/surfing/37450/news.htm

One third of all coral reefs are endangered.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/07/10/coral-reefs.html

Two-thirds of California's native plants are threatened.

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/two-thirds-californias-native-plants-threatened-16760.html

One third of all amphibians are threatened or endangered.

http://www.livescience.com/animals/amphibians_decline_041014.html

Only a fool would not recognize this as an extinction crisis.