Humans could be among the victims of sixth 'mass extinction', scientists warn

The world is embarking on its sixth mass extinction with animals disappearing about 100 times faster than they used to, scientists warn, and humans could be among the first victims of the next extinction event.

Not since the age of the dinosaurs ended 66 million years ago has the planet been losing species at this rapid a rate, a study led by experts at Stanford University, Princeton University and the University of California, Berkeley said.

The study "shows without any significant doubt that we are now entering the sixth great mass extinction event," co-author and Stanford University professor of biology Paul Ehrlich said.

And the study, which was published in the journal Science Advances on Friday and described by its authors as "conservative", said humans were likely to be among the species lost.

"If it is allowed to continue, life would take many millions of years to recover and our species itself would likely disappear early on," lead author Gerardo Ceballos of the Universidad Autonoma de Mexico said.

The analysis was based on documented extinctions of vertebrates, or animals with internal skeletons such as frogs, reptiles and tigers, from fossil records and other historical data.

The modern rate of species loss was compared to the "natural rates of species disappearance before human activity dominated".

It can be difficult to estimate this rate, also known as the background rate, since humans do not know exactly what happened throughout the course of Earth's 4.5 billion year history.

For the study, researchers used a past extinction rate that was twice as high as widely-used estimates.

If the past rate was two mammal extinctions per 10,000 species per 100 years then the "average rate of vertebrate species loss over the last century is up to 114 times higher than it would be without human activity, even when relying on the most conservative estimates of species extinction," the study said.

"We emphasise that our calculations very likely underestimate the severity of the extinction crisis because our aim was to place a realistic lower bound on humanity's impact on biodiversity."

The causes of species loss range from climate change to pollution to deforestation and more.

According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, about 41 per cent of all amphibian species and 26 per cent of all mammals are threatened with extinction.

"There are examples of species all over the world that are essentially the walking dead," Professor Ehrlich said.

The study called for "rapid, greatly intensified efforts to conserve already-threatened species, and to alleviate pressures on their populations - notably habitat loss, over-exploitation for economic gain and climate change".

www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-20/sixth-mass-extinction-impact-humans-study-says/6560700

WOW pressing the PANIC BUTTON again.. must be almost election time.. ;D ;D ;D

Little bigger than an election issue sweetie.
Nice to know how much you think of your grand kids ... that politics take precedence.

It's ok, it won't adversely effect the economy...

cods wrote on Jun 21^st, 2015 at 11:13am:

WOW pressing the PANIC BUTTON again.. must be almost election time.. ;D ;D ;D

Whats Happened? 

Abbott called another terror threat news conference, how many is that today?

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

____ wrote on Jun 21^st, 2015 at 11:19am:

Little bigger than an election issue sweetie. Nice to know how much you think of your grand kids ... that politics take precedence.

Watch Out, she will be calling you a coward next.

cods wrote on Jun 21^st, 2015 at 11:13am:

WOW pressing the PANIC BUTTON again.. must be almost election time.. ;D ;D ;D

Fool!

____ wrote on Jun 21^st, 2015 at 7:34am:

The analysis was based on documented extinctions of vertebrates, or animals with internal skeletons such as frogs, reptiles and tigers, from fossil records and other historical data. www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-20/sixth-mass-extinction-impact-humans-study-says/6560700

Most of these are being extinct by MAN.......??????

____ wrote on Jun 21^st, 2015 at 11:19am:

Little bigger than an election issue sweetie. Nice to know how much you think of your grand kids ... that politics take precedence.

The lady has a pea for a brain and that's the problem. Half of the Right is made up of greedy self interested individules who couldn't care less what happens to the world or their species after they die and the other half are halfwits like cods who can be easily led like donkeys to think and do whatever the first half wants them to.

Ajax wrote on Jun 21^st, 2015 at 2:58pm:

____ wrote on Jun 21st, 2015 at 7:34am: [highlight]The analysis was based on documented extinctions of vertebrates, or animals with internal skeletons such as frogs, reptiles and tigers, from fossil records and other historical data] www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-20/sixth-mass-extinction-impact-humans-study-says/6560700 Most of these are being extinct by MAN.......??????

Well who do you think is destroying the environment????

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jun 21^st, 2015 at 3:09pm:

Ajax wrote on Jun 21st, 2015 at 2:58pm: ____ wrote on Jun 21st, 2015 at 7:34am: [highlight]The analysis was based on documented extinctions of vertebrates, or animals with internal skeletons such as frogs, reptiles and tigers, from fossil records and other historical data] www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-20/sixth-mass-extinction-impact-humans-study-says/6560700 Most of these are being extinct by MAN.......?????? Well who do you think is destroying the environment????

You mean manmade like

1. over population
2. Pollution - insecticides, waste in oceans and land, chemicals - CO2, Ch4 etc. etc.
3. Deforestation

Yeah I agree something has to be done.

But what...??? who's going to be the first to sacrifice...????

Ajax wrote on Jun 21^st, 2015 at 3:26pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jun 21st, 2015 at 3:09pm: Ajax wrote on Jun 21st, 2015 at 2:58pm: ____ wrote on Jun 21st, 2015 at 7:34am: [highlight]The analysis was based on documented extinctions of vertebrates, or animals with internal skeletons such as frogs, reptiles and tigers, from fossil records and other historical data] www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-20/sixth-mass-extinction-impact-humans-study-says/6560700 Most of these are being extinct by MAN.......?????? Well who do you think is destroying the environment???? You mean manmade like 1. over population 2. Pollution - insecticides, waste in oceans and land, chemicals - CO2, Ch4 etc. etc. 3. Deforestation Yeah I agree something has to be done. But what...??? who's going to be the first to sacrifice...????

So what are you suggesting, that we just roll over and die because the power of the controlling elite is too strong. We need to take back the power.As long as you w worship a system that is focused on individual wealth as opposed to the good of the whole things won't change. This is the fight for our very survival. Capitalism is the cancer that's eating us from the inside

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jun 21^st, 2015 at 3:49pm:

So what are you suggesting, that we just roll over and die because the power of the controlling elite is too strong. We need to take back the power.As long as you w worship a system that is focused on individual wealth as opposed to the good of the whole things won't change. This is the fight for our very survival. Capitalism is the cancer that's eating us from the inside

Well said that's what I've been saying all along.

As far as I'm concerned communism and capitalism are two sides of the same coin there has t be a better system than these two.

Quote:

As far as I'm concerned communism and capitalism are two sides of the same coin there has t be a better system than these two.

Do let us know when you find it. I'll move on to curing cancer.

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2015 at 4:04pm:

Quote: As far as I'm concerned communism and capitalism are two sides of the same coin there has t be a better system than these two. Do let us know when you find it. I'll move on to curing cancer.

I'm not looking for it...!!!

I didn't know you were....!!!!

Yes communism lets the political leaders hoard the wealth.

Capitalism lets a hand full of rich men hoard the wealth.

What about a system where everyone can share.....??????

Quote:

Yes communism lets the political leaders hoard the wealth. Capitalism lets a hand full of rich men hoard the wealth. What about a system where everyone can share.....??????

Oh, you mean the current one?

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2015 at 4:11pm:

Quote: Yes communism lets the political leaders hoard the wealth. Capitalism lets a hand full of rich men hoard the wealth. What about a system where everyone can share.....?????? Oh, you mean the current one?

Your dreaming pal.....!!!!!

If globalisation hasn't affected you yet.....!!!!

Rest assured its not far away.

Kiss your current life style goodbye....!!!!

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2015 at 4:04pm:

Quote: As far as I'm concerned communism and capitalism are two sides of the same coin there has t be a better system than these two. Do let us know when you find it. I'll move on to curing cancer.

Well here's a suggestion, why don't you actually do some study instead of just blindly repeating the snippets you've picked up from the mainstream media. A socialist direct democracy is my suggested alternative.

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2015 at 4:11pm:

Quote: Yes communism lets the political leaders hoard the wealth. Capitalism lets a hand full of rich men hoard the wealth. What about a system where everyone can share.....?????? Oh, you mean the current one?

What a foolish thing to say!

Humans are a herd species. We require leaders, and the bulk of the herd like being told what to do, even while clinging to the myth of individualism. One reason for this behaviour is that it is the line of least resistance. Bullying in school has got a lot of air time recently. Its perfectly natural; just the young figuring out who is going to be boss. Capitalism and Communism are examples of herd societies. A society where people share equally would require a quantum shift in human psychology.

and no one has said EXTINCTED!!!


how soon we forget Bob Brown and his silly words.

And one of the authors (Paul Ehrlich) predicted mass starvation events  starting in the 1970s, and the 1980s and the 1990s....and has been wrong each time.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 21^st, 2015 at 5:19pm:

And one of the authors (Paul Ehrlich) predicted mass starvation events  starting in the 1970s, and the 1980s and the 1990s....and has been wrong each time.

Does that means you don't believe the extinctions occurring around you?

____ wrote on Jun 21^st, 2015 at 5:30pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 21st, 2015 at 5:19pm: And one of the authors (Paul Ehrlich) predicted mass starvation events  starting in the 1970s, and the 1980s and the 1990s....and has been wrong each time. Does that means you don't believe the extinctions occurring around you?

Do I believe that they represent the sixth major extinction event?? No I do not believe that.

Species become extinct all the time, it's evolution's way of culling unsuccessful models.

Oh, and NO, I don't consider humans to be an unsuccessful species.

Quote:

Species become extinct all the time, it's evolution's way of culling unsuccessful models.

Did you notice the bit about 100 times the normal rate?

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2015 at 5:39pm:

Quote: Species become extinct all the time, it's evolution's way of culling unsuccessful models. Did you notice the bit about 100 times the normal rate?

Yes I did notice it...doesn't mean I accept it on face value though.

Seems like the "bleeding obvious" to me. Think of all the large vertebrates lost as humans moved into the new world. That alone would look like a mass extinction event similar to the dinosaurs in some future fossil record. I doubt there is anything even remotely similar to that since the dinosaurs. Now we are moving further down in size and wiping out smaller species. Fly over a place like Ireland and there is pretty much nothing at all left of the original habitat. In most places natural habitat only remains in areas too hilly, swampy, dry etc to farm economically. Most fertile land has changed beyond recognition.

ths is a silly thread and simply another faux-panic probably invented in case Global Warming Scare-mongering fails.  there is ALWAYS some 'extinction event' on the horizon according to some.  and yet, they have not only been wrong that have been 100% wrong, never even getting close to a single iota of their predictions coming to pass.

ELE (extinction level events) make great movies, but terrible science and even worse social science.

Quote:

there is ALWAYS some 'extinction event' on the horizon according to some.

What about the event that is already underway Longy?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 21^st, 2015 at 5:19pm:

And one of the authors (Paul Ehrlich) predicted mass starvation events  starting in the 1970s, and the 1980s and the 1990s....and has been wrong each time.

Actually he was right each time.  ::) and there is no "prediction" here, there is a mass extinction event occurring, the facts are indisputable. Whether the human race is going to be a part of it may be disputable though, but we are driving it. Human fertility levels are dropping, everywhere. So I tend to think we will be a part of it.

rhino wrote on Jun 21^st, 2015 at 9:01pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 21st, 2015 at 5:19pm: And one of the authors (Paul Ehrlich) predicted mass starvation events  starting in the 1970s, and the 1980s and the 1990s....and has been wrong each time. Actually he was right each time.  ::) and there is no "prediction" here, there is a mass extinction event occurring, the facts are indisputable. Whether the human race is going to be a part of it may be disputable though, but we are driving it. Human fertility levels are dropping, everywhere. So I tend to think we will be a part of it.

Really?? I don't remember "hundreds of millions of people starving to death" in the 1970s, or India being unable to feed their own population by 1980 either...


Of course I completely missed the launch of the Jupiter II spacecraft  (with the Robinson family aboard) in 1980, and also the Moon being blow out of orbit in 1999 too, so maybe the Ehrlichs were 'actually right each time'...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 21^st, 2015 at 9:15pm:

rhino wrote on Jun 21st, 2015 at 9:01pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 21st, 2015 at 5:19pm: And one of the authors (Paul Ehrlich) predicted mass starvation events  starting in the 1970s, and the 1980s and the 1990s....and has been wrong each time. Actually he was right each time.  ::) and there is no "prediction" here, there is a mass extinction event occurring, the facts are indisputable. Whether the human race is going to be a part of it may be disputable though, but we are driving it. Human fertility levels are dropping, everywhere. So I tend to think we will be a part of it. Really?? I don't remember "hundreds of millions of people starving to death" in the 1970s, or India being unable to feed their own population by 1980 either... Of course I completely missed the launch of the Jupiter II spacecraft  (with the Robinson family aboard) in 1980, and also the Moon being blow out of orbit in 1999 too, so maybe the Ehrlichs were 'actually right each time'...

there have been a number of mass famines since the 70s, Erlichs numbers may have been wrong but his basic premise was right, 3rd world countries arent producing enough food to feed thier people.



Quote:

Some 795 million people in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active life. That's about one in nine people on earth. The vast majority of the world's hungry people live in developing countries, where 13.5 percent of the population is undernourished. Asia is the continent with the most hungry people - two thirds of the total. The percentage in southern Asia has fallen in recent years but in western Asia it has increased slightly. Sub-Saharan Africa is the region with the highest prevalence (percentage of population) of hunger. One person in four there is undernourished. Poor nutrition causes nearly half (45%) of deaths in children under five - 3.1 million children each year. One out of six children -- roughly 100 million -- in developing countries is underweight. One in four of the world's children are stunted. In developing countries the proportion can rise to one in three. If women farmers had the same access to resources as men, the number of hungry in the world could be reduced by up to 150 million. 66 million primary school-age children attend classes hungry across the developing world, with 23 million in Africa alone. WFP calculates that US$3.2 billion is needed per year to reach all 66 million hungry school-age children.

http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats

rhino wrote on Jun 21^st, 2015 at 9:22pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 21st, 2015 at 9:15pm: rhino wrote on Jun 21st, 2015 at 9:01pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 21st, 2015 at 5:19pm: And one of the authors (Paul Ehrlich) predicted mass starvation events  starting in the 1970s, and the 1980s and the 1990s....and has been wrong each time. Actually he was right each time.  ::) and there is no "prediction" here, there is a mass extinction event occurring, the facts are indisputable. Whether the human race is going to be a part of it may be disputable though, but we are driving it. Human fertility levels are dropping, everywhere. So I tend to think we will be a part of it. Really?? I don't remember "hundreds of millions of people starving to death" in the 1970s, or India being unable to feed their own population by 1980 either... Of course I completely missed the launch of the Jupiter II spacecraft  (with the Robinson family aboard) in 1980, and also the Moon being blow out of orbit in 1999 too, so maybe the Ehrlichs were 'actually right each time'... there have been a number of mass famines since the 70s, Erlichs numbers may have been wrong but his basic premise was right, 3rd world countries arent producing enough food to feed thier people.

No there have been famines, even some fairly large ones, but nothing on the scale Ehrlich predicted, and the world death rate, contrary to his opinion, actually DROPPED since the late 60s/early 70s.

"The Ehrlichs made a number of specific predictions that did not come to pass, for which they have received criticism. They have acknowledged that some predictions were incorrect. However, they maintain that their general argument remains intact, that their predictions were merely illustrative, that their and others' warnings caused preventive action, or that many of their predictions may yet come true (see Ehrlich's response below). Still other commentators have criticized the Ehrlichs' perceived inability to acknowledge mistakes, evasiveness, and refusal to alter their arguments in the face of contrary evidence.

In The Population Bomb's opening lines the authors state that nothing can prevent famines in which hundreds of millions of people will die during the 1970s (amended to 1970s and 80s in later editions), and that there would be "a substantial increase in the world death rate." Although many lives could be saved through dramatic action, it was already too late to prevent a substantial increase in the global death rate. However, in reality the global death rate has continued to decline substantially since then, from 13/1000 in 1965–74 to 10/1000 from 1985–1990. Meanwhile, the population of the world has more than doubled, while calories consumed/person have increased 24%. The UN does not keep official death-by-hunger statistics so it is hard to measure whether the "hundreds of millions of deaths" number is correct. Ehrlich himself suggested in 2009 that between 200-300 million had died of hunger since 1968. However, that is measured over 40 years rather than the ten to twenty foreseen in the book, so it can be seen as significantly fewer than predicted."

The Chinese were starving to death en masse a few decades ago. Had they not drastically cut their birth rate, they probably still would be, along with many others. Much of the strife in Africa has lack of food as it's ultimate cause. Many people have heeded their warning, and the warnings of plenty of other people. Not to the extent of the Chinese, but plenty of other countries have birth rates below replacement level. Foreign aid that excludes family planning and women's liberation is rightly criticised. Ehrlich did not make these predictions so he would get pats on the back while millions starved.

He doesn't have a crystal ball.

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2015 at 9:43pm:

The Chinese were starving to death en masse a few decades ago. Had they not drastically cut their birth rate, they probably still would be, along with many others. Much of the strife in Africa has lack of food as it's ultimate cause. Many people have heeded their warning, and the warnings of plenty of other people. Not to the extent of the Chinese, but plenty of other countries have birth rates below replacement level. Foreign aid that excludes family planning and women's liberation is rightly criticised. Ehrlich did not make these predictions so he would get pats on the back while millions starved. He doesn't have a crystal ball.

He might not have a crystal ball, but hindsight would work better. At least then he wouldn't have released the same (almost) predictions again, 40 odd years later.

Theres zero dispute we are at the start of a mass extinction event, I repeat, zero. The only dispute can be what effect it will have on the human race.

rhino wrote on Jun 21^st, 2015 at 11:07pm:

Theres zero dispute we are at the start of a mass extinction event, I repeat, zero. The only dispute can be what effect it will have on the human race.

And that is as unlikely as there being 'zero dispute' on man being 100% the cause of climate change.

There is ALWAYS dispute in science.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 10:31am:

rhino wrote on Jun 21st, 2015 at 11:07pm: Theres zero dispute we are at the start of a mass extinction event, I repeat, zero. The only dispute can be what effect it will have on the human race. And that is as unlikely as there being 'zero dispute' on man being 100% the cause of climate change. There is ALWAYS dispute in science.

Hang on. Who claimed humans are 100% cause of climate change?
This is the sort of behaviour from LW, not you to make claims like this.
Humans are the major cause driving climate change and the mass extinction occurring.

And humans going extinct staying on our current path is highly likely.

____ wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 2:38pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 10:31am: rhino wrote on Jun 21st, 2015 at 11:07pm: Theres zero dispute we are at the start of a mass extinction event, I repeat, zero. The only dispute can be what effect it will have on the human race. And that is as unlikely as there being 'zero dispute' on man being 100% the cause of climate change. There is ALWAYS dispute in science. Hang on. Who claimed humans are 100% cause of climate change? This is the sort of behaviour from LW, not you to make claims like this. Humans are the major cause driving climate change and the mass extinction occurring. And humans going extinct staying on our current path is highly likely.

You alarmist idiots usually claim humans are either the 'major driver' or the SOLE driver of ACC...and don't bother to deny it.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 3:39pm:

____ wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 2:38pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 10:31am: rhino wrote on Jun 21st, 2015 at 11:07pm: Theres zero dispute we are at the start of a mass extinction event, I repeat, zero. The only dispute can be what effect it will have on the human race. And that is as unlikely as there being 'zero dispute' on man being 100% the cause of climate change. There is ALWAYS dispute in science. Hang on. Who claimed humans are 100% cause of climate change? This is the sort of behaviour from LW, not you to make claims like this. Humans are the major cause driving climate change and the mass extinction occurring. And humans going extinct staying on our current path is highly likely. You alarmist idiots usually claim humans are either the 'major driver' or the SOLE driver of ACC...and don't bother to deny it.

I have never claimed sole, and I have never seen anyone else claim it.
Humans are the main driver of AGW, yes.

And to claim those opposed to you opinion 'alarmist idiots', has an alien taken over your body. You are usually better than this.

Was just picking you up on your lazy claim, now lets return to topic.

____ wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 3:49pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 3:39pm: ____ wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 2:38pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 10:31am: rhino wrote on Jun 21st, 2015 at 11:07pm: Theres zero dispute we are at the start of a mass extinction event, I repeat, zero. The only dispute can be what effect it will have on the human race. And that is as unlikely as there being 'zero dispute' on man being 100% the cause of climate change. There is ALWAYS dispute in science. Hang on. Who claimed humans are 100% cause of climate change? This is the sort of behaviour from LW, not you to make claims like this. Humans are the major cause driving climate change and the mass extinction occurring. And humans going extinct staying on our current path is highly likely. You alarmist idiots usually claim humans are either the 'major driver' or the SOLE driver of ACC...and don't bother to deny it. I have never claimed sole, and I have never seen anyone else claim it. Humans are the main driver of AGW, yes. And to claim those opposed to you opinion 'alarmist idiots', has an alien taken over your body. You are usually better than this. Was just picking you up on your lazy claim, now lets return to topic.

You may not have claimed 'sole', but a number of people HAVE, and  even claiming 'major' is completely stupid, and rates up there with Ehrlich's ideas (i.e, is bullshit)

And talking about 'alarmist idiots' is no different to you lot carrying on about 'deniers' instead of skeptics...

"Kid - there's always some intergalactic plague, or some Arquillian Battlecruiser... and the only reason these people get on with their steady and unthinking lives is .. THEY DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT!"

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 10:31am:

rhino wrote on Jun 21st, 2015 at 11:07pm: Theres zero dispute we are at the start of a mass extinction event, I repeat, zero. The only dispute can be what effect it will have on the human race. And that is as unlikely as there being 'zero dispute' on man being 100% the cause of climate change. There is ALWAYS dispute in science.

Nothing to do with climate change, species are becoming extinct at a rate far greater than any time in recent history, do you dispute this? Seriously, because only an idiot would dispute this fact.

____ wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 2:38pm:

Humans are the major cause driving climate change ...

That's one theory.

Very little in the way of credible, reliable evidence to back it up though.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 3:57pm:

____ wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 3:49pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 3:39pm: ____ wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 2:38pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 10:31am: rhino wrote on Jun 21st, 2015 at 11:07pm: Theres zero dispute we are at the start of a mass extinction event, I repeat, zero. The only dispute can be what effect it will have on the human race. And that is as unlikely as there being 'zero dispute' on man being 100% the cause of climate change. There is ALWAYS dispute in science. Hang on. Who claimed humans are 100% cause of climate change? This is the sort of behaviour from LW, not you to make claims like this. Humans are the major cause driving climate change and the mass extinction occurring. And humans going extinct staying on our current path is highly likely. You alarmist idiots usually claim humans are either the 'major driver' or the SOLE driver of ACC...and don't bother to deny it. I have never claimed sole, and I have never seen anyone else claim it. Humans are the main driver of AGW, yes. And to claim those opposed to you opinion 'alarmist idiots', has an alien taken over your body. You are usually better than this. Was just picking you up on your lazy claim, now lets return to topic. You may not have claimed 'sole', but a number of people HAVE, and  even claiming 'major' is completely stupid, and rates up there with Ehrlich's ideas (i.e, is bullshit) And talking about 'alarmist idiots' is no different to you lot carrying on about 'deniers' instead of skeptics...

I disagree with Greens on one point. This kind of absurd exaggeration (ie  that global warmest are claiming that humans are 100% responsible for global warming) is what gizmo usually engages in when he's losing the argument. I have NEVER seen anyone make that claim. It's just a fabricated claim to support a position that Gizmo takes for ideological reasons and has absolutely no interest in where the actual truth lies.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2015 at 12:57am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 3:57pm: ____ wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 3:49pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 3:39pm: ____ wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 2:38pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 10:31am: rhino wrote on Jun 21st, 2015 at 11:07pm: Theres zero dispute we are at the start of a mass extinction event, I repeat, zero. The only dispute can be what effect it will have on the human race. And that is as unlikely as there being 'zero dispute' on man being 100% the cause of climate change. There is ALWAYS dispute in science. Hang on. Who claimed humans are 100% cause of climate change? This is the sort of behaviour from LW, not you to make claims like this. Humans are the major cause driving climate change and the mass extinction occurring. And humans going extinct staying on our current path is highly likely. You alarmist idiots usually claim humans are either the 'major driver' or the SOLE driver of ACC...and don't bother to deny it. I have never claimed sole, and I have never seen anyone else claim it. Humans are the main driver of AGW, yes. And to claim those opposed to you opinion 'alarmist idiots', has an alien taken over your body. You are usually better than this. Was just picking you up on your lazy claim, now lets return to topic. You may not have claimed 'sole', but a number of people HAVE, and  even claiming 'major' is completely stupid, and rates up there with Ehrlich's ideas (i.e, is bullshit) And talking about 'alarmist idiots' is no different to you lot carrying on about 'deniers' instead of skeptics... I disagree with Greens on one point. This kind of absurd exaggeration (ie  that global warmest are claiming that humans are 100% responsible for global warming) is what gizmo usually engages in when he's losing the argument. I have NEVER seen anyone make that claim. It's just a fabricated claim to support a position that Gizmo takes for ideological reasons and has absolutely no interest in where the actual truth lies.

And what does "The science is in, the debate is over" mean??

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2015 at 9:09am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jun 23rd, 2015 at 12:57am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 3:57pm: ____ wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 3:49pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 3:39pm: ____ wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 2:38pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 10:31am: rhino wrote on Jun 21st, 2015 at 11:07pm: Theres zero dispute we are at the start of a mass extinction event, I repeat, zero. The only dispute can be what effect it will have on the human race. And that is as unlikely as there being 'zero dispute' on man being 100% the cause of climate change. There is ALWAYS dispute in science. Hang on. Who claimed humans are 100% cause of climate change? This is the sort of behaviour from LW, not you to make claims like this. Humans are the major cause driving climate change and the mass extinction occurring. And humans going extinct staying on our current path is highly likely. You alarmist idiots usually claim humans are either the 'major driver' or the SOLE driver of ACC...and don't bother to deny it. I have never claimed sole, and I have never seen anyone else claim it. Humans are the main driver of AGW, yes. And to claim those opposed to you opinion 'alarmist idiots', has an alien taken over your body. You are usually better than this. Was just picking you up on your lazy claim, now lets return to topic. You may not have claimed 'sole', but a number of people HAVE, and  even claiming 'major' is completely stupid, and rates up there with Ehrlich's ideas (i.e, is bullshit) And talking about 'alarmist idiots' is no different to you lot carrying on about 'deniers' instead of skeptics... I disagree with Greens on one point. This kind of absurd exaggeration (ie  that global warmest are claiming that humans are 100% responsible for global warming) is what gizmo usually engages in when he's losing the argument. I have NEVER seen anyone make that claim. It's just a fabricated claim to support a position that Gizmo takes for ideological reasons and has absolutely no interest in where the actual truth lies. And what does "The science is in, the debate is over" mean??

Well one thing the quote is NOT saying is that "Humans are 100% responsible for global warming". The second thing is your quote looks like something you just made up, which is consistent with what you do. So please tell us, who said it and better still post the link.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2015 at 12:41am:

____ wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 2:38pm: Humans are the major cause driving climate change ... That's one theory. Very little in the way of credible, reliable evidence to back it up though.

We are now the most powerful force on the planet and we have changed close to, if not every, ecosystem on the planet.

i.e
Below are 51 facts on deforestation

Facts 1:  Forests cover 30% of the earth’s land.

Facts 2: It is estimated that within 100 years there will be no rainforests.

Facts 3: Agriculture is the leading cause of deforestation

Facts 4: One and a half acres of forest is cut down every second.

Facts 5: Loss of forests contributes between 12 percent and 17 percent of annual global greenhouse gas emissions. (World Resources Institute)

etc etc etc

www.conserve-energy-future.com/various-deforestation-facts.php

____ wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2015 at 5:27pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 23rd, 2015 at 12:41am: ____ wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 2:38pm: Humans are the major cause driving climate change ... That's one theory. Very little in the way of credible, reliable evidence to back it up though. We are now the most powerful force on the planet and we have changed close to, if not every, ecosystem on the planet. i.e Below are 51 facts on deforestation Facts 1:  Forests cover 30% of the earth’s land. Facts 2: It is estimated that within 100 years there will be no rainforests. Facts 3: Agriculture is the leading cause of deforestation Facts 4: One and a half acres of forest is cut down every second. Facts 5: Loss of forests contributes between 12 percent and 17 percent of annual global greenhouse gas emissions. (World Resources Institute) etc etc etc www.conserve-energy-future.com/various-deforestation-facts.php

Deforestation is a big problem especially when its sacrificed for farm land.

If we could stop deforestation this would be imo a bigger goal than reducing CO2 emission from burning fossil fuels.

I would rather have people in the third world having access to electricity via coal powered power stations rather than them tearing down the forests to keep warm.

Ajax wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2015 at 9:24pm:

____ wrote on Jun 23rd, 2015 at 5:27pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 23rd, 2015 at 12:41am: ____ wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 2:38pm: Humans are the major cause driving climate change ... That's one theory. Very little in the way of credible, reliable evidence to back it up though. We are now the most powerful force on the planet and we have changed close to, if not every, ecosystem on the planet. i.e Below are 51 facts on deforestation Facts 1:  Forests cover 30% of the earth’s land. Facts 2: It is estimated that within 100 years there will be no rainforests. Facts 3: Agriculture is the leading cause of deforestation Facts 4: One and a half acres of forest is cut down every second. Facts 5: Loss of forests contributes between 12 percent and 17 percent of annual global greenhouse gas emissions. (World Resources Institute) etc etc etc www.conserve-energy-future.com/various-deforestation-facts.php Deforestation is a big problem especially when its sacrificed for farm land. If we could stop deforestation this would be imo a bigger goal than reducing CO2 emission from burning fossil fuels. I would rather have people in the third world having access to electricity via coal powered power stations rather than them tearing down the forests to keep warm.

It's not a choice between deforesting and coal.
We can aim at stopping deforesting and using renewables and lifting people with electricity from those clean energy sources.

According to the best estimates, 99.9 percent of all the species that ever existed on earth have gone extinct. A similar fate awaits the extant ones. A lot has to go right for a new species to establish itself, yet even then most of its members do not partake in the species’s success, for they either die early, fail to reproduce, or get eliminated by enemies, competitors, or nature’s adversities. Given the great quotient of failure in the struggle for life, one could say that every living organism descends from ancestors that beat the odds—that were “winners.” However, in this sense “winning” means little more than the perpetuation of loss. If the measure of success is survival, even the fittest members of a flourishing species are losers in the long run.

In antiquity humans were referred to as “mortals,” which meant that they were destined not only to die but also to suffer loss, misfortune, and disaster. By comparison with the immortal gods, even the loftiest mortals are losers in the long run (as Achilles realizes in Hades). In his book In Praise of Failure, the philosopher and essayist Costica Bradatan reminds us that we flash into existence between “two instantiations of nothingness,” namely the nothingness before we were born and the one after we die. Each one of us, ontologically speaking, is next to nothing. And each one of us, despite our precarious condition, has something to lose. “Myths, religion, spirituality, philosophy, science, works of art and literature”—all, according to Bradatan, seek to make our next-to-nothingness “a little more bearable.”

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2024/03/07/at-ease-amid-the-ruins-in-praise-of-failure/?lp_txn_id=1530334