• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anthropomorphic Extinction, the Current Great Dying

Hi Calamity,

I already discussed in an other thread why this video from CNN is very bad. It really is. It is all based on extrapolation of data which is already not very accurate. And the presentation is also bad. According to the graph with population density on Earth we have a population density of about 2 billion people in the Netherlands v.s the actual 17 million that live here.

I've seen you be a little over concerned before. But if this is the kind of article that gets you there than you are making yourself crazy mate. I share your concern, but this is bad information that gives bad ideas that are not true. Yes, some animals die because of us. But not that many, nor is it going to be that many.


Joey

Why do I have a feeling you won't believe the actual science, either?

The Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene | Science
 
Why do I have a feeling you won't believe the actual science, either?

The Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene | Science

Wrong feeling. I do. What I do not believe in is propaganda. It's bad the way it is now. But it is not anywhere near as bad as what Greenpeace wants you to believe. Extrapolating numbers with a very large margin of error does not work. Much less so when you start with the wrong numbers. The variations are so large that anyone can take that part of the outcome that is convenient for them.

Joey
 
Wrong feeling. I do. What I do not believe in is propaganda. It's bad the way it is now. But it is not anywhere near as bad as what Greenpeace wants you to believe. Extrapolating numbers with a very large margin of error does not work. Much less so when you start with the wrong numbers. The variations are so large that anyone can take that part of the outcome that is convenient for them.

Joey

Ah. It's a mass extinction, but it's not a really *bad* mass extinction.

Got it.
 
Hi Calamity,

I already discussed in an other thread why this video from CNN is very bad. It really is. It is all based on extrapolation of data which is already not very accurate. And the presentation is also bad. According to the graph with population density on Earth we have a population density of about 2 billion people in the Netherlands v.s the actual 17 million that live here.

I've seen you be a little over concerned before. But if this is the kind of article that gets you there than you are making yourself crazy mate. I share your concern, but this is bad information that gives bad ideas that are not true. Yes, some animals die because of us. But not that many, nor is it going to be that many.


Joey

It's pretty bad. That much we know.

image-20150619-3347-1btwpy0.png
 
Yeah, you just saw an elephant on TV. So, obviously there must be nothing to worry about. :roll:

You could read the link. I realize that's a challenge, but it's better than just rolling your eyes and dismissing a counter view out of hand.
 
You could read the link. I realize that's a challenge, but it's better than just rolling your eyes and dismissing a counter view out of hand.

First off, it's the Federalist. So, I read it with a skeptical eye.

Second, the mass extinction happening today is not limited to a few already endangered creatures on islands as the silly article claims. The current die off is occurring on every continent and ocean. But, I am sure a biased publication like the Federaist will not ever admit that.
 
First off, it's the Federalist. So, I read it with a skeptical eye. Second off, the mass extinction happening today is not limited to a few already endangered creatures on islands as the silly article claims. The current die off is occurring on every continent and ocean. But, I am sure a biased publication like the Federaist will not ever admit that.

Much the same can be said about your sources. And as a matter of fact, I've spent years among wild elephants and poachers in Africa, and probably know more about such issues than many. I dare say you have not, and are far more likely to have seen what you're railing about on television than me.
 
I'm sure this is not what God had in mind.

Nice interactive below to scroll through sums up the 6th mass extinction, one caused exclusively by man.

The extinction crisis is far worse than you think

A few other follow up articles.

Imagine a world without giraffes - CNN.com

The old man and the bee - CNN.com

EDGE :: Top 100 EDGE Amphibians

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

Anthropomorphic extinction? The Furries are going extinct? Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny gone? OMG!
 

Greetings, humbolt. :2wave:

The link you provided was excellent! :thumbs: I remember the predictions made about global cooling - which are listed in the link you provided - and how frightening they were to many people at the time who thought they were surely going to freeze to death, but...... fortunately it didn't happen.

Now we have the AGW doomsday scenario instead, and yet the "climate experts" seem to get angry and sarcastically dismissive when skeptics question the picture that is being painted about all the horrible scenarios that are probable if this new threat to our well-being isn't handled immediately, or at least sooner rather than later.

Has trust in the area of scientific climate studies, which uses models to determine possible future climate events, left millions of suspicious people silently wondering WTH is going on, since it sounds like it's going to cost them money? :shock:
 
Last edited:
Greetings, humbolt. :2wave:

The link you provided was excellent! :thumbs: I remember the predictions made about global cooling - which are listed in the link you provided - and how frightening they were to many people at the time who thought they were surely going to freeze to death, but...... fortunately it didn't happen.

Now we have the AGW doomsday scenario instead, and yet the "climate experts" seem to get angry and sarcastically dismissive when skeptics question the picture that is being painted about all the horrible scenarios that are probable if this new threat to our well-being isn't handled immediately, or at least sooner rather than later.

Has trust in the area of scientific climate studies, which uses models to determine possible future climate events, left millions of suspicious people silently wondering WTH is going on, since it sounds like it's going to cost them money? :shock:

The link is simple history. Yes, all of this hype seems to require immediate action before we all die. It's a figurative gun put to the heads of average people all across the globe in what amounts to an historic attempt at a shakedown of the developed world. I don't know about you, but I require a more substantial proof than any offered to date before I'll sign up. The data supporting their conclusions appears to be more than shaky. A lot of it appears to be flat out made up.
 
The link is simple history. Yes, all of this hype seems to require immediate action before we all die. It's a figurative gun put to the heads of average people all across the globe in what amounts to an historic attempt at a shakedown of the developed world. I don't know about you, but I require a more substantial proof than any offered to date before I'll sign up. The data supporting their conclusions appears to be more than shaky. A lot of it appears to be flat out made up.

The link, as it relates to mass extinction, is a joke.

The main argument seems to be that it hasn't been a sudden extinction, but there's a good argument to be made that the last extinction events happened over thousands of years, which is exactly the situation we are in now.
 
The link, as it relates to mass extinction, is a joke.

The main argument seems to be that it hasn't been a sudden extinction, but there's a good argument to be made that the last extinction events happened over thousands of years, which is exactly the situation we are in now.

If you say so. Go ahead and describe our perilous situation, but if you can, leave out all the hype and the AGW terrorist stuff. If you can't, don't bother with the description. I'll stick with the known facts and leave the hyperbole to others.
 
It's pretty bad. That much we know.

It's pretty bad, but not that bad. And you actually proved it with your graph. (May I please have a source for this?) The CNN article talks about a 100-10.000 times increase of extinction compared to 10.1 in the graph you just show. And that is quite a different story, isn't it? We should do something to minimise this as much as possible, but that will not stop it. Only slow it down, and that is good enough I think. Like I always say, we should respect the place we live in. Earth.


Joey
 
The link, as it relates to mass extinction, is a joke.

The main argument seems to be that it hasn't been a sudden extinction, but there's a good argument to be made that the last extinction events happened over thousands of years, which is exactly the situation we are in now.

Yes sure. The meteor came down very slowly and kept bouncing up and down and nocking out the dinosaurs one by one in a few thousand years time. Duhh. It was sudden and the results were felt for a few thousand years to come. The main extinction was in the hours/days after Earth was hit. Many more were wiped out in the years after. Besides that, on the timescale of Earth even a thousand years is very very sudden.

Joey
 
Last edited:
Yes sure. The meteor came down very slowly and kept bouncing up and down and nocking out the dinosaurs one by one in a few thousand years time. Duhh. It was sudden and the results were felt for a few thousand years to come. The main extinction was in the hours/days after Earth was hit. Many more were wiped out in the years after. Besides that, on the timescale of Earth even a thousand years is very very sudden.

Joey

I assume you are talking about the KT boundary extinction, which was the last. We dont really know what the timeline was there. Maybe it was a few years, maybe a few thousand, maybe 20,000 years, maybe longer. Geological formations dont tell us about periods shorter than geological time.

But there are other extinction events, for example the Permian-Triassic, which may have taken 60,000 years or more. The Ordovucian-Silurian extinction was bimodal and the peaks were seperated by hundreds of thousands of years. The Triassic-Jurassic extinction seems to have been seperated into two or three phases over 18 million years.

So clearly, the article that tells us the reason that we are not in a mass extinction is because all the other extinctions happened quickly is... a joke. But for some reason, some of the clowns dont get that its a joke. Odd.
 
I assume you are talking about the KT boundary extinction, which was the last. We dont really know what the timeline was there. Maybe it was a few years, maybe a few thousand, maybe 20,000 years, maybe longer. Geological formations dont tell us about periods shorter than geological time.

But there are other extinction events, for example the Permian-Triassic, which may have taken 60,000 years or more. The Ordovucian-Silurian extinction was bimodal and the peaks were seperated by hundreds of thousands of years. The Triassic-Jurassic extinction seems to have been seperated into two or three phases over 18 million years.

So clearly, the article that tells us the reason that we are not in a mass extinction is because all the other extinctions happened quickly is... a joke. But for some reason, some of the clowns dont get that its a joke. Odd.

The North American extinction event during the Younger Dryas was rapid, but the global extinction of some of those same animals took much longer to develop. One theory is that man played a part in this extinction. Although that has not yet been confirmed.
 
Back
Top Bottom