• 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!

The Sixth Extinction

Denialist BS, to which the appropriate response is ridicule.

Species extinction is such a serious problem in our world. Those that deny this are different than Climate Denialists. They are abusers of animals. When these animals die from lost habitat, it is often painful and torturing.
 
Species extinction is such a serious problem in our world. Those that deny this are different than Climate Denialists. They are abusers of animals. When these animals die from lost habitat, it is often painful and torturing.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would not be aware of this problem. What kind of a ****ing bubble does one have to inhabit not to know what is happening on that front?
 
[h=2]Recent Studies Indicate Species Extinctions Decline With Warming – Mass Extinction Events Due To COOLING[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 16. May 2019
[h=4]During the last few hundred years, species extinctions primarily occurred due to habitat loss and predator introduction on islands. Extinctions have not been linked to a warming climate or higher CO2 levels. In fact, since the 1870s, species extinction rates have been plummeting.[/h]
Species-Extinctions-Linked-to-Island-Habitat-Loss-Not-Climate.jpg

[h=6]Image Sources: Loehle & Eschenbach (2012), BBC, Wrightstone, 2019[/h]
 
I find it hard to believe that anyone would not be aware of this problem. What kind of a ****ing bubble does one have to inhabit not to know what is happening on that front?

You see, if one acknowledges that a problem exists, then there is the need to address it. It is much easier to either deny the problem, suggest that only totally impractical solutions for it exist (end modern agriculture and animal husbandry??!!), make up names for people who acknowledge the problem (tree huggers) or simply distract attention from the problem.

Since the extinction of a million species worldwide would take some cooperation to even begin to address, and since cooperation with people who are different from ourselves is difficult, then the choice to simply ignore the problem and hope it goes away is easy to make.


As you can see, the Earth is huge. Puny humans can't be having a real impact on it, don't you see?

carl-sagan-pale-blue-dot.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Pale_Blue_Dot.jpg
    Pale_Blue_Dot.jpg
    12.6 KB · Views: 37
Last edited:
You see, if one acknowledges that a problem exists, then there is the need to address it. It is much easier to either deny the problem, suggest that only totally impractical solutions for it exist (end modern agriculture and animal husbandry??!!), make up names for people who acknowledge the problem (tree huggers) or simply distract attention from the problem.

Since the extinction of a million species worldwide would take some cooperation to even begin to address, and since cooperation with people who are different from ourselves is difficult, then the choice to simply ignore the problem and hope it goes away is easy to make.


As you can see, the Earth is huge. Puny humans can't be having a real impact on it, don't you see?

Wrightstone, 2019
 
So, another bull**** website spewing bull****. Whodda guessed?

Cited data are from the IUCN Red List.

[h=3]IUCN Red List of Threatened Species | IUCN[/h]
[url]https://www.iucn.org/resources/conservation-tools/iucn-red-list-threatened-species

[/URL]



Photo: IUCN The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is the world's most comprehensive inventory of the global conservation status of plant and animal species. ... With its strong scientific base, The IUCN Red List is recognized as the most authoritative guide to the status of ...
 
Once more, you have proven that any idea, however absurd, can be "proven" by citing the right internet site. Here's more proof:

Irrelevant.

My cited data are from IUCN Red List.

[h=3]IUCN Red List of Threatened Species | IUCN[/h]
[url]https://www.iucn.org/resources/conservation-tools/iucn-red-list-threatened-species

[/URL]



Photo: IUCN The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is the world's most comprehensive inventory of the global conservation status of plant and animal species. ... With its strong scientific base, The IUCN Red List is recognized as the most authoritative guide to the status of ...
 
Cited data are from the IUCN Red List.

[h=3]IUCN Red List of Threatened Species | IUCN[/h]
[url]https://www.iucn.org/resources/conservation-tools/iucn-red-list-threatened-species

[/URL]



Photo: IUCN The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is the world's most comprehensive inventory of the global conservation status of plant and animal species. ... With its strong scientific base, The IUCN Red List is recognized as the most authoritative guide to the status of ...

Anyone can misrepresent actual data to make it look like something completely different. Obviously, anyone arguing that species far and wide, large and small, on land, in the sea and in the air, are not facing extinction is making **** up as they go.

Threat of mass extinction looms as million species face decline
 
Irrelevant.

My cited data are from IUCN Red List.

[h=3]IUCN Red List of Threatened Species | IUCN[/h]
[url]https://www.iucn.org/resources/conservation-tools/iucn-red-list-threatened-species

[/URL]



Photo: IUCN The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is the world's most comprehensive inventory of the global conservation status of plant and animal species. ... With its strong scientific base, The IUCN Red List is recognized as the most authoritative guide to the status of ...

Your link is to a contrarian blog. It is no more convincing than the site I cited.
 
My I/T article was 11 hours old. Yours is from two years ago. :lamo

It also recounts a speech given at the Geological Society of America by a Smithsonian paleontologist. In the context of a claim of mass extinction, two years is nothing.
 
It also recounts a speech given at the Geological Society of America by a Smithsonian paleontologist. In the context of a claim of mass extinction, two years is nothing.

In the event of human destruction, two years is like a million used to be.
 
Your desperation only undermines your own credibility.

Desperation? Showing that any idea, however absurd, can be supported by citing the proper place on the internet was quite easy. You even proved it yourself.
 
Desperation? Showing that any idea, however absurd, can be supported by citing the proper place on the internet was quite easy. You even proved it yourself.

No. What you're doing is dodging substantive discussion by throwing up a barrage of ad hominems and red herrings. It is a tactic rooted in fear.
 
No. What you're doing is dodging substantive discussion by throwing up a barrage of ad hominems and red herrings. It is a tactic rooted in fear.

There is no point in "substantive discussion" of what is found in sites like WUWT.
 
Back
Top Bottom