• 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

polgara said:
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

It's always interesting to read any information from Judith Curry, and this article, as usual, was worth the time it took to read it! One thing I never thought much about prior to today was the fact that insects are also part of life on this planet, and according to the article, they comprise 75 percent of the eight million known animal and plant species on earth! :wow:

Reading the Comments section was not as "forgiving" as it usually is, since the UN was criticized for rewriting parts of the Global Biodiversity Assessment Report to bring it more in line with what they wanted the report to say instead of what scientists actually reported, and no one seems to know when the Report might be distributed either! Hmmmm.... More honesty seems to be expected at this point, since most people have read all the predictions that haven't come true over the years, so we'll see what happens next. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

Judith Curry is a voice of reason and integrity in a world of advocacy masquerading as science.
 
Jack Hays said:
Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

Judith Curry is a voice of reason and integrity in a world of advocacy masquerading as science.
Click to expand...

e457bdfb63a0ce7acd4b743e6724c8c0.jpg
 
Threegoofs said:
e457bdfb63a0ce7acd4b743e6724c8c0.jpg
Click to expand...

[h=2]Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: Climate Scientists’ “Apocalyptic Predictions Depend On Unrealistic Climate Model Simulations”[/h]By P Gosselin on 24. May 2019
Dutch investigative journalist Marijn Poels recently interviewed leading climatologist Dr. Judith Curry, see following video:

In the interview, Curry told that climate scientists have been acting “overconfident” and have been ignoring too many unknowns and all the uncertainty which the science is fraught with.
“There”s a lot of scope for people to be wrong” concerning the future of what the climate might be like, she said.
Climate scientists ignoring wide scope of natural factors
She tells viewers that the scientists were contracted to be “narrowly focused” on man’s impact and thus ended up ignoring “what may be the most important factors”, such as solar and oceanic cycles.
Unrealistic climate models

She also called the climate models “very ambiguous” and characterized the IPCC business-as-usual scenario as being based on “flawed projections” and “unrealistic assumptions” and that the other climate models “seem to be running too hot”.
She said, “The apocalyptic predictions depend on unrealistic emissions scenarios and unrealistic climate model simulations.”
She adds that in the end “we are left with a modest amount of warming that may be counteracted by natural variability.”
Greatest risks stem more from natural factors
She calls the West Antarctic Ice Sheet the factor that poses the greatest risk, but that CO2 has little impact on it. Rather, it’s the geological instability below it that is the biggest factor. A collapse could potentially lead to a meter of sea level rise this century, she said.
Bullying a consensus
On why her climate colleagues turned against her, Curry said: “What really got to them was my criticism of the behavior of scientists. I saw them lacking in transparency. I saw them trying to sabotage people who disagreed with them. […] I spoke up and called them on it. That’s what the unforgiveable behavior was on my part.”
She said that what we have in climate science is “consensus enforcement” and that alternative views are simply shut out, and thus run contradictory to how science is supposed to work. Earlier she told a Congressional committee that scientists were “being bullied” into consensus.
 
Jack Hays said:
You're deflecting. The point is that he was acknowledged by Greenpeace as a founder.
Click to expand...

and so WUWT found a turncoat in the ranks of environmentalists and therefore global warming is a hoax.

According to the flat Earthers, that is.
 
Dittohead not! said:
and so WUWT found a turncoat in the ranks of environmentalists and therefore global warming is a hoax.

According to the flat Earthers, that is.
Click to expand...

No. This has nothing to do with the larger debate. It has to do with AGW advocates' Orwellian attempt to airbrush history.
 
Jack Hays said:
No. This has nothing to do with the larger debate. It has to do with AGW advocates' Orwellian attempt to airbrush history.
Click to expand...

The turncoat in question originally protested a nuclear test.

None of that has anything at all to do with extinction of species.

No one is advocating for AGW. That would be like advocating for evolution.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The turncoat in question originally protested a nuclear test.

None of that has anything at all to do with extinction of species.

No one is advocating for AGW. That would be like advocating for evolution.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the question should be why would you consider him a turncoat for pointing out that
the movement he was a part of starting can been corrupted for other uses?
 
Dittohead not! said:
The turncoat in question originally protested a nuclear test.

None of that has anything at all to do with extinction of species.

No one is advocating for AGW. That would be like advocating for evolution.
Click to expand...

Again, not relevant to this discussion.
 
longview said:
Perhaps the question should be why would you consider him a turncoat for pointing out that
the movement he was a part of starting can been corrupted for other uses?
Click to expand...

The point is, he wasn't the founder of Greenpeace. If he wants to go out and claim that, contrary to what science is saying, there is no mass extinction going on just now, that's his prerogative. It doesn't mean that all the environmental organizations are wrong. It really doesn't mean anything, other than WUWT found something that supports their agenda.
 
Clipboard01
 
calamity said:
Extinctions_Africa_Austrailia_NAmerica_Madagascar.gif
Click to expand...

No link, AGAIN!

:lol:

Your other linkless chart time frame was 500 years, you new linkless chart is now …. he he, ha ha.... is now 100,000 years time frame?

In both cases you failed to back up your extinction rate claims, provide links and move the goalpost too.
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Gregory Wrightstone: exposing the mass extinction lie[/h][FONT=&quot]Reposted from Fabius Maximus Website Larry Kummer, Editor Climate change 24 May 2019 Summary: The latest chapter of the climate campaign consists of warnings about a coming mass extinction of species. Here is a stunning analysis of these claims by Gregory Wrightstone. This made a big impact at Wednesday’s House hearings. I doubt you will…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/27/gregory-wrightstone-exposing-the-mass-extinction-lie/"]
the-sixth-extinction-460x260.jpg
[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]Gregory Wrightstone: exposing the mass extinction lie[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Reposted from Fabius Maximus Website Larry Kummer, Editor Climate change 24 May 2019 Summary: The latest chapter of the climate campaign consists of warnings about a coming mass extinction of species. Here is a stunning analysis of these claims by Gregory Wrightstone. This made a big impact at Wednesday’s House hearings. I doubt you will…[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/27/gregory-wrightstone-exposing-the-mass-extinction-lie/"]Continue reading →[/URL][/FONT]
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Just as we suspected, that certain unnamed warmists in the thread and others were promoting a lie about the rate of extinctions, which were so absurd, that it would have caused rational people to wonder at the obvious lie. It would have been obvious too, no fancy modeling guesses needed to see a big acceleration in the extinction rate.

I like this part:

“The IBPES claims there are 8 million species. Yet only 1.8 million species have been identified and named. Thus the IBPES believes there are 6.2 million unidentified and unnamed species. …This is highly unprofessional.”
Click to expand...

Dr. Moore brought this up, yet he gets the media and warmist shaft on it. I wonder if the real problem is that warmists simply lack science based critical thinking skills, since they seem so unable to spot the obvious lies and absurd claims that permeate the media and Pseudoscience papers. So easily mislead by the obvious media and government propaganda....
 
Last edited:
Despite the DENIER rhetoric claiming this is not an important issue, I find the Pollinator decimation especially problematic, and I've been reading many articles about this. From the original link.

The term pollinator decline refers to the reduction in abundance of insect and other animal pollinators in many ecosystems worldwide beginning at the end of the twentieth century, and continuing into the present day.[114] Pollinators, which are necessary for 75% of food crops, are declining globally in both abundance and diversity.[115] A 2017 study led by Radboud University's Hans de Kroon indicated that the biomass of insect life in Germany had declined by three-quarters in the previous 25 years. Participating researcher Dave Goulson of Sussex University stated that their study suggested that humans are making large parts of the planet uninhabitable for wildlife.
 

Populations are not declining and food webs are not collapsing at the Luquillo Experimental Forest

From PNAS M. R. Willig, L. Woolbright, S. J. Presley, T. D. Schowalter, R. B. Waide, T. Heartsill Scalley, J. K. Zimmerman, G. González, and A. E. Lugo PNAS first published May 29, 2019 Populations are not declining and food webs are not collapsing at the Luquillo Experimental Forest | PNAS This article has Replies. Please see: Climate-driven declines in arthropod abundance restructure a rainforest food web Reply to Willig et…
 
Jack Hays said:

Populations are not declining and food webs are not collapsing at the Luquillo Experimental Forest

From PNAS M. R. Willig, L. Woolbright, S. J. Presley, T. D. Schowalter, R. B. Waide, T. Heartsill Scalley, J. K. Zimmerman, G. González, and A. E. Lugo PNAS first published May 29, 2019 Populations are not declining and food webs are not collapsing at the Luquillo Experimental Forest | PNAS This article has Replies. Please see: Climate-driven declines in arthropod abundance restructure a rainforest food web Reply to Willig et…
Click to expand...

Odd that he wouldn’t mention the response to this critique in the very same issue.

I guess that’s because he runs a denier site, and the point is to run denier materials, not actually understand the science.

Reply to Willig et al.: Long-term population trends in the Luquillo Rainforest | PNAS
 
Threegoofs said:
Odd that he wouldn’t mention the response to this critique in the very same issue.

I guess that’s because he runs a denier site, and the point is to run denier materials, not actually understand the science.

Reply to Willig et al.: Long-term population trends in the Luquillo Rainforest | PNAS
Click to expand...

The replies are linked right in the first paragraph. Read first. Then post.

[h=5]This article has Replies. Please see:[/h]
 
Jack Hays said:
The replies are linked right in the first paragraph. Read first. Then post.

[h=5]This article has Replies. Please see:[/h]
Click to expand...

Yes- cut and paste the entire denier thing, and not mention the refutation, except as a small mention of ‘replies’.

The interesting thing is usually the opposing points of view. But on WUWT, the emphasis is on deniers getting a pub.... no matter what the actual reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom