2

3/12/2008 7:31:28 AM

have you said one thing in this thread thats true?

3/12/2008 8:57:19 AM

Quote :

"but regardless, these extinction predictions are based on destroying habitat and resources through building and expanding civilization into the wilderness...they are not becoming threatened and in danger of extinction from higher temperatures or increased co2 or anything you can relate to climate change"

do you not think that destroying habitats, natural resources and expanding civilization by removing wilderness factors into increasing climate change...i do

3/12/2008 10:01:44 AM

destroying a natural resource like a forest will slightly increase co2 in the atmosphere since that particular forest isnt there for photosynthesis...but its the loss of these habitats directly that cause most of these species to go extinct...not hotter temperatures or more co2 or anything like that

but claiming "climate change" is the REASON for all these potential extinctions over the next 100 years is just false...you could argue that the extinction and climate change are both results of deforestation but to claim that a 1.5 degree global mean temp rise over the last 100 years is directly causing mass extinction is simply false

predictions != facts

3/12/2008 10:04:59 AM

you are exactly right that global warming is not the only cause of extinctions. if I implied that I didn't mean to.

However, global warming does contribute to habitat loss, as well as other human activities.

3/12/2008 10:26:16 AM

if sea levels rise drastically over the next 100 years and destroy lots of habitats and cause a number of species to go extinct i'll gladly eat crow and do what i can to address the problem

but as of right now its still a prediction, so acting like its an indisputable fact that we are in such a large period of mass extinction is simply dishonest

3/12/2008 10:29:35 AM

by then it is too late.

3/12/2008 10:33:36 AM

or it might not even happen

3/12/2008 10:33:58 AM

it's predicted that the moon will be full at least once next month. I won't believe that shit until I see it.

3/12/2008 11:04:29 AM

large scale sea level changes and mass extinctions happen during very predictable short term cycles, just like the moon revolving around the earth...they're virtually the exact same thing

3/12/2008 11:53:39 AM

You really believe the crap that you type, don't you?

3/12/2008 1:04:15 PM

He'd actually be funny if he wasn't being seriously unironic.

3/12/2008 1:07:26 PM

^^you really believe in somebody's guesses as to whats going to happen over the next 100 years? i'll sell you some beach front property in kansas then...it'll be on the coast soon enough, right?

btw, i like how everybody is adding so much substance and information and not just making smartass remarks or logical fallacies...that really does a great job to support your point

I've brought up past mass extinction events that dwarf the rate of extinction over the past couple hundred years...and you guys refute that with dumbass strawmen...I've already debunked Smath's claims about humans causing the largest extinctions ever...and the retorts I get are more ad homs

Its clear who knows what they're talking about, and who is just typing ignorant one liners that "support" their view

3/12/2008 3:46:51 PM

those "guesses" are based on a preponderance of the evidence. Those guesses are based on models that have been examined time and time again and validated.

You sound like a person who claims "evolution is just a theory."

You make it sound like someone came up with these while drunk or high when that is not the case at all.

3/12/2008 3:51:33 PM

Quote :

"Those guesses are based on models that have been examined time and time again and validated. "

how the fuck do you validate a prediction that hasnt happened yet? answer: you can't

i've seen a ton of different models predicting a variety of temperature, sea level, atmospheric gas concentrations, etc...they all predict different things...they can't all be right...but please feel completely confident in a prediction of something that humans have never witnessed happen

3/12/2008 3:53:52 PM

Yes

Because your interpretation of scientific data is clearly not suspect.

3/12/2008 3:55:56 PM

another one liner with no substance, no refutation of my claims, no sources of your own

why even waste your time trolling this thread?

3/12/2008 3:58:00 PM

3/12/2008 9:29:06 PM

I just stumbled across this and found it relevant to this discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Pleistocene_extinctions#Overkill_Hypothesis

3/13/2008 2:30:29 PM

Actually

Two lines

There's a space in between.

If you can't count or know the difference between catheter and cathode then why, pray tell, should I even bother arguing with you.

Its much easier to point to your outer retard and poke fun.

3/13/2008 3:29:47 PM

another post with zero relevance to the thread

stick to topics you know about, like where the training camps are in afghanistan

3/13/2008 3:40:46 PM

If you want to keep threads relevant then stop posting in them.

The sheer stupid flowing from you fingers actually sullies any content that may have existed before.

And whats with the afghan comment? Like, that doesn't even make sense.

3/13/2008 3:43:26 PM

whats with the afghan comment? wow you're dumber than you look

now i'll challenge you to make one single post with any relevance to climate change, but since you can't, go waste your time trolling a different thread

3/13/2008 3:47:58 PM

3/13/2008 3:56:32 PM

Quote :

"It's a proven fact that species are dying off faster now than they have before humans had a large impact on the planet. A fact you choose to ignore..."

you just throw around terms like "proven fact" as if its an empty phrase...let me warn you though, if you dare go against the liberal company line, you'll immediately start getting discredited for everything you say based on your screenname indicating some type of ignorance and stupidity and lack of brain cells

3/13/2008 4:01:10 PM

I don't follow the company line. It just happens to be closer to what I think. There are definitely things I am not liberal on.

3/13/2008 4:31:33 PM

Quote :

"Native American's hunted woolly mammoths and other species to extinction."

Did you really just say that...

And, if God wanted to stop AGW, couldn't He just do it and save us the trouble?

Quote :

"destroying a natural resource like a forest will slightly increase co2 in the atmosphere since that particular forest isnt there for photosynthesis"

Actually, it might even help reduce co2. decaying leaves and shit...

Quote :

"Those guesses are based on models that have been examined time and time again and validated. "

You mean like the hockey stick model that was validated by statisticians? Oh wait... No it wasn't...

3/14/2008 1:19:15 AM

Quote :

"Actually, it might even help reduce co2. decaying leaves and shit..."

uh, no.

3/14/2008 8:57:41 AM

Quote :

"Species disappearing at an alarming rate, report says"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6502368

Quote :

"We are surely in the midst of a mass extinction. Even though it's hard to compare past extinction rates with that of the present, given missing data from the past, we do know how to identify extinction periods: the elevation of extinction rates in those periods are at least a hundred-fold over the slow "background" rate of "normal" extinction."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/extinction/massext/statement_03.html

Quote :

"Extinction Rate Across The Globe Reaches Historical Proportions"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020109074801.htm

Quote :

"Five times in the past half-billion years, the fossil record shows us, living things have been wiped out over much of the earth. Catastrophic changes in climate, or the impact of an asteroid or a comet, are the likeliest causes for the five great extinctions which geologists and palaeobiologists have identified, ranging from the Ordovician-Silurian extinction, of about 439 million years ago, to the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K/T} extinction of 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs disappeared [1]. -- The Five Worst Extinctions in Earth's History. Some add another at the Cambrian-Ordovician boundary. What is the rate of extinction? The normal "background rate of extinction is roughly 1-2 species per year." [2]. Others calculate it at as 'two to five families of marine invertebrates and vertebrates every million years'. "Paleontologists estimate the background rate of species extinction--the long-term extinction rate exhibited prior to humanity's influence--at between 1 and 10 extinctions each decade among every million fossil species. Assuming from a variety of estimates that 10 million species are alive today (Stork 1993 and 1997, May 1988, Hammond 1992), scientists can expect from 1 to 10 species to go extinct each year from all forms of life, visible and microscopic. In fact, species are exiting much faster. Based on records of extinction among the best- studied types of animals, ecologist Stuart Pimm and colleagues calculated extinction rates during the past century to range from 100 to 10,000 species per year (again, assuming 10 million species exist). That rate is between 100 and 1000 times faster than the background rate of species extinction (Pimm et al 1995)." [3] - Bold mine. Extinction rates in the tropics are based on rates of deforestation. "

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

Quote :

"Rates from known extinctions It may come as a surprise to you to learn that we can actually get reasonable estimates of current extinction rates from examining documented extinctions in groups that are reasonably well-studied. In the United States alone, for example, 45 vertebrates (over half of which are birds), 347 invertebrates, and 147 plants are either presumed or possibly extinct [9].4 By calculating the fraction of known species that have gone extinct in historical times, we get a direct estimate of extinction rates. The calculations that follow are based on the data and the approach described in [10,15]. "

--Click this link for employed formulae

http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/eeb310/lecture-notes/extinctions/node6.html

I guess they're dying 'just because.'

3/14/2008 1:17:35 PM

Quote :

"According to a recent poll, seven out of ten biologists think we are currently in the throes of a sixth mass extinction. Some say it could wipe out as many as 90 percent of all species living today. Yet other scientists dispute such dire projections."

other scientists dispute that they're even dying

Quote :

"The normal "background rate of extinction is roughly 1-2 species per year.""

ok like i said...a couple hundred extinctions over the past couple hundred years

Quote :

"At least 15 species have gone extinct in the past 20 years"

more evidence to support what i already said...15 species in 20 years is "roughly 1-2 species per year"

Quote :

"Current extinction rates are at least 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural rates"

hmmm...that doesnt sound like 100x - 1000x greater than natural rates...how is 15 extinctions in 20 years 100x or 1000x higher than "roughly 1-2 species per year"? Hmmmm

3/14/2008 1:25:10 PM

And clearly you didnt read the last link that mathematically breaks down the numbers for laymen like yourself.

I would quote it but formulas are images.

[Edited on March 14, 2008 at 1:37 PM. Reason : >.<]

3/14/2008 1:37:18 PM

And even more evidence of your selective reading:

Quote :

"The numbers are grim," he said. "Some 2,000 species of Pacific Island birds (about 15 percent of the world total) have gone extinct since human colonization. Roughly 20 of the 297 known mussel and clam species and 40 of about 950 fishes have perished in North America in the last century. The globe has experienced similar waves of destruction just five times in the past.""

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020109074801.htm

3/14/2008 1:38:54 PM

The chart shows 584 extinctions over the last 400 years

Those are the actual statistics

You can either use the actual statistics, or you can continue to assume an estimated future prediction is more accurate than actual numbers

Quote :

"Some 2,000 species of Pacific Island birds...have gone extinct since human colonization"

unless human colonization didnt occur until a couple years ago, this still follows the natural extinction rate

Quote :

"Roughly 20... mussel and clam species and 40...fishes have perished in North America in the last century."

wow 20 and 40 in the last 100 years...sounds about normal to me

Please though, keep trusting future guesses more than actual numbers

3/14/2008 1:41:11 PM

Again.

You fail to read and comprehend and then wonder why I treat you like an idiot.

First and foremost, the meat of the article is in the formulae:

Quote :

"# 100 documented extinctions of birds and mammals worldwide in the last century out of $\approx 14,000$ total. That's a rate of $7 \times 10^{-3}$ yr$^{-1}$. # The average life span of bird and mammal species in the fossil record is about $1 \times 10^6$ years. This is equivalent to an extinction rate of about $1 \times 10^{-6}$ y$^{-1}$. # So the recent historical rate of vertebrate extinctions is a little over 7,000 times greater than the background rate of extinction. "

Secondly,

The chart is extinctions in major taxa of known species. The above math breaks down, enough for a chimp with basic adding skills to even understand, of how that relates to the rest of the estimated global species.

3/14/2008 1:44:25 PM

Quote :

"keep trusting future guesses more than actual numbers"

hey next time you're accelerating from 0 to 60 in (for easy math) 10 seconds in your car, i'll bet you can convince yourself that in 40 more seconds you'll be going 300 miles per hour

just make yourself ignore how fast you are currently going and only focus on predictions...i mean thats how science works right?

fuck having to do long drawn out tedious experiments to actually confirm real numbers...lets just base everything off of predictions

3/14/2008 1:45:53 PM

You really have no idea how science and mathematics operate do you.

3/14/2008 1:47:28 PM

predicted numbers are more important and relevant than actual numbers

guessing is better than knowing

extrapolating is more valuable than real data

3/14/2008 1:48:02 PM

A lot of science is actually predictions and models.

When the atomic bomb was being built, it was built based almost entirely on predictions.

And thats only a known example.

3/14/2008 1:49:41 PM

so therefore predictions and models are more valuable than actual observed numbers

if we had already studied a working atomic bomb, the studies on that would be insignificant compared to the predictions and models we worked on

3/14/2008 1:50:16 PM

Predictions and models are built on observations and the results they produced are verified within very close margin of actual numbers based on decades of statistical research.

An engineer or scientist analyzing statistical extrapolations will not view them as blind guesses, as you seem to do.

3/14/2008 1:51:54 PM

Quote :

"the results they produced are verified within very close margin of actual numbers based on decades of statistical research."

so you're admitting that predictions are based on real numbers

yet you still think predictions are more valuable than real numbers

and you still choose to ignore the actual extinction data in favor of predictions

3/14/2008 1:54:27 PM

Predictions are based on real data and they serve as the basis of a model.

Predicted outcomes always fall within a statistical margin of actual real data if it were possible to gather said data.

Yes I believe predictions with a margin of error of 1-5% or maybe even more depending on the situation, to be as valid as gathering the real data.

If it were not the case, then it wouldn't even possible for you to sit here and spew retarded strawman arguments electronically.

3/14/2008 1:56:45 PM

Quote :

"Predicted outcomes always fall within a statistical margin of actual real data if it were possible to gather said data."

so you're confident in the quality of data from 10,000 years ago? how about 65,000,000 years ago?

more specifically, you're more confident in the data from millions of years ago, extrapolated for a future prediction, than you are the actual REAL numbers we've gained from physically observing over the past 100 years or so?

You clearly understand math models...you are just severely clueless when it comes to what conclusions a scientist could or couldn't draw from those models

3/14/2008 1:58:02 PM

Thats not even your original argument. To go from trying to undermine the statistical validity of data to attacking the credibility of the original information is just a very weak and uneducated attempt to undermine what is otherwise pretty strong evidence.

I won't argue that information gathered from earlier periods of Earth's history are completely accurate, I will argue that we haven't yet discovered any information to seriously challenge our understanding of previous biospheres.

3/14/2008 2:01:33 PM

I also want to point out that I'm noticing you stealth editing everything.

Its kind of cute, but ultimately pointless.

3/14/2008 2:02:37 PM

My original argument is that climate change hasn't caused mass extinctions

And to do anything BUT question the credibility and validity of the original data would be bad science

Like I said, you understand some math models, but you are lost on the concepts of science in general

Also I like how when people get completely pwnt they revert to mentioning pointless things like ghost edits, when the edits were simply typographical or grammatical, or were just adding additional information

3/14/2008 2:03:46 PM

Turning my accusation towards you against me doesn't make sense when I'm the one coming with the data and trying to explain to you have scientists reached a certain conclusion, and then having you turn around and question the very accuracy of statistical models in the first place.

Secondly, I made no claim linking extinction to climate change and the articles I linked actually talk more about human involvement adversely effecting the Earth's Biosphere.

I did cynically remark that species were dying off at an accelerated pace 'just because' as a fun poke at the arguments you and other tards have made in this thread.

3/14/2008 2:06:12 PM

Quote :

"scientists reached a certain conclusion"

really scientists reached a conclusion? do you know what a conclusion is and how one is reached in science? not by polling some biologists or running limited data through a model...keep it up though, its funny to people who understand the scientific process to see you throwing around words like 'conclusion' as if you understood how they were reached

Quote :

"species were dying off at an accelerated pace"

again back to trusting predictions more than real data

i dont know what you majored in, but did they have any science classes required? if so, why did you skip them?

3/14/2008 2:08:16 PM

I mean you're trying to play this angle like I don't know the scientific process and yet you're only reiterating a key claim I made against you in the first place. Again, you can't make such a claim when you spent half a page arguing that statistical models couldn't be trusted and that empirical evidence is the only reliable evidence. That pretty much invalidates a lot of theoretical science being done right now.

3/14/2008 2:10:53 PM

I'm actually waiting for your standard post claiming 'haha trolled' because you've flipped through arguments so much that really have no basis anymore.

3/14/2008 2:14:09 PM