Assuming it was a hoax, what would be the goal of the global warming hoax?

[SSDD]

Hmm , I guess you should share your sources. I've heard 5 degrees C will send us into a heat spiral, not 2..

Interesting, since for most of this planet's history, the average mean temperature has been closer to 22C...quite a bit more than 5 degrees warmer than the present 14.8C.

I can only guess that you never really considered the past when you were forming your present position. If you did, and still hold an alarmist position, then one can only conclude that you hold your position for political, and not scientific reasons.

As I said, for most of the planet's history, it has been considerably warmer than the 5 degrees that you believe would initiate a temperature spiral... Here are a couple of accepted reconstructions of the temperature history of the planet.

Note the first graph also includes the atmospheric CO2 levels for the various periods. Note that the several ice ages earth has experienced; most began with CO2 levels at, or far in excess of 1000ppm and at least one ice age began with CO2 levels in excess of 4000ppm. The slide into the ice age we are currently exiting from began with CO2 levels greater than the present. That doesn't really square with the proposed greenhouse hypothesis....does it? Fearing that CO2 will cause temperatures to spiral out of control when the ice age we are presently exiting began with CO2 levels higher than those at present makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Considering the temperature history of our planet, tell me, what is surprising about the fact that we are in a warming phase....and again, considering the temperature history of the planet, do you really believe there is anything that we can realistically do to prevent the earth's inevitable warmup back to the neighborhood of 22C at some point in the future?

 

[westwall]

Acidification is a farce. Man could burn every carbon bearing rock on the planet and the pH of the ocean would drop from 8.1 to 8.0 still very alkaline.

For as long as the science has existed, "acidification" has been the term for an increase in [H+]. Staring and ending pH is not relevant. Denier attempts to deny that are some recent historical revisionism.

And if you disagree, I suggest you also tell the medical community they're getting it all wrong, as "acidosis" is defined as blood pH falling below 7.35.

Deniers also don't understand water chemistry. pH 7.0 is only the neutral state in one type of system, pure water undergoing strong acid/base interactions. In a system with multiple layers of buffering like the oceans, pH 7.0 is a number of no significance.

When acidification has been tested in an actual lab, and not in your computer fictional world, the response of the various critters has been to grow thicker shells. Even in levels of acidic water that are orders of magnitude higher than could eve be experienced in the real world. Whenever there has been a claim that acidification is killing critters in an area the follow ups have ALWAYS shon that the death was due to some other cause.

 

[westwall]

I didn't know you lived there. How is the weather today? What are the sources of your CO2?

Probes have been sent to check the weather conditions. I'd love to see you become the first Venus explorer so you can check the weather yourself.

You need to very careful comparing planets. Our GHouse effect is a finely tuned combination of happy coincidences. The very thin absorption lines of CO2/Methane/ect could be thrown off radically because of small shift in the shape of the planet IR Blackbody radiation spectrum or the incident amount solar energy changed by the large differences in water vapor content. The albedo and the shape and center freq of VENUS's surface IR radiation IS a lot different from Earth..

So -- It's truely silly to jump to CO2 as the major and only factor in it's "climate" and compare that to Earth. Unless of course -- you're James Hansen

Even TINY shifts in the sun's radiation spectrum could change both the downdwelling radiation and the GH insulation factor. IN FACT --- for the past 25 years or so-- we've had space observatories accurately measuring these spectral shifts and are learning that they DO modulate the GH effect at different times of a solar cycle. We MIGHT discover that there are also some LONGER term trends at play..

FlaCal,
If Co2 and methane were THE only factors at play , I would agree with you, but there are other factors at play : deforestation , sea acidification due to rapid co2 ( I know we've had higher co2 levels, but the biosphere had thousands of years to adapt not just one century ) , the change in the albedo of snow, the massive extintion of species.
The big difference between venus and earth is not just chemical , but the fact that Earth's biosphere plays a significant role in the weather and we are not just messing with co2 or methane , but with a lot of other factors.
So again , we are not in an emergency , but I will continue using compact cars and energy saving devices, I benefit from it as well as the companies that make those products.

Acidification is a farce. Man could burn every carbon bearing rock on the planet and the pH of the ocean would drop from 8.1 to 8.0 still very alkaline. Deforestation has nothing to do with the climate. There is no massive extinction of species. That is likewise a farce. In the last 10 years there have been over 100,000 new species discovered. What change in the albedo of snow?

He is now grasping at straws..

Acidifcation is a non issue as a group of AGW scientists has now found, while trying to prove this theroy, that plankton grows so rapidly it consumes more CO2 than the ocean can sequester. Increased carbon dioxide enhances plankton growth, opposite of what was expected

Deforestation is a localized event and creates localized changes. it is not global. This shows the conflation between local events and global events.

Extinctions of species is at an all time low according to the paleo records. This is a natural cyclic event. not sure where he is able to make this a man caused event.

Snow Albedo is an easy one. Particulate matter, not CO2 is the issue. Naturally occurring fires and man caused fires will place particulates into the atmosphere which eventually make it to the poles. The Northerner hemisphere has changed massively in the last 30 years reducing the particulate matter in the arctic region. It has been seriously reduced and the snow is now near its postindustrial age color again.

The AGW folks dont care that most if not all of their doom and gloom scenarios failed to materialize. Like this alarmist, he is pulling out all of the stops without addressing the failure of his models to predict anything and the empirical evidence which lays waste to the CAGW theroy. The use of totally bogus comparisons is their game because most dont know how or why heat is higher on Venus when no IR (short or long wave ) makes it to the surface.

Yes, more and more it is becoming apparent that CC is a true believer trying to hide beneath a veneer. It appears actual science doesn't matter to him any more than it does any of the usual suspects here.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Deforestation has nothing to do with the climate. There is no massive extinction of species. That is likewise a farce. In the last 10 years there have been over 100,000 new species discovered. What change in the albedo of snow?

Lets just get this clear : yes millions of acre of woods and tropical forests are burned every year. That increases erosion and creates havoc with ecological balance. This in turn reduces the capacity to extract co2 from the atmosphere.

While the data on CO2 is inconclusive, the fact that millions of species are going the dodo way is not subject to debate.
Yes 100,000 new species were discovered and 100,000 more will not be discovered because they ceased to exist.
You mentioned buffaloes , 50 million existed three centuries ago , how many of them are left, how many species were they? And they have now been replaced by one single species : cows.

 

[mamooth]

When acidification has been tested in an actual lab, Even in levels of acidic water that are orders of magnitude higher than could eve be experienced in the real world. Whenever there has been a claim that acidification is killing critters in an area the follow ups have ALWAYS shon that the death was due to some other cause.

"ALWAYS"? That's a strong claim, and one you don't offer any support for. Fortunately, we can easily put your "ALWAYS" claim to the test. Here's a 2014 example of a paper on real-world observation of shell-thinning due to acidification. Please point us to the data that refutes this study directly. If you can't, your "ALWAYS" claim will look rather dubious.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1785/20140123
Limacina helicina shell dissolution as an indicator of declining habitat suitability owing to ocean acidification in the California Current Ecosystem
Bednarsek et al (2014)
---
Abstract
Few studies to date have demonstrated widespread biological impacts of ocean acidification (OA) under conditions currently found in the natural environment. From a combined survey of physical and chemical water properties and biological sampling along the Washington–Oregon–California coast in August 2011, we show that large portions of the shelf waters are corrosive to pteropods in the natural environment. We show a strong positive correlation between the proportion of pteropod individuals with severe shell dissolution damage and the percentage of undersaturated water in the top 100 m with respect to aragonite. We found 53% of onshore individuals and 24% of offshore individuals on average to have severe dissolution damage. Relative to pre-industrial CO2 concentrations, the extent of undersaturated waters in the top 100 m of the water column has increased over sixfold along the California Current Ecosystem (CCE). We estimate that the incidence of severe pteropod shell dissolution owing to anthropogenic OA has doubled in near shore habitats since pre-industrial conditions across this region and is on track to triple by 2050. These results demonstrate that habitat suitability for pteropods in the coastal CCE is declining. The observed impacts represent a baseline for future observations towards understanding broader scale OA effects.
---

 

[westwall]

Deforestation has nothing to do with the climate. There is no massive extinction of species. That is likewise a farce. In the last 10 years there have been over 100,000 new species discovered. What change in the albedo of snow?

Lets just get this clear : yes millions of acre of woods and tropical forests are burned every year. That increases erosion and creates havoc with ecological balance. This in turn reduces the capacity to extract co2 from the atmosphere.

While the data on CO2 is inconclusive, the fact that millions of species are going the dodo way is not subject to debate.
Yes 100,000 new species were discovered and 100,000 more will not be discovered because they ceased to exist.
You mentioned buffaloes , 50 million existed three centuries ago , how many of them are left, how many species were they? And they have now been replaced by one single species : cows.

If there are millions of species threatened list 500 that are endangered. The bison were SHOT. They didn't suffer from climate change. And when looking at the species that are endangered not one of them is in danger due to climate change. They are all endangered due to poaching or loss of habitat.

There was ONE species of American Buffalo. Now there are two. The number of American Buffalo is over 450,000 and they have been crossbred to form a new critter called a beefalo.

The claim form you warmists is that climate change is going to kill everything. That is patently ridiculous. Climate change has never been shown to kill anything. Bitter cold has done a great job of killing when there are cold snaps but warmth has not. All paleo evidence shows beyond doubt that warmth is not the killer you all claim it is.

The warming that occurred after the Younger Dryas cooling event (which was rapid and catastrophic) was even more rapid than what we are experiencing and guess what. Nothing died.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Deforestation has nothing to do with the climate. There is no massive extinction of species. That is likewise a farce. In the last 10 years there have been over 100,000 new species discovered. What change in the albedo of snow?

Lets just get this clear : yes millions of acre of woods and tropical forests are burned every year. That increases erosion and creates havoc with ecological balance. This in turn reduces the capacity to extract co2 from the atmosphere.

While the data on CO2 is inconclusive, the fact that millions of species are going the dodo way is not subject to debate.
Yes 100,000 new species were discovered and 100,000 more will not be discovered because they ceased to exist.
You mentioned buffaloes , 50 million existed three centuries ago , how many of them are left, how many species were they? And they have now been replaced by one single species : cows.

If there are millions of species threatened list 500 that are endangered. The bison were SHOT. They didn't suffer from climate change. And when looking at the species that are endangered not one of them is in danger due to climate change. They are all endangered due to poaching or loss of habitat.

There was ONE species of American Buffalo. Now there are two. The number of American Buffalo is over 450,000 and they have been crossbred to form a new critter called a beefalo.

The claim form you warmists is that climate change is going to kill everything. That is patently ridiculous. Climate change has never been shown to kill anything. Bitter cold has done a great job of killing when there are cold snaps but warmth has not. All paleo evidence shows beyond doubt that warmth is not the killer you all claim it is.

The warming that occurred after the Younger Dryas cooling event (which was rapid and catastrophic) was even more rapid than what we are experiencing and guess what. Nothing died.

I am not SAYING than WG is killing species.
What I am saying is

Human activity creates deforestation.
Human activity creates pollution.
Human activity has created massive species extinction .

deforestation + pollution + massive extinction + methane increase + co2 increase CAN have VERY different effects on the ecosystem and the weather system than the regular co2 and methane variations that have occured in the past.
Co2 has been a lot higher in the past, but it was a change that occurred over thousands of years, allowing species to adapt, we do not know if current species will be able to adapt quickly enough to the changes we are setting in motion.

True, Earth has been hotter and warmer than today , but in some extreme cases of weather change up to 99% of the previous species went extinct. The human species went almost extinct 75,000 years ago. It is uncertain if this was an event triggered by the Toba explosion or by other event. But it does leave clear one thing : we humans are not imprevious to natural events.

Extinction Events That Almost Wiped Out Humans

 

[westwall]

Deforestation has nothing to do with the climate. There is no massive extinction of species. That is likewise a farce. In the last 10 years there have been over 100,000 new species discovered. What change in the albedo of snow?

Lets just get this clear : yes millions of acre of woods and tropical forests are burned every year. That increases erosion and creates havoc with ecological balance. This in turn reduces the capacity to extract co2 from the atmosphere.

While the data on CO2 is inconclusive, the fact that millions of species are going the dodo way is not subject to debate.
Yes 100,000 new species were discovered and 100,000 more will not be discovered because they ceased to exist.
You mentioned buffaloes , 50 million existed three centuries ago , how many of them are left, how many species were they? And they have now been replaced by one single species : cows.

If there are millions of species threatened list 500 that are endangered. The bison were SHOT. They didn't suffer from climate change. And when looking at the species that are endangered not one of them is in danger due to climate change. They are all endangered due to poaching or loss of habitat.

There was ONE species of American Buffalo. Now there are two. The number of American Buffalo is over 450,000 and they have been crossbred to form a new critter called a beefalo.

The claim form you warmists is that climate change is going to kill everything. That is patently ridiculous. Climate change has never been shown to kill anything. Bitter cold has done a great job of killing when there are cold snaps but warmth has not. All paleo evidence shows beyond doubt that warmth is not the killer you all claim it is.

The warming that occurred after the Younger Dryas cooling event (which was rapid and catastrophic) was even more rapid than what we are experiencing and guess what. Nothing died.

I am not SAYING than WG is killing species.
What I am saying is

Human activity creates deforestation.
Human activity creates pollution.
Human activity has created massive species extinction .

deforestation + pollution + massive extinction + methane increase + co2 increase CAN have VERY different effects on the ecosystem and the weather system than the regular co2 and methane variations that have occured in the past.
Co2 has been a lot higher in the past, but it was a change that occurred over thousands of years, allowing species to adapt, we do not know if current species will be able to adapt quickly enough to the changes we are setting in motion.

True, Earth has been hotter and warmer than today , but in some extreme cases of weather change up to 99% of the previous species went extinct. The human species went almost extinct 75,000 years ago. It is uncertain if this was an event triggered by the Toba explosion or by other event. But it does leave clear one thing : we humans are not imprevious to natural events.

Extinction Events That Almost Wiped Out Humans

Human activity is indeed deforesting huge areas and I donate money to preserve sections of rain forest every year. Furthermore I actually support government taking over vast sections of rain forest from private corporations to preserve it.

Yes. Human activity creates pollution. Why then does not a single proposal from the IPCC actually address pollution control? Not one. The only thing the IPCC (and their corporate backers)
wants is for you to pay (those aformentioned corporate backers) for the privilege of polluting. If everything was as dire as they claim don't you think there would be some rather draconian measures coming down from on high to reduce actual pollution? Hmmm?

Define massive extinction. I can think of maybe 100 species that mankind has directly caused to go extinct. And almost of that is due to poaching and hunting.

CO2 is not a dangerous gas. Period. Anyone who claims otherwise is a moron, a fool or a political operative. It is plant food and is the basic building block of all life on this planet. Period.

75% of Earths history has been WARMER than the present day. Tell the class what that means.

No extinction event has ever been shown to be due to warmth. On the contrary COLD has been shown to be the proximal cause in at least one mass extinction. The other events we don't know what caused them but warmth is the least likely cause.

The evidence from the PETM which was far hotter than today, shows that terrestrial life BLOOMED! Evidence shows that the warming then was just as rapid as today. You are factually wrong on every account.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Deforestation has nothing to do with the climate. There is no massive extinction of species. That is likewise a farce. In the last 10 years there have been over 100,000 new species discovered. What change in the albedo of snow?

Lets just get this clear : yes millions of acre of woods and tropical forests are burned every year. That increases erosion and creates havoc with ecological balance. This in turn reduces the capacity to extract co2 from the atmosphere.

While the data on CO2 is inconclusive, the fact that millions of species are going the dodo way is not subject to debate.
Yes 100,000 new species were discovered and 100,000 more will not be discovered because they ceased to exist.
You mentioned buffaloes , 50 million existed three centuries ago , how many of them are left, how many species were they? And they have now been replaced by one single species : cows.

If there are millions of species threatened list 500 that are endangered. The bison were SHOT. They didn't suffer from climate change. And when looking at the species that are endangered not one of them is in danger due to climate change. They are all endangered due to poaching or loss of habitat.

There was ONE species of American Buffalo. Now there are two. The number of American Buffalo is over 450,000 and they have been crossbred to form a new critter called a beefalo.

The claim form you warmists is that climate change is going to kill everything. That is patently ridiculous. Climate change has never been shown to kill anything. Bitter cold has done a great job of killing when there are cold snaps but warmth has not. All paleo evidence shows beyond doubt that warmth is not the killer you all claim it is.

The warming that occurred after the Younger Dryas cooling event (which was rapid and catastrophic) was even more rapid than what we are experiencing and guess what. Nothing died.

I am not SAYING than WG is killing species.
What I am saying is

Human activity creates deforestation.
Human activity creates pollution.
Human activity has created massive species extinction .

deforestation + pollution + massive extinction + methane increase + co2 increase CAN have VERY different effects on the ecosystem and the weather system than the regular co2 and methane variations that have occured in the past.
Co2 has been a lot higher in the past, but it was a change that occurred over thousands of years, allowing species to adapt, we do not know if current species will be able to adapt quickly enough to the changes we are setting in motion.

True, Earth has been hotter and warmer than today , but in some extreme cases of weather change up to 99% of the previous species went extinct. The human species went almost extinct 75,000 years ago. It is uncertain if this was an event triggered by the Toba explosion or by other event. But it does leave clear one thing : we humans are not imprevious to natural events.

Extinction Events That Almost Wiped Out Humans

Human activity is indeed deforesting huge areas and I donate money to preserve sections of rain forest every year. Furthermore I actually support government taking over vast sections of rain forest from private corporations to preserve it.

Yes. Human activity creates pollution. Why then does not a single proposal from the IPCC actually address pollution control? Not one. The only thing the IPCC (and their corporate backers)
wants is for you to pay (those aformentioned corporate backers) for the privilege of polluting. If everything was as dire as they claim don't you think there would be some rather draconian measures coming down from on high to reduce actual pollution? Hmmm?

Define massive extinction. I can think of maybe 100 species that mankind has directly caused to go extinct. And almost of that is due to poaching and hunting.

CO2 is not a dangerous gas. Period. Anyone who claims otherwise is a moron, a fool or a political operative. It is plant food and is the basic building block of all life on this planet. Period.

75% of Earths history has been WARMER than the present day. Tell the class what that means.

CO2 was also much higher for over 75% of earths existence to date. Its averaged about 1500ppm.. Our current level is not only NOT dangerous but it is low.

 

[SSDD]

Lets just get this clear : yes millions of acre of woods and tropical forests are burned every year. That increases erosion and creates havoc with ecological balance. This in turn reduces the capacity to extract co2 from the atmosphere.

Did you see the data from OCO? It was quite clear that the equatorial rain forests are net sources of CO2...not the CO2 sink that you seem to believe that they are.

While the data on CO2 is inconclusive, the fact that millions of species are going the dodo way is not subject to debate.

The cause is certainly up for debate...better than 90% of the species that ever existed on earth are extinct and mankind had nothing to do with it....You claim that somehow we are responsible for millions going extinct....I call BULLSHIT....if we are killing millions of species, it should be no problem for you to name...oh...say....150 that are extinct due to climate.....hell name 100 that are extinct due to climate....make it 50....see where this is going?

Yes 100,000 new species were discovered and 100,000 more will not be discovered because they ceased to exist.

Any actual data to back that up? Of course not. More unfounded, unsupportable garbage... Clearly you hold your position as a result of politics....nothing whatsoever to do with science led you to where you are now.

You mentioned buffaloes , 50 million existed three centuries ago , how many of them are left, how many species were they? And they have now been replaced by one single species : cows.

About a half a million...and it had nothing whatsoever to do with climate change....offering up species that were driven to extinction, or near extinction due to hunting or poaching is a red herring....it is a logical fallacy....it is an attempt to divert attention from the fact that you can't even name 100 species that have gone extinct due to climate change....and further, you can't provide a shred of empirical evidence that supports the claim that mankind is changing the global climate in the first place.

You are on the right track regarding pollution which is a genuine problem that could be addressed and perhaps we might even get something done about it....alas, that can't happen though because the AGW hoax sucks all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers and leaves un financially unable to address the real problems facing mankind and the earth.

Your position is entirely political and not supported by anything like actual science that adheres to the scientific method. Congratulations.[/QUOTE]

 

[CultureCitizen]

Did you see the data from OCO? It was quite clear that the equatorial rain forests are net sources of CO2...not the CO2 sink that you seem to believe that they are.

Does it ?
You should include the article associated with the map and not just the map and draw your own skewed conclusions from it.
"It shows hotspots of carbon dioxide over northern Australia, southern Africa and eastern Brazil.
These carbon spikes could be explained by agricultural fires and land clearing — practices that are widespread during spring in the Southern Hemisphere, OCO-2 scientists said."
If you watch the video, you will find they say the map is the average of 5 weeks of data, so that particular map does not tell the whole story.

NASA Satellite's 1st CO2 Maps of Earth Revealed

 

[CultureCitizen]

Any actual data to back that up? Of course not. More unfounded, unsupportable garbage... Clearly you hold your position as a result of politics....nothing whatsoever to do with science led you to where you are now.

That was just figuritative: Yes, many species are discovered, because the exploration of plant and animal species is not finished and is a continuous tasks. Many of those species are difficult to account for ( insects , nematodes, plants ).

For accounting purposes we should stick to vertebrates, which are way easier to keep track of.

"Although 875 extinctions occurring between 1500 and 2009 have been documented by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,[1] the vast majority are undocumented. According to the species-area theory and based on upper-bound estimating, the present rate of extinction may be up to 140,000 species per year"

"Stuart Pimm stated "the current rate of species extinction is about 100 times the natural rate" for plants.[12] Mass extinctions are characterized by the loss of at least 75% of species within a geologically short period of time."

Holocene extinction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So , there you have the sources, now I would very much like to have any links from your part prooving that we humans are NOT the cause for a mass extinction event.

 

[westwall]

Any actual data to back that up? Of course not. More unfounded, unsupportable garbage... Clearly you hold your position as a result of politics....nothing whatsoever to do with science led you to where you are now.

That was just figuritative: Yes, many species are discovered, because the exploration of plant and animal species is not finished and is a continuous tasks. Many of those species are difficult to account for ( insects , nematodes, plants ).

For accounting purposes we should stick to vertebrates, which are way easier to keep track of.

"Although 875 extinctions occurring between 1500 and 2009 have been documented by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,[1] the vast majority are undocumented. According to the species-area theory and based on upper-bound estimating, the present rate of extinction may be up to 140,000 species per year"

"Stuart Pimm stated "the current rate of species extinction is about 100 times the natural rate" for plants.[12] Mass extinctions are characterized by the loss of at least 75% of species within a geologically short period of time."

Holocene extinction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So , there you have the sources, now I would very much like to have any links from your part prooving that we humans are NOT the cause for a mass extinction event.

"May" Funny how they present no math to support their BS. I can show you the 100,000 species that have been discovered. They can't even present us with a single corpse. You would think that with all of that dying supposedly going on they could trot out at least one.

 

[westwall]

Any actual data to back that up? Of course not. More unfounded, unsupportable garbage... Clearly you hold your position as a result of politics....nothing whatsoever to do with science led you to where you are now.

That was just figuritative: Yes, many species are discovered, because the exploration of plant and animal species is not finished and is a continuous tasks. Many of those species are difficult to account for ( insects , nematodes, plants ).

For accounting purposes we should stick to vertebrates, which are way easier to keep track of.

"Although 875 extinctions occurring between 1500 and 2009 have been documented by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,[1] the vast majority are undocumented. According to the species-area theory and based on upper-bound estimating, the present rate of extinction may be up to 140,000 species per year"

"Stuart Pimm stated "the current rate of species extinction is about 100 times the natural rate" for plants.[12] Mass extinctions are characterized by the loss of at least 75% of species within a geologically short period of time."

Holocene extinction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So , there you have the sources, now I would very much like to have any links from your part prooving that we humans are NOT the cause for a mass extinction event.

I hate to break it to you but using wiki as your source is less than compelling. What's funny is even they can't agree on if it is happening, and this is a propaganda piece. You really need to do better than this.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Any actual data to back that up? Of course not. More unfounded, unsupportable garbage... Clearly you hold your position as a result of politics....nothing whatsoever to do with science led you to where you are now.

That was just figuritative: Yes, many species are discovered, because the exploration of plant and animal species is not finished and is a continuous tasks. Many of those species are difficult to account for ( insects , nematodes, plants ).

For accounting purposes we should stick to vertebrates, which are way easier to keep track of.

"Although 875 extinctions occurring between 1500 and 2009 have been documented by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,[1] the vast majority are undocumented. According to the species-area theory and based on upper-bound estimating, the present rate of extinction may be up to 140,000 species per year"

"Stuart Pimm stated "the current rate of species extinction is about 100 times the natural rate" for plants.[12] Mass extinctions are characterized by the loss of at least 75% of species within a geologically short period of time."

Holocene extinction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So , there you have the sources, now I would very much like to have any links from your part prooving that we humans are NOT the cause for a mass extinction event.

"May" Funny how they present no math to support their BS. I can show you the 100,000 species that have been discovered. They can't even present us with a single corpse. You would think that with all of that dying supposedly going on they could trot out at least one.

Ok , let's stick with vertebrates. If of those 100,000 species 90,000 are bacteria, I'm going to be very disapointed. Those critters mutate like hell.
Quid pro quo. Show me your references.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Any actual data to back that up? Of course not. More unfounded, unsupportable garbage... Clearly you hold your position as a result of politics....nothing whatsoever to do with science led you to where you are now.

That was just figuritative: Yes, many species are discovered, because the exploration of plant and animal species is not finished and is a continuous tasks. Many of those species are difficult to account for ( insects , nematodes, plants ).

For accounting purposes we should stick to vertebrates, which are way easier to keep track of.

"Although 875 extinctions occurring between 1500 and 2009 have been documented by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,[1] the vast majority are undocumented. According to the species-area theory and based on upper-bound estimating, the present rate of extinction may be up to 140,000 species per year"

"Stuart Pimm stated "the current rate of species extinction is about 100 times the natural rate" for plants.[12] Mass extinctions are characterized by the loss of at least 75% of species within a geologically short period of time."

Holocene extinction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So , there you have the sources, now I would very much like to have any links from your part prooving that we humans are NOT the cause for a mass extinction event.

I hate to break it to you but using wiki as your source is less than compelling. What's funny is even they can't agree on if it is happening, and this is a propaganda piece. You really need to do better than this.

Do you have any references showing the oposite : current extinction level is business as usual ?
You are currently supporting your statements with thin air, unless you are a biologist by trade , in whose case I would assume you've written one or two papers about the topic.

 

[westwall]

Any actual data to back that up? Of course not. More unfounded, unsupportable garbage... Clearly you hold your position as a result of politics....nothing whatsoever to do with science led you to where you are now.

That was just figuritative: Yes, many species are discovered, because the exploration of plant and animal species is not finished and is a continuous tasks. Many of those species are difficult to account for ( insects , nematodes, plants ).

For accounting purposes we should stick to vertebrates, which are way easier to keep track of.

"Although 875 extinctions occurring between 1500 and 2009 have been documented by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,[1] the vast majority are undocumented. According to the species-area theory and based on upper-bound estimating, the present rate of extinction may be up to 140,000 species per year"

"Stuart Pimm stated "the current rate of species extinction is about 100 times the natural rate" for plants.[12] Mass extinctions are characterized by the loss of at least 75% of species within a geologically short period of time."

Holocene extinction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So , there you have the sources, now I would very much like to have any links from your part prooving that we humans are NOT the cause for a mass extinction event.

I hate to break it to you but using wiki as your source is less than compelling. What's funny is even they can't agree on if it is happening, and this is a propaganda piece. You really need to do better than this.

Do you have any references showing the oposite : current extinction level is business as usual ?
You are currently supporting your statements with thin air, unless you are a biologist by trade , in whose case I would assume you've written one or two papers about the topic.

No. I am supporting my position based on the fact that YOUR people can't provide one iota of factual data to support what they say. In science the people making the claim MUST prove it. It is impossible to prove a negative. Or didn't you know that?

 

[westwall]

Any actual data to back that up? Of course not. More unfounded, unsupportable garbage... Clearly you hold your position as a result of politics....nothing whatsoever to do with science led you to where you are now.

That was just figuritative: Yes, many species are discovered, because the exploration of plant and animal species is not finished and is a continuous tasks. Many of those species are difficult to account for ( insects , nematodes, plants ).

For accounting purposes we should stick to vertebrates, which are way easier to keep track of.

"Although 875 extinctions occurring between 1500 and 2009 have been documented by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,[1] the vast majority are undocumented. According to the species-area theory and based on upper-bound estimating, the present rate of extinction may be up to 140,000 species per year"

"Stuart Pimm stated "the current rate of species extinction is about 100 times the natural rate" for plants.[12] Mass extinctions are characterized by the loss of at least 75% of species within a geologically short period of time."

Holocene extinction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So , there you have the sources, now I would very much like to have any links from your part prooving that we humans are NOT the cause for a mass extinction event.

"May" Funny how they present no math to support their BS. I can show you the 100,000 species that have been discovered. They can't even present us with a single corpse. You would think that with all of that dying supposedly going on they could trot out at least one.

Ok , let's stick with vertebrates. If of those 100,000 species 90,000 are bacteria, I'm going to be very disapointed. Those critters mutate like hell.
Quid pro quo. Show me your references.

Knock yourself out. Just follow the years back...

"An international committee of taxonomists selected the top 10 from among the approximately 18,000 new species named during the previous year and released the list to coincide with the May 23 birthday of Carolus Linnaeus, the father of modern taxonomy."


ESF Top Ten New Species | Top 10 Species | SUNY-ESF

 

[Billy_Bob]

Any actual data to back that up? Of course not. More unfounded, unsupportable garbage... Clearly you hold your position as a result of politics....nothing whatsoever to do with science led you to where you are now.

That was just figuritative: Yes, many species are discovered, because the exploration of plant and animal species is not finished and is a continuous tasks. Many of those species are difficult to account for ( insects , nematodes, plants ).

For accounting purposes we should stick to vertebrates, which are way easier to keep track of.

"Although 875 extinctions occurring between 1500 and 2009 have been documented by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,[1] the vast majority are undocumented. According to the species-area theory and based on upper-bound estimating, the present rate of extinction may be up to 140,000 species per year"

"Stuart Pimm stated "the current rate of species extinction is about 100 times the natural rate" for plants.[12] Mass extinctions are characterized by the loss of at least 75% of species within a geologically short period of time."

Holocene extinction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So , there you have the sources, now I would very much like to have any links from your part prooving that we humans are NOT the cause for a mass extinction event.

"May" Funny how they present no math to support their BS. I can show you the 100,000 species that have been discovered. They can't even present us with a single corpse. You would think that with all of that dying supposedly going on they could trot out at least one.

With all of their dire predictions it is rather funny to see the words 'may' or 'might' which are never accompanied by a confidence level or percentage that has been backed up by factual empirical evidence. They never put into writing the low level or nonexistent level of certainty. It is always vague terms and undefinable dangers.

CC refuses to produce the definable data, math and methods for anything he posts. I am still waiting for the data, math and methods he is using to claim AGW is a danger to anyone and in need of de-growthing the US economy or standard of living for.

The wild claims are now totally ludicrous and not backed by any real science.

 

[westwall]

Any actual data to back that up? Of course not. More unfounded, unsupportable garbage... Clearly you hold your position as a result of politics....nothing whatsoever to do with science led you to where you are now.

That was just figuritative: Yes, many species are discovered, because the exploration of plant and animal species is not finished and is a continuous tasks. Many of those species are difficult to account for ( insects , nematodes, plants ).

For accounting purposes we should stick to vertebrates, which are way easier to keep track of.

"Although 875 extinctions occurring between 1500 and 2009 have been documented by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,[1] the vast majority are undocumented. According to the species-area theory and based on upper-bound estimating, the present rate of extinction may be up to 140,000 species per year"

"Stuart Pimm stated "the current rate of species extinction is about 100 times the natural rate" for plants.[12] Mass extinctions are characterized by the loss of at least 75% of species within a geologically short period of time."

Holocene extinction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So , there you have the sources, now I would very much like to have any links from your part prooving that we humans are NOT the cause for a mass extinction event.

"May" Funny how they present no math to support their BS. I can show you the 100,000 species that have been discovered. They can't even present us with a single corpse. You would think that with all of that dying supposedly going on they could trot out at least one.

With all of their dire predictions it is rather funny to see the words 'may' or 'might' which are never accompanied by a confidence level or percentage that has been backed up by factual empirical evidence. They never put into writing the low level or nonexistent level of certainty. It is always vague terms and undefinable dangers.

CC refuses to produce the definable data, math and methods for anything he posts. I am still waiting for the data, math and methods he is using to claim AGW is a danger to anyone and in need of de-growthing the US economy or standard of living for.

The wild claims are now totally ludicrous and not backed by any real science.

Yup. It might get super dooper warm. Has about the same probability as a Volcano God not erupting thanks to a virgin sacrifice.