Global Warming Blamed for Deaths of ‘80,000 Reindeer’

[basquebromance]

you enviromental and animal-rights cupcakes need to get a life!

Global Warming Blamed for Deaths of ‘80,000 Reindeer’ - Breitbart

 

[ScienceRocks]

Maybe you should Basquebroman!

Can you show any evidence supporting the idea that it didn't? Of course, you can't as you're a brainwashed drone.

 

[basquebromance]

i don't need evidence in this case, sir, i have common sense!

 

[westwall]

you enviromental and animal-rights cupcakes need to get a life!

Global Warming Blamed for Deaths of ‘80,000 Reindeer’ - Breitbart

I have never heard of "unusually severe lightning"! What a bunch of clowns.

 

[westwall]

Maybe you should Basquebroman!

Can you show any evidence supporting the idea that it didn't? Of course, you can't as you're a brainwashed drone.

How about you provide some evidence that it did. You have put forth a theory. The Scientific Method DEMANDS that you back it up. That's how real science works matthew.

 

[ding]

Maybe you should Basquebroman!

Can you show any evidence supporting the idea that it didn't? Of course, you can't as you're a brainwashed drone.

Yes, Matthew. They died of starvation.

And as Nature magazine explained in 2012, “climate attribution” — the attempt to link singular weather events to manmade global warming — “rests on a comparison of the probability of an observed weather event in the real world with that of the ‘same’ event in a hypothetical world without global warming.” As critics have observed, such attribution claims “are unjustifiably speculative, basically unverifiable and better not made at all.”

 

[Crick]

That doesn't mean such events aren't more likely with elevated global temperatures than without - because they are.

 

[ding]

That doesn't mean such events aren't more likely with elevated global temperatures than without - because they are.

Riiiiiight.... because life is so fragile that a 1 C increase over 250 years is sooooooo devastating to life. You ever hear of natural selection?

 

[ding]

More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct. Estimates on the number of Earth's current species range from 10 million to 14 million, of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86 percent have not yet been described.

 

[Crick]

Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction | Science Advances

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n7336/full/nature09678.html?message-global=remove

Extinction Rates of North American Freshwater Fauna - Ricciardi - 1999 - Conservation Biology - Wiley Online Library

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982295000054

There are an awful lot of scientists who think it's of concern. And considering you're attempting to compare extinctions over 3.5 billion years to extinctions over the last century (one thirty-five-millionth the time), your 99% figure is not particularly impressive. Besides, what you ought to be talking about is extinction rates.

 

[ding]

Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction | Science Advances

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n7336/full/nature09678.html?message-global=remove

Extinction Rates of North American Freshwater Fauna - Ricciardi - 1999 - Conservation Biology - Wiley Online Library

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982295000054

There are an awful lot of scientists who think it's of concern. And considering you're attempting to compare extinctions over 3.5 billion years to extinctions over the last century (one thirty-five-millionth the time), your 99% figure is not particularly impressive. Besides, what you ought to be talking about is extinction rates.

Take it up with Darwin.

 

[Crick]

I'm taking it up with you. The RATE at which species are currently going extinct is high in a historical context. You claim that's not the case but have presented NO evidence actually supporting that contention.

Try again or concede.

 

[ding]

I'm taking it up with you. The RATE at which species are currently going extinct is high in a historical context. You claim that's not the case but have presented NO evidence actually supporting that contention.

Try again or concede.

Are you serious? They don't know the past or present extinction rate. They don't even know how many species have existed or exist today. Let alone the rate they have gone extinct. Your attempt to link extinction rates to "man made global warming" — rests on a comparison of the probability of an observed event in the real world with that of the ‘same’ event in a hypothetical world without "global warming.” Give me a break. You are so caught up in your religion of global warming that you will grasp at any straw no matter how ridiculous it is.

 

[Crick]

I'm taking it up with you. The RATE at which species are currently going extinct is high in a historical context. You claim that's not the case but have presented NO evidence actually supporting that contention.

Try again or concede.

Are you serious? They don't know the past or present extinction rate.

See graphs below.

They don't even know how many species have existed or exist today. Let alone the rate they have gone extinct.

Have you never heard of the fossil record or just never thought what you might see in it?

Your attempt to link extinction rates to "man made global warming" — rests on a comparison of the probability of an observed event in the real world with that of the ‘same’ event in a hypothetical world without "global warming.”

It relies on correlation and causation. Extinctions have causes - often multivariate - but determinant. That human activity, via warming and habitat loss, are a primary cause of extinctions since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is heavily supported by evidence.

Give me a break. You are so caught up in your religion of global warming that you will grasp at any straw no matter how ridiculous it is.

You simply do not know what you think you know.

 

[ding]

I'm taking it up with you. The RATE at which species are currently going extinct is high in a historical context. You claim that's not the case but have presented NO evidence actually supporting that contention.

Try again or concede.

Are you serious? They don't know the past or present extinction rate.

See graphs below.

They don't even know how many species have existed or exist today. Let alone the rate they have gone extinct.

Have you never heard of the fossil record or just never thought what you might see in it?

Your attempt to link extinction rates to "man made global warming" — rests on a comparison of the probability of an observed event in the real world with that of the ‘same’ event in a hypothetical world without "global warming.”

It relies on correlation and causation. Extinctions have causes - often multivariate - but determinant. That human activity, via warming and habitat loss, are a primary cause of extinctions since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is heavily supported by evidence.

Give me a break. You are so caught up in your religion of global warming that you will grasp at any straw no matter how ridiculous it is.

You simply do not know what you think you know.

Nice to see you using the reply button finally. Do you really believe this bullshit? They have no idea of the total number of extinctions let alone the rate of extinctions with any precision whatsoever. None. The error bar is off the chart. What we have here is grasping at straws to make an argument that a 1C increase has an increased rate of extinctions. Bull fucking shit.

 

[Crick]

The PhD scientists who created and reviewed this material and hundreds of documents like it certainly believe it has some validity. I don't believe that young engineer Ding believes otherwise bother a single soul besides him.

I should think it obvious that extinctions and extinction rates could be elicited from the fossil record. Why do you believe they cannot? Do you not believe in fossils?

 

[ding]

The PhD scientists who created and reviewed this material and hundreds of documents like it certainly believe it has some validity. I don't believe that young engineer Ding believes otherwise bother a single soul besides him.

I should think it obvious that extinctions and extinction rates could be elicited from the fossil record. Why do you believe they cannot? Do you not believe in fossils?

I have already told you why. They have no idea of the total number of extinctions let alone the rate of extinctions with any precision whatsoever. None. The error bar is off the chart. What we have here is grasping at straws to make an argument that a 1C increase has an increased rate of extinctions. Bull fucking shit.

 

[Crick]

Yes you HAVE told us that. What you have NOT done is to provide one single shred of evidence to back up your claim. Hop to it Willy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I'm taking it up with you. The RATE at which species are currently going extinct is high in a historical context. You claim that's not the case but have presented NO evidence actually supporting that contention.

Try again or concede.

Are you serious? They don't know the past or present extinction rate.

See graphs below.

They don't even know how many species have existed or exist today. Let alone the rate they have gone extinct.

Have you never heard of the fossil record or just never thought what you might see in it?

Your attempt to link extinction rates to "man made global warming" — rests on a comparison of the probability of an observed event in the real world with that of the ‘same’ event in a hypothetical world without "global warming.”

It relies on correlation and causation. Extinctions have causes - often multivariate - but determinant. That human activity, via warming and habitat loss, are a primary cause of extinctions since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is heavily supported by evidence.

Give me a break. You are so caught up in your religion of global warming that you will grasp at any straw no matter how ridiculous it is.

You simply do not know what you think you know.

Too Funny; Your own graphs show extinction spikes at the cooling points of each major climatic shift.. Were they man made too?

 

[ding]

Yes you HAVE told us that. What you have NOT done is to provide one single shred of evidence to back up your claim. Hop to it Willy.

You need proof for common sense? You need for me to prove to you that they do not know how many species have walked this planet? Really? They don't even know how many are walking the planet now, lol. Tell you what, you write the equation to calculate rate of extinction and I will point to the variable that is totally bullshit. How's that?