Methane-producing microbes blamed for biggest ever mass extinction

[bripat9643]

So... you wouldn't object - or urge action to prevent - to the extinction of the human species if it might be natural? Pardon me if I don't follow your lead on that.

Additionally, I was tickled pink by Westwall's apparent belief that new species are discovered BECAUSE THEY HAVE JUST COME INTO EXISTENCE.

The chances of human extinction are about as likely as the chances of me winning the lottery 5 times in a row or of a warmist telling the truth.

 

[bripat9643]

So in other words, global warming and mass extinctions are natrual.

Does this mean we can stop the hysteria about 'carbon footprints'?

No. It means that CO2 and methane can hurt you. The nonsense we keep hearing that it's good for our crops and that a warmer world is better than a colder world are complete crap.

BTW, dying is natural. Does that mean it's okay to stop trying to keep you (and everyone else) alive?

I didn't think so.

The fact that massive amounts of CO2 and methane might cause a catastrophe doesn't prove that the minute increases we've experienced aren't beneficial. We need water to live, but 100 inches of rain in one day obviously wouldn't be beneficial.

Your theory is a fallacy typical of environmental wackos.

 

[editec]

There have been at least 5 mass extinctions and each one happened for different reasons.

Endangered Species International

We appear to be involved in another mass extinction event and this one is very much directly the result of mankinds 6.5 BILLION people destroying habitats around the world in various ways.

Only in the fevered minds of a environmental fanatic could the current time be considered an "extinction event". The title of the study below should put that particular bit of idiocy to bed.


Inventory lists 19,232 newly discovered species during latest count




Inventory lists 19,232 newly discovered species during latest count -- ScienceDaily

Are you truly as ignorant as your above post suggests, West?

Did you not read the linked thread?

"The cumulative knowledge of species since 1758 when Linnaeus was alive is nearly 2 million, but much remains to be done," Wheeler said. "A reasonable guess is that 10 million additional plant and animal species await discovery by scientists and amateur species explorers."

 

[bripat9643]

First it was asteroids that killed the dinosaurs. Then volcanos. Now microbe farts? I can't keep up.

The Permian extinction was prior to the event that wiped out the Dinosaurs.

 

[Abraham3]

That's correct. But why are you correcting one of your own Paddy?

 

[Abraham3]

So... you wouldn't object - or urge action to prevent - to the extinction of the human species if it might be natural? Pardon me if I don't follow your lead on that.

Additionally, I was tickled pink by Westwall's apparent belief that new species are discovered BECAUSE THEY HAVE JUST COME INTO EXISTENCE.

The chances of human extinction are about as likely as the chances of me winning the lottery 5 times in a row or of a warmist telling the truth.

The post of mine you quoted made no comment whatsoever about the odds of a human extinction.

Be that as it may, a threat would not need to rise to the level of an extinction event to get my attention. I pay heed to things as small and insignificant as not stepping in front of cars. I guess you're above all that and only pay heed to the really, REALLY BIG STUFF. Like universal health care, pollution controls, minimum wages and other species-threatening issues. Right Paddy me lad?

 

[Iceweasel]

That's correct. But why are you correcting one of your own Paddy?

Wait. Are you saying I should have taken the satire article seriously? I thought it came from the Onion?

 

[Abraham3]

I think it was "The Leek"

 

[Iceweasel]

I think it was "The Leek"

OK, that was funny.

 

[Abraham3]

Thank you.

 

[westwall]

So... you wouldn't object - or urge action to prevent - to the extinction of the human species if it might be natural? Pardon me if I don't follow your lead on that.

Additionally, I was tickled pink by Westwall's apparent belief that new species are discovered BECAUSE THEY HAVE JUST COME INTO EXISTENCE.

Apparently you're just as stupid as most of the socko's on this forum... I never stated that they were just evolved...did I? Hmmmm? No, by pointing out that nearly 20,000 new ones have been catalogued and maybe 100 have gone extinct in the last 1000 years, that the ratio between the two puts the lie to the "6th extinction event" bullshit you propagandists spew.

 

[westwall]

There have been at least 5 mass extinctions and each one happened for different reasons.

Endangered Species International

We appear to be involved in another mass extinction event and this one is very much directly the result of mankinds 6.5 BILLION people destroying habitats around the world in various ways.

Only in the fevered minds of a environmental fanatic could the current time be considered an "extinction event". The title of the study below should put that particular bit of idiocy to bed.


Inventory lists 19,232 newly discovered species during latest count




Inventory lists 19,232 newly discovered species during latest count -- ScienceDaily

Are you truly as ignorant as your above post suggests, West?

Did you not read the linked thread?

"The cumulative knowledge of species since 1758 when Linnaeus was alive is nearly 2 million, but much remains to be done," Wheeler said. "A reasonable guess is that 10 million additional plant and animal species await discovery by scientists and amateur species explorers."

So editec....you're so smart. Present us a list of the species that have gone extinct in the last 1000 years. It's small. Very small compared to the nearly 20,000 just recently catalogued and the MILLIONS estimated to still be out there.

See the problem with your assertions yet? C'mon, you claim to be a smart boy...let's see how smart you are.

 

[westwall]

That's correct. But why are you correcting one of your own Paddy?

Because, unlike you, we're interested in FACTUALLY CORRECT INFORMATION. We correct each other all the time...unlike you parrots.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Walleyes, real scientists have stated the number of species thought to be going extinct on a yearly basis. And most, as with your number, are insects. And we have no idea of their importance to the overall web of life.

The Sixth Great Extinction: A Silent Extermination ? News Watch

In fact, we are in the midst of the Sixth Great Extinction, an event characterized by the loss of between 17,000 and 100,000 species each year.

Not that the facts or observations of real scientists will make the slightest impact on that dense skull of yours.

 

[Old Rocks]

So... you wouldn't object - or urge action to prevent - to the extinction of the human species if it might be natural? Pardon me if I don't follow your lead on that.

Additionally, I was tickled pink by Westwall's apparent belief that new species are discovered BECAUSE THEY HAVE JUST COME INTO EXISTENCE.

Apparently you're just as stupid as most of the socko's on this forum... I never stated that they were just evolved...did I? Hmmmm? No, by pointing out that nearly 20,000 new ones have been catalogued and maybe 100 have gone extinct in the last 1000 years, that the ratio between the two puts the lie to the "6th extinction event" bullshit you propagandists spew.

Timeline of extinctions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The list for the last 1000 years is definately only partial. Extinctions of animals that went unrecorded far outnumber the ones that were recorded.

 

[JWBooth]

JWBooth,

Did you actually expert certitude about an event that took place 252 million years ago? Do you expect certitude about any topic in the natural sciences? Do you understand how the scientific method works?

The answers to those questions would seem to be YES and YES because NO.

Certitude?
Supposition based on maybe they existed is nonsense akin to mermaids and unicorns. Show me a fossil record.

 

[westwall]

Now Walleyes, real scientists have stated the number of species thought to be going extinct on a yearly basis. And most, as with your number, are insects. And we have no idea of their importance to the overall web of life.

The Sixth Great Extinction: A Silent Extermination ? News Watch

In fact, we are in the midst of the Sixth Great Extinction, an event characterized by the loss of between 17,000 and 100,000 species each year.

Not that the facts or observations of real scientists will make the slightest impact on that dense skull of yours.

Yes, like all propagandists they proclaim all the species that are dying out.....yet, like the conmen of old THEY CAN'T PRODUCE A SINGLE ONE! List the species that have gone extinct in the last 1000 years olfraud. C'mon, there are SOOOO many it should be no problem for a religious nutter like you to come up with a good long list. Not an estimate, I want a list of the creatures that we know existed that are no longer with us.

 

[westwall]

So... you wouldn't object - or urge action to prevent - to the extinction of the human species if it might be natural? Pardon me if I don't follow your lead on that.

Additionally, I was tickled pink by Westwall's apparent belief that new species are discovered BECAUSE THEY HAVE JUST COME INTO EXISTENCE.

Apparently you're just as stupid as most of the socko's on this forum... I never stated that they were just evolved...did I? Hmmmm? No, by pointing out that nearly 20,000 new ones have been catalogued and maybe 100 have gone extinct in the last 1000 years, that the ratio between the two puts the lie to the "6th extinction event" bullshit you propagandists spew.

Timeline of extinctions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The list for the last 1000 years is definately only partial. Extinctions of animals that went unrecorded far outnumber the ones that were recorded.

OH MY GOD! That is a whole list of 138 creatures that have gone extinct (that we know of) in the last 10,000 YEARS!

So, let's compare the reality of your "proof" with the definition of MASS EXTINCTION.

"The extinction of a large number of species within a relatively short period of geological time, thought to be due to factors such as a catastrophic global event or widespread environmental change that occurs too rapidly for most species to adapt. At least five mass extinctions have been identified in the fossil record, coming at or toward the end of the Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, Triassic, and Cretaceous Periods. The Permian extinction, which took place 245 million years ago, is the largest known mass extinction in the Earth's history, resulting in the extinction of an estimated 90 percent of marine species. In the Cretaceous extinction, 65 million years ago, an estimated 75 percent of species, including the dinosaurs, became extinct, possibly as the result of an asteroid colliding with the Earth. Compare background extinction."
Mass extinction | Define Mass extinction at Dictionary.com


So, using the 88,000 year period of the P-T extinction where 90% of the species died out, that gives us a loss over that same period of time (at current rate of loss) of 1,215 species. 1,215 species silly person. And that is a mass extinction event to you?

You're simply a moron.

 

[Abraham3]

So... you wouldn't object - or urge action to prevent - to the extinction of the human species if it might be natural? Pardon me if I don't follow your lead on that.

Additionally, I was tickled pink by Westwall's apparent belief that new species are discovered BECAUSE THEY HAVE JUST COME INTO EXISTENCE.

Apparently you're just as stupid as most of the socko's on this forum... I never stated that they were just evolved...did I? Hmmmm? No, by pointing out that nearly 20,000 new ones have been catalogued and maybe 100 have gone extinct in the last 1000 years, that the ratio between the two puts the lie to the "6th extinction event" bullshit you propagandists spew.

Let me illustrate stupidity: someone who believes that the number of species humans have identified has ANYTHING to do with the extinction rate. I was amazed to see you make the claim and even more amazed to see you defend it. I wouldn't have thought it possible, but it might actually require an explanation. Let me find a four year old to make it clear to you.

And, again you violate the rules here by accusing others of being sock puppets. It seems to be a habit of yours.

 

[Abraham3]

JWBooth,

Did you actually expert certitude about an event that took place 252 million years ago? Do you expect certitude about any topic in the natural sciences? Do you understand how the scientific method works?

The answers to those questions would seem to be YES and YES because NO.

Certitude?
Supposition based on maybe they existed is nonsense akin to mermaids and unicorns. Show me a fossil record.

Microbes, lacking durable body parts, tend not to leave much in the way of fossils. I am not a geologist but perhaps Orogenicman or Old Rocks could fill us in on the actual details. We have microbes today that produce methane and they are quite common. Many live in your own gut and they've been around long enough that you've evolved to rely on them. The case for their existence was made in the story. It's a hypothesis. It's worth discussion. That you believe the authors' use of qualifiers reason to disbelieve them simply tells us that they understand how science works and you do not.

Just as I said earlier.