How Bad Is Global Warming?

[minime]

[BenDhyan]

It's a very kabbalistic idea - Man is the Master of Nature...which I can get behind...but man is not the master of divine law...

Is this not true?

Scientists estimate we're now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day [1]. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century [2].

Those pesky exponentials...so unknown...

Man is not the master of nature so far as I understand, but is generally adaptable to cope with natural changes.

Scientists make many claims, but that does not make them all scientifically valid. The scientific community generally does not support the idea that the world is in a mass extinction event. If you think otherwise, please provide your evidence.

[BenDhyan]

^^^ You can't believe every scientific study has it right, there are only a relatively few scientists who believe one is happening.

I don't mean to be rude, but you are clueless.

Profound argument for sure, but if you think my statement was in error, please provide your evidence of wide spread support in the scientific community for the world being in a mass extinction event?

[BenDhyan]

^^^ Evolution continues, as the planet evolves, all its living species must adapt or perish. Mankind will most likely survive.

Think of life as a bank of genetic potential. An "extinction event" produces a bottleneck in the species "richness" that reduces (and simplifies) the bank of genetic potential for evolution. The age of dinosaurs was one extinction event and a bottle neck on evolution. But it was more than dinosaurs but also the plant and bacteria and so on complex web of life that was reduced in species richness. In 100 million years species richness recovered. For example redwood forests were once common and had been present for millennia. The petrified forests of Arizona were trees related genetically to redwood. The Ice Age of 10,000 to 13,000 years past removed most of the species and range of redwoods. Now native redwoods only exist in a narrow range of coastal mountains of northern CA and slightly into southern OR (coastal redwoods) and in the southern Sierra Nevada (Giant Sequoia); both in areas spared Ice Age glaciation. But is was not just redwoods, it was insects and other plants and microscopic soil flora and fauna and so on that no longer exist.

Morty mentions below the cutting of the rain forest but urbanization and industrial agriculture impact areas that once had the highest biological productivity and species richness. Mankind will adapt and survive in human terms and human dimension of time. But the survival will be in an ecology of much less species richness (biological potential) that impacts human's ability to adapt and survive. The genetic bank does not recover in anything close to a human scale. The current human caused extinction event is occurring much faster than the other extinction events in the geologic record and is also irreversible in a human sense of time.

Please provide evidence that main stream science believes there is a current human caused mass extinction event taking place?

[BenDhyan]

^^^ You can judge what you think is best for the planet, but at the end of the day it is nature who determines which species will adapt and which won't. Let's not forget, humans are an indivisible part of nature.

To everyone conversing with dear ol' BenD, keep the above in mind. You can pile up mountains of evidence for BenD, but he can always retreat into that final, impenetrable, fact and value free bubble.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go and discuss quantum physics with my dog.

Quite the contrary if you follow closely my dear bph, I am merely pointing out that main stream science does not support the claim of a mass extinction event in progress. If you think I am incorrect, please feel free to post your evidence.

[PufPuf93]

^^^ You can't believe every scientific study has it right, there are only a relatively few scientists who believe one is happening.

I don't mean to be rude, but you are clueless.

Profound argument for sure, but if you think my statement was in error, please provide your evidence of wide spread support in the scientific community for the world being in a mass extinction event?

Here is a stepping off point that has already been posted by another in this thread. Note that 20 years ago 70% of biologists thought there was a human-caused extinction event in progress. I am certain a survey taken today would approach 100%, the exceptions being creationists or similar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

[BenDhyan]

^^^ You can't believe every scientific study has it right, there are only a relatively few scientists who believe one is happening.

I don't mean to be rude, but you are clueless.

Profound argument for sure, but if you think my statement was in error, please provide your evidence of wide spread support in the scientific community for the world being in a mass extinction event?

Here is a stepping off point that has already been posted by another in this thread. Note that 20 years ago 70% of biologists thought there was a human-caused extinction event in progress. I am certain a survey taken today would approach 100%, the exceptions being creationists or similar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

C'mon wiki is not a scientific source, if there is a current mass extinction event taking place, there must be numerous peer reviewed scientific papers published in the world's top science journals. Go find them if you can.

[Burnt Hill]

You want peer reviewed scientific papers to verify ideas presented here at RI?
Thats okay for supportive evidence in many topics,
but it is no argument against the mass extinction claim.
And I come here for ideas ahead of the scientific curve.
And occassionally to argue against widely held scientific/cultural beliefs.
In addition peer reviewed doesn't carry the weight it used to.
It is one more discipline with fraudulent players.

there must be numerous peer reviewed scientific papers published in the world's top science journals. Go find them if you can.

[minime]

:hrumph
You want peer reviewed scientific papers to verify ideas presented here at RI?
Thats okay for supportive evidence in many topics,
but it is no argument [i]against the mass extinction claim.[/i]
And I come here for ideas ahead of the scientific curve.
And occassionally to argue against widely held scientific/cultural beliefs.
In addition peer reviewed doesn't carry the weight it used to.
It is one more discipline with fraudulent players.

there must be numerous peer reviewed scientific papers published in the world's top science journals. Go find them if you can.

Being the intuition part, but not the rigorous part, of rigorous intuition.

[Burnt Hill]

http://www.pnas.org/content/114/30/E6089

Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines

Significance

The strong focus on species extinctions, a critical aspect of the contemporary pulse of biological extinction, leads to a common misimpression that Earth’s biota is not immediately threatened, just slowly entering an episode of major biodiversity loss. This view overlooks the current trends of population declines and extinctions. Using a sample of 27,600 terrestrial vertebrate species, and a more detailed analysis of 177 mammal species, we show the extremely high degree of population decay in vertebrates, even in common “species of low concern.” Dwindling population sizes and range shrinkages amount to a massive anthropogenic erosion of biodiversity and of the ecosystem services essential to civilization. This “biological annihilation” underlines the seriousness for humanity of Earth’s ongoing sixth mass extinction event.

[Burnt Hill]

Hows that minime?

[minime]

Hows that minime?

True or no, my sig is my explanation.

[BenDhyan]

:hrumph
You want peer reviewed scientific papers to verify ideas presented here at RI?
Thats okay for supportive evidence in many topics,
but it is no argument against the mass extinction claim.
And I come here for ideas ahead of the scientific curve.
And occassionally to argue against widely held scientific/cultural beliefs.
In addition peer reviewed doesn't carry the weight it used to.
It is one more discipline with fraudulent players.

there must be numerous peer reviewed scientific papers published in the world's top science journals. Go find them if you can.

I accept the idea as a hypothesis, but I get the impression there are some here who believe it to be an accepted fact of scientific reality, hence my request of them to look for scientific evidence so that they may find out for themselves main stream science does not take the hypothesis seriously.

[Burnt Hill]

True or no, my sig is my explanation.
Rigorous intuition is radically inclusive.

I am missing the context?

[minime]

True or no, my sig is my explanation.
Rigorous intuition is radically inclusive.

I am missing the context?

I thought you weren't interested in context... Anyways...

"You want peer reviewed scientific papers to verify ideas presented here at RI?
Thats okay for supportive evidence in many topics,
but it is no argument against the mass extinction claim."