World facing first mass extinction since the dinosaurs-wildlife populations plunges by 67% in 50 yrs

[Andy Capp]

Edit: withdrawn

 

[Thunderflash500]

hello Thunderflash500,



i disagree.

its silly to think that the major impediment to halting the current mass extinction is the left's concern for climate change.



lol. ok, sure.

just remember to tell that to Jimmy Carter, one of the most avid hunters ever to sit in the oval office in the last hundred years.



that may be true, but unfortunately the current mass extinction extend to many species of flora and fauna that never see the inside of a taxidermists lab.



on a per capita basis, US citizens pollute more than the citizens of any country on the planet.

what, precisely, are your pragmatic solutions?

- IGIT

It's not the lefts worry that is the problem, it's that they are worried about the wrong thing. They are worried about controlling the temperature of the planet. They are worried of co2. They should be worried about mass die offs due to habitat destruction.

Its not an easy thing to fix given how its a world wide problem. We need to stop over fishing. We need to figure out ways to stop habitat destruction. Clean up the oceans. Those are direct ways to help the planet. They aren't easy to solve. How do you tell a poor nation to stop a practice that creates jobs? I don't know. But it's silly to continue destroying the planet and then complaining about car exhaust.

 

[IGIT]

hi Thunderflash500,

It's not the lefts worry that is the problem, it's that they are worried about the wrong thing. They are worried about controlling the temperature of the planet. They are worried of co2. They should be worried about mass die offs due to habitat destruction.

you know what?

we're not that far apart, you and i. while i do think that co2 emissions are a big problem, i'm also perfectly content to table that as a primary concern to address habitat destruction...because one follows the other.

to a large degree, addressing habitat destruction will, by default, also deal with greenhouse gases.

lets just take the problem of ocean acidification, which destroys the exoskeletons of shellfish...and wipe out life on coral reefs (this is a long and involved topic - suffice to say that this process can render our oceans incapable of sustaining life).

what causes ocean acidification? high Co2 levels in our water.

see what i mean?

Its not an easy thing to fix given how its a world wide problem.

yep, absolutely its a world wide problem. if you see my example above, though, we are the P4P champ in perpetuating this world wide problem.

We need to stop over fishing.

yes, but how?

through government regulatory agencies - since they author maritime law, yes?

We need to figure out ways to stop habitat destruction.

sure. but how? for example, how do you deal with the reality that economically deprived citizens who dwell in south america need to clear cut the amazon rain forest to survive?

in the time it takes you to read and respond to this post, around 100 football fields of rain forest will be chopped down. whatever else one might say, that's some pretty robust habitat destruction, wouldn't you say?

Clean up the oceans.

what does this mean? could you expand on this?

Those are direct ways to help the planet. They aren't easy to solve. How do you tell a poor nation to stop a practice that creates jobs? I don't know. But it's silly to continue destroying the planet and then complaining about car exhaust.

you can draw a direct line from co2 emissions to habitat destruction, my friend.

- IGIT

 

[Thunderflash500]

hi Thunderflash500,



you know what?

we're not that far apart, you and i. while i do think that co2 emissions are a big problem, i'm also perfectly content to table that as a primary concern to address habitat destruction...because one follows the other.

to a large degree, addressing habitat destruction will, by default, also deal with greenhouse gases.

lets just take the problem of ocean acidification, which destroys the exoskeletons of shellfish...and wipe our life on coral reefs (this is a long and involved topic - suffice to say that this process can render our oceans incapable of sustaining life).

what causes ocean acidification? high Co2 levels in our water.

see what i mean?



yep, absolutely its a world wide problem. if you see my example above, though, we are the P4P champ in perpetuating this world wide problem.



yes, but how?

through government regulatory agencies - since they author maritime law, yes?



sure. but how? for example, how do you deal with the reality that economically deprived citizens who dwell in south america need to clear cut the amazon rain forest to survive?

in the time it takes you to read and respond to this post, around 100 football fields of rain forest will be chopped down. whatever else one might say, that's some pretty robust habitat destruction, wouldn't you say?



what does this mean? could you expand on this?



you can draw a direct line from co2 emissions to habitat destruction, my friend.

- IGIT

Yes we would need international treaties to address over fishing. And yes I'm against the rain forest from being destroyed. If we placed taxes on products created out of that destruction I'd be fine with it. I'm not against the government stepping in. I'm worried the government will step in, tax the middle class, let corporations continue as normal, and pretend like we are doing something.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I have my concerns about carbon, but I bet these species extinctions have more to do with pollution, then carbon.

I find this to be the single greatest failure of modern day environmentalism. People got so caught up in screaming catastrophe from climate change, that they forgot to pick the low hanging fruit of pollution. Or if you wear as much tin-foil as I do, you wonder if it was happenstance that all effort was put into carbon, when we have plastic islands miles an miles long floating in the ocean.

 

[heloder]

If the left would stop crying about climate change maybe we could really tackle this issue.

The greatest conservationists are from the right. It's hunters. The American model of hunting is the best in the world. Wildlife populations of many species are far higher today than in the 1920's. We need pragmatic solutions, not cucks crying about climate change, carbon taxes, and a bunch of other useless bullshit.

We over fish, destroy climates, pollute, these can be solved. But all the left wants to do is crush American businesses and outsource pollution to China. They want to outsource environmental destruction, not solve it. They want world wide taxes on the poor, not real solutions.

Um, so how about elaborating on all those "real solutions" instead of just saying cucks liberals taxes? Because that just makes you sound like an idiot.

 

[IGIT]

Um, so how about elaborating on all those "real solutions" instead of just saying cucks liberals taxes? Because that just makes you sound like an idiot.

hello heloder,

i think his heart is actually in the right place. the poster you're responding to doesn't seem to like liberals very much - but really...i think that's alright.

he wants to limit habitat destruction whilst also keeping our air breathable and our water drinkable. that means, whatever his political stripes are, he's "okie dokie".

if one feels that these issues are a priority (and they are - what use are gun rights, small government, low taxes, etc, if the planet you're living on becomes uninhabitable?), then its just a matter of time before we'll all be in agreement on a number of key points.

since we know that high Co2 levels will eventually kill off life in our oceans (a process that's already underway), who cares if the reason measures are undertaken to lower those emissions are because of climate change concerns or habitat retention?

as long as the end result is the same, it seems kind of silly to argue about the reasoning it took to arrive there.

- IGIT

 

[Cuzcatlan]

Hosea 4:3

There is no faithfulness or steadfast love,
and no knowledge of God in the land;
There is swearing, lying, murder, stealing, and committing adultery;
they break all bounds, and bloodshed follows bloodshed.
Therefore the land mourns,
and all who dwell in it languish,
and also the beasts of the field
and the birds of the heavens,
and even the fish of the sea are taken away
​

The world is hurtling towards the first mass extinction of animal life since the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago, according to the most comprehensive survey of wildlife ever carried out.

By 2020, the populations of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and other vertebrate species are on course to have fallen by more than two-thirds over a period of just 50 years, the Living Planet report found.

The current rate of extinction is about 100 times faster than is considered normal – greater than during some of the previous five mass extinctions in the Earth’s history.

While the dinosaurs probably died out because a giant meteor hit the planet, just one species is the cause of the current problems: humans.

This is one of the reasons why geologists are close to declaring a new epoch, called the Anthropocene after the Greek for human, because the fossils of so many extinct animals will one day form a noticeable, global band in the rocks of the future.

The Living Planet report, produced by conservation charity WWF and the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), analysed data for 3,706 species in what was described as the most comprehensive study of the state of wildlife globally.

They found that between 1970 and 2012, the average decline in population was 58 per cent.

And at the current rate this figure will hit 67 per cent by 2020, the year by which the world has pledged to halt the loss of wildlife.

Dr Mike Barrett, director of science and policy at WWF-UK, said: “For the first time since the demise of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, we face a global mass extinction of wildlife.


http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...ations-fall-67-per-cent-wwf-zsl-a7381906.html​

Their was a mass extinction after the ice age. All the Mega fuana that died out.

 

[Thunderflash500]

hello heloder,

i think his heart is actually in the right place. the poster you're responding to doesn't seem to like liberals very much - but really...i think that's alright.

he wants to limit habitat destruction whilst also keeping our air breathable and our water drinkable. that means, whatever his political stripes are, he's "okie dokie".

if one feels that these issues are a priority (and they are - what use are gun rights, small government, low taxes, etc, if the planet you're living on becomes uninhabitable?), then its just a matter of time before we'll all be in agreement on a number of key points.

since we know that high Co2 levels will eventually kill off life in our oceans (a process that's already underway), who cares if the reason measures are undertaken to lower those emissions are because of climate change concerns or habitat retention?

as long as the end result is the same, it seems kind of silly to argue about the reasoning it took to arrive there.

- IGIT

Um, so how about elaborating on all those "real solutions" instead of just saying cucks liberals taxes? Because that just makes you sound like an idiot.

Here is something to ponder. Carbon Dioxide comprises .0004 of the total atmospheric composition. The natural contribution to the total ambient atmospheric CO2 is 250 times greater than the human contribution, about 750 gigatons naturally compared to 3 gigatons of anthropogenically sourced CO2 residing in the atmosphere at any given time. So, the human contribution to total atmospheric CO2 is .004, which means that anthropogenic sourced C02 comprises only 4 one thousandths part of 4 ten thousandth part, or 0.0000016 part of total atmospheric composition, that is 16 parts out of 10 million. This is what is known as a TRACE GAS, a gas, which, by the way, is absolutely essential to all life on Earth. A gas which has now been declared a “pollutant” by the EPA for purposes of regulatory control.

To prevent this miniscule change in atmospheric composition we are supposed to basically shut down modern civilization? Impose energy rationing? Bring every aspect of our individual and social life under the control and scrutiny of some new, bloated, government carbon dioxide bureaucracy?

Jacking up electricity costs and supporting free trade is like a multi pronged attack on American business and you people act like it's literally just about the environment.

 

[Thunderflash500]

Their was a mass extinction after the ice age. All the Mega fuana that died out.

I was going to mention this too. Huge die off. The whole world was thrown into chaos.

 

[HomerThompson]

Their was a mass extinction after the ice age. All the Mega fuana that died out.

*There

Vote Thompson!

 

[IGIT]

hi again Thunder,

Here is something to ponder. Carbon Dioxide comprises .0004 of the total atmospheric composition. The natural contribution to the total ambient atmospheric CO2 is 250 times greater than the human contribution, about 750 gigatons naturally compared to 3 gigatons of anthropogenically sourced CO2 residing in the atmosphere at any given time. So, the human contribution to total atmospheric CO2 is .004, which means that anthropogenic sourced C02 comprises only 4 one thousandths part of 4 ten thousandth part, or 0.0000016 part of total atmospheric composition, that is 16 parts out of 10 million.

i'm assuming that this was all just data that you carry within your head, due to your expertise on the topic (though it sounds alot like a copy paste from Randall Carlson that you present as your own thinking).

if so, that's great. what is the upper threshold of an open body of water's capacity to absorb carbon dioxide in relation to the onset of acidification?

i'm curious. in various parts of the world, we're obviously already there. is there some point where we'd be facing a cascade effect where the damage increases at an exponential rate?

This is what is known as a TRACE GAS, a gas, which, by the way, is absolutely essential to all life on Earth.

i think this is what folks call a strawman, my friend. no one has said that world leaders need to embark on a crusade to banish all levels of Co2 from the atmosphere.

To prevent this miniscule change in atmospheric composition we are supposed to basically shut down modern civilization? Impose energy rationing?

that all depends, Thunder. if we can safely pump more greenhouse gases into atmosphere and the margins are broad - i'd say we don't have much to worry about.

if we're meandering our way to a mass extinction, then maybe not. i'm having a hard time grasping the benefits of maintaining our "modern civilization" if the end result is a spoiled planet.

Bring every aspect of our individual and social life under the control and scrutiny of some new, bloated, government carbon dioxide bureaucracy?

we've already agreed that without government regulatory guidelines, nothing is going to change (if change indeed is needed).

you can apply that reasoning to just about anything. if we have no speed limits on highways, then some folks are going to drive 55...some will drive 70...some are going to drive 80...and some will pass you in an unrecognizable blur.

There is no way that the declared goals of CO2 mitigation would not require energy rationing. We absolutely need more open discussion and debate about the social and economic consequences of carbon mitigation policies being proposed, not less, and let all sides be heard.

the problem here might be my age.

when i was in high school, the idea that greenhouse gases trap heat wasn't exactly a controversial thing...it was just bland, boring, 'ol fact.

- IGIT

 

[Blackened]

Humans creating extra plant food is bad?

CO2 is bad? If you are worried about it then stop breathing.

Honestly, plant more trees. Odd that most people fearful of this live in areas where air quality is shit.

 

[Blackened]

LOL. Show a bigger graph, and you see that shifts happen. Cry about it.

I'm old enough to know that every doom and gloom climate projection failed. All the crap they said would happen didn't.

The climate models all failed over time. All of them.

The liars suck so hard they had to change from 'global warming' to 'fuck this it always is changing so call it.... climate change??? lol"

Yup. There are more variables to consider.

There is a lot of truth to it, but I don't think the whole picture is in and I'm really not terrified of it.

My biggest gripe is that the U.S. spent over 1 trillion dollars on climate change and really, what have we accomplished?

 

[Blackened]

The world really is spiraling out of control. Most people are fixated on conflicts between humans and trying to prevent us from a nuclear holocaust which is a huge issue but then we're also seeing mass extinction among animals which is perplexing scientists.

For instance we're seeing mass bird casualties:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ka-climate-change_us_582ea97ce4b099512f823237

mass fish deaths:

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1113416538/mass-fish-deaths-111716/

Mass deer deaths:

http://siberiantimes.com/other/othe...ning-system-for-climate-change-freak-freezes/

A lot of these mass deaths of birds, fishes and other animals that seem to happen all at once perplex scientist and they can only speculate on what happened. But scientists are saying by 2020 2/3's of the animal species will be wiped out.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/26/world/wild-animals-disappear-report-wwf/

Sure, we are fucking the environment up.

Governments answer? Let's look at what the EPA does in KY.

 

[IGIT]

Sure, we are fucking the environment up.

Governments answer? Let's look at what the EPA does in KY.

hi and well met Blackened,

thats a neat photo!

its the Valley of Drums, in Kentucky. a nasty, disgusting site. Blackened, did you know that this toxic dumping ground was established in 1960, a decade before the creation of the EPA under GOP President Nixon.

the EPA commenced cleanup of the site in 1983, and this is what it looks like today.

- IGIT

 

[Blackened]

hi and well met Blackened,

thats a neat photo!

its the Valley of Drums, in Kentucky. a nasty, disgusting site. Blackened, did you know that this toxic dumping ground was established in 1960, a decade before the creation of the EPA under GOP President Nixon.

the EPA commenced cleanup of the site in 1983, and this is what it looks like today.

- IGIT

Hi IGBT, that's a neat name. Is it related to LGBT?

I know what the photo is from. What do you think happens to hazardous waste? Sure it's better than it used to be, but still quite the same. Still all goes chemical waste landfill.

https://www.fedcenter.gov/assistance/facilitytour/landfills/hazwaste/

 

[IGIT]

I know what the photo is from. What do you think happens to hazardous waste? Sure it's better than it used to be, but still quite the same. Still all goes chemical waste landfill.

hey hey, hi Blackened,

lol.

you posted an image of a toxic dump in Kentucky and implied that it was the result of the EPA.

and you were wrong.

as i pointed out to you, that site was established a decade before the EPA even existed. all you had to do was say, "my bad, thanks IGIT. i now realize i had no idea what the fuck i was talking about".

so tell me, what did that image have to do with the EPA?

- IGIT

 

[Blackened]

hey hey, hi Blackened,

actually, you were....well....confused.

you posted an image of a toxic dump in Kentucky and implied that it was the result of the EPA.

and you were wrong.

as i pointed out to you, that site was established a decade before the EPA even existed.

so tell me, what did that image have to do with the EPA again?

- IGIT

Hi LGBT,

You were correct, I stand corrected. I know chemical landfills are the primary disposal form of chemical waste.

Why is it so important to sign you name when your name is posted to the left of your text and in the quoted message?

-Blackened (in case you were wondering)

 

[colby25]

hey hey, hi Blackened,

lol.

you posted an image of a toxic dump in Kentucky and implied that it was the result of the EPA.

and you were wrong.

as i pointed out to you, that site was established a decade before the EPA even existed. all you had to do was say, "my bad, thanks IGIT. i now realize i had no idea what the fuck i was talking about".

so tell me, what did that image have to do with the EPA?

- IGIT

Hi LGBT,

You were correct, I stand corrected. I know chemical landfills are the primary disposal form of chemical waste.

Why is it so important to sign you name when your name is posted to the left of your text and in the quoted message?

-Blackened (in case you were wondering)

You guys are cracking me up