6th mass extinctinction

The Holocene extinction, otherwise referred to as the sixth mass extinction or Anthropocene is an ongoing extinction event of species during the present Holocene epic as the result of human activity. Sooner or later an extinction or group of extinctions of biota essential to humanity's survival will be closely followed by humanity's extinction. The Holocene/Anthropocene extinctions are thought to have begun 12,000 years ago. There is a correlation between megafaunal extinction and the arrival of humans.
Now before you jump all over me please note that I will not engage. I leave it to all of you to battle it out. You can either believe the published numbers, which are frankly quite frightening or your own feelings, given of course the immense resources of your personal world wide data gathering engine in support of your feelings, so, my friends, have at it!

 

The numbers don't support your claim.
Gregory Wrightstone: exposing the mass extinction lie
2019 › 05 › 27 › gregory-wrightstone-exposing-the-mass-extinction-lie
stunning analysis of these claims by Gregory Wrightstone. This made a big impact at Wednesday’s House ... By Gregory Wrightstone at his website, 13 May 2019.

". . . Below, all 529 species available from the Red List with a known extinction date are shown below in Figure 2 by decade of extinction. This chart reveals quite a different story than that advanced by the new report. Instead of a steady increase in the number and rate of extinctions we find that extinctions peaked in the late 1800s and the early 20th century, followed by a significant decline that continues today. It is thought that this extinction peak coincides with introduction of non-native species, primarily on islands (including Australia).



A closer review of the most recent information dating back to 1870 reveals that, instead of a frightening increase, extinctions are actually in a significant decline.

What is apparent is that the trend of extinctions is declining rather than increasing, just the opposite of what the new report claims. Also, according to the IPBES report, we can expect 25,000 to 30,000 extinctions per year, yet the average over the last 40 years is about 2 species annually. That means the rate would have to multiply by 12,500 to 15,000 to reach the dizzying heights predicted. Nothing on the horizon is likely to achieve even a small fraction of that.


. . . .

 

Species come, species go....we'll have our turn in due time.

 

OP is direct Wikipedia quote. I refer you to "It's Easy To Be Tricked by
A Climate Denier" by Willard McDonald.

 

Correlation does not equal causation.

You blatantly ignore the fact that the climate changed and thus the ecosystems for many of the megafauna were destroyed which was the actual cause of their demise and not humans.

 

Please debate the issue rather than merely insult those with whom you disagree.

 

Megafauna disappeared when there were relatively few humans on earth and all around the the world around the same time. Many theorize a number of extraterrestrial events like asteroids caused all animals over a certain size to die out. There is also evidence the ice caps at the beginning of the Holocene were hit by a multiple comet event like the one that was filmed hitting Saturn which explains the missing heat problem for its rapid decline. You can use Google earth to see hundreds of craters just north west of Myrtle Beach thought to be caused by stadium sized chunks of ice. Same type of craters in Nebraska and both point to around Saginaw Michigan.

 

It is easy to address it which you didn't thus your reply is dead on arrival.

Jack posted the charts and gave you the way to find the parent website which I have looked several times already, there you will find the information that supports the charts.

You are too lazy to address what is posted in front of you which is why you have no credibility here, just the usual attacks and avoidance of the posted information, you are clearly anti-science.

 

He is using the word "Anthropocene" which isn't accepted in Geology at all, this is a warmist/alarmist making things up. It is silly because for most of Geological history is was far higher and life flourished anyway.



There have been massive extinctions several times far more extensive than the small extinctions we see today long before Humans showed up which means it is caused by something non human over and over.

 

Where was the insult? You posted Gregory Whitestone. I referred you to Willard MacDonald. Exactly what is it that insulted you?

 

That was lifted in toto from Wikipedia, right up to "megafaunal extinction". That is all by way of saying that if you disagree, go argue with Wikipedia!

 

I read the MacDonald book. I recommend it to you, but there is the whole "you can lead a horse to water" thing. That I can't help and there is probably no cure for it. Nonetheless, there is some really good stuff there and you should read it.

 

Lifted from the scientist studying it, not from wiki.

 

Are you saying it's not credible?

 

It is a theory. There are several.

 

-the period of time in which human activities have had an environmental impact on the Earth regarded as constituting a distinct geological age. Most scientists agree that humans have had a hand in warming Earth's climate since the industrial revolution---------some even argue that we are living in a new geological epoch, dubbed the Anthropocene.

 

Credible "theory"?

 

All theories are credible until proven wrong. The comet strike on the Laurentide ice sheet would help explain the known missing heat problem. Simple melt does not explain its rapid demise.

 

There arent a lot of species that we can't survive without. Our gut flora and phytoplankton are the only things we need that are in any sort of jeopardy, and neither of those are nearing extinction- we still have lots of time to decide to take better care of them. Aside from those, we need our crops and livestock (and the livestock's crops), but thats all handled unless/until we create some sort of 'uber blight' that kills crosspecies. In short, we're not in danger of extinction via the process you describe.

Now if we're just talking about drastic depopulation, sure. It wouldn't take a while lot to imbalance ecosystems to the point where most of us die. We could very well be on track for that right now. But not our extinction.

 

That's arguable, of course. Question is how far down the road do we go before we act?

 

Noted.

 

Pretty charts do not equal proof. I read Whitestone and I read MacDonald. If the read both your view would change at least a little, assuming that you are rational, of course. I don't pretend that MacDonald is the end all be all, but he does give pause, however briefly. This done while totally destroying Whitestone. Whitestone is a climate denier and his data and conclusions have been pretty completely shredded. If you don't believe me, and I know you don't, go read MacDonald.

 

In my view there are too many of us Humans who are now overloading the capacity to feed us in parts of the world. We are the ones promoting imbalance to the ecosystems since it is struggling to keep up with our demands for affordable food.

There are increasing tightening quotas of ocean foods because they are getting depleted over time. It is a sign that the planet can't keep up in feeding us.