6th mass extinctinction

I'm familiar with the Willard McDonald piece. It is a study in smug condescension.

 

I note you are going the long way around to avoid dealing with Whitestone's data.
I'll stick with the data.

 

Scary, ain't it?

 

And I'll stick to the real world!

 

I'm more than familiar, I read it, and chased down his proofs, which are solid like a rock.

 

So you concede your insult, and yet you're still dodging Whitestone's data.

 

I don't have to deal with Whitestone's data. MacDonald has already done that, convincingly and crushingly. If you disagree, show me where MacDonald is wrong. Oh, wait, you would first have to read MacDonald, and you aren't going to do that!

 

And again I ask, "Where is the insult?" How have I insulted you? In the words of a once popular commercial, "where's the beef?"

 

Starvation isn't going to cause extinction either.

 

I believe humans will go near extinct, but this will likely be due to our own weapons, or genetically modified viruses. Can you explain specifically what species will go extinct that will lead to human extinction? Humans rely on a small number of animal and plant species for a vast majority of our diet. Will rice, wheat, corn, etc all go extinct leading to human extinction? How will that happen if we are always feeding these crops and helping them to grow? Sources please.

You start a thread but then refuse to engage in it. Makes me think you aren't sure of your ability to defend your position. Especially since you didn't site a single scientific source for this supposed human extinction.

 

You are still dodging Whitestone's data. I know MacDonald fared no better, so all we're left with is your unsupported claim.

It's in your assumption that you can sneer at data without a presentation of your own.

 

There is no mass extinction under way.
Paleo Expert: Earth is Not in the Midst of a Sixth Mass Extinction
2017 › 06 › 17 › paleo-expert-earth-is-not-in-the-midst-of-a-sixth-mass-extinction
midst of an anthropogenic mass extinction don't have a clue what a mass extinction actually is. ... sixth mass extinction under way on our planet on par with the so-called Big Five mass extinctions in the . . .


". . . “So you can ask, ‘Okay, well, how many geographically widespread, abundant, durably skeletonized marine taxa have gone extinct thus far?’ And the answer is, pretty close to zero,” Erwin pointed out. In fact, of the best-assessed groups of modern animals—like stony corals, amphibians, birds and mammals—somewhere between 0 and 1 percent of species have gone extinct in recent human history. By comparison, the hellscape of End-Permian mass extinction claimed upwards of 90 percent of all species on earth.

Read more: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/the-ends-of-the-world/529545/

Erwin does not rule out the possibility we might somehow trigger a mass extinction in the future. But killing off a few photogenic species simply doesn’t qualify.

Nothing we have done to the climate or the world in general comes anywhere close to the unimaginable circumstances of previous mass extinctions. . . . "

 

I don't think I was saying extinction, but overloading the planets capacity to feed us has become visible, which is due to overpopulation.

 

This is the original story in The Atlantic. Score one for Wrightstone.
Earth Is Not in the Midst of a Sixth Mass Extinction - The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com › the-ends-of-the-world

Jun 13, 2017 — Erwin is one of the world's experts on the End-Permian mass extinction, an unthinkable volcanic nightmare that nearly ended life on earth 252 ...

". . . “So you can ask, ‘Okay, well, how many geographically widespread, abundant, durably skeletonized marine taxa have gone extinct thus far?’ And the answer is, pretty close to zero,” Erwin pointed out. . . ."

 

Why in the hell are you using Pukipedia? Intelligent people don't use Pukipedia, which is geared to low-information voters.

Why do you think the policy of my university and others is to fail students for using Pukipedia?

The difference between Pukipedia and a real encyclopedia is that entries in a real encyclopedia are written by experts, and not experts in their own mind but are accredited experts in their field, and their entries are critiqued and evaluated by a board of peer-experts.

Puki articles are written by non-starters with an agenda. Case in point, this is a great example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_74

The Task force was to be headed by USS Enterprise, at the time and still the largest aircraft carrier in the world. In addition, it consisted of amphibious assault carrier USS Tripoli (LPH-10), carrying a 200 strong Marine battalion and twenty five assault helicopters; The three guided missile escorts USS King (DDG-41), USS Decatur (DDG-31), and USS Parsons (DDG-33); four gun destroyers USS Bausell (DD-845), USS Orleck (DD-886), USS McKean (DD-784) and USS Anderson; one ammo ship USS Haleakala (AE-25);one auxiliary fleet supply ship from Subic Bay Naval Base in the Philippines USS White Plains (AFS-4), who loaded over 60 Tons of Mail and Christmas Packages for the Task Force before leaving Subic Bay to join Task Force 74 on 19 December and a nuclear attack submarine.[22] The Enterprise was assigned by the Central authority, while the other ships were assigned by local commanders.[23] Enterprise was at this time at the Tonkin Gulf area. Recovering her airborne aircraft and transferring personnel who were required to stay to the USS Constellation (CVA-64), she prepared to head off. The task force was delayed while the support ships refueled, it held off East of Singapore, and was ordered into the Indian ocean on 14 December.[23] crossed Malacca straits on the nights of 13–14 December and entered the Bay of Bengal on the morning of 15 December.[22] The group was required to proceed slowly, averaging a speed of 15 knots, both to conserve fuel as well as to allow advance information on its heading.

The writer of that article is not an expert, has no understanding of the subject matter, and is totally clueless, having no idea what s/he's talking about.

Worse than that, the author out-right lied for purposes of propaganda and disinformation, and then spread misinformation by cutting and pasting from other erroneous sources and then s/he refused to cite those sources.

On the other hand, I am an expert on Southwest Asia and in particular on the 1971 Pakistani-Indian War.

Do you want to know which Indian units rolled which Pakistani units?

Or do you just want the names of the commanders for those units? Because I know them.

While I did have access to classified documents which may or may not still be classified, there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for the author of that article to outright lie and spread propaganda, disinformation and misinformation.

In 1971, a Marine company was 197 men, while a Marine battalion was 940 men. That is irrefutable proof the author is totally clueless and did no research on the subject matter.

Task Force 74 consisted of:
USS Enterprise (CVA-65)
USS Tripoli (LPH-10)
USS Decatur (DDG-31)
USS Parsons (DDG-33)
USS McKean (DD-784)
USS Richard B Anderson (DD-786)
USS Orleck (DD-886)
USS John King (DDG-3)
USS Waddell (DDG-24)
USS Wichita (AOR-1)
USS Kilauea (AE-26)
USS Gurnard (SSN-662)
USS Bluefish (SSN-675)

Contrary to the author's claim, there were 2, not 3 "guided missile escorts" (USS Decatur and USS Parsons). Both were Decatur-class and the so-called "guided missile" was the RIM-24 Tartar surface-to-air missile system, which had a range of 20 nautical miles (later replaced by the RIM-66 surface-to-air missile system). They were effectively anti-aircraft platforms.

The author botched the USS Anderson (DD-441). It was scrap metal in 1971, so it couldn't be part of the task force. The ignorant author misidentified the ship, which was actually the USS Richard B Anderson, two totally different ships.

The USS McKean, USS Richard B Anderson, and USS Orleck were all Gearing-class destroyers. Their primary function is surface vessel screening.

The USS Bausell was not part of the task force, in spite of the author's claims.

The idiot author is confused between the USS King and the USS John King, which are two totally different ships.

The author is so ill-informed on the subject matter, that he omits the USS Waddell. The USS Waddell and USS John King were both Charles F Adams-class destroyers, and while they were designated as "guided missile" destroyers, the only guided missile they carried was the ASROC for anti-submarine warfare. Both ships were basically anti-sub platforms.

The author confuses the USS Haleakala with the USS Kilauea and completely omits the USS Wichita and the attack submarines USS Bluefish and USS Gurnard.

Again, contrary to the author's claims, cruising at 15 knots does not conserve fuel, and the task force knew exactly where they were headed, which was up the Indian west coast to the Pakistani port at Karachi. The Task Force did initially cruise at very slow speeds, as slow as 5 knots, but that was due to the fact that the US Navy did not have accurate maps of the Straits of Malacca -- remember, this is 1971 -- and due to the fact that there is an extremely high volume of merchant vessel traffic in the Strait. At the time, there were also a large number of recently built oil rig platforms that weren't marked on any maps. The Task Force did not want to ground any ships, and it did not want to collide with any merchant vessels, and it did not want to run into an oil platform, and that was especially true during night-time operations when visibility is reduced and surface radar is cluttered.

The logs of the USS Enterprise have been published on the internet for more than a decade. Rear Admiral Cooper states:

Further navigational hazards “flourishing in the waters surrounding and between” the six straits and passages–Singapore, Malacca, Sunda, Gaspar, San Bernadino and Palawan–transited during this WestPac deployment included oil rigs, many not noted on charts. In addition, navigation lights were often erroneously marked on charts or missing altogether, small unlighted vessels also becoming quite numerous. “Extreme vigilance at night in these waters,” Captain Tissot advised, “is mandatory.”

That's why Task Force 74 proceeded slowly, and not to conserve fuel or because they didn't have a mission as the author falsely claims.

Continuing with the erroneous Puki article:

The US Task Force 74 was a US Navy task force of the United States Seventh Fleet that was deployed to the Bay of Bengal by Nixon administration in December 1971, at the height of the Bangladesh War of Independence. Led by the Aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, the deployment of the task force was seen as a show of force by USA in support of Pakistan, and was claimed by India as an indication of US "tilt" towards Pakistan at a time that Bangladesh guerilla forces were close to capturing Dhaka.The Task Force number is now used by the Seventh Fleet's Submarine Force.

Task Force 74 was not a US Navy task force. It was created specifically for that situation by pulling the USS Enterprise away from her duties in the Gulf of Tonkin and combining her with DESRON 31 based in the Philippines (Destroyer Squadron 31), plus culling other ships from other units to throw it together.

The Indians were not the only ones to see it as a Show of Force. Had the author been competent and knowledgeable in the subject matter, he would have included the fact that Canadian High Commissioner George and many other European leaders also saw it as a Show of Force (See Document 501 State Department Telegram dated December 7, 1971).

The US recognized East Pakistan and maintained diplomatic relations. It had no interest in the outcome of the conflict. Document 501 State Department Telegram dated December 7, 1971 and India-Pakistan Working Group documents make it crystal clear that the Task Force deployed in support of West Pakistan President Yahya, not East Pakistan (now Bangladesh).

The Task Force was never deployed to the Bay of Bengal, and the Task Force never entered the Bay of Bengal, because that was not the mission of the Task Force.

Moving on with the more phony Puki news:

With intelligence reports indicating the Indian cabinet was discussing the scopes of offensive into West Pakistan, on 10 December, the decision was taken by US to assemble a task force at Malacca strait, spearheaded by USS Enterprise.

That is factually incorrect. The US assembled Task Force 74 on December 2nd, not December 10th, and the US announced it on December 5th, five days before the idiot author claims.

Here’s a verbatim excerpt from a cable sent by the US Ambassador to India on December 8th:

Subject: deployment carrier task force in indian [sic] ocean 1. Up until last few days I have felt able to defend U.S. policy on the basis of our over-riding concern to bring a halt to hostilities. I am now troubled by fact that a number of my diplomatic colleagues view deployment of carrier task force as military escalation by U.S. 2. this [sic] was forcefully brought to my attention by Canadian High Commissioner George who believes that our decision to deploy carrier task force at this time has served as encouragement to president yahya [sic] to continue pak [sic] military effort. In this regard George believes Yahya’s disavowal of initial farman ali [sic] message and subsequent message from governer malik [sic] was directly related to word of carrier task force deployment.

Not only does it prove the author is wrong about when the Task Force was assigned, the cable contradicts the author's claims that the Task Force was sent in support of East Pakistan.

The author is also totally ignorant of Soviet involvement. The author gets it wrong when he says Soviet ships came from Vladivostok. INDRON 10 was already in the Bay of Bengal, led by the Varyag (Kynda-class), Dimitriy Pozharskiy (Sverdlov-class), Vladivostok (Kresta I-class), Admiral Isakov (Kara II-class), Odarenny and Sposobny (Kashin I-class), Neuderzhimy (Kildin-class), and the Veskiy, Vdokhnovenny and Burlivyy (Kotlin-class). INDRON 12 was in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Mumbai (Bombay), led by the Admiral Fokin (Kynda-class), Alexandr Suvorov (Sverdlov-class), Sevastopl (Kresta I-class), Otvazhny and Strogiy (Kashin I-class), Svirepy (Krivak I-class) and the Vliyatelnyy, Blagorodnyy, Naporistiy and Vyderzhannnyy (all Kotlin-class).

Each surface group was accompanied by two Echo-class submarines each with 6 Shaddock surface-to-surface anti-ship missiles and at least one Victor- or November-class attack submarine. The author is too damn stupid to know that.

Granted, I had access to classified information, so I know the exact composition of Soviet naval forces (but not submarine forces), but damn, newspapers around the world published the names of the Soviet Kynda- and Sverdlov-class ships. That just goes to show you how poorly researched and written many Pukipedia articles are, and why you cannot rely on them.

I can show you thousands and thousands of false or flawed Puki articles.

And for the record, that was the closest you ever came to WW III.

If Enterprise launches aircraft to interdict Indian units rolling over the Pakis -- and that was likely if the Indians pursued fleeing Paki units into Pakistan -- then the Soviets launch their cruise missiles and Task Force 74 becomes extinct.

 

Much of the earths arable land goes yet unused, sitting instead in preserves owned by the financial and political elite. Much of the earths other natural resources as well. Thats not to say we're not prone to using the land we can access in an inefficient manner, because certainly we are. But both of these things are the reasons we have trouble feeding everyone, not because 'we're running out' or 'there's too many of us.' Scarcity is being manufactured.

 

There is also the issue of insufficient water distribution to support farming as made clear with the Aral Sea (LINK)

It was once the 4th largest sea in the world.

Fresh water isn't common anymore as a lot of it has been taken up for Agriculture and Cities in recent decades.

The Colorado River is in danger of not reaching the ocean due to drought and overdraw (LINK)

===

American Rivers

The Beating Heart of the American Southwest

Excerpt:

Following decades of wasteful water management policies and practices, demand on the river’s water now exceeds its supply, and storage levels at Lake Powell and Lake Mead are critically low. More dams and diversions are planned, particularly in the upper basin in Colorado, where 50 percent of the headwater flows are already diverted east of the Continental Divide.

LINK

=====

There is now more arable land than there is fresh water available to support it.

 

I have presented to you MacDonald, which you have chosen to discard without reading. And you cannot point to any post I have made in this thread where I, personally, claimed anything. I have read Whitestone and satisfied myself, through my own investigation, as to his work. I stand with MacDonald, and ask you again for specifics on any of MacDonald's claims, data, refutation of Whitestone's data you disagree with. Not having read MacDonald you cannot do this of course. Nor will you read MacDonald or anyone else who may have written contrary to your 'beliefs'.

 

Unfortunately for you, I have read MacDonald. Even more unfortunately for you he says not a word about Wrightstone's work on extinctions. So now you'll have to come out of hiding and defend your claim.

 

That would be relevant if this thread was about the US navy. As an illustration on how Wikipedia can, on occasion, be less than totally accurate, granted. I quoted Wikipedia, but I did not rely on Wikipedia. I did my due diligence and then some.

You have wasted enough of my time, We're done!

 

Your bluff was called, and now you're running away -- and in your own thread. Tsk tsk.

 

Looks like this thread has run its course.

 

"Extinction" is just another PR theme.
Who funds Extinction Rebellion? American & UK millionaires – ‘Some of America’s most famous families, including the Kennedys & the Gettys’
Guest Blogger
“From the outside, Extinction Rebellion looks like a freewheeling movement fond of elaborate costumes and outlandish stunts. There is actually a deeply thought-out method beneath its madness, even as some…

 

Extinctions require real causes.
Volcanic Fertilization of the Oceans Drove Severe Mass Extinction, Say Scientists
Charles Rotter
“Our study may prompt reinvestigations of other mass extinctions during Earth history”, concludes Dr Longman. . . .

 

It's a bad week for extinction alarmists.
A Wee Problem With The First-Ever Mammal Extinction From Modern Climate Change Claim
By Kenneth Richard on 6. December 2021

Share this...
Claims that rising sea levels led to a remote island species’ demise is contradicted by evidence that sea levels were meters higher than today a few thousand years ago.
In 2019 Australia’s government announced that climate change – rising seas, specifically – had claimed its first-ever mammalian victim: a rat.



Photo: State of Queensland, CC BY 3.0 au.
The Bramble Cay melomys lived on an island today situated only 1 meter above sea level. It has been assumed recent sea level changes around northeastern Australia have compromised the Bramble Cay coastal habitat.

But a new study (Köhler et al., 2021) says this same area had 2-3 meters higher sea levels just 7,000 to 4,000 years ago, as there was less glaciation and larger volumes of water in ocean basins during this time period.

This would call into question the explanation that modern relative sea level is the reason why this species disappeared – if it indeed has. . . .