The article concerns extinction of various species, but not a mass extinction, e.g. dinosaurs because of asteroid strikeTempus Edax Rerum said:
https://reaction.life/biodiversity-threat-wont-tackled-alarmist-biologist-hype-dismantling-capitalism/
Mass Extinction - Do you believe it?
4,464 Views |
55 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by FLBear5630
yes, some people struggle with that conceptHe Hate Me said:
Smokey sez: "Only you can prevent forest fires."
Smokey does not sez: "Only you can completely eradicate all forest fires."
Don't worry guys - we have "experts" and their models.
---
Predictions that global warming would wipe out polar bears are based on "scientifically unsound" computer models, according to a new study by a veteran zoologist at the University of Victoria.
Some scientists predicted that shrinking Arctic sea ice threatened to kill off significant numbers of polar bears in the coming decades. But those predictions were based on computer-modeled habitat loss; both models, released in 2006 and 2008, were produced by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
The University of Victoria study found data collected in 2008 contradicted prevailing dire predictions.
"Those mid-2000s survival assessments predicted significant population declines of polar bears would result by mid-century as a consequence of summer sea ice extent reaching approximately 3-5 mkm2 on a regular basis," zoologist Dr. Susan J. Crockford, who wrote the study, said in a statement.
"Data collected between 2007 and 2015 by field biologists reveal that polar bear numbers have not declined as predicted and no subpopulation has been extirpated [destroyed completely]," Crockford said.
Polar bears became the first species to be listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 2008 over concerns of future global warming. USFWS predicted bear populations would decline 67 percent as the sea ice they rely on for hunting continued to shrink. But polar bears have only become more abundant, despite warming.
"The hypothesis that repeated summer sea ice levels of below 5 mkm2 will cause significant population declines in polar bears must be rejected," Crockford wrote. "This result indicates the USFWS and IUCN judgments to list polar bears as threatened or vulnerable based on future risks of habitat loss back in 2006 and 2008 were scientifically unfounded and suggests that similar dire predictions for Arctic seals and walrus may be likewise flawed."
Recent rumors about polar bear extinction underscore another time when scientists discovered the creatures possess higher resilience to changing levels of sea ice than previously believed. Another new study by Canadian scientists found "no evidence" polar bears are currently threatened by global warming.
"We see reason for concern, but find no reliable evidence to support the contention that polar bears are currently experiencing a climate crisis," Canadian scientists wrote in their study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Ecology and Evolution.
Polar bears became an icon for environmentalists who claimed that melting Arctic sea ice could kill thousands of bears. Former Vice President Al Gore heavily promoted this viewpoint by featuring polar bears swimming for their lives and drowning in his 2006 film on global warming.
Fears about global warming's impact on polar bears even spurred the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to say that the bear was "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act in 2008. Polar bears were the first species to be listed because of unproven future harm caused by possible global warming.
Scientists increasingly are questioning alarmists, since there are many more polar bears today than 40 years ago.
In fact, polar bears likely survived past ice-free periods in the Arctic. There is no evidence of large scale marine life extinctions in the Arctic in the past 1.5 million years, despite the Arctic going through prolonged periods with no summer ice cover.
---
Predictions that global warming would wipe out polar bears are based on "scientifically unsound" computer models, according to a new study by a veteran zoologist at the University of Victoria.
Some scientists predicted that shrinking Arctic sea ice threatened to kill off significant numbers of polar bears in the coming decades. But those predictions were based on computer-modeled habitat loss; both models, released in 2006 and 2008, were produced by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
The University of Victoria study found data collected in 2008 contradicted prevailing dire predictions.
"Those mid-2000s survival assessments predicted significant population declines of polar bears would result by mid-century as a consequence of summer sea ice extent reaching approximately 3-5 mkm2 on a regular basis," zoologist Dr. Susan J. Crockford, who wrote the study, said in a statement.
"Data collected between 2007 and 2015 by field biologists reveal that polar bear numbers have not declined as predicted and no subpopulation has been extirpated [destroyed completely]," Crockford said.
Polar bears became the first species to be listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 2008 over concerns of future global warming. USFWS predicted bear populations would decline 67 percent as the sea ice they rely on for hunting continued to shrink. But polar bears have only become more abundant, despite warming.
"The hypothesis that repeated summer sea ice levels of below 5 mkm2 will cause significant population declines in polar bears must be rejected," Crockford wrote. "This result indicates the USFWS and IUCN judgments to list polar bears as threatened or vulnerable based on future risks of habitat loss back in 2006 and 2008 were scientifically unfounded and suggests that similar dire predictions for Arctic seals and walrus may be likewise flawed."
Recent rumors about polar bear extinction underscore another time when scientists discovered the creatures possess higher resilience to changing levels of sea ice than previously believed. Another new study by Canadian scientists found "no evidence" polar bears are currently threatened by global warming.
"We see reason for concern, but find no reliable evidence to support the contention that polar bears are currently experiencing a climate crisis," Canadian scientists wrote in their study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Ecology and Evolution.
Polar bears became an icon for environmentalists who claimed that melting Arctic sea ice could kill thousands of bears. Former Vice President Al Gore heavily promoted this viewpoint by featuring polar bears swimming for their lives and drowning in his 2006 film on global warming.
Fears about global warming's impact on polar bears even spurred the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to say that the bear was "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act in 2008. Polar bears were the first species to be listed because of unproven future harm caused by possible global warming.
Scientists increasingly are questioning alarmists, since there are many more polar bears today than 40 years ago.
In fact, polar bears likely survived past ice-free periods in the Arctic. There is no evidence of large scale marine life extinctions in the Arctic in the past 1.5 million years, despite the Arctic going through prolonged periods with no summer ice cover.
The point is the extinction hype is just that, hype. No real science to back it up and mostly computer models that are totally flawed. Paul Ehrlich is a moron and has been for 60 plus years.Osodecentx said:The article concerns extinction of various species, but not a mass extinction, e.g. dinosaurs because of asteroid strikeTempus Edax Rerum said:
https://reaction.life/biodiversity-threat-wont-tackled-alarmist-biologist-hype-dismantling-capitalism/
You quote an expert who says you can't trust experts. I why I trust your expert?Harrison Bergeron said:
Don't worry guys - we have "experts" and their models.
---
Predictions that global warming would wipe out polar bears are based on "scientifically unsound" computer models, according to a new study by a veteran zoologist at the University of Victoria.
Some scientists predicted that shrinking Arctic sea ice threatened to kill off significant numbers of polar bears in the coming decades. But those predictions were based on computer-modeled habitat loss; both models, released in 2006 and 2008, were produced by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
The University of Victoria study found data collected in 2008 contradicted prevailing dire predictions.
"Those mid-2000s survival assessments predicted significant population declines of polar bears would result by mid-century as a consequence of summer sea ice extent reaching approximately 3-5 mkm2 on a regular basis," zoologist Dr. Susan J. Crockford, who wrote the study, said in a statement.
"Data collected between 2007 and 2015 by field biologists reveal that polar bear numbers have not declined as predicted and no subpopulation has been extirpated [destroyed completely]," Crockford said.
Polar bears became the first species to be listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 2008 over concerns of future global warming. USFWS predicted bear populations would decline 67 percent as the sea ice they rely on for hunting continued to shrink. But polar bears have only become more abundant, despite warming.
"The hypothesis that repeated summer sea ice levels of below 5 mkm2 will cause significant population declines in polar bears must be rejected," Crockford wrote. "This result indicates the USFWS and IUCN judgments to list polar bears as threatened or vulnerable based on future risks of habitat loss back in 2006 and 2008 were scientifically unfounded and suggests that similar dire predictions for Arctic seals and walrus may be likewise flawed."
Recent rumors about polar bear extinction underscore another time when scientists discovered the creatures possess higher resilience to changing levels of sea ice than previously believed. Another new study by Canadian scientists found "no evidence" polar bears are currently threatened by global warming.
"We see reason for concern, but find no reliable evidence to support the contention that polar bears are currently experiencing a climate crisis," Canadian scientists wrote in their study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Ecology and Evolution.
Polar bears became an icon for environmentalists who claimed that melting Arctic sea ice could kill thousands of bears. Former Vice President Al Gore heavily promoted this viewpoint by featuring polar bears swimming for their lives and drowning in his 2006 film on global warming.
Fears about global warming's impact on polar bears even spurred the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to say that the bear was "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act in 2008. Polar bears were the first species to be listed because of unproven future harm caused by possible global warming.
Scientists increasingly are questioning alarmists, since there are many more polar bears today than 40 years ago.
In fact, polar bears likely survived past ice-free periods in the Arctic. There is no evidence of large scale marine life extinctions in the Arctic in the past 1.5 million years, despite the Arctic going through prolonged periods with no summer ice cover.
Lots of real science behind the it.Tempus Edax Rerum said:The point is the extinction hype is just that, hype. No real science to back it up and mostly computer models that are totally flawed. Paul Ehrlich is a moron and has been for 60 plus years.Osodecentx said:The article concerns extinction of various species, but not a mass extinction, e.g. dinosaurs because of asteroid strikeTempus Edax Rerum said:
https://reaction.life/biodiversity-threat-wont-tackled-alarmist-biologist-hype-dismantling-capitalism/
The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History is a 2014 non-fiction book written by Elizabeth Kolbert and published by Henry Holt and Company. The book argues that the Earth is in the midst of a modern, man-made, sixth extinction. In the book, Kolbert chronicles previous mass extinction events, and compares them to the accelerated, widespread extinctions during our present time.
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sixth_Extinction:_An_Unnatural_History][/url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sixth_Extinction:_An_Unnatural_History
Can't say I think much of Ms. Kolbert's qualifications.Osodecentx said:Lots of real science behind the it.Tempus Edax Rerum said:The point is the extinction hype is just that, hype. No real science to back it up and mostly computer models that are totally flawed. Paul Ehrlich is a moron and has been for 60 plus years.Osodecentx said:The article concerns extinction of various species, but not a mass extinction, e.g. dinosaurs because of asteroid strikeTempus Edax Rerum said:
https://reaction.life/biodiversity-threat-wont-tackled-alarmist-biologist-hype-dismantling-capitalism/
The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History is a 2014 non-fiction book written by Elizabeth Kolbert and published by Henry Holt and Company. The book argues that the Earth is in the midst of a modern, man-made, sixth extinction. In the book, Kolbert chronicles previous mass extinction events, and compares them to the accelerated, widespread extinctions during our present time.
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sixth_Extinction:_An_Unnatural_History][/url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sixth_Extinction:_An_Unnatural_History
Activist writes book supporting activist claims.
Yawn.
You say she throws lots of facts. OK, so in a capsule, how are they contextually relevant and how do they demonstrate causality?
Seems like a long-winded editorial pretending to be Science.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
I do not think "experts" should be blindly trusted. Science traditionally encouraged challenging ideas and assumptions and pushing thought. With SARS-CoV-2 and global warming or cooling, diversity of thought is suppressed by fascist authoritarians. Besides that, you're "experts" told us in the 70s we were heading to an ice age and all ice gone in the 90s ... and none of their predictions of destruction have been true, so there is that.Osodecentx said:You quote an expert who says you can't trust experts. I why I trust your expert?Harrison Bergeron said:
Don't worry guys - we have "experts" and their models.
---
Predictions that global warming would wipe out polar bears are based on "scientifically unsound" computer models, according to a new study by a veteran zoologist at the University of Victoria.
Some scientists predicted that shrinking Arctic sea ice threatened to kill off significant numbers of polar bears in the coming decades. But those predictions were based on computer-modeled habitat loss; both models, released in 2006 and 2008, were produced by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
The University of Victoria study found data collected in 2008 contradicted prevailing dire predictions.
"Those mid-2000s survival assessments predicted significant population declines of polar bears would result by mid-century as a consequence of summer sea ice extent reaching approximately 3-5 mkm2 on a regular basis," zoologist Dr. Susan J. Crockford, who wrote the study, said in a statement.
"Data collected between 2007 and 2015 by field biologists reveal that polar bear numbers have not declined as predicted and no subpopulation has been extirpated [destroyed completely]," Crockford said.
Polar bears became the first species to be listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 2008 over concerns of future global warming. USFWS predicted bear populations would decline 67 percent as the sea ice they rely on for hunting continued to shrink. But polar bears have only become more abundant, despite warming.
"The hypothesis that repeated summer sea ice levels of below 5 mkm2 will cause significant population declines in polar bears must be rejected," Crockford wrote. "This result indicates the USFWS and IUCN judgments to list polar bears as threatened or vulnerable based on future risks of habitat loss back in 2006 and 2008 were scientifically unfounded and suggests that similar dire predictions for Arctic seals and walrus may be likewise flawed."
Recent rumors about polar bear extinction underscore another time when scientists discovered the creatures possess higher resilience to changing levels of sea ice than previously believed. Another new study by Canadian scientists found "no evidence" polar bears are currently threatened by global warming.
"We see reason for concern, but find no reliable evidence to support the contention that polar bears are currently experiencing a climate crisis," Canadian scientists wrote in their study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Ecology and Evolution.
Polar bears became an icon for environmentalists who claimed that melting Arctic sea ice could kill thousands of bears. Former Vice President Al Gore heavily promoted this viewpoint by featuring polar bears swimming for their lives and drowning in his 2006 film on global warming.
Fears about global warming's impact on polar bears even spurred the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to say that the bear was "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act in 2008. Polar bears were the first species to be listed because of unproven future harm caused by possible global warming.
Scientists increasingly are questioning alarmists, since there are many more polar bears today than 40 years ago.
In fact, polar bears likely survived past ice-free periods in the Arctic. There is no evidence of large scale marine life extinctions in the Arctic in the past 1.5 million years, despite the Arctic going through prolonged periods with no summer ice cover.
Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Most scientists agreed masks and hanging plexiglass would prevent covid-19.Osodecentx said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:https://e360.yale.edu/features/global_extinction_rates_why_do_estimates_vary_so_wildlyCanada2017 said:
Of course .
The human population explosion is destroying animal habitats throughout the world .
Interesting read. It would appear most scientist are not sure but simply rely on computer models. According to this article extinction rates seen in the real world are far lower.
Most scientists agree we are early into the 6th mass extinction
Paul Ehrlich says hi.
If you can find even 1 scientist that claimed that I'd be surprised. Every single one I ever read talked about slowing the spread, not eradicating the virus with plexiglass and masks.
W t f? Surely you do t believe that
Harrison Bergeron said:I do not think "experts" should be blindly trusted. Science traditionally encouraged challenging ideas and assumptions and pushing thought. With SARS-CoV-2 and global warming or cooling, diversity of thought is suppressed by fascist authoritarians. Besides that, you're "experts" told us in the 70s we were heading to an ice age and all ice gone in the 90s ... and none of their predictions of destruction have been true, so there is that.Osodecentx said:You quote an expert who says you can't trust experts. I why I trust your expert?Harrison Bergeron said:
Don't worry guys - we have "experts" and their models.
---
Predictions that global warming would wipe out polar bears are based on "scientifically unsound" computer models, according to a new study by a veteran zoologist at the University of Victoria.
Some scientists predicted that shrinking Arctic sea ice threatened to kill off significant numbers of polar bears in the coming decades. But those predictions were based on computer-modeled habitat loss; both models, released in 2006 and 2008, were produced by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
The University of Victoria study found data collected in 2008 contradicted prevailing dire predictions.
"Those mid-2000s survival assessments predicted significant population declines of polar bears would result by mid-century as a consequence of summer sea ice extent reaching approximately 3-5 mkm2 on a regular basis," zoologist Dr. Susan J. Crockford, who wrote the study, said in a statement.
"Data collected between 2007 and 2015 by field biologists reveal that polar bear numbers have not declined as predicted and no subpopulation has been extirpated [destroyed completely]," Crockford said.
Polar bears became the first species to be listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 2008 over concerns of future global warming. USFWS predicted bear populations would decline 67 percent as the sea ice they rely on for hunting continued to shrink. But polar bears have only become more abundant, despite warming.
"The hypothesis that repeated summer sea ice levels of below 5 mkm2 will cause significant population declines in polar bears must be rejected," Crockford wrote. "This result indicates the USFWS and IUCN judgments to list polar bears as threatened or vulnerable based on future risks of habitat loss back in 2006 and 2008 were scientifically unfounded and suggests that similar dire predictions for Arctic seals and walrus may be likewise flawed."
Recent rumors about polar bear extinction underscore another time when scientists discovered the creatures possess higher resilience to changing levels of sea ice than previously believed. Another new study by Canadian scientists found "no evidence" polar bears are currently threatened by global warming.
"We see reason for concern, but find no reliable evidence to support the contention that polar bears are currently experiencing a climate crisis," Canadian scientists wrote in their study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Ecology and Evolution.
Polar bears became an icon for environmentalists who claimed that melting Arctic sea ice could kill thousands of bears. Former Vice President Al Gore heavily promoted this viewpoint by featuring polar bears swimming for their lives and drowning in his 2006 film on global warming.
Fears about global warming's impact on polar bears even spurred the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to say that the bear was "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act in 2008. Polar bears were the first species to be listed because of unproven future harm caused by possible global warming.
Scientists increasingly are questioning alarmists, since there are many more polar bears today than 40 years ago.
In fact, polar bears likely survived past ice-free periods in the Arctic. There is no evidence of large scale marine life extinctions in the Arctic in the past 1.5 million years, despite the Arctic going through prolonged periods with no summer ice cover.
So we can trust your experts?
I do not own any experts.Osodecentx said:Harrison Bergeron said:I do not think "experts" should be blindly trusted. Science traditionally encouraged challenging ideas and assumptions and pushing thought. With SARS-CoV-2 and global warming or cooling, diversity of thought is suppressed by fascist authoritarians. Besides that, you're "experts" told us in the 70s we were heading to an ice age and all ice gone in the 90s ... and none of their predictions of destruction have been true, so there is that.Osodecentx said:You quote an expert who says you can't trust experts. I why I trust your expert?Harrison Bergeron said:
Don't worry guys - we have "experts" and their models.
---
Predictions that global warming would wipe out polar bears are based on "scientifically unsound" computer models, according to a new study by a veteran zoologist at the University of Victoria.
Some scientists predicted that shrinking Arctic sea ice threatened to kill off significant numbers of polar bears in the coming decades. But those predictions were based on computer-modeled habitat loss; both models, released in 2006 and 2008, were produced by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
The University of Victoria study found data collected in 2008 contradicted prevailing dire predictions.
"Those mid-2000s survival assessments predicted significant population declines of polar bears would result by mid-century as a consequence of summer sea ice extent reaching approximately 3-5 mkm2 on a regular basis," zoologist Dr. Susan J. Crockford, who wrote the study, said in a statement.
"Data collected between 2007 and 2015 by field biologists reveal that polar bear numbers have not declined as predicted and no subpopulation has been extirpated [destroyed completely]," Crockford said.
Polar bears became the first species to be listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 2008 over concerns of future global warming. USFWS predicted bear populations would decline 67 percent as the sea ice they rely on for hunting continued to shrink. But polar bears have only become more abundant, despite warming.
"The hypothesis that repeated summer sea ice levels of below 5 mkm2 will cause significant population declines in polar bears must be rejected," Crockford wrote. "This result indicates the USFWS and IUCN judgments to list polar bears as threatened or vulnerable based on future risks of habitat loss back in 2006 and 2008 were scientifically unfounded and suggests that similar dire predictions for Arctic seals and walrus may be likewise flawed."
Recent rumors about polar bear extinction underscore another time when scientists discovered the creatures possess higher resilience to changing levels of sea ice than previously believed. Another new study by Canadian scientists found "no evidence" polar bears are currently threatened by global warming.
"We see reason for concern, but find no reliable evidence to support the contention that polar bears are currently experiencing a climate crisis," Canadian scientists wrote in their study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Ecology and Evolution.
Polar bears became an icon for environmentalists who claimed that melting Arctic sea ice could kill thousands of bears. Former Vice President Al Gore heavily promoted this viewpoint by featuring polar bears swimming for their lives and drowning in his 2006 film on global warming.
Fears about global warming's impact on polar bears even spurred the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to say that the bear was "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act in 2008. Polar bears were the first species to be listed because of unproven future harm caused by possible global warming.
Scientists increasingly are questioning alarmists, since there are many more polar bears today than 40 years ago.
In fact, polar bears likely survived past ice-free periods in the Arctic. There is no evidence of large scale marine life extinctions in the Arctic in the past 1.5 million years, despite the Arctic going through prolonged periods with no summer ice cover.
So we can trust your experts?
They do.Harrison Bergeron said:Most scientists agreed masks and hanging plexiglass would prevent covid-19.Osodecentx said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:https://e360.yale.edu/features/global_extinction_rates_why_do_estimates_vary_so_wildlyCanada2017 said:
Of course .
The human population explosion is destroying animal habitats throughout the world .
Interesting read. It would appear most scientist are not sure but simply rely on computer models. According to this article extinction rates seen in the real world are far lower.
Most scientists agree we are early into the 6th mass extinction
DebunkedSam Lowry said:They do.Harrison Bergeron said:Most scientists agreed masks and hanging plexiglass would prevent covid-19.Osodecentx said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:https://e360.yale.edu/features/global_extinction_rates_why_do_estimates_vary_so_wildlyCanada2017 said:
Of course .
The human population explosion is destroying animal habitats throughout the world .
Interesting read. It would appear most scientist are not sure but simply rely on computer models. According to this article extinction rates seen in the real world are far lower.
Most scientists agree we are early into the 6th mass extinction
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
If you mean help limit the transmission then I'll agree. Prevent? NoSam Lowry said:They do.Harrison Bergeron said:Most scientists agreed masks and hanging plexiglass would prevent covid-19.Osodecentx said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:https://e360.yale.edu/features/global_extinction_rates_why_do_estimates_vary_so_wildlyCanada2017 said:
Of course .
The human population explosion is destroying animal habitats throughout the world .
Interesting read. It would appear most scientist are not sure but simply rely on computer models. According to this article extinction rates seen in the real world are far lower.
Most scientists agree we are early into the 6th mass extinction
Prevent doesn't mean eradicate, right?4th and Inches said:If you mean help limit the transmission then I'll agree. Prevent? NoSam Lowry said:They do.Harrison Bergeron said:Most scientists agreed masks and hanging plexiglass would prevent covid-19.Osodecentx said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:https://e360.yale.edu/features/global_extinction_rates_why_do_estimates_vary_so_wildlyCanada2017 said:
Of course .
The human population explosion is destroying animal habitats throughout the world .
Interesting read. It would appear most scientist are not sure but simply rely on computer models. According to this article extinction rates seen in the real world are far lower.
Most scientists agree we are early into the 6th mass extinction
prevention [ pre-venshun] the keeping of something (such as an illness or injury) from happeningSam Lowry said:Prevent doesn't mean eradicate, right?4th and Inches said:If you mean help limit the transmission then I'll agree. Prevent? NoSam Lowry said:They do.Harrison Bergeron said:Most scientists agreed masks and hanging plexiglass would prevent covid-19.Osodecentx said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:https://e360.yale.edu/features/global_extinction_rates_why_do_estimates_vary_so_wildlyCanada2017 said:
Of course .
The human population explosion is destroying animal habitats throughout the world .
Interesting read. It would appear most scientist are not sure but simply rely on computer models. According to this article extinction rates seen in the real world are far lower.
Most scientists agree we are early into the 6th mass extinction
He Hate Me said:Does the Prevent defense always prevent the offense from scoring a TD?Porteroso said:LIB,MR BEARS said:I wish my dentist understood thisPorteroso said:LIB,MR BEARS said:doesn't "prevent" and "slow the spread" mean about the same thing, neither being eradicate?Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Most scientists agreed masks and hanging plexiglass would prevent covid-19.Osodecentx said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:https://e360.yale.edu/features/global_extinction_rates_why_do_estimates_vary_so_wildlyCanada2017 said:
Of course .
The human population explosion is destroying animal habitats throughout the world .
Interesting read. It would appear most scientist are not sure but simply rely on computer models. According to this article extinction rates seen in the real world are far lower.
Most scientists agree we are early into the 6th mass extinction
Paul Ehrlich says hi.
If you can find even 1 scientist that claimed that I'd be surprised. Every single one I ever read talked about slowing the spread, not eradicating the virus with plexiglass and masks.
Not at all. Prevention is the absence of. Not necessarily the eradication of, but slow the spread is you might get it later, but fewer will get it now.
I've understood it that way, in the context of trying to prevent hospitals from being overrun.
How about crime prevention?
How do condoms prevent pregnancies and STDs?
It seems to me how the word is commonly used vs the written definition are two different, but related, things.
Everyone but you seems to understand that the real world application of "prevention" does not equal elimination.
So when Smoky tells you only you can prevent forest fires, you're thinking to yourself it's only a matter of time before you're an arsonist?
I think you should read my entire post before pretending you did.
Whetber it's a prevent defense depends on whether it works or not. Not engaging in a stupid dictionary argument with you any furtger.
Fre3dombear said:Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Most scientists agreed masks and hanging plexiglass would prevent covid-19.Osodecentx said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:https://e360.yale.edu/features/global_extinction_rates_why_do_estimates_vary_so_wildlyCanada2017 said:
Of course .
The human population explosion is destroying animal habitats throughout the world .
Interesting read. It would appear most scientist are not sure but simply rely on computer models. According to this article extinction rates seen in the real world are far lower.
Most scientists agree we are early into the 6th mass extinction
Paul Ehrlich says hi.
If you can find even 1 scientist that claimed that I'd be surprised. Every single one I ever read talked about slowing the spread, not eradicating the virus with plexiglass and masks.
W t f? Surely you do t believe that
Can you find 1? I just haven't personally seen any scientist claim so, but I sure don't know everything.
Porteroso said:He Hate Me said:Does the Prevent defense always prevent the offense from scoring a TD?Porteroso said:LIB,MR BEARS said:I wish my dentist understood thisPorteroso said:LIB,MR BEARS said:doesn't "prevent" and "slow the spread" mean about the same thing, neither being eradicate?Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Most scientists agreed masks and hanging plexiglass would prevent covid-19.Osodecentx said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:https://e360.yale.edu/features/global_extinction_rates_why_do_estimates_vary_so_wildlyCanada2017 said:
Of course .
The human population explosion is destroying animal habitats throughout the world .
Interesting read. It would appear most scientist are not sure but simply rely on computer models. According to this article extinction rates seen in the real world are far lower.
Most scientists agree we are early into the 6th mass extinction
Paul Ehrlich says hi.
If you can find even 1 scientist that claimed that I'd be surprised. Every single one I ever read talked about slowing the spread, not eradicating the virus with plexiglass and masks.
Not at all. Prevention is the absence of. Not necessarily the eradication of, but slow the spread is you might get it later, but fewer will get it now.
I've understood it that way, in the context of trying to prevent hospitals from being overrun.
How about crime prevention?
How do condoms prevent pregnancies and STDs?
It seems to me how the word is commonly used vs the written definition are two different, but related, things.
Everyone but you seems to understand that the real world application of "prevention" does not equal elimination.
So when Smoky tells you only you can prevent forest fires, you're thinking to yourself it's only a matter of time before you're an arsonist?
I think you should read my entire post before pretending you did.
Whetber it's a prevent defense depends on whether it works or not. Not engaging in a stupid dictionary argument with you any furtger.
No. Prevent is the way the defense is lined up. Lol.
That is like saying everyone who eats Tur-duck-en is John Madden.
All we need to do is ban gas stoves, and we'll save the planet!
It is like Electric Vehicles will take over in 10 years. Climate change impacts to the coastline, and because SpaceX landed a rocket on a barge we are off to Mars. All great bar talk, but ask for real peer reviewed data or look into what it actually take to accomplish these things and the answer it most are talking out their ass. They have no idea.Tempus Edax Rerum said:
But, as rainforest ecologist Nigel Stork, then at the University of Melbourne, pointed out in a groundbreaking paper in 2009, if the formula worked as predicted, up to half the planet's species would have disappeared in the past 40 years. And they haven't. "There are almost no empirical data to support estimates of current extinctions of 100, or even one, species a day," he concluded.
He is not alone. In 2011, ecologist Stephen Hubbell of UC Los Angeles concluded, from a study of forest plots around the world run by the Smithsonian Institution, that as forests were lost, "more species always remained than were expected from the species-area relationship." Nature is proving more adaptable than previously supposed, he said. It seems that most species don't simply die out if their usual habitats disappear. Instead they hunker down in their diminished refuges, or move to new habitats.
Claude Martin, former director of the environment group WWF International an organization that in his time often promoted many of the high scenarios of future extinctions now agrees that the "pessimistic projections" are not playing out. In his new book, On The Edge, he points out that El Salvador has lost 90 percent of its forests but only three of its 508 forest bird species. Meanwhile, the island of Puerto Rico has lost 99 percent of its forests but just seven native bird species, or 12 percent.