Threat of mass extinction looms as million species face decline

You literally just disputed that the climate is changing when you said that the Earth has not warmed over the last 30 years.

And the earth is warming dramatically faster than a natural rate of change. Think of this way, the CO2 concentration has risen just as much in your lifetime as it rose in the 5000 years after the end of the last ice age.

 

The article referenced in the Opening Post was not all about global warming, just to point that out.

 

You are intentionally trying to assault poor and undeveloped nations instead of facing the fact that the ONLY country who has refused to sign the Paris Accord, the ONLY country who has refused to sign an agreement on reducing plastic waste, the ONLY country that is actively trying to increase its production of fossil fuels is the United States.

 

Trying to connect that to the animal extinction referenced in the article is a stretch.

Have you seen Third World countries? There's trash laying around all over the place.

 

We will never solve global problems by putting all the focus on being environmentally high and mighty in First World countries.

Why spend money to solve tiny little problems at home when that same money could go a hundred times more far in another Third World country where they don't bother to do anything "environmentally friendly" at all?

 

Hardly, you hucksters were selling a hoax, made big predictions, and 30 years later those predictions were false. How does that mean I somehow said climate doesn't change? Worse when your man-made global warming farce started taking heat, you simply changed it to 'climate change' an ambiguous term to blame natural climate shifts on man to perpetuate your hoax. How very sad...

Think of it this way, at the end of the last ice age our data collection is not the same as the data collection in my life time. In fact data collection has been enhanced and increased in my life time. The data from by date of birth is no longer comparable to the data they collect today. The instruments have changed, the frequency of collection has changed, the accuracy of the data has changed. You are peddling intellectual dishonesty...

 

The CO2 Concentration measurement from the ice age is using the EXACT SAME INSTRUMENT AND METHOD as the CO2 Concentration measurement from today.

 

Well, the power-grubbing eco-socialist frauds amongst us have a little credibility problem, from UN Climate official Christiana Figueres' admission that the Climate agenda is actually about "setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution" (i.e., capitalism) to the prediction that the Himalayan glaciers would vanish by 2035 to AOC's crackpot statement that we'll all be dead in 12 years if we don't embrace her proposals.

Unfortunately, this and the efforts of those frauds to seize more power and control over other people (and their money) have gotten in the way of the practical, common sense environmental discussions people are trying have about how we can do things like better manage our land and natural resources, improve agricultural practices, reintroduce habitats and biodiversity into areas where they had been previously lost, reduce the use of pesticides and herbicides, etc.

Some of us are already aware of these problems and working on the solutions.

The question each and every one of us should be asking is "What can I do, where I live, to help mitigate and/or reverse these problems?"

I can tell you what I'm doing. What are YOU doing?

While it's not important that we share that information here, even though I'd be interested to do so, what's important is that we should be able to answer that question. The people who can't answer that question or can only talk about Climate Change clearly aren't doing enough, and they're certainly not in a position to lecture other people about what they should be doing.

 

Trump has occupies Libs frontal, parietal, temporal, and occipital lobes, leaving no computing power for anything productive.

Forgive me... and russkis!!!

 

its called evolution species come and go the survival of the fittest its the way nature intended

 

I don't want to see species become extinct, but the only way to avoid that would be to cut the human population to about 1 billion worldwide.

On which continent do we begin our de-population efforts?

 

You can start here: Looks like Pakistan has an overpopulation problem

 

The man-made part is??? Then please, in all your great wisdom, explain to us all why it took tens of thousands of years 3 million years ago to reach a level of CO2 and a resulting average temperature that produced mass extinctions, but this time it's taking a few brief decades.

 

If you don't see a solution you are intentionally looking the other way.

 

Right. It caused mass extinctions.

 

The bullshit is that you're interested in answers.

 

So in all your great wisdom, you actually believe a new discovery and analysis should be perfectly accurate immediately, or it's a "hoax", right? The answer, even for you, has to be "no".

So the global warming/climate change analysis first believed there would be global warming. Additional study revealed that there will actually be wildly gyrating weather patterns and some places will actually be temporarily colder while others become much warmer, with the average temperatures increasing. (Can you follow that? Let me know if I'm going too fast for you.) So the initial description of "global warming" was changed to "climate change" to reflect the results of the latest studies. It was also changed in response to you right wingers who didn't seem capable of understanding the whole thing and were misrepresenting it.

So your above claim of a farce turns out to be merely your own spin developed in your effort to discredit hard science and fact.

 

Progressive evirodoom-porn.

WE'RE ALL GUNNA DIE!!@! URMUHGURD!

 

Well, that was interesting, the way your second paragraph deflates the first. Yes, we have a great more scientific instruments at our disposal now, and these instruments tell us global warming is real and that mankind is a primary causative factor. We have satellite data focused on weather and climate, an orbiting space station, computers, institutes of climate science, climatologists. polar stations, and more. They are in 99% agreement - global warming is happening and human activity is a primary cause.

Liberals on the left, glad I'm not one of them they sound scary, never offer any solutions. You're kidding right? You seem like a person of intelligence, how did you miss the hundreds of solutions offered. Solutions like: energy conservation, hybrid vehicles, electric vehicles, federal mileage standards, federal pollution standards, environmental regulations, energy star ratings, solar power, wind power, geothermal power, smart grid technology, alternate energy research, carbon sequestration, and more. A lot more. It appears you missed the obvious - we are already actualizing our solutions.

You do have one valid argument, the U.S. can't solve this alone. Other nations have to sign up. I think that's what the Paris climate accords were, weren't they? The really BIG question is, will all of this save humanity? Probably not. It's far too little too late and it is likely we have surpassed the theoretical "tipping point." Nobody wants to give up that extra TV or yacht.

 

Closer than you want to imagine. Feeding today's world population requires heavy use of genetically engineered foods. Fresh water is a struggle in many parts of the world, including the first world. Then you have resources needed for economic expansion which are also dwindling.

 

And yet we have a lot of land thats not being used for agriculture

And so does other places in the world

 

Yes, but not all land is the same. Some areas are not cost efficient for large scale farming. The soil simply will not hold up.

 

All for it, go for it. Reasonable methods to save the planet and habitation is certainly fair game. As long as we don't have to go back to the stone age, I'm for anything. Or giving it to fat government taxes. That isn't going to help anybody(anti-Carbon tax)

 

I don’t think global warming is caused by humans, or, at most, human contribution is not significant, but I can’t see how someone can deny extinction due to habitat destruction.
I think it’s the responsibility of every government to have as many nature preserves as possible. The US is actually very good at it - I see all kinds of wild life in Chicago area.

 

Well, loss of habitat is undeniable. Loss of habitat does cause extinction.