There's No Man-Made Global Mass Extinction

by Lewis Loflin
  
  

See the graphic Science Vs. Environmentalism

"The modern world is experiencing a 'sixth great extinction' of animal species even when the lowest estimates of extinction rates are considered, scientists have warned. The rate of extinction for species in the 20th century was up to 100 times higher than it would have been without man's impact, they said. Many conservationists have been warning for years that a mass extinction event akin to the one that wiped out the dinosaurs is occurring as humans degrade and destroy habitats."

So proclaims an article in The Guardian. Dr Gerardo Ceballos of something called the National Autonomous University of New Mexico notes that "his study, co-authored by Paul R Ehrlich who famously warned of the impact of humanity's "population bomb", employed better knowledge of natural or so-called background extinction rates."

That's right the same butterfly crackpot that has proclaimed ecological Armageddon for decades. His so-called "population bomb" hypothesis from the 1970s has been totally discredited yet here we are again with more nonscientific unfounded nonsense.

Background extinctions is simply were species go extinct as part of the natural process, the vast majority never detected. To claim that human activity is the equivalent of a six mile wide asteroid slamming into the Mexican Yucatan is asinine.

That particular extinction is estimated to have killed 70% of the species on the planet. But that number is under dispute because according to fossil records the dinosaurs were already gone by the time of the impact. They don't know what really killed the dinosaurs.

Background extinctions are normal and those people making these claims cannot present a list of all the species that are supposedly going extinct because they just don't know. And this is not as ominous as it sounds because when one species disappears another simply takes its place. Thus if we go to the forest behind my house that in the 90s had all kinds of locust tree saplings, today they have been replaced by other species.

The second problem with this claim is they can't possibly know what the rate of background extinctions actually are because they don't know how many species exist to begin with.

In a BBC report dated April 25, 2012 titled "Biodiversity loss: How accurate are the numbers?" The hysterical BBC says, "We are indeed experiencing the greatest wave of extinction since the disappearance of the dinosaurs."

They present no real world supporting evidence.

That is a damn lie. There have been numerous other extinctions since that time including between 30 million years ago when the world's climate suffered a massive cooling event. The vast tropical forest in Nebraska, Wyoming, and N. Dakota began dying as the climate dried. But a decline in global temperatures changed the region into the scrub, grassland, and desert that much of it is today. That isn't the only problem pointed out with this article.

For more on this a great video is available on YouTube on this issue. Search for the term "killer pig" for a look at the ancient mammals.

To further quote the BBC:

Current estimates of the number of species can vary from, let's say, two million species to over 30 or even 100 million species, says Dr Braulio Dias, executive secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity. "So we don't have a good estimate to an order of magnitude of precision,' he says.

So how in the hell can Ehrlich and his hysterical comrades make such claims? Paul Ehrlich and Pope Francis who also weighed in on this issue are nothing but crackpots. Their minds have been completely poisoned by their near religious reverence for nature and their socialist politics - botulism of the mind 101.

But is the Earth really in a death spiral as these crackpots claim? Let's turn to empirical science and not the authority of crackpots pretending to be scientists or theologians. The real world tells a different story.




 


donate