Scientists warn a million species at risk of extinction

[RickBradford]

2 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

Who is Mrs. Lincoln? Apart from being the wife of Mr. Lincoln, of course.

[attrayant]

5 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Who is Mrs. Lincoln? Apart from being the wife of Mr. Lincoln, of course.

 

That is exactly who she is.  The phrase is a sarcastic attempt meant to reveal a superficial distraction that downplays the broad significance of fundamental events.  Talking about how green the planet could be because of climate change is akin to a used-car salesman telling a potential buyer "nevermind all that technical stuff under the hood, look how shiny it is!"

 

 

 

Edited May 12, 2019 by attrayant

[RickBradford]

3 minutes ago, attrayant said:

Talking about how green the planet could be ...

Not "could be". "Is".

 

Do you not think that a huge increase in the wonderful natural fauna of our planet is something to celebrate? Most people would think it is tremendous news.

 

By the way, you should probably leave off the attempts at humor - you're clearly not cut out for it.

[ThaiBunny]

21 minutes ago, attrayant said:

Chemically pure water is ultra clean, so I guess we shouldn't mind that sea levels rise 1.5 meters, right?

I've always assumed that sea water, containing salt, isn't pure water

[Isaanbiker]

On 5/11/2019 at 6:22 AM, balo said:

This is what you call evolution.

Some species will dissappear , others will start a new life. 

 

The dinosaurs would still be here if it wasn't for "catastrophic events" happening on this planet . 
My point is that planet Earth and life on it will always find a way to survive , we humans are only a part of it, in a bad way or a good way. 

 

 

How could you have explained that to some now extinct turtles who thought that a plastic bag was their famous, but last dish?

[attrayant]

12 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

I've always assumed that sea water, containing salt, isn't pure water

 

Just like CO₂ is in the air, which is full of impurities.  You underscore my point exactly: why say something as foolish as "pure CO₂"?

[attrayant]

18 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Do you not think that a huge increase in the wonderful natural fauna of our planet is something to celebrate?

 

 

Assuming you meant to write "flora", no - not at the expense of a planet that is habitable by our current human population along with all the coastal infrastructure it has erected.  I refer you back to the title of this discussion.

 

 

18 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

By the way, you should probably leave off the attempts at humor - you're clearly not cut out for it.

 

 

No, it just means I need to add closed-captions for the humor impaired.

[RickBradford]

2 minutes ago, attrayant said:

No, it just means I need to add closed-captions for the humor impaired.

No, it just wasn't funny.

 

Social justice warriors have this inordinate fear of catastrophe, which is why they are always claiming that doom is just around the corner.

 

They can never celebrate the tremendous successes of the last 40 years in improving the environment, and preventing poor people from dying of a variety of horrible diseases. 

 

The UN itself has celebrated reaching its poverty reduction goals faster than expected; more than a billion people have been lifted out of extreme poverty since 1990. But I suppose you wouldn't celebrate that, either.

 

Biodiversity is something we should take seriously, but it is not an imminent catastrophe, and should not blind us to all the good things going on in the world.

[attrayant]

23 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Social justice warriors have this inordinate fear of catastrophe, which is why they are always claiming that doom is just around the corner.

 

Okay, social justice whatnow?  What does that have to do with the topic?  I had to go look that up, since it appears to be a slur du jour.

 

"Social justice warrior is a pejorative term for an individual who promotes socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, and multiculturalism, as well as identity politics."

 

So I ask again: relevance to this topic?  Or did you just need a boogey man to knock down?

 

 

23 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

They can never celebrate the tremendous successes of the last 40 years in improving the environment, and preventing poor people from dying of a variety of horrible diseases.

 

They can't?  Why not?  In this very discussion I have celebrated the advancements of science in both agriculture and medicine.  So I think you missed your target.  Here's the problem:

 

Subject: A million species are at risk of extinction.

Your point: But poor people are healthier!

 

It's not that healthier poor people isn't a good thing, it's just that it's a non sequitur for this discussion.

 

23 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

The UN itself has celebrated reaching its poverty reduction goals faster than expected; more than a billion people have been lifted out of extreme poverty since 1990. But I suppose you wouldn't celebrate that, either.

 

That's presumptuous, but entirely expected.  Anyway, you suppose wrongly.

 

 

23 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Biodiversity is something we should take seriously, but it is not an imminent catastrophe, and should not blind us to all the good things going on in the world.

 

Nobody is being blinded to "all the good things going on in the world".  It's just that they don't have much to do with the subject.  Start a discussion about all the good things going on in the world and I will be the first to start polishing up my trumpets and pom-poms.

[VincentRJ]

29 minutes ago, attrayant said:

Nobody is being blinded to "all the good things going on in the world". 

Well, obviously there are a lot of people who are blinded. Point out the benefits of increased CO2 levels, and the benefits of a slightly warmer climate, which is about 1 degree C warmer, on average, than it was about 150 years ago when it was uncomfortably cold in some places like England, and many people seem to go into a frenzy of denial.

[VincentRJ]

6 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

By what standard is CO₂ a "clean" gas?  CO₂ is more than 27% carbon by weight.  That's clean?

 

And why does it matter that it's odorless?  So is carbon monoxide.  I guess that's a "clean" gas too? 

 

And as for being "clear", it's opaque at infrared wavelengths.  You are basically saying that since humans can't see it, CO₂ must not be a big problem.

 

 

These are statements I would expect to hear from Senator Snowball.

 

 

I'm surprised you're having difficulty in understanding these concepts of clear, clean and odorless, although perhaps I shouldn't be surprised if you are a 'climate change alarmist'. ????

 

I use the term 'clear' to indicate that CO2 does not cause the haze and cloudiness of smog which is associated with the burning of fossil fuel without adequate emissions controls. 

 

I use the term 'clean' because CO2 does not result in any lung infections or harmful contamination that unclean substances might cause, such as dirt, bacteria, poisonous chemicals, and smog.

 

CO2 is not just a byproduct of burning fossil fuel, but also a byproduct of the human and animal digestive system. The air we breathe in mainly consists of about 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen and 0.04% Carbon Dioxide (plus some water vapor, small traces of Helium and Argon and a few other minor trace elements, including pollutants sometimes).

 

However, the air we breathe out contains about 4 to 5% CO2. In other words, we breathe out about 100 times the amount of CO2 we breathe in. The CO2 we breathe out is used by plants during photosynthesis. In return, the plants provide us with the oxygen we need for survival. We have, together with all animals, a symbiotic relationship with plants.

 

Calling CO2 a pollutant is sheer nonsense.
 

[MickeyDelux]

More fake news to frightened the uneducated. The climate change hoax has lost steam, so the media promotes another hoax. Frankly, I like the zombie apocalypse scenario where Joe Biden's failed hair plug implants go rouge and devour Nancy Pelosi.   

[nausea]

Think about your kids. Personally, I don't give a monkeys. Ah, the sins of the father ... .

[nausea]

36 minutes ago, MickeyDelux said:

More fake news to frightened the uneducated. The climate change hoax has lost steam, so the media promotes another hoax. Frankly, I like the zombie apocalypse scenario where Joe Biden's failed hair plug implants go rouge and devour Nancy Pelosi.   

 

36 minutes ago, MickeyDelux said:

More fake news to frightened the uneducated. The climate change hoax has lost steam, so the media promotes another hoax. Frankly, I like the zombie apocalypse scenario where Joe Biden's failed hair plug implants go rouge and devour Nancy Pelosi.   

You don't have kids, I assume.

[user46546545]

They must want funding- roll out another fairy tale. One would think that the man made climate BS story has been proven to be BS and yet the sheep are still being duped 

[Scott]

Off-topic post reported and removed.

 

[attrayant]

17 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I'm surprised you're having difficulty in understanding these concepts of clear, clean and odorless, although perhaps I shouldn't be surprised if you are a 'climate change alarmist'.

 

I did not say I don't understand what those words mean, I said I don't know why you're using them as if you were CO₂ salesman.

 

Quote

I use the term 'clear' to indicate that CO2 does not cause the haze and cloudiness of smog which is associated with the burning of fossil fuel without adequate emissions controls. 

 

 

So what?  The same could be said about poisonous carbon monoxide. 

 

 

Quote

I use the term 'clean' because CO2 does not result in any lung infections or harmful contamination that unclean substances might cause, such as dirt, bacteria, poisonous chemicals, and smog.

 

 

A substance does not have to be immediately harmful to health to be considered a pollutant.  The plastic bottle on my desk is causing no immediate harm to me, but plastic is most certainly an environmental pollutant.

 

 

Quote

Calling CO2 a pollutant is sheer nonsense.
 

 

Who here has done that?  If you are calling out somebody for making an inaccurate or silly statement, why don't you quote them?

 

Having said that, it sounds like you have a naïve understanding of what "pollutant" means in the context of ecosystems and the environment.  A pollutant can be anything that has deleterious effects on the environment and impacts the health or well-being of the organisms living in it.

 

Just skimming over random ecology studies in Google Scholar, I can see a dozen papers that have words to the effect of "A pollutant generally refers to a substance or energy that has undesired effects in the environment".

 

Environmentalists and resource economists differentiate between fund pollutants and stock pollutants.  Throughout most of human history, CO₂ traditionally has been a fund pollutant, because the Earth has mechanisms such as chemical deposition (the formation of accumulating limestone and mineral carbonates), photosynthesis and oceanic dissolution. 

 

But when emission of a fund pollutant exceeds the environment's ability to absorb it without harm, it becomes a stock pollutant.  This is clearly the case with CO₂.

 

CO₂ is a pollutant according to the US Clean Air Act:

 

(g) The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air. Such term includes any precursors to the formation of any air pollutant, to the extent the Administrator has identified such precursor or precursors for the particular purpose for which the term “air pollutant” is used.

 

Greenhouse gasses dumped into the atmosphere clearly fit that definition.  Thus legally in the USA, CO₂ is an air pollutant which must be regulated since it may "endanger public health or welfare".  

 

Where else can we go to get a definition of what a pollutant is?  How about the Encyclopedia Brittanica?   According to them, pollution is:

 

the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form.

 

Brittanica continues:

 

Modern society is also concerned about specific types of pollutants, such as noise pollution, light pollution, and plastic pollution. Pollution of all kinds can have negative effects on the environment and wildlife and often impacts human health and well-being.

 

I bet you didn't know that noise, light and plastic can all be pollutants.  Or is that "sneer nonsense" too?

 

To continue, CO₂ is a pollutant of the oceans because it acidifies the water and makes it a less hospitable environment for aquatic life.  Some coral reefs are dead or dying because of too much CO₂ in the oceans.  So yes, it's a pollutant.

 

National Geographic:

 

Air pollution is a mix of particles and gases that can reach harmful concentrations both outside and indoors. Its effects can range from higher disease risks to rising temperatures. Soot, smoke, mold, pollen, methane, and carbon dioxide are a just few examples of common pollutants.

 

Scientific American: The Worst Climate Pollution Is Carbon Dioxide

 

CO2 outranks soot, methane and even hydrofluorocarbons in terms of long-term global warming

 

You may personally disagree with the classification of CO₂ as a pollutant, but your opinion is meaningless since environmentalists and ecologists have a rigid definition of what pollution is, and CO₂ clearly fits that definition.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎5‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 6:43 AM, balo said:

And that was not my point, we are all aware of the plastic problem and all the other environmental issues , but my point was this planet is in a constant change and has been for millions of years. 

Some species will die, others will start a new life, because of the climate changes. Humans will still be here, we can adapt easily. 

 

Humans in the western world can do many good things, but if China and Africa do nothing about it, nothing much will change, 

 

Stop producing plastic is the only solution. 
  

They could eliminate plastic waste if they wanted to. Glass refundable bottles like they used to be, biodegradable containers and wrapping in supermarkets, paper bags, reusable glasses and cutlery in fast food places. Not difficult, but governments seem strangely reluctant to legislate, given they are always wobbling on about climate change and pollution. Without legislation, companies will not change their practices.

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, nausea said:

 

You don't have kids, I assume.

I know lots of people that have kids and are doing zero about "climate change" because they don't believe in the official line any more than I do.

[VincentRJ]

5 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

I did not say I don't understand what those words mean, I said I don't know why you're using them as if you were CO₂ salesman.

Sorry! I could respond to your long post in detail, but I'm reluctant to do so because the moderator deleted my previous post on the grounds that climate-change matters are off topic. I don't wish to get another deletion and a warning.

 

The topic is about species extinction, not the qualities of carbon dioxide. 

[ravip]

If the human species is included in that million, in the front row, the rest might survive.

Edited May 14, 2019 by ravip

[ThaiBunny]

The key word is in the headline - "at risk". Big numbers get the headlines so if there's one thing you can be certain of, the number isn't one million. The second thing is that the risk isn't equal for all of the species. Some will be more at risk than others. I'm at risk of not having an orgasm tomorrow (to state an entirely trivial risk - but that's what this report envisages. Some risks are are highly improbable, but that doesn't eliminate the risk, it merely reduces the risk)

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 6:16 PM, ThaiBunny said:

The key word is in the headline - "at risk". Big numbers get the headlines so if there's one thing you can be certain of, the number isn't one million. The second thing is that the risk isn't equal for all of the species. Some will be more at risk than others. I'm at risk of not having an orgasm tomorrow (to state an entirely trivial risk - but that's what this report envisages. Some risks are are highly improbable, but that doesn't eliminate the risk, it merely reduces the risk)

It doesn't matter if the number at risk is only one. That is one too many.

Humans are a terrible race that destroy everything on the planet for greed. Gaia is going to give us payback. Could be anything- global warming, rising sea levels, antibiotic resistant diseases, lack of fresh water, super storms that last months, crop disease etc etc etc.

The tragedy of it all is that most of us know that and don't do anything to change the outcome.

It's all lip service, like the mayor of London bleating on about climate change and flying thousands of miles on planes.

Just think about all the species that died so palm oil could be used in soap, next time you go to buy soap.

[mauGR1]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It doesn't matter if the number at risk is only one. That is one too many.

Humans are a terrible race that destroy everything on the planet for greed. Gaia is going to give us payback. Could be anything- global warming, rising sea levels, antibiotic resistant diseases, lack of fresh water, super storms that last months, crop disease etc etc etc.

The tragedy of it all is that most of us know that and don't do anything to change the outcome.

It's all lip service, like the mayor of London bleating on about climate change and flying thousands of miles on planes.

Just think about all the species that died so palm oil could be used in soap, next time you go to buy soap.

Don't flagellate yourself (and humans) too much, i think survival instinct brought us to this point.

But you are right, Gaia will give us a strong payback, and the few who'll survive will start another cycle.