- #71
- 3,401
- 3
How?Bystander wrote: *SNIP
The only historical information I can see/agree to at the moment is that we can calculate/estimate an average difference in appearance and extinction rates
*SNAP
How?Bystander wrote: *SNIP
The only historical information I can see/agree to at the moment is that we can calculate/estimate an average difference in appearance and extinction rates
*SNAP
Originally posted by Nereid
(snip)The difference between the rate of appearance of species and the rate of extinction of species is then obtained by simple algebra from the above.(snip)
Just want to be sureOriginally posted by Bystander
"How?"
You followed it once, seemed to get along with the idea, and now you ask, "How?"
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994797The World's No.1 Science & Technology News Service
Earth faces sixth mass extinction
19:00 18 March 04
NewScientist.com news service
The Earth may be on the brink of a sixth mass extinction on a par with the five others that have punctuated its history, suggests the strongest evidence yet.
Butterflies in Britain are going extinct at an even greater rate than birds, according to the most comprehensive study ever of butterflies, birds, and plants.
There is growing concern over the rate at which species of plants and animals are disappearing around the world. But until now the evidence for such extinctions has mainly come from studies of birds. "The doubters could always turn around and say that there's something peculiar about birds that makes them susceptible to the impact of man on the environment," says Jeremy Greenwood of the British Trust for Ornithology in Norfolk, and one of the research team.
Charities 'spread scare stories on climate change to boost public donations'
By Elizabeth Day
(Filed: 02/05/2004)
Environmental charities are exaggerating the threat of climate change in an attempt to raise more money from public donations, according to a report by Oxford University academics...
Massive extinction of logic
By Patrick J. Michaels
Much has been made of a paper published on Jan. 8 in the journal Nature by Chris Thomas and 18 co-authors, claiming global warming will cause a massive extinction of the Earth's biota. Mr. Thomas told The Washington Post: "We're talking about 1.25 million species. It's a massive number."
It turns out that there is a massive number of glaring problems with their study that clearly eluded the peer review process. This is evinced by the rapid turnaround for the manuscript, with acceptance in final form a mere five weeks after original submission. No one can clear revisions through 19 authors in that time unless there weren't many revisions suggested, or, if there were, they were ignored by the journal's editors in a rush to publication.
In fact, acrimonious debates about what should or should not be published about global warming are the rule rather than the exception, simply because papers are being published — on many sides of the issue — that can be shredded after only a cursory review. Unfortunately, the debate may have started with Nature itself.
In 1996, conveniently a day before the U.N. conference that gave birth to the Kyoto Protocol, Nature published a paper purporting to match observed temperature with computer models of disastrous warming. It used weather balloon data from 1963 through 1987. The actual record, however, extended (then) from 1958 through 1995, and, when all the data were used, the troubling numbers disappeared. Since that famous incident, people have been very leery of what major scientific journals publish on global warming. The Thomas extinction paper only throws more fuel on an already roaring inferno.
The work of Mr. Thomas et al. is an interesting exercise in computer modeling showing again that what comes out of a computer is a product of the assumptions that go in. The scientists examined the distribution of more than 1,000 plants and animal species, calculated their current climatic range, and then used a climate model to determine whether the amount of land the species could occupy in the future would shrink or expand. If there was a likely shrinkage, the researchers expected an increased chance of extinction.
etc, etc
Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute.