World may be doomed by 2020 says National Geographic

Started by Baruch, October 29, 2016, 05:26:22 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Baruch

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/10/living-planet-index-world-lose-two-thirds-animals-2020-conservation-science/

See ... doesn't matter who you vote for, global warming etc will cause ecological collapse, leading to extermination of humanity ... so no second term for Hillary or Trump.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

doorknob


Draconic Aiur


SGOS

I didn't draw the same conclusion you did from the article. 

Baruch

Quote from: SGOS on October 30, 2016, 08:04:28 AM
I didn't draw the same conclusion you did from the article.

I didn't draw a conclusion, I shared the question.  The first comment on the article, rejected the article's conclusion, because the writer is Conservative.  One can assume that the first commentor is Liberal (in the environmentalist way, not the Hillary way).  It is ad hominem.  I don't know if the article is reasonable or not, but hoped it would start opinions.

"Has global warming etc already gone too far, so that modern civilization is doomed, and how soon?"  This could be resolved by scientific study, that may already be available (data matched to climate model indicates that it will be too hot for most animals to survive on the Earth's surface, and the model indicates this isn't 100 years in the future, but 4 years in the future.  Conservatives like Ronald Reagan, will just say this is doom porn, and that Nancy's astrologer agrees ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Sal1981

Two thirds of vertebrate species will be extinct, counted from 1970, according to this article.

These are mainly specialised and exotic animals though, you won't see rats on the list.

Baruch

Quote from: Sal1981 on October 30, 2016, 09:11:55 AM
Two thirds of vertebrate species will be extinct, counted from 1970, according to this article.

These are mainly specialised and exotic animals though, you won't see rats on the list.

Good, then US voters will make it thru ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Draconic Aiur

Quote from: SGOS on October 30, 2016, 08:04:28 AM
I didn't draw the same conclusion you did from the article. 

I didnt read it right, because I scammed through it.

Cavebear

And which political party is refusing to acknowledge global warming and pollution?  The Repubs consider it sacrilege to consider that we mere mortals could actually influence a whole planet.  But we are.

And then some Repubs turn it around and say only God can save us from what we have done, so we better start praying to HIM. 

Wait, they were just saying we didn't have the power to wreck the planet. 

Apparently, being a Repub (conservative nut) means the ability to hold entirely opposing views in one's mind without the least bit of bother.

I envy that.

"And they're coming to take me away ha-ha
To the Funny Farm, where life is beautiful ALL the time,
And I'll be HAPPY to see those nice young men
In their clean white coats,
And their coming to take we away Ha, Ha!"

What an odd universe conservative Repubs live in...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Gawdzilla Sama

Keep in mind that NatGeo isn't a peer-reviewed journal.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Cavebear

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 31, 2016, 05:52:11 AM
Keep in mind that NatGeo isn't a peer-reviewed journal.

But also keep in mind that it DOES have a long-standing reputation...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

SGOS

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 31, 2016, 05:52:11 AM
Keep in mind that NatGeo isn't a peer-reviewed journal.

Peer review journals are so 1950s.  They were replaced long ago by Rush Limbaugh and his wannabes.

Baruch

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 31, 2016, 05:52:11 AM
Keep in mind that NatGeo isn't a peer-reviewed journal.

Wasn't NatGeo recently taken over by Rupert Murdoch?  He did, about one year ago.  I think that is part of the "attitude" of the first commenter on the article (on the original web site).
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: SGOS on October 31, 2016, 06:23:07 AM
Peer review journals are so 1950s.  They were replaced long ago by Rush Limbaugh and his wannabes.

Peer-reviewed journals still matter.  But you have to have a professional or personally-expensive subscription to most of them.  I don't.  I have to depend on the magazines that report on the professional journals.  I get Scientific American, National Geographic, and Smithsonian.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

aitm

i guess I better learn how to can my veggies then......gonna need a lot of them....and rope to tie me to a tree in case gravity goes away....
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust