[katkinkate]

Sorry, a guestimated measure of variance on estimated statistics would be meaninless - its all estimates. You could find the variance on the specific studies if you wanted to put the research in at your local university library, the only place you'll find them.

But extrapolating to global and putting a definite number on it is more an exercise of publicity. The ecologists don't know exactly how many are dieing off. They just know its lots. They can't even agree on how many species the planet supports.

The number 7 probably comes from environmental publications, maybe
Greenpeace. You have to have definite numbers for soundbites. People don't have any patience for scientific uncertainty. They want answers NOW.

[MonteQuest]

http://www.well.com/user/davidu/extinction.html

Monte, I'm not interested in the PR campaign by the environmental movement. I could care less if Richard Leakey says species are dying at a rate of x per minute. I'm interested in the scientific field work which is his basis for making that claim. Apparently, you don't have that link, and I'm going to have to hunt myself through a ream of PR bullshit to find it.

So those 200 links to Science Magazine, Scientific American, etc, and all the studies cited therein are all PR propaganda created by the environmental movement? Give me a break. Leakey would call you a "deliberate obscurantist."

John, the current data shows an extinction rate of 17,000 to 100,000 species per year. As many areas are not surveyed prior to being devastated, much of this is extrapolation based upon sampling. What is agreed upon, is that the rate of extinction is 100 to 1,000 times faster than past rates or background extinction. There is no definitive study with the hard numbers you seek. From my training and research, I have stated on this site 17,500 species per year. That is 48/day or 2 an hour. And this is a conservative estimate.

[Liamj]

To settle this once & for all, I'm taking up a collection to get JD sealed in his own biosphere project.

He can take as many consenting organisms as he likes, but must stay indoors (no web) for at least 100,000 years.

If he AND ALL the other organisms emerge intact (cos JD only needs crops right?), i will forever allow his drivel about biodiversity and a functioning biosphere being redundant.

Please send all cement & other materials postage paid to Turkey Creek Post Office, West Aus.

[MonteQuest]

I have an old septic tank...would that do?

[JohnDenver]

So those 200 links to Science Magazine, Scientific American, etc, and all the studies cited therein are all PR propaganda created by the environmental movement?

No, I'm sure that the needle is probably somewhere in that haystack. Most of that material deals with big animals like gorillas and cheetahs and penguins and sea otters, and thus is irrelevant to the question at hand, because those animals are only endangered, not extinct. Furthermore, there aren't enough enough species like gorilla/cheetah/rhino etc. to go extinct at a rate of 17,500 a year.

From my training and research, I have stated on this site 17,500 species per year. That is 48/day or 2 an hour. And this is a conservative estimate.

Okay, but where do you get that number? Where did you read it? What's the cite?

[JohnDenver]

The ecologists don't know exactly how many are dieing off. They just know its lots.

What is known about the taxonomical breakdown of these species? If you put the yearly 17,500 species extinctions into a pie chart, how does the total breakdown by, say, phylum or class? Are most of the extinctions invertebrates? Are microbes counted?

[JohnDenver]

John, the current data shows an extinction rate of 17,000 to 100,000 species per year.

That 100,000 figure is amazing. Apparently science has only described about 1 million species to date. At a rate of 100,000 species extinctions per year, we'd run out of scientifically described species in a period of 10 years.

[MonteQuest]

From my training and research, I have stated on this site 17,500 species per year. That is 48/day or 2 an hour. And this is a conservative estimate.

Okay, but where do you get that number? Where did you read it? What's the cite?

From many articles on the issue that I have read over the years.

Wilson, E. O. The Current State of Biological Diversity. Harvard University. National Academy of Science. 1988. Pg 13.

Don't have a link.

[MonteQuest]

John, the current data shows an extinction rate of 17,000 to 100,000 species per year.

That 100,000 figure is amazing. Apparently science has only described about 1 million species to date. At a rate of 100,000 species extinctions per year, we'd run out of scientifically described species in a period of 10 years.

Last time I looked, we had only given 1.75 million of the world's species a biological name. The current estimate is for 30 to 50 million species total worldwide. Most of these are insects, which comprises the largest biomass on earth.

[JohnDenver]

Wilson, E. O. The Current State of Biological Diversity. Harvard University. National Academy of Science. 1988. Pg 13.

Thanks Monte. Now we're getting somewhere.

Speaking of E.O. Wilson, I found this interesting story:

[quote]In the 1960s, several biologists, including Edward O. Wilson, decided to test out the relationship between species loss and habitat loss by actually destroying the habitat on some small islands. Before and after, they would count the number of species that had disappeared. So they hired exterminators to destroy living things on small mangrove islands (little islands usually smaller than a house) off the southern coast of Florida. The exterminators built scaffolding around the islands, draped them with nylon, and pelted them with methyl bromide and tear gas. After they had done their deed, scientists did their counting. Based on these studies (and some others in which the researchers actually used chain saws to chop off portions of little islands), the scientists began to estimate what percentage of species will disappear in an area if a certain percentage of habitat is lost. E. O. Wilson presents this rule of thumb: if 90 percent of a habitat is destroyed, 50 percent of the species are lost. But, the results of all these studies are so variable that it is not clear that this rule of thumb is valid even for islands. And, it may not apply at all to forests and other places that aren’t cut off by water. Professor Lawrence Slobodkin, writing in the journal Nature, concluded that the many studies have shown that the theory is “useless for explaining or predicting actual cases.â€

[MonteQuest]

This kind of thing is common. One has to emulate the devastation to know the results. Wilson's studies that are contained in the work I cited are not from this study, but from deep rainforest studies. It makes no difference what I give you John, you will find something to criticise to maintain your rationalization.

I am done here. You just go on believing what you want to, however myopic and misguided it may be.

[JohnDenver]

Most of these are insects, which comprises the largest biomass on earth.

Right. So the biodiversity campaign is basically a campaign to "Save the Insects!" That's a good gag T-shirt. Or maybe you could have an "Adopt a Creepy Crawler" ad in the back of "Arizona Highways" magazine. You know, like those ads they have to adopt Rico, a South American child with a runny nose and half a T-shirt. "For just pennies a day, you can support this lovely carnivorous turd beetle which drills a hole into the back of its victim's head with a screw-like appendage and lays eggs in the hole."

There is one thing troubling me about E.O. Wilson's Auschwitz experiments. Has he gone back to those islands and checked recently? You know, maybe the creepy crawlers, nematodes and fungi have staged a comeback.

It definitely seems like that happens every year back on the farm. You Bhopal the critters with methyl bromide. It's a mini mass-extinction, a re-enactment of Wilson's experiment on land. And yet, sure as can be, the next year those little fuckers are back out of control, laying eggs all over the place! It's maddening. We want them to be extinct, and we're doing everything humanly possible to commit species-cide, and yet, year after year, they just keep coming back. What's up with that? How come we can't even eliminate the species we want to be extinct?

[bart]

I'm not sure how serious you are, JD. I'll take a chance that you truly are interested in getting at the truth.

My background is not in ecology, but I have read in it intensely over the past two years. Some observations:

1. Your remarks assume a method of analysis like that of physics, with black/white demarcations and repeatable experiments. Ecology and natural systems do not seem to be amenable to such an approach.

Natural systems are too complex with too many components and interactions for the simple models used by physics. What's more, we don't understand many important systems. Soil ecology -- on which terrestrial life depends -- seems to be particularly poorly understood.

The most knowledgeable natural scientists seem to be the most aware of the limitations of our generalizations. The favorite phrase is: "There are always exceptions."

2. In the past, biodiversity seemed to be associated with the stability/resilience of ecosystems. Now, some ecologists point to relatively simple systems that are resilient. Other ecologists say that the number and type of relationships between organisms is the key -- not the number of organisms.

However, one observation seems unequivocal -- drasticly simplified systems, like clearcuts and agricultural monoculturem have features which are undesirable from our point of view:
* instability
* vulnerability to invasion by exotic organisms (like weeds and pests)
* lack of biological productivity (monocultures are only productive because of energetic and chemical inputs)

3. The biggest difficulty in understanding natural systems seems to be the attitudes inculcated by industrial civilization. Our thinking has been formed during a period with massive energy at our disposal, so we tend to ignore nature and focus on artificially constructed systems. For example, we take it as a matter of course that civilized people have indoor plumbing and sewage systems. We ignore the natural process of recycling wastes and consider the subject of composting toilets to be funny and quaint. Another example: we want nature to give us answers that are quick and straightforward; we are impatient with ambiguity and complexity

4. If one wants to be taken serious in ecology, as in any field, one must immerse oneself in it and approach it with an open mind.

[bart]

It definitely seems like that happens every year back on the farm. You Bhopal the critters with methyl bromide. It's a mini mass-extinction, a re-enactment of Wilson's experiment on land. And yet, sure as can be, the next year those little fuckers are back out of control, laying eggs all over the place!

This an excellent example of the problem, JD. Not only do the critters come back every year after methyl bromide, they GET WORSE!

The problem seems to be that the methyl bromide kills the beneficial soil organisms, so you have a simplified sterile ecosystem. Such systems are vulnerable to opportunistic pests.

Many pesticides reduce the diversity of soil life even further and select for resistant pathogens. This is the history of methyl bromide. Once this fumigant was highly effective if used only every five years. Today, on the same soils, it must be used much more frequently to keep the pathogens under control.
http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/soilborne.html
(ATTRA, the source of this quote, is an outstanding source of information on sustainable agriculture.

So, you are right, JD, there WILL be life in degraded non-diverse environments. Unfortunately, that life will be diseases, pests and weeds!

[David]

E.O. Wilson's estimates are fully confirmed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which produces the authoritative annual Red List of the world's threatened species. The Red List is the combined work of over 10,000 scientists. You can read the Executive Summary of the 2004 Red List here:

http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/red_list ... umm_EN.htm

Note that the figure of 15,589 threatened species, as the Executive Summary says, is a vast understatement, since it is based on fully evaluating only 3% of species known to science (~1.5 million), and the 1.5 million species known to science are in turn only 10% (at most) of the total number of species on earth, which is estimated to be between 10 and 30 million. So let's do the math (just a rough ballpark figure): the IUCN says 15,589 species are threatened, but it has evaluated only 3% of scientifically described species-- and scientifically described species are only about 10% of the total number of species on earth. So that means the IUCN has evaluated about .3% of the total number of species on earth, and has found that roughly 15,000 of those are threatened with extinction. So if we extrapolate to a ballpark figure, 15,000 X 300 = 4,500,000 species threatened with extinction. Granted that's just a ballpark figure, but the order of magnitude shows why the IUCN scientists and almost every other biologist in the world now think we're facing a mass extinction on the same scale as the other great extinction events in the earth's history.

[Liamj]

Granted that's just a ballpark figure, but the order of magnitude shows why the IUCN scientists and almost every other biologist in the world now think we're facing a mass extinction on the same scale as the other great extinction events in the earth's history.

Makes ya proud doesn't it?

But i guess MORE 'PROGRESS' will fix everything, eh Deza & JD?

[holmes]

sorry dont have the time to tutor you here.

You and Monte are a couple of quacks. I ask you to back up your numbers with scientific evidence, and you both pull the eject cord cause you ain't got no evidence that can stand up to scrutiny.

quacks?? go read "state of fear" that is more what you wna tnot what you need. I am the one of the most grounded individuals left on this planet. I came to this site to find folks that are aware and educated similiar to myself i did not try to come here and tutor folks on shit that is soo evident if one would jsut open their eyes. Im too busy liquidating and getting ready for the great "decline". Read up bud. Your super power is gone very soon. alos i have mucho invested in this country. Massive education, financial investment, etc.. I however understand reality and will meet the challenge as best i can. Quack. meet up in peak speak. I want to dicuss eco housing and gardens brother not proven exticnction. Thos elittle bugs pollinate your foods. Also natural no oil needed seed production is declining at exponential rates - basic ecology, Eugene Odum.
Got the book right here. Read everything Eugene and howard wrote. then come back to me.

[holmes]

JD. "state of fear" by crighton is your book. The sound science of the 21st century. talk about going back to the fucking stone age. worse we are going back to primordial ooze. LOL. ROFFLMFO. We have to just laugh , mates. Its all we can do. The Jugernaut wont stop and all I ahve time for is to build my godamn thermal mass structure. LOL.

[holmes]

It definitely seems like that happens every year back on the farm. You Bhopal the critters with methyl bromide. It's a mini mass-extinction, a re-enactment of Wilson's experiment on land. And yet, sure as can be, the next year those little fuckers are back out of control, laying eggs all over the place!

This an excellent example of the problem, JD. Not only do the critters come back every year after methyl bromide, they GET WORSE!

The problem seems to be that the methyl bromide kills the beneficial soil organisms, so you have a simplified sterile ecosystem. Such systems are vulnerable to opportunistic pests.

Many pesticides reduce the diversity of soil life even further and select for resistant pathogens. This is the history of methyl bromide. Once this fumigant was highly effective if used only every five years. Today, on the same soils, it must be used much more frequently to keep the pathogens under control.
http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/soilborne.html
(ATTRA, the source of this quote, is an outstanding source of information on sustainable agriculture.

So, you are right, JD, there WILL be life in degraded non-diverse environments. Unfortunately, that life will be diseases, pests and weeds!

God I love TRUTH!!!! Bart you are the fucking man. Im so tired of explaining these things. I need a right hand man. Ill feed the sonofabitch and hell do my talking. It could be a hottie tho too? LOL. I dont discriminate.
JD, you shame that name. The real John Denver was a damn good good man. He did alot for biodiversity and understood its importance. Its called an indicator.

[holmes]

Overindustrialization is driving ecosystems to sterile deserts worldwide.