I'm not going to argue the point beyond this. I'm off for a short field trip anyways. The issue is *MASS* extinctions, and the impact of CO2 levels. To suggest CO2 has caused mass extinctions is absurd. Like many of us, I like to review "Silent Spring" from time to time as a watershed publication. IMHO, "Silent Spring" has happened, but not because of pesticide and fertilizer use, but because of habitat conversion, which does require pesticide and fertilizer use...but the reason the birds are gone, IMHO, is that the habitat for the birds is no longer sufficient to maintain the populations. Even the ubiquitous blackbirds in this region are pretty much gone...a few scraggly flocks, but nothing like we saw say 15 years ago. Not that we did anything about it, mind you...the politics of the day were and are far more important than the meaningful realities. Easy to talk in some therory laden terms than actually go out and do real work as scientists. Easier to "confirm" our biases I suppose. It's unfortuate that so many are so consumed by political advocacy that science becomes nothing more than a "talking point". It is either silly to say CO2 has caused mass extinctions or silly to say CO2 has not caused mass extinctions, and my point is the former. And of course, speaking politcally, anyone so opposed to CO2 emissions can simply stop consuming products that involve CO2 emissions...metals, plastics, processed foods...and some people do this, BTW. "So easy it seemed once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible" John Milton ________________________________________ Robert G. Hamilton Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi College P.O. Box 4045 200 South Capitol Street Clinton, MS 39058 Phone: (601) 925-3872 FAX (601) 925-3978 This communication may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you are not authorized to receive it, please notify and return the message to the sender. Unauthorized reviewing, forwarding, copying, distributing or using this infomration is strictly prohibited.
>>> William Silvert <[email protected]> 5/24/2009 4:50 AM >>> Hamilton's posting is so silly that it hardly merits rebuttal, but the sentence "Habitat conversion is the sole cause of human induced mass extinctions." is so astoundingly ill-informed that it might be useful for lectures on how unaware the public is about scientific issues, perhaps accompanied by illustrations of dodos, passenger pigeons, and numerous other species hunted to extinction. Bill Silvert ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Hamilton" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 11:39 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Why should I care about mass extinciton? > Global warming is a ruse. There is no evidence contemporary global > warming will cause sea level rise, for example. Sea levels are pretty > high anyways. warm the atmosphere, more water goes into the air, more is > cycled onto land. Will sea levels rise? Will it make some great > difference, especially with respect to mass extinction? I, at least > don't see it. More storms? Even if so, so what? heat waves? Is that a > joke? It surely is silly. > > Habitat conversion is the sole cause of human induced mass extinctions. > When we advocate on the issue of CO2, we are buying into a meaningless > ruse that more and more looks like nothing more than a means to generate > revenue for people who want to invest in wind and solar power > distribution. > > Rob Hamilton
