This is frustrating, but alas not outside the norm for Limbaugh. He has rarely met a conspiracy theory he didn't like if it supported his worldview or was an opportunity to dig at his political opponents.
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Malcolm McCallum < [email protected]> wrote: > Please draw your attention to this morning's declaration by Rush Limbaugh > that we are not in a biodiversity crisis. The transcript is posted at: > https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/07/13/rush-247-morni > ng-update-mass-extinction/ > > Limbaugh uses this opportunity to claim only a handful of scientists claim > a problem exists. Specifically, this problem is the impending Sixth Mass > extinction at whose doorstep we sit or stand. He points fingers at > prominent research Paul Ehrlich, claiming he is full of it, and belittles > his accomplishments in other ways. > > The first point for us on Ecolog is that this work is not simply the work > of a single researcher (Paul Ehrlich), and is certainly more than a handful > of scientists. Multiple researchers have addressed this topic, and much of > the current production spans groups and individuals connected or completely > unconnected with Paul Ehrlich. Further, despite the variation in > assumptions, mathematical approaches, and backgrounds of this widely > divergent group of investigators, many of whom have never met have come to > virtually the same conclusion. > > That is, 1) extinctions taking place since 1500, and definitely since 1980 > are absurdly high and in line with those observed in mass extinctions, 2) > if we continue with losses at this rate, we will look back in just a few > decades to centuries and recognize that we have watched a rapid mass > extiction take place, and 3) the cause of this extinction, without any > doubt or question is our own doing, and we are so close to the tipping > point where there is no turning back, it really is a catastrophe in > waiting. > > This projection is not new, and hints that it might be taking place go > back decades. In the 1981 Dr. Ehrlich warned in his book "Extinction," > that we were on track to enormous losses. In 1995, Pimm compared avian > extinctions to that of the fossil record. Also, around that time Sepkoski > (I believe) calculated that current rates were sufficient to drive a mass > extinction in very short time. Numerous other researchers have followed > this up over the decades since. In 2007, I published a paper on amphibian > extinctions using fuzzy intervals that simply stated they were going > extinct faster than seen previously in the fossil record. A year later, > David Wake and Vrendenberg published a paper in PNAS questioning if we were > facing a sixth mass extinction. This was followed in 2010 or 11 by > Barnosky et al., who also questioned if massive losses were reminiscent of > a mass extinction. Pimm then followed this in 2012 in Science stating more > of the same. Biodiversity and Conservation published my paper in 2015, a > study restricted to vertebrates and using fuzzy math that demonstrated > current losses are not typical, and that the timeframes for complete > extinction of all vertebrate species would decimate the planet in decades > to centuries depending on how liberal or conservative you were with data > and assumptions. This was within weeks followed by Ceballos et al.'s paper > in Science Advances for which Limbaugh is now attacking. Alroy, followed > here with extinction comparisons in PNAS for reptiles. Just recently, > there was a special issue in one of the top journals on this crisis . > > When you have this many groups looking at similar data sets in the same > way, deducing similar outcomes, it is hard to poo-poo it. Granted, there > are disagreements among all of us. I suggest we should be using fuzzy > math, Barnosky's team suggests we should be using a special estimator to > gauge for variation, etc. However, the key thing here, like with climate > change, is that we are arguing semantics. The theoretical points are > trivial from an applied view. It just doesn't matter whether we have 30 > years or 100 years or 1000 years, expecially when you consider some of > these mass extictions may have lasted millions of years! Few were > definitely overnight events, adn the shortest ones were far longer than > what we are most likely going to face if we continue status quo. > > I believe it is vital that everyone on here be aware of the message of the > Sixth Mass Extinction. It is a warnign that we we are at a signpost. We > are currently on a trajectory to massive losses. One can argue if we are > in or not in a mass extinction, but its trivial. I personally argue we > will be if we move forward as we have, but can cut it off as a blip on the > screen if we do something NOW. > > It is important, frankly it is essential that each of us take the time to > challenge the misinformation sourced to pundits incorporated when they are > clearly intended to reduce the confidence in science and raise opinion > broadcasters' influence. They get a nice payraise from their funders every > time they can poo poo a scientist. The rest of us, at least the main > components of society, lose when these ill-intended pundits have the upper > hand. We lose our potential, our ability to better the world, our ability > to support society, our ability to promote the greater good, and in this > case, it reduces our ability to survive. > > I have copies of Ceballos et al., my own paper, and a number of others if > anyone wants to look them over (frankly, there are several hundred papers > in total that are connected to this). But if you want copies of a few of > the more recent studies, Just ask. > > -- > Malcolm L. McCallum > Aquaculture and Water Quality Research Scientist > School of Agriculture and Applied Sciences > Langston University > Langston, Oklahoma > > > Link to online CV and portfolio : https://www.visualcv.com/ > malcolm-mc-callum?access=18A9RYkDGxO > Google Scholar citation page: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user= > lOHMjvYAAAAJ&hl=en > Academia.edu: https://ui-springfield.academia.edu/ > MalcolmMcCallum/Analytics#/activity/overview?_k=wknchj > Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/ > Malcolm_Mccallum/reputation?ev=prf_rep_tab > <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Malcolm_Mccallum/reputation?ev=prf_rep_tab> > Ratemyprofessor: http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ > ShowRatings.jsp?tid=706874 > > *Confidentiality Notice:* This e-mail message, including any attachments, > is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain > confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy > all copies of the original message. > > “*Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich > array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a > many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers > alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans.* > ” > *-President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act of 1973 > into law.* > > "*Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive*" -* > Allan Nation* > > *1880's: *"*There's lots of good fish in the sea*" W.S. Gilbert > *1990's:* Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,and > pollution. > 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction > *MAY* help restore populations. > 2022: "Soylent Green is People!" Charleton Heston as Detective Thorn > 2022: "People were always awful, but their was a world once, and it was > beautiful.' Edward G. Robinson as Sol Roth. > > The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) > Wealth w/o work > Pleasure w/o conscience > Knowledge w/o character > Commerce w/o morality > Science w/o humanity > Worship w/o sacrifice > Politics w/o principle > > -- Christopher Round Master of Public Affairs and Master of Environmental Science Phone: 978-654-8310 LinkedIn: http://lnkd.in/DxwBT4
