Is a new mass extinction could be underway?


Off-Topic Discussions

151 to 200 of 303 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Regarding the original topic... It was not that long ago that certain environmental groups screamed about how "in fifty years, the atmosphere will be torn from the Earth because sinful consumerism and pollution". I have yet to see the first signs of this. And of course, any disaster that will happen in fifty years, like any advance that will happen in fifty years, such as fusion power, is bunk until proven otherwise. Notably, the disaster in global w... Sorry, climate change, was updated in 2010 to happen in 2060, from 2050 before then.

The world is a much better place when you realize there are MANY people who survive and thrive because people listen to doomsayings motivated by cherrypicking numbers and bad scientific methods.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Yup. Environmentalists are all just liars. There have never been and will never be any environmental problems that require any effort to address.

I'd love to see a source for the "atmosphere will be torn from the earth" bit, but I know asking you for sources is offensive.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Regarding the original topic... It was not that long ago that certain environmental groups screamed about how "in fifty years, the atmosphere will be torn from the Earth because sinful consumerism and pollution". I have yet to see the first signs of this.

My mother told me to look both ways before crossing the street.

I looked both ways, and didn't get hit by that car.

I guess mom was wrong. I can stop looking to cross.

We HAVE changed. You're acting like the environmental protections we have in place for CO2 emissions and sulfer content have always been with us and more regulation is altering the "natural" course of events... its not. The reason its gotten better is because WE MADE IT BETTER. We have done it before, we can do it again, but not if people are going to fall for for the idea that there's no problem.

Quote:
And of course, any disaster that will happen in fifty years, like any advance that will happen in fifty years, such as fusion power, is bunk until proven otherwise. Notably, the disaster in global w... Sorry, climate change, was updated in 2010 to happen in 2060, from 2050 before then.

Climate change is used because global warming sounded too scary to republicans.

Quote:
The world is a much better place when you realize there are MANY people who survive and thrive because people listen to doomsayings motivated by cherrypicking numbers and bad scientific methods.

That what, 97% of scientists in the field agree on? You know more than they do? If you can put together a legitimate, coherent, and factual argument do so, the oil industry would like to throw buckets of money at you. It can't be done. The only counter "Arguments" are insulting, non specific counter factual nonsense astroturfed by people that stand to lose a lot of money like the one you just gave. Case in point...

Quote:
The world is a much better place when you realize there are MANY people who survive and thrive because people listen to doomsayings motivated by cherrypicking numbers and bad scientific methods.

If someone was studying the effects of tanning on a beach in malibu this might be a possibility. But the idea that the scientists are doing this for the fun of an all expense paid vacation of freezing their cahones off in the high arctic is crazy enough to be the material component for a fireball spell. What POSSIBLE motive is there to fake this?

Fake global warming------> something happens-------> Profit.

The underwear gnome has a better business model.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:


The world is a much better place when you realize there are MANY people who survive and thrive because people listen to doomsayings motivated by cherrypicking numbers and bad scientific methods.

In a sense, this IS partially true. There were so many folks concerned about what would happen with the Y2K bug that there was a massive global effort to make sure things wouldn't come crashing down, either economically or physically, going to the extent of dusting off old Fortran programmers to head things off.

And it worked. Not a single plane fell out of the sky.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Getting those people off planet first MIGHT be the solution...

What's a "B Ark"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My spouse is a conservation biologist.

I have relatives that are environmental scientists and an environmental engineer that works in the field of envinronmental cleanup and environmental disasters (think Hazmat/EPA type things).

I have NO IDEA where someone came up with this 97% of scientists in the field, or even 97% of scientists.

The thing they DO like to point out is that 97% of those who are claiming global warming or climate changes on a drastic scale have NO RELATED DEGREE TO THE SUBJECT. You have people who have no real knowledge (it would be like saying a lawyer or maybe an English Professor...aka...someone who did legal stuff...knows everything there is about chemistry because they have a PhD. They have a degree in a completely unrelated field).

I knew one guy that tried to say something about human DNA when his PhD was in Botany with plants (and last time he worked on anything related to human DNA was undergraduate studies...)...his stuff wasn't really taken all that seriously.

It boggles their minds that people simply accept some Psychologists or even a zoologists statement on global warming when their degrees have NOTHING to do with that.

What they would say...is something going on with the environment. Absolutely! Something is always going on with the environment.

Is this one drastic or could it be bad...it could be.

However...if anyone states that something is a definitive answer in these instances...look at their credentials...you'll normally see that they are quacks. In otherwords...they don't have the necessary background nor relevance in it if they have something related to actually be able to say anything. Anyone who actually IS doing serious work in the field would NEVER say something absolute.

This is why we still have oil (Oil was predicted to run out around 2000), WE still have ice at the poles (ice was supposed to be gone and New York underwater by 2014 according to one Al Gore at one point), WE are not in a new ice age ( predicted in the 80s to hit around this time), and the world hasn't had all humans die from starvation (overpopulation was supposed to be a major factor and cause higher death rates as predicted in the 1960s). The reason was that these predictions were made by quacks. They were BASED off actual studies at the time, but none of the studies actually MADE these predictions, the most they did was mention possible outcomes in regards to certain things if certain items occurred or continued.

And that's what most of the real environmental scientists do if they have a prediction, it's a POSSIBLE outcome in regards to certain things if certain things occur or continue. They are NOT absolutes.

There are possibilities. There are theories. There are very little laws set in stone however.

But, yes, there are changes happening. Yes, some of them are very drastic. There are several ideas of why this is happening, many of them relate to man made elements.

AS far as the mass extinction goes however (and that's what we were discussing anyways...right)...that one is laughable for ONE reason. IT's NOT because it's NOT happening...but because it's already been occurring for DECADES. It's fact because it's already happened and is STILL happening. Man has killed off more species than have died off in many other extinctions and shows no signs of slowing. In fact, if anything, it's speeding up.

They say it's an ongoing thing that's been happening for several decades, and with a serious look, probably for at least a century. No one knows all the ramifications of it yet, but the effects have already been felt in many parts of the world. That doesn't mean man will die out because of it (but it's a possibility), but to claim that this is a new thing...is the most laughable part of it. They've known for years we've been in the middle of a mass extinction event. They just don't know how it will turn out yet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:


I have NO IDEA where someone came up with this 97% of scientists in the field, or even 97% of scientists.

Then perhaps you shouldn't opine so strongly on a subject about which, by your own admission, you know little-or-nothing.


GreyWolfLord wrote:

My spouse is a conservation biologist.

I have relatives that are environmental scientists and an environmental engineer that works in the field of envinronmental cleanup and environmental disasters (think Hazmat/EPA type things).

I have NO IDEA where someone came up with this 97% of scientists in the field, or even 97% of scientists.

The thing they DO like to point out is that 97% of those who are claiming global warming or climate changes on a drastic scale have NO RELATED DEGREE TO THE SUBJECT.

Funny. I've noticed that more on the other end. But don't worry, Harry Herpetologist has noticed no major atmospheric changes in his frogs' terrarium!


Why am I being asked if a new mass extinction event is underway?

There are scientists whose job it is to figure this out. I'd imagine they'd be more correct than any lay person, especially as they have no reason for bias.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:

Why am I being asked if a new mass extinction event is underway?

There are scientists whose job it is to figure this out. I'd imagine they'd be more correct than any lay person, especially as they have no reason for bias.

We have a problem today. The vast majority of science is funded either directly or indirectly by grants from governments and large corporations. This can and has introduced various biases in scientific research because people in positions of power have a vested interest in seeing that scientific theories are advanced which can be used as a justification for power grabs. Anthropogenic Global Warming is the poster child for this sort of thing. Scientists who do not toe the party line are not funded and may find that their careers are effectively over. So, IMHO, to say that scientists have no reason to be biased is arguably naive.

As an interesting thought experiment, how many of the people who would be willing to support the Pope's recent encyclical on global warming (something he has no background or training in) would also support the Pope's stand on traditional sexual morality (something which legitimately falls within his purview as a religious leader)?

But I digress. The only thing that climate does do through time is change. Given that climatological data going back hundreds of thousands of years suggests that the most likely major climatic change to occur next will be another ice age I can't give "global warming" any credence. Granted that the exact timing of the next ice age is up for grabs, the fact that the sun's output of energy is dropping through the floor suggests that it could be sooner rather than later.


Listen GreyWolfLord, you can't just come in here and start calling out people for their religious beliefs. Didn't you see what happened on the previous page?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ceaser Slaad wrote:
Cheapy wrote:

Why am I being asked if a new mass extinction event is underway?

There are scientists whose job it is to figure this out. I'd imagine they'd be more correct than any lay person, especially as they have no reason for bias.

We have a problem today. The vast majority of science is funded either directly or indirectly by grants from governments and large corporations. This can and has introduced various biases in scientific research because people in positions of power have a vested interest in seeing that scientific theories are advanced which can be used as a justification for power grabs. Anthropogenic Global Warming is the poster child for this sort of thing. Scientists who do not toe the party line are not funded and may find that their careers are effectively over. So, IMHO, to say that scientists have no reason to be biased is arguably naive.

As an interesting thought experiment, how many of the people who would be willing to support the Pope's recent encyclical on global warming (something he has no background or training in) would also support the Pope's stand on traditional sexual morality (something which legitimately falls within his purview as a religious leader)?

But I digress. The only thing that climate does do through time is change. Given that climatological data going back hundreds of thousands of years suggests that the most likely major climatic change to occur next will be another ice age I can't give "global warming" any credence. Granted that the exact timing of the next ice age is up for grabs, the fact that the sun's output of energy is dropping through the floor suggests that it could be sooner rather than later.

The data over hundreds of thousands of years does suggest that's true. Which makes the short term data even more alarming and more obvious that it's due to human activity.

The greenhouse effect is a real thing. We know how it works. We see the changes. We can measure the temperature changes. We can see the changes in ice cover at the poles and in the mountain glaciers. We can measure the chemical changes in the oceans and watch the reefs die.
Pretending it isn't happening is crazy and has been for years.

As for the Pope, I'm happy he's listened to scientists on this matter and I'm happy to have any influence he can wield. Other than that, I'm not Catholic, so I don't have to listen to him. :) It's not that I'm supporting the Pope, it's that the Pope has come around to supporting us. On one subject.

And seriously? Climate change is a conspiracy by every major government and corporation funding research (except for the completely impartial oil companies of course) and every scientific institution involved has been falsifying decades worth of research with only a couple of slips to the public (emails! hockey sticks!)? If they could do that, there wouldn't be any need to make more power grabs.


GreyWolfLord wrote:


This is why we still have oil (Oil was predicted to run out around 2000), WE still have ice at the poles (ice was supposed to be gone and New York underwater by 2014 according to one Al Gore at one point), WE are not in a new ice age ( predicted in the 80s to hit around this time), and the world hasn't had all humans die from starvation (overpopulation was supposed to be a major factor and cause higher death rates as predicted in the 1960s). The reason was that these predictions were made by quacks. They were BASED off actual studies at the time, but none of the studies actually MADE these predictions, the most they did was mention possible outcomes in regards to certain things if certain items occurred or continued.

And that's what most of the real environmental scientists do if they have a prediction, it's a POSSIBLE outcome in regards to certain things if certain things occur or continue. They are NOT absolutes.

You're right about the first part. Most of those prediction were made by quacks - or exaggerated from particularly pessimistic possibilities in some studies under certain circumstances. Often grabbed on by the media because they were sensationalistic.

AGW doesn't fit that pattern. It's not a few isolated quacks. It's not a slim chance worst case scenario - though some of the most exaggerated predictions are. It really is a broad mainstream scientific consensus - backed up by a huge number of different studies and more and more data every year.
The world is warming, faster than we've ever seen it, decade over decade. This is due to human activity - greenhouse gasses. This is starting to have consequences and they're only going to get worse.
Exact details of what's going to happen by when are still up in the air, some things coming faster than expected and some slower, but the broad outline is clear and generally agreed to.

And not by psychologists and zoologists*. Who cares what they say. You're right they don't have any credibility in this field. But they're not the ones publishing papers on the topic.
*Zoologists might, if they're studying something like animals dealing with habitat loss or changes in biomes due to climate change for example.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ceaser Slaad wrote:
Cheapy wrote:

Why am I being asked if a new mass extinction event is underway?

There are scientists whose job it is to figure this out. I'd imagine they'd be more correct than any lay person, especially as they have no reason for bias.

We have a problem today. The vast majority of science is funded either directly or indirectly by grants from governments and large corporations. This can and has introduced various biases in scientific research because people in positions of power have a vested interest in seeing that scientific theories are advanced which can be used as a justification for power grabs. Anthropogenic Global Warming is the poster child for this sort of thing. Scientists who do not toe the party line are not funded and may find that their careers are effectively over. So, IMHO, to say that scientists have no reason to be biased is arguably naive.

As an interesting thought experiment, how many of the people who would be willing to support the Pope's recent encyclical on global warming (something he has no background or training in) would also support the Pope's stand on traditional sexual morality (something which legitimately falls within his purview as a religious leader)?

But I digress. The only thing that climate does do through time is change. Given that climatological data going back hundreds of thousands of years suggests that the most likely major climatic change to occur next will be another ice age I can't give "global warming" any credence. Granted that the exact timing of the next ice age is up for grabs, the fact that the sun's output of energy is dropping through the floor suggests that it could be sooner rather than later.

You make the claim that scientists are in it for the money, or saying what they say because they're paid to. Can you prove that scientists make more money by backing the "party line" as you call it, than they would in the private sector backing whatever the company wanted them to back?

Here's a basic fact for you, the total money spent by the US government on climate change research totaled $2,400 million across all departments in 2014. Meanwhile, the major oil companies have a daily profit of $375 million. Not gross revenue, profit. Oil companies make more money in 8 days than the US government spends on climate research in an entire year. That number comes to a little over $1.3 trillion over the course of the year.

I'm no mathematician, but I suspect that $1,300 billion is larger than $2.4 billion. So, why do the 97% of the money grubbing scientists go after the much smaller pie? Please explain it to me.

Think of it like this: You want to win the lottery, which lottery do you buy a ticket for...

1) $100 prize, with 97 tickets sold
2) $1000 price with 3 tickets sold

One ticket in each drawing is guaranteed to win. If scientists were truly motivated ONLY by money, you'd think they'd go after the bigger pile of money that has less competition. In fact, if we were doing the analysis based purely on where scientists COULD make the most money, that evidence would actually point to them focusing on doing their work and working for the common good and not their own self interests.

The argument that 97% of climatologists agree only because they were paid to agree is b**@$#**. It only makes sense if you don't actually look at who really has the money and where the most money could be made.

Oh, it also completely ignores the fact that Republicans have held large swathes of power for the past 15 years (control of the white house for half that time and control of the house/senate for more than half, plus control of a majority of state legislatures). Why aren't the scientists toeing THEIR party line? Republicans control the purse strings for a lot of scientists. Why doesn't the % more accurate reflect that?

Oh that's right, because this argument is b+++%+!#.

Richard Muller was employed by the Koch brothers to find evidence to deny climate change. He concluded it was real.

Quote:
Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

He said that while receiving his primary funding from people who are climate change deniers. By your logic, since he's running counter to what he was paid to say, we can trust him.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Lies! I an hereby getting on the mass extinction denier bandwagon early.

What? The climate change denier bandwagon is just too darn crowded.


Ceaser Slaad wrote:


We have a problem today. The vast majority of science is funded either directly or indirectly by grants from governments and large corporations.

Ok. fill in the gnome underwear model blank.

Fake global warming----> Something happens----> Profit.

This is with big business trying to fund it the other way.. and its NOT happening. You can't tell me that exon can't outspend the university of Michigan on eggheads drilling ice and sexually harassing penguins.

Quote:
As an interesting thought experiment, how many of the people who would be willing to support the Pope's recent encyclical on global warming (something he has no background or training in) would also support the Pope's stand on traditional sexual morality (something which legitimately falls within his purview as a religious leader)?

Look, when an organization that took 400 years to admit that the sun was in the center of the solar system is telling you "The science is in" its time to at least re examine your arguments against the science. You need a better argument than epistemic nihlism and random conspiracy theories.

Quote:
But I digress. The only thing that climate does do through time is change. Given that climatological data going back hundreds of thousands of years suggests that the most likely major climatic change to occur next will be another ice age I can't give "global warming" any credence.

Going back all that time, it very rarely if ever changed this quickly or this dramatically without a known catastrophic event. There is a vast difference between someones weight creeping up or down 3 pounds a year and someone gaining/losing 70 pounds in 6 months.

Quote:
Granted that the exact timing of the next ice age is up for grabs, the fact that the sun's output of energy is dropping through the floor suggests that it could be sooner rather than later.

Citation on the suns energy level dropping?


BigNorseWolf wrote:


This is with big business trying to fund it the other way.. and its NOT happening. You can't tell me that exon can't outspend the university of Michigan on eggheads drilling ice and sexually harassing penguins.

Actually, recent evidence has surfaced to indicate that the "Waterfowl Examination Department" receives quite a large amount of funding from ExxonMobil. It's an important area of research.


A lot of the data that is being used to support "global warming" is in fact, bunk. The past few years where "the average temperature increased" have been based on data points that have been cherry picked and fudged. And even then still show an "increase" that is less than the margin of error for the techniques being employed. In spite of all the main stream media hype over melting ice caps, both Arctic ice and Antarctic ice are doing better than normal. The Australians are actually looking at abandoning one of their antarctic research stations because increasing ice conditions are preventing them from resupplying it regularly.

I would invite those who are interested to look at the site iceagenow.info . If nothing else just look at all the news stories that are being spiked because they don't support the desired narrative.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ceaser Slaad wrote:

A lot of the data that is being used to support "global warming" is in fact, bunk. The past few years where "the average temperature increased" have been based on data points that have been cherry picked and fudged. And even then still show an "increase" that is less than the margin of error for the techniques being employed. In spite of all the main stream media hype over melting ice caps, both Arctic ice and Antarctic ice are doing better than normal. The Australians are actually looking at abandoning one of their antarctic research stations because increasing ice conditions are preventing them from resupplying it regularly.

I would invite those who are interested to look at the site iceagenow.info . If nothing else just look at all the news stories that are being spiked because they don't support the desired narrative.

Looking at the front page of that site "Omigod it's snowing. In winter. Global warming is a lie!!"

Compare to actual data.
But of course that's from a government site, so it's part of the conspiracy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The idea that the entire scientific community can somehow collude in this vague conspiracy is hilarious. There are tons of schisms and conflicting personalities in any field, and sometimes the best way to get ahead in a field is to go against the grain and disprove whatever dogma is most popular at the time. There is no reason that multiple generations of researchers across the world should somehow decide to forfeit advancement of their careers for increasingly limited available research money.


Ceaser Slaad wrote:
A lot of the data that is being used to support "global warming" is in fact, bunk. The past few years where "the average temperature increased" have been based on data points that have been cherry picked and fudged. And even then still show an "increase" that is less than the margin of error for the techniques being employed.

Citation? Evidence? Something more than your say so?

Quote:
In spite of all the main stream media hype over melting ice caps, both Arctic ice and Antarctic ice are doing better than normal.

So why are we looking at finally sending lewis and clarke to find that northwest passage?

Quote:
The Australians are actually looking at abandoning one of their antarctic research stations because increasing ice conditions are preventing them from resupplying it regularly.

THIS is what cherry picking is. Not something you just throw at data you don't like.

Quote:
I would invite those who are interested to look at the site iceagenow.info . If nothing else just look at all the news stories that are being spiked because they don't support the desired narrative.

Its a conspiracy website. Look, i know the "theory not fact" line holds sway in some circles, but anyone using it is showing a fundamental lack of understanding science.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ceaser Slaad wrote:
I would invite those who are interested to look at the site iceagenow.info . If nothing else just look at all the news stories that are being spiked because they don't support the desired narrative.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ice Age Now Whois
Robert Felix Bellevue WA

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:

My spouse is a conservation biologist.

I have relatives that are environmental scientists and an environmental engineer that works in the field of envinronmental cleanup and environmental disasters (think Hazmat/EPA type things).

I have NO IDEA where someone came up with this 97% of scientists in the field, or even 97% of scientists.

Unless any of these anecdotal scientific relatives are climatologists, THEY ARE NOT IN THE FIELD. Biology, is not climate science. Environmental cleanup and disaster recovery again, is NOT climate science. They may touch on it peripherally, but the people you cite are not climate specialists... they are specialists of an entirely different nature.

The 97 percent figure is the 97 percent of the trained, and practicing SPECIALISTS in the fields of climate science. The body of each scientific field is so large, that if you are not a specialist in a particurlar field, you can't cite yourself as either an authority, or someone qualified to peer review the work done.

What you should really be afraid of is that the top people in the decision making branches of Congress have virtually NO expertise in the areas where they are making science-related policy.


Cheapy wrote:

Why am I being asked if a new mass extinction event is underway?

There are scientists whose job it is to figure this out. I'd imagine they'd be more correct than any lay person, especially as they have no reason for bias.

This topic has been highly politicized, therefore you are required to have an opinion and social signaling demands that you share it with everyone. That way you can be corrected if you have the wrong opinion.


Check out this climate scientist living the good life thanks to all those kick backs from baby seals and bees.

Edit: Here is another one!!!

It's true what they say: FOLLOW THE MONEY!


Simon Legrande wrote:
Cheapy wrote:

Why am I being asked if a new mass extinction event is underway?

There are scientists whose job it is to figure this out. I'd imagine they'd be more correct than any lay person, especially as they have no reason for bias.

This topic has been highly politicized, therefore you are required to have an opinion and social signaling demands that you share it with everyone. That way you can be corrected if you have the wrong opinion.

It's inevitably highly politicized, since political action must be taken if the theory holds and yet there are powerful interests that stand to lose a lot of money in the short run if those actions are taken. Therefore people on both sides attempt to influence politicians and convince other people to do so.

That's politics.

Of course, regardless of climate change, we are in a mass extinction event. That's been going on for decades at least. AGW will just make it worse.


LazarX wrote:
What you should really be afraid of is that the top people in the decision making branches of Congress have virtually NO expertise in the areas where they are making science-related policy.

That part is basically true about nearly everything Congress does. It can't really be otherwise.

In theory that's why they have scientific advisers. In theory.


We ARE the mass extinction event.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ceaser Slaad wrote:

A lot of the data that is being used to support "global warming" is in fact, bunk. The past few years where "the average temperature increased" have been based on data points that have been cherry picked and fudged. And even then still show an "increase" that is less than the margin of error for the techniques being employed. In spite of all the main stream media hype over melting ice caps, both Arctic ice and Antarctic ice are doing better than normal. The Australians are actually looking at abandoning one of their antarctic research stations because increasing ice conditions are preventing them from resupplying it regularly.

I would invite those who are interested to look at the site iceagenow.info . If nothing else just look at all the news stories that are being spiked because they don't support the desired narrative.

I've been reading reports for the last 2 hours of how it's getting darker in Minnesota. Based on this trend, I believe the Sun will never rise again.


thejeff wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:


This is why we still have oil (Oil was predicted to run out around 2000), WE still have ice at the poles (ice was supposed to be gone and New York underwater by 2014 according to one Al Gore at one point), WE are not in a new ice age ( predicted in the 80s to hit around this time), and the world hasn't had all humans die from starvation (overpopulation was supposed to be a major factor and cause higher death rates as predicted in the 1960s). The reason was that these predictions were made by quacks. They were BASED off actual studies at the time, but none of the studies actually MADE these predictions, the most they did was mention possible outcomes in regards to certain things if certain items occurred or continued.

And that's what most of the real environmental scientists do if they have a prediction, it's a POSSIBLE outcome in regards to certain things if certain things occur or continue. They are NOT absolutes.

You're right about the first part. Most of those prediction were made by quacks - or exaggerated from particularly pessimistic possibilities in some studies under certain circumstances. Often grabbed on by the media because they were sensationalistic.

AGW doesn't fit that pattern. It's not a few isolated quacks. It's not a slim chance worst case scenario - though some of the most exaggerated predictions are. It really is a broad mainstream scientific consensus - backed up by a huge number of different studies and more and more data every year.
The world is warming, faster than we've ever seen it, decade over decade. This is due to human activity - greenhouse gasses. This is starting to have consequences and they're only going to get worse.
Exact details of what's going to happen by when are still up in the air, some things coming faster than expected and some slower, but the broad outline is clear and generally agreed to.

And not by psychologists and zoologists*. Who cares what they say. You're right they don't have any credibility in this field. But...

I live with someone who works with this stuff. That's how I know how much quackery is currently going on. NONE of those who have made predictions currently really have the credentials and are NOT current in the field (well actually, there is one or two...maybe 3% instead of 97%). Almost anyone you hear of in the news is NOT credentialed and NOT respected in the field. That's the ironic thing, those who have NOTHING to back them up are the ones everyone is listening too.

Most of the scientists are actually quite specialized. The effects of something can be seen in their specialty, but normally they don't make large general sweeping conclusions that you see these "scientists" (read frauds) are making.

The biggest problem with these FRAUDS or quacks as you have it, is that their science is bogus enough that even those who don't have degrees can see the problems and poke holes in it. (How many conservatives and others have used the holes in an "Unconventional Truth" to say nothing is happening with the environment)?

Many times what people think or assume is the exact opposite of what is actually happening. Take a related field to my wife's and one she occasionally deals with, that of hunting. She actually LOVES hunters as a conservation biologist. The reason is that they are trying to preserve the animals and environment. Much of their ideas are based upon how many animals hunting can take out or not take out. They utilize hunters to cull the herd...as it is...so that they don't have mass starvation (the typical cycle is for herd animals to increase to the point that they have more than there is food. They then eat all the food they can...which makes it so there is NO food for any of them after a certain point and they ALL starve to death. At which point you have a very small minority left...who then have plenty of food (more than they can eat) and the forest gets overgrown and fire prone...leading the cycle repeating itself.

However, she is VERY much against illegal hunting, poaching, and litterers (in the forest) and other things which completely throws the scale off.

This 97% thing is a bogus stat and no one in the field would have any idea who came up with it except maybe a politician or media or someone else who is trying to sway public opinion.

MOST studies start with a hypothesis and then they gather evidence to see what conclusion they come up with. No paper really has a definitive conclusion, and almost NEVER has something as broad as the global warming items that you see. Studies are SPECIFIC. Not broad.

Now general ideas can point to something impacting the environment and other areas. Many may have possibilities and thoughts on what is happening and what is occurring.

What you will see is that

#1) The media LOVES sensationalism. They are the ones writing these stories. Even if there is a legit scientist, most of the time what they say is taken out of context and whatever message the media wants to put in there is written.

For example, there is an observation that Polar bears are now eating dolphins. It is thought that it is because of climate differences that have caused this observation (however, just because it was just observed, does NOT mean it has not been occurring, just that it is the first observation...something NOTATED). IN addition, other factors are taken into account of what may be causing it. Most point to the idea that there could be some changes in climate that have caused this, but there are other extenuating ideas that may have also caused this (including that it may just not have been previously observed).

The media reports this as a definitive statement...that Polar Bears are eating dolphins because of Global Warming. This isn't what the study said specifically...and the study is in many ways taken out of context, people contest the results based on what the media stated because the science does NOT necessarily support such a definitive statement.

#2) People who have an agenda make definitive statements. Many so called environmentalists (who actually are NOT environmentalists) make up things, or take things out of context. For example, a study showed that there were changes to the sea ice, and if the trend continued we could be looking at several various changes and results in the coastlines and other arenas. This was taken by someone with an agenda to say that by 2014 New York City would be under water. The scientists of course are going WTH...we never said that...it was mentioned if certain trends continued the result could be that...but it was never a definite item. The observations could go any number of ways...and 2014 was a WORSE case scenario if everything went to Heck in a handbasket and the observations of a specific time period actually were the reality rather than the outlier.

AS we saw, New York City is not flooded and under the ocean currently...that does NOT mean the science was wrong at all, it meant that the quack was the one who made the prediction.

#3) Most scientists that are actually in the field, are NOT biased due to where their money is coming from (at least from what I see from my relatives...one particularly close to me if you couldn't guess). What MAY happen is that their statements and observations are exaggerated, taken out of context, or only part of their paper is used whilst the rest is ignored.

The other side of the coin is WHAT they are applying for. For example, maybe a scientist has a real interest in the expanding habitat of the fire ant. Their hypothesis is that due to warming temperatures in what used to be the Northern borders of their expansion, they have expanded further. They find that warmer temperatures HAVE occurred and this is the most likely reason the fire ant has expanded northwards. They also make observations that if the trends continue, the rate of the expansion of the fire ants could reach certain areas at certain time periods. They have several graphs depicting the time periods...with varying times depending on how much the warming trend continues. They also show what might happen if traditional temperatures set in and how long it would take for the expansion to turn into a contraction.

They got the money for this research because they applied for a grant to do so. They utilized the grant to do their research. It has NOTHING to do with a politician bribing them.

NOW...what MIGHT happen, is that a politician uses the report and states that global warming has caused fire ants to invade northwards and they can expect fire ants in Maine by 2017. If they don't stop the carbon dioxide in the environment...the fire ants will eat up Maine soon! WE must do something!

What's more, they have these quack scientists (read parasites who claim to be scientists but really just work the political scene in various governments for various political parties to push a certain agenda) to say such and such in VERY broad terms which most scientists wouldn't be caught dead stating.

Which of course ignores what the actual research was, what it stated, and all the various things with it. That's NOT a scientist being political...that's a politician being political. The science is exact, precise, and specific. None of this broad speaking junk you hear on the news that is general, broad, and expansive (and basically the opposite of what a research paper would be).

Now you DO have many people who see a broad picture of all these papers and state certain things (like Global Warming, or Global Warming is man made and such), but most of these have degrees in different fields and are not actively involved with the actual and current research.

The most ironic is one of the leading ones who actually has a PhD in English. Another has a PhD in Physics, and one of the final big wigs in this entire scheme has a PhD in Psychology (I don't get why he's considered a big wig in the Environmental scheme...but some people obviously do).

Things to think about, science moves quickly to a point, but sometimes it moves very slowly...and sometimes by the time something is proven it's because it's ALREADY HAPPENED. If Global Warming IS occurring, the ONLY time you'll have 97% (and even then it's probably going to be more like 75%...you'd be surprised at the disagreements in science) is when something has ALREADY occurred and is fact rather than theory.

When we are all dead...that's when the science will agree. You want facts, theory, and research...that's what the scientists do. You want truth and what we need to do...look no further than politicians, big business and the media. You want someone to tell you we are facing Global Warming and everyone knows it and this is what we have to do to change it...look at the politicians, businesses and media to lead the way. You want to know what is actually being observed see a scientist. YOu want wild guesses tossed as fact and hairbrained schemes that MIGHT work...or might just do absolutely nothing...listen to the politicians, media and big business.

TLDR - No one will really read what I wrote because no one cares what the scientists think.

And that's either part of the problem, or part of the solution...with the solution being something that might save us all...might do nothing...or may be a case of the chicken and the egg where it destroys us all.

Edit: Basically, if there's a solution to any problems dealing with climate change, a scientist MIGHT find it, but expect it to hit crisis levels (or something else just as major to give them the push) first. If we are going to solve anything more quickly, it's probably going to be some business venture or a politician. It probably will be what saves everyone...but at the same time...since they aren't scientists and half the time what the scientists states is ignored (look at Einstein, the half he pushed for peace was ignored and instead they used his stuff to do the exact opposite of what he really wanted!)...it might just be the opposite that happens instead of what we want!

With politics and business taking stabs at it, your guesses are as good as mine as what the results will be!


LazarX wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

My spouse is a conservation biologist.

I have relatives that are environmental scientists and an environmental engineer that works in the field of envinronmental cleanup and environmental disasters (think Hazmat/EPA type things).

I have NO IDEA where someone came up with this 97% of scientists in the field, or even 97% of scientists.

Unless any of these anecdotal scientific relatives are climatologists, THEY ARE NOT IN THE FIELD. Biology, is not climate science. Environmental cleanup and disaster recovery again, is NOT climate science. They may touch on it peripherally, but the people you cite are not climate specialists... they are specialists of an entirely different nature.

The 97 percent figure is the 97 percent of the trained, and practicing SPECIALISTS in the fields of climate science. The body of each scientific field is so large, that if you are not a specialist in a particurlar field, you can't cite yourself as either an authority, or someone qualified to peer review the work done.

What you should really be afraid of is that the top people in the decision making branches of Congress have virtually NO expertise in the areas where they are making science-related policy.

In that instance, there's no such thing as a climatologist per se...unless you go and think there's such a thing as an (bad wording: more like Environmental Engineer which is a subset of Civil Engineering). AT least up until recently.

Climatology is an extension of meterology...which IS the degree it falls under. However, Climatology as is currently understood is NOT only confined to meterology...but involves Conservation Biology, Environmental Science, geophysics, and various other arenas (so expanded FAR beyond just mere meterology these days as well). Until recently, most climatology was done under the auspices of other fields. Recently (in this past millennium) it's come under it's own authority for the most part...but it probably won't be completely stand alone for many decades as prior to that most climatological research fell under many other fields of research (and still does to this day)!

AS far as Environmental Engineering, they actually in many ways were part of the forefront of the entire environmental push dating back to the eighties (and in fact, with the EPA and HAZMAT regulations and newly written items are STILL heavily involved). It has a LOT to do with the environment and man made changes. IN fact, Environmental engineering and cleanup was perhaps MORE involved at first then Meterology (Meterologist who were in climatology were more just collecting stats and numbers rather than involved with actual events caused by man which changed the very environment they occurred in).

Nice red herring you tossed there, but I'd say several decades of being involved with the stuff probably gives them some rather unique experiences in the climate change and what's been occurring in regards to the environment and the world around us.


As an aside, and somewhat of a joke, I COULD see that 97% of CLIMATOLOGISTS (and specifically JUST those who have a specific degree in climatology ONLY) agree that climate change is occurring.

Well...at least 90% of them. Of course, if you understand what the degree of climatology actually IS...then you'd probably understand what the joke of the statement is.

(and in case you don't...a definition of climatology...

The scientific study of climates, including the causes and long-term effects of variation in regional and global climates. Climatology also studies how climate changes over time and is affected by human actions. )

Whether that's global warming, cooling, combination of both...well...it's hard to get a consensus on ANYTHING in science. That's not even delving into the theories of what is causing such things.

But due to the very nature of what climatology IS, I COULD admittedly agree that 97% of climatologist DO agree climate change is occurring. I'm surprised it wouldn't be higher to tell the truth!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Huh. You'd think the fact that there is a whole field of study dedicated to monitoring these changes might lend some credence to their findings. But I'm sure they're just another part of the conspiracy.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
...well...it's hard to get a consensus on ANYTHING in science.

My mind. It boggles.


GreyWolfLord, I can't even tell what you're trying to say.

Are you objecting to the sensationalism of claims about AGW in the media? Specifically to the 97% claim? To the use of the term "climatologist"? To the idea that there's any basic agreement at all?
To AGW happening at all? To the data showing temperature increases decade after decade? To the greenhouse effect? To the idea that human activity is adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere?

You're throwing out a lot of words that confuse the issue, but don't really seem to be saying anything.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
We ARE the mass extinction event.

we did an autopsy on the reaper ship we brought down. It has human dna. How could a spaceship have human dna....?


It doesn't help when the argument against global warming is Its a conspiracy to do.. erm.. something.. for.. erm.. someone, for.. some reason.. look how deep the conspiracy goes! Even THEY don't know who they are or why they're doing it!"


Or as I said above, an unprecedented use of government power to control scientific and media organizations on a global basis, apparently in sync with hostile governments, in order to increase government power. Which, if the nonexistent world government can already do that, they hardly need.


thejeff wrote:
Or as I said above, an unprecedented use of government power to control scientific and media organizations on a global basis, apparently in sync with hostile governments, in order to increase government power. Which, if the nonexistent world government can already do that, they hardly need.

Its not crazy to think that they can do that. I don't agree with it, but its certainly not beyond all bounds of rationality. Basing your entire argument on cooked evidence that itself relies on a conspiracy should at LEAST require that conspiracy to have a rational motive.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Or as I said above, an unprecedented use of government power to control scientific and media organizations on a global basis, apparently in sync with hostile governments, in order to increase government power. Which, if the nonexistent world government can already do that, they hardly need.
Its not crazy to think that they can do that. I don't agree with it, but its certainly not beyond all bounds of rationality. Basing your entire argument on cooked evidence that itself relies on a conspiracy should at LEAST require that conspiracy to have a rational motive.

It's pretty darn crazy, since it's governments worldwide.

But even that's not my point. If they (whoever they are) can already do that, why are they bothering with running the giant ineffective scam to pass a few laws to let them gain power they're already using to keep the scam up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's been striking me recently how odd it is that every climate change denier I've personally ever heard speak is also religious, usually a conservative Christian.

I've even heard Catholics say that the pope agreeing climate change is real is more evidence of how out of whack he is.

Although maybe it's just a Republican thing, who happen to be often conservative Christians, not sure what other link there is between the two beliefs.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Huh. You'd think the fact that there is a whole field of study dedicated to monitoring these changes might lend some credence to their findings. But I'm sure they're just another part of the conspiracy.

They're all bought off by the powerful grizzly bear lobby.


GreyWolfLord wrote:

As an aside, and somewhat of a joke, I COULD see that 97% of CLIMATOLOGISTS (and specifically JUST those who have a specific degree in climatology ONLY) agree that climate change is occurring.

Well...at least 90% of them. Of course, if you understand what the degree of climatology actually IS...then you'd probably understand what the joke of the statement is.

(and in case you don't...a definition of climatology...

The scientific study of climates, including the causes and long-term effects of variation in regional and global climates. Climatology also studies how climate changes over time and is affected by human actions. )

Whether that's global warming, cooling, combination of both...well...it's hard to get a consensus on ANYTHING in science. That's not even delving into the theories of what is causing such things.

But due to the very nature of what climatology IS, I COULD admittedly agree that 97% of climatologist DO agree climate change is occurring. I'm surprised it wouldn't be higher to tell the truth!

That is some grade-A FUD.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yuugasa wrote:

It's been striking me recently how odd it is that every climate change denier I've personally ever heard speak is also religious, usually a conservative Christian.

I've even heard Catholics say that the pope agreeing climate change is real is more evidence of how out of whack he is.

Although maybe it's just a Republican thing, who happen to be often conservative Christians, not sure what other link there is between the two beliefs.

There's more than a few links there.

The "religious right" is disproportionately creationist. Creationists deny science that's proven, so denying agw is a cakewalk in term of mental gymnastics.

Republicans encourage creationism precisely for this reason: If you can build a fanatical distrust of science so it doesn't tell you when your religion is wrong, people will still distrust science when it says your way of making money is wrong.


GreyWolfLord wrote:

As an aside, and somewhat of a joke, I COULD see that 97% of CLIMATOLOGISTS (and specifically JUST those who have a specific degree in climatology ONLY) agree that climate change is occurring.

Well...at least 90% of them. Of course, if you understand what the degree of climatology actually IS...then you'd probably understand what the joke of the statement is.

(and in case you don't...a definition of climatology...

The scientific study of climates, including the causes and long-term effects of variation in regional and global climates. Climatology also studies how climate changes over time and is affected by human actions. )

Whether that's global warming, cooling, combination of both...well...it's hard to get a consensus on ANYTHING in science. That's not even delving into the theories of what is causing such things.

But due to the very nature of what climatology IS, I COULD admittedly agree that 97% of climatologist DO agree climate change is occurring. I'm surprised it wouldn't be higher to tell the truth!

You got your definition wrong.

Climatology is the study of climate. Climate is defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time.

Climatology is not "the study of how humans change climate".

Also, the existence of climatology goes back several millenium. It's primary focus being the tracking of large scale weather patterns (weather conditions averaged over a period of time) to aid in farming. As a career focus, this was typically the job. As a scientific study, climatology was also something addressed by scientists from many fields, but typically not as a career or life's work.

It is true that it wasn't until evidence of large scale climate change that the science of climatology was really pushed into it's own discipline that became the major focus of some people's careers. For some reason you see this as evidence that climate change is fake?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:

It's been striking me recently how odd it is that every climate change denier I've personally ever heard speak is also religious, usually a conservative Christian.

I've even heard Catholics say that the pope agreeing climate change is real is more evidence of how out of whack he is.

Although maybe it's just a Republican thing, who happen to be often conservative Christians, not sure what other link there is between the two beliefs.

There's more than a few links there.

The "religious right" is disproportionately creationist. Creationists deny science that's proven, so denying agw is a cakewalk in term of mental gymnastics.

Republicans encourage creationism precisely for this reason: If you can build a fanatical distrust of science so it doesn't tell you when your religion is wrong, people will still distrust science when it says your way of making money is wrong.

That makes some sense. I am always surprised by the level of vehemence in the deniers too as I can't figure out why it is an issue even deserving of a conspiracy theory.

Evolution directly threatens creation mythology, so denying that even when the science is solid makes some sense, as it is a threat to the coherency of some religious beliefs but what does climate change threaten? Corporate profits?

If true that is even sadder than I first thought it was.


Yuugasa wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:

It's been striking me recently how odd it is that every climate change denier I've personally ever heard speak is also religious, usually a conservative Christian.

I've even heard Catholics say that the pope agreeing climate change is real is more evidence of how out of whack he is.

Although maybe it's just a Republican thing, who happen to be often conservative Christians, not sure what other link there is between the two beliefs.

There's more than a few links there.

The "religious right" is disproportionately creationist. Creationists deny science that's proven, so denying agw is a cakewalk in term of mental gymnastics.

Republicans encourage creationism precisely for this reason: If you can build a fanatical distrust of science so it doesn't tell you when your religion is wrong, people will still distrust science when it says your way of making money is wrong.

That makes some sense. I am always surprised by the level of vehemence in the deniers too as I can't figure out why it is an issue even deserving of a conspiracy theory.

Evolution directly threatens creation mythology, so denying that even when the science is solid makes some sense, as it is a threat to the coherency of some religious beliefs but what does climate change threaten? Corporate profits?

If true that is even sadder than I first thought it was.

It is also often framed as a religious thing. "Only humans would be so arrogant as to think they can change the earth" type of thing.


Irontruth wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

As an aside, and somewhat of a joke, I COULD see that 97% of CLIMATOLOGISTS (and specifically JUST those who have a specific degree in climatology ONLY) agree that climate change is occurring.

Well...at least 90% of them. Of course, if you understand what the degree of climatology actually IS...then you'd probably understand what the joke of the statement is.

(and in case you don't...a definition of climatology...

The scientific study of climates, including the causes and long-term effects of variation in regional and global climates. Climatology also studies how climate changes over time and is affected by human actions. )

Whether that's global warming, cooling, combination of both...well...it's hard to get a consensus on ANYTHING in science. That's not even delving into the theories of what is causing such things.

But due to the very nature of what climatology IS, I COULD admittedly agree that 97% of climatologist DO agree climate change is occurring. I'm surprised it wouldn't be higher to tell the truth!

You got your definition wrong.

Climatology is the study of climate. Climate is defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time.

Climatology is not "the study of how humans change climate".

Also, the existence of climatology goes back several millenium. It's primary focus being the tracking of large scale weather patterns (weather conditions averaged over a period of time) to aid in farming. As a career focus, this was typically the job. As a scientific study, climatology was also something addressed by scientists from many fields, but typically not as a career or life's work.

It is true that it wasn't until evidence of large scale climate change that the science of climatology was really pushed into it's own discipline that became the major focus of some people's careers. For some reason you see this as evidence that climate change is fake?

I actually got the definition directly from the textbook on climatology...it probably is ALSO on your dictionary site if you look a little further.

Just a heads up. You probably googled the definition instead of looking at the actual textbook definitions I imagine, as your definition is what pops up on Google (and I suppose is correct if looking at the actual word instead of the definition of what the climatologist do).

AS for my conclusions...I actually haven't said anything about what my actual opinion (or any of my relatives opinions are) except to express the opinion that getting any group of scientists to agree on a theory at 97% or more is probably a key sign that something isn't right with the statement typically. That's like saying that the US will have a presidential election where over 97% of the people voted the same way. If someone said that, the first thing that comes to mind is...something isn't right with that statement.

I believe if you track down the actual background of that 97% you'll find it refers directly to climate change instead of global warming...and that's actually (though it appears people are taking it far too seriously) a joke due to climatologists and their career field from what I can tell.

Which I suppose, is what people do to science and scientists all the time. I've just been stating some things my relatives go through, and have not expressed what my opinions actually are whether global warming is real or not...but people want to state a definitive answer on what my statements mean anyways. The same I suppose went for the joke as this thread (and a lot of other things in the media) go as well.


thejeff wrote:

GreyWolfLord, I can't even tell what you're trying to say.

Are you objecting to the sensationalism of claims about AGW in the media? Specifically to the 97% claim? To the use of the term "climatologist"? To the idea that there's any basic agreement at all?
To AGW happening at all? To the data showing temperature increases decade after decade? To the greenhouse effect? To the idea that human activity is adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere?

You're throwing out a lot of words that confuse the issue, but don't really seem to be saying anything.

Not trying to confuse. Sorry if that happened.

1) Stating that the 97% agree on Global Warming is not an accurate statement. That's the primary thing. That was the entire thing I was posting previously, to tell the truth.

It COULD be taken out of context in regards to an old joke regarding climatologists. I posted the joke (which promptly people disagreed with the climatologists on a JOKE of all things) because it's actually kind of funny. IT's ALSO probably true (if not a higher percentage considering what the field of climatology is).

Took others to point out what the source of the 97% was to me and I reposted it here. Seems there actually IS a source of that 97% but like most things, isn't exactly stating what some want it to state.

2) Showed reasons why one should doubt any statement that has something that definitive about it (typically...as I came back and stated finally, it appears the 97% actually HAS a source and reason, but it's NOT how it's been presented from what I can tell). Furthermore, when discussing something as broad as Global Warming (that's like trying to discuss dieting as a field) I was stating that almost all statements that pertain to items like it are not going to be as broad in regards to what scientists think per se. It's going to be more specific which is what I was posting examples of (actual examples of studies that have been done)!

And that's basically it.

Hope that clarifies.

I actually haven't expressed an opinion of what I actually think of global warming or cooling or anything else, just a massive amount of doubt towards that 97% (which my relatives showed could be right, but not actually in regards to global warming which I suppose means I was wrong anyways...but also right as it's pertaining to climate change itself and not what, why or how it's occurring) of scientists agreeing on anything with that massive amount of percentage. I could buy a majority or a lesser percentage, but alarm bells go off when I hear something THAT large.

3) edit: I suppose the final thing I kind of hinted at was also that most of the predictions out there that people contests weren't actually definitive predictions made by scientists in the field. The actual SCIENCE is solid. The reasons predictions one reads in the media don't come to pass and then are mocked by others is that it is NOT the scientists who make the false revelations/predictions...it is others who take their studies and sensationalize it, utilize it for political purposes, or other items. These people normally aren't scientists or have degrees that are not related (which is what I was trying to point out).

That one I may have gotten wordy on because I know my relatives spend a great deal of time on research, are NOT corrupted by politics as I can see it, and normally are not like what people see in the media (as the studies are pretty specific in scope).

So, I guess in hindsight I also responded to people putting down scientists as that one felt a LITTLE personal to me and hit me just a wee bit under the belt there. But, I was hoping a little information on what they actually study and do (which I admit was WORDY, I'm waaay too wordy as even this post reflects) might change that opinion that some expressed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And then people read arguments like yours and think, "Yeah, I was right. Scientists really are up in the air about climate change. It's all a scam."

Also, there are other cases where the vast majority of scientists in a field agree. It's not always a sign that something is wrong. Not on all the details maybe, but on the broad outlines. When the basic science is done. Biologists agree on evolution. Geologists agree on plate tectonics. Climate scientists agree on AGW.

151 to 200 of 303 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Is a new mass extinction could be underway? All Messageboards