This post is for a specific user on another blog I frequent. You'll know if it is for you.

>>http://www.well.com/~davidu/extinction.html for loads of links to your ‘proof’, CC.




Using your own "proof":
-----------------------------------------------------

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_938000/938038.stm

This article from 2000 says :

"A quarter of the world's mammal species face a high risk of extinction very soon, a conservation group says."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2000325.stm

This article from 2002 predicted "Almost a quarter of the world's mammals face extinction within 30 years, according to a United Nations report on the state of the global environment."

This last was in may of 2002, it is now july 2008, if 1/4 (%25) of the mammal population were supposed to be extinct in 30 years from 2002,then let's do some math:

If you divide the 25% by the 30 years the extinction is supposed to take, then you get .8% per year.

let's assume more animals will be lost in the later years, and fewer in the early years. so, let's cut that number in half (.4%). OK .4% x 6 (years) = 2.4% of the total mammal population should have become extinct in the last 6 years.

http://www.currentresults.com/Environment-Facts/Plants-Animals/number-species.php

This link puts the total number of mammal species at 5,416, and my research has uncovered numbers as low as 4600.

We will go with the estimate from your source.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/2/l_032_04.html

which put the figure at 5000 in 2001.

ok, 5000 x 2.4% = 120 species should have gone extinct since 2002.

ok, maybe they are taking longer than anticipated... let's divide that number in half.

so, can you find a list of the 60 species of mammal that have gone extinct since 2002?

I couldn't.


Remember, I'm using YOUR sources, and I'm "showing my work".

----------------------------------------------------------------

Below are some of my own links.

http://westinstenv.org/wildpeop/2008/12/31/of-mice-and-caribou-and-men-and-wolves/

This article suggest possible ulterior motives and methods for promoting a "gloom and doom" approach to environmental science. (just follow the money)



http://sovereignty.net/p/land/kral-insect.htm

This article gives good arguments against the "biodiversity bandwagon".


copycat