Given that the fossil record contains a tiny fraction of a percent of the land based life record, it is rather astonishing that anyone could make such a statement – but that is the norm for the day.
The only thing unprecedented is the rate at which people make up global warming BS.
If the Biodiversity is at its highest level of any time in the history of the globe them it is possible that the current loss of flora and fauna would need to be also highest to maintain the balance needed for the evolutionary process to continue.
The more probable answer is the biodiversity was higher at a warmer time in the past which would have lead to a faster turn over in the evolutionary process. Of course with the human influence providing ore transport means for the intermixing of species and sub species then that could be a factor leading to increased speed in the evolutionary process which requires the older species to die off to make way for the new generations.
I notice that 99% of the scaremongering is media based and not science based.
Biodiversity: Losing which species?
The current wildlife extinction rate is the lowest in 500 years–according to the UN Environmental Program’s own World Atlas of Biodiversity. Many species have actually expanded their ranges over the past century.
http://www.cfact.org/a/1837/Biodiversity-Losing-which-species
But, where are the corpses?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/where-are-the-corpses/
They are hiding and awaiting the resurrection like LAZ!
They are probably being paid to troll realist climate web sites! 😉
“Given that the fossil record contains a tiny fraction of a percent of the land based life record, it is rather astonishing that anyone could make such a statement”
Given that we know that the fossil record contains a tiny fraction of a percent of the land based life record it is possible to work out a total figure within a given margin of error. That is what science does.
It should also be noted that these figures are not calculated by climatologists (who are all corrupt grand grabbing frauds apparently), but palaeontologists, so it looks as if you have to add yet another branch of science to deny and disparage. Makes me wonder at the rather ironic title of this blog.
Given that we know that the fossil record contains a tiny fraction of a percent of the land based life record it is possible to work out a total figure within a given margin of error. That is what science does.
No, that is what statistics does. A part of science, but not ALL SCIENCE. Your statement needs clarification and modification.
Hey,
The fossil record contains species of all kinds – animal, plant, marine etc.
The fossil record contains a tiny fraction of land based life forms. Almost all land is erosional rather than depositional. Most sediments form in the ocean.
erm …..
1) the fossil record contains a tiny fraction of ALL and ANY life forms.
2) most sediments are DEPOSITED in the ocean, or in gravity sinks of any sort, but it is debatable about the proportion of sedimentary deposits sourced from land vs ocean. I doubt any accurate data has been developed, but I know what you mean.