Talk:Extinction risk from global warming Danger

photo src: www.callbacknews.com

photo src: www.careforwild.co.za

Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews

Deletion of section on precedents

On July 29, user:Polargeo deleted the entire section "Historical precedents", with the comment "Completely garbled stuff which comes to absolutely no point with regard to the article".

I find this completely unjustified. The section (largely written by me) mentioned the fact that some scientists believe most of the mass extinctions of the past were due to climate change (with reference). It then discussed the question of whether hot periods in the past have caused mass extinctions, specifically the Eemian and the Holocene thermal maximum. It considered to what extent these were similar to or different from the global warming we expect in the future.

The section did not "come to a point" because it was meant to be neutral, neither taking the position that global warming must lead to mass extinction nor the position that everything will be fine.

I am putting the section back in (just changing the title from "Historical precedents" to "Precedents" since some may claim that we're talking here about prehistory). I suggest that if Polargeo wants to improve the section, he do so in a constructive way.

For the record, the section in question was as follows:

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Other interglacials did not cause extinctions
• European extinctions were not as marked as in the Americas
• Some island populations were not affected while the same species on large landmasses became extinct.

The 'missing link', if you excuse the expression, might appear to be anthropogenic. Hunting, disease, man-made fire. It explains why the Americas' and Australian extinctions were so swift and complete, and to show that it was not entirely the doing of anthropogenic forces, there is the lack of extinctions in Asia, where humans were not capable of wiping out species in the absence of climate change. Unfortunately, this combination theory is not accepted as the only explanation either; scientists still debate back and forth about which of climate change and anthropogenic was the sole cause. Anarchangel (talk) 11:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That does not mean that any of these hypotheses cannot be discussed on Wikipedia. To adhere perfectly to full disclosure, though, it should be made clear that they are hypotheses and not full theories.

And yes, Polargeo acts overzealously. See Talk:Anthropocene extinction event and related pages. Hopefully he will not continue to obstruct edits. Anarchangel (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

photo src: www.callbacknews.com

Mass extinction

I cannot find the reference which fully supports that sentence. Polargeo (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I also think we should put it back in (though the wording might need some improvement). Here is another, more recent paper on the subject: [5] SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 21:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

photo src: www.childup.com

External Link to Konica Minolta

I would like to discuss why http://www.konicaminolta.com/kids/endangered_animals/ is not/should not be listed as an external link. My reasons:

• It does not appear to be a creditable, scholarly source, but rather a light-content site aimed at kids.
• Konica-Minolta's business domains do not include Biology, Animal Management, Ecology or the like that are relevant to the article.
• The site provides a single link to IUCN, but no other links to or information about expert third-parties

Please help me understand why you think the site should be included. Thank you -- Safety Cap (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia