What is the conservation status of Loxodonta Cyclotis?
The Wikipedia source simply say it is not evaluated yet.
Read MoreWhat does a listing on the IUCN conservation status of "domesticated" mean?
Wikipedia lists dog’s conservation status as "domesticated". What does that mean?
Read MoreHow can global warming skeptics deny the scientific consensus is important and real?
Consensus is important in science. The only way it can be cleanly decided if something is "scientifically proven" is whether or not the scientific community accepts it as proven. There is no "Supreme Court" to decide, and there are always a few skeptics. The scientific community decides what the rules for proof are, and applies them.
You can personally choose to believe the Earth is 6000 years old or that NASA faked the moon landings. But that’s not science. In doing so, you are rejecting science and proven scientific facts. The same is true for global warming.
The scientific consensus that global warming is real and mostly caused by us is documented by hundreds of papers in the peer reviewed literature, and the resulting support from virtually every major scientific organization.
See the hundreds of references contained in: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html and
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
"The fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, or any scientific program at the [climate] meetings. If you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts at [the meetings] on this topic that support your view – you won’t be able to."
NOAA Ph.D.
"There’s a better scientific consensus on this [global warming] than on any issue I know …
You really can’t find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."
NOAA Ph.D.
Bob TV – You quote a few skeptics. Your own site says they’re a small minority. Why believe them over the vast majority? Compact fluorescent light bulbs don’t pollute, they REDUCE mercury pollution.
http://www.cityofberkeley.info/sustainable/Powerplay%20articles/16Powerplay.Mercury.CFL.html
http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp
Ken C – There have been natural changes. But the scientific data clearly shows this warming is not natural. The websites above show that that’s the view of the vast majority of scientists.
"Global cooling" in the 70s was the idea of just a few scientists, with little data, and no backing from any major scientific organization. The "global cooling" guys were like the minority skeptics of today, not like the majority.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
eric c- The Oreskes study is correct. The criticisms of it are the lies.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/14/1511/4868
Once again two skeptics are cited. Their views have been considered and rejected by the scientific community.
Read MoreHow come the "conservation status" labels the level names cover only half of the spectrum?
At
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_status
I see: extinct, critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable, conservation dependant, near threatened, least concerned, and THAT’S IT!
Where’s the "too many of the darn critters" endangerment level? Or the "almost too many of the darn critters" level. Or the "THEY’RE ALMOST OVERTAKING THE EARTH!!!" level?
Or are those designations all reserved for those accursed, Earth-hating humans?
Read MoreWhy is a Russian newspaper suddenly a reliable source for climate science?
These same people were the propaganda machine of the USSR, now suddenly it seems like certain people think it is a reliable source for information on climate science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravda#The_post-Soviet_period
Read More