3 ms·

To save everyone time, what did you find?

• droithomme 14y ago
  Like all the advocates are saying, read the paper. To that I add follow up on the citations. The advocates don't go into detail about their amazing findings, they just wax poetic about the brilliance of the paper without offering details. Since that's clearly the accepted standard, that's exactly where I'm standing on it as well. Does "Critical thresholds associated with habitat loss" refer to planetary scale changes or microenvironments? Does it support a tipping point of 50% altered planet? Read the paper to find out. That's just one reference. There's 100 to follow through on for the most fun. That's also the only way this can be seriously discussed. Otherwise every single damn thing I will point out here will be nitpicked to death by the population purge advocates. If everybody loads up on the facts then that can't happen. So reading the paper and following all the citations is the only way to decide for yourself. Anything advocates or critics say could be bullshit here. People won't know unless they go see for themselves. In this and the other thread discussing this paper, a number of people pointed out that they did not actually have proven models that really showed planetary doom, and it was also questioned whether 43% of the land mass on the planet is really either farm or city. To these responses, advocates attacked them, accused them of not reading the paper, and insisted the paper, and its citations, did support that. None of these advocates were willing to provide details about that. So at this point the only way to know is to read the paper and all the citations and decide if the advocates are right about this or not. I didn't have to read all 100 citations fortunately to find out since the claims are specifically footnoted.
  • Devilboy 14y ago
    So basically we are screwed.