> What I don't understand is why hardly anybody mentions > mass extinctions when they warn of global warming. Can > you imagine an Earth with 95% of its species lost? I can't.
For many decades a sizable fraction of the worlds population hasn't seemed to mind living in very low species diversity urban and agricultural environments; e.g. Los Angeles http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/smog.jpg Iowa: http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/squ.jpg > I'm still left wondering why no one TRIES to communicate > this [mass extinction] threat to the public. Perhaps you might ask yourself whether or not the high profile people and organizations delivering the mass extinction message have been willing to sacrifice their own material standard of living, comfort and safety for the sake of climate change? Examples: Are any enthusiastically embracing known carbon solutions like nuclear power? NO! Are any enthusiastically embracing a return to the national 55 MPH speed limit and radically downsized cars and engines to quickly cut vehicle related carbon emissions 50%? NO! Are any ethusiastically embracing a return to building and living in 1,000 square foot homes on 5,000 square foot lots as was typical 40-50 years ago? NO! And certainly not Al Gore who lives in this mansion: http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/gore.jpg Are any enthusiastically calling for environmental and ecological organizations to merge and consolidate to save energy and natural resources? NO! So if the people and organizations delivering the mass extinction message are not willing to voluntarily make major changes to their own material standard of living, comfort and safety for the sake of preventing mass future extinctions, how can they reasonably expect to convince the public that such changes are urgently neccessary? Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
