Uh, tragedy, I didn't actually specifically nominate Australia, but if I did, Protagoras has provided many concrete examples anyway, which you didn't want to address because actually, you're just sitting at a keyboard playing games with people.

This statement is pretty self-evident, but you're not actually challenging it are you? My point was that we don't need to actually debate whether man is causing climate change, the fact is, species are becoming endangered due to bad environmental practices, with logging nominated as an example. I didn't see you directly challenge this, because as I pointed out, that would be pretty damn foolish.

From where I'm sitting you're just trying to make people run around in circles to prove a point. Maybe you get your jollies from it, but frankly I get sick of such childish games.

I have better things to do.

But go on, feel free to wail about how you've proved your point and added something to some mysterious scoreboard while the rest of us shake our heads about how dumb it sounds. Sorry if this sounds contemptuous, but frankly, there are rare cases where contempt is warranted and this is one of 'em, probably because you're not going to any effort to mount any kind of argument or make any kind of point, you're just trying to get people to put together information which you appear to dismiss anyway. An ugly habit, IMHO.

TRTL - By trying to attack me personally and avoiding answering my question shows you are the one guilty of childish games.

If you think Protagoras' examples are concrete then you are delusional. For a start he went on about extinctions caused by land clearing, not logging.

I note in your post you are now talking "endangered" instead of extinct. Perhaps, given your inability to provide me with one example to answer my question, you acknowledge that your statement was incorrect.

Ooops sorry, I am now guilty playing "childish games" by exposing your inability to provide facts to back up your argument.

A page and then some of evidence from experts on the decline and extinction of native species caused by logging but we've got a sick one here - tragedy's his name and tragic is his nature.

But let's not feed the shifty troll.

Pericles

I am really disappointed by your specious posts on this topic, Protagoras and I have given succinct explanations for the need for retaining the bio-diversity of our planet's ecosystem.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8844&page=0#140951

I have explained why just transferring an endangered species to another area is fraught with problems and therefore it is more imperative to maintain what habitats we do have and to improve on what has been altered.

As well we need to stop the explosion of population of one animal species - ourselves.

While I did use examples of "cute" (I did have direct involvement with study of eco-systems) I also explained the interconnectedness of each ecological community and the need for balance.

You don't have to accept AGW to know that we are destroying our environment and endangering all life.

Do you really believe we can continue "business as usual"?

Pericles

Your posts are a cut above the absolute rubbish posted by Tragedy, fungochumley and and others so it would be good if you would answer Fractelles question...

"Do you really believe we can continue "business as usual?"

If you do believe it, for how long and how are the resources of a finite planet going to be made to stretch out for the time you suggest?

Specious, eh Fractelle?

>>I am really disappointed by your specious posts on this topic<<

"Specious adj.
1.Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious
2.Deceptively attractive."

I'd be happy with the second definition. But this isn't about me, it's about my posts, n'est-ce pas?

My first was simply an extended riff on what I consider to be the relative importance of this topic, compared with all the other competing challenges we face every day.

I have no doubt that it is tremendously important to some people that the mountain-dwelling hamsters or the bottle-nosed wombat don't become extinct. My view is that worrying about the possible extinction of this or that individual animal borders on the trivial.

Once you move the discussion to the general - is climate change impacting the future of our planet through the reduction of biodiversity - you enter an entirely new realm of discussion.

Are the animals we are losing ones that the planet can afford to lose? Are there species that will become stronger, as a result of the decrease in biodiversity? Are those (stronger) species welcome, or to be feared - i.e. do they pose a threat in another form?

Since species and subspecies have in the past become extinct on a regular basis, this is not, I would humbly suggest, an unrealistic - or fallacious - position to adopt.

My second post simply underlined this point. What is the ecological underpinning of the desire to save individual species from history's out-tray?

My third post simply pointed out that no-one had provided any justification for supporting the survival of one species over another, in the context of maintaining an overall level of biodiversity. I therefore surmised that any such decision would be based upon the animal's cute-factor.

In the absence of any more scientifically-based rationale, it doesn't sound a particularly fallacious proposition.

In fact, I'd venture to suggest that it had "the ring of truth or plausibility" about it.