2011-03-07 05:50:51Sixth Mass Extinction, MSM version
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.107.233

I put together a mainstream media (dumbed-down) version of the Sixth Mass Extinction post, for possible publication in Treehugger and The Guardian.  Feedback would be much appreciated - keep the target audience in mind.  Thanks.

2011-03-07 05:58:37
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.211.150

Thumbs up from me brutha. I think you tread the line between urgency and, it's not hopeless, very well.

2011-03-07 06:31:10thanks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.107.233

Great thanks Rob, that's what I was aiming for!

2011-03-07 07:51:32Looking good
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.186.229.6
One little thing - I'd remove "only" from the first paragraph's "only five events..." as that dominates these events. Just one mass extinction event would be huge - that our planet experienced them on multiple occasions is mind blowing.

I'd suggest publishing this post ASAP, then I'll email the article to Treehugger and drop a line to Guardian. As both outlets are merely reposting our articles, it seems kosher to me to "double dip" - does that seem ok?

2011-03-07 07:55:40
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.54.120

- A common objection I've seen to estimates about % of extinction: "How do you estimate extinction rates when we know that only a fraction of all species have been identified?"

- The whole discussion concerning whether we're on-track for an extinction event within 500 years is a bit confusing. Can this be clarified?

2011-03-07 08:06:37publishing
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.107.233

John re: publishing - if we publish the simple version, what about the more in-depth version?  Does it die a lonely death here in the forum? :-)

neal - that's definitely a valid objection.  I think they do it by operating under the assumption that we've identified about 10% of all species globally.  In this study they also break it down by mammals, birds, etc.  We have a much better identification record on those species.  I think that's too much detail for the MSM version of the article though.  Don't want to get bogged down in the details.

I tried to clarify the 500 year extinction comparison a bit.  It's tough to word it in simple terms, but hopefully it's a bit clearer now.

2011-03-07 11:04:37More in-depth version
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.186.229.6

You know my feelings - I hate wasting any effort! Options are:

  1. Post in-depth version here and email simple version to Treehugger. In-depth gets lots of eyeballs but probably rules out Guardian option
  2. Post simple version here and email simple version to Treehugger, email Guardian, integrate in-depth version into an advanced rebuttal of "animals and plants can adapt". Downside - Guardian may pass over the article (they're very picky) and the in-depth gets lots less eyeballs

Your call Dana. I'd probably go option 1 and wait till Treehugger post it before posting in-depth version, so you can throw in a green box at the bottom saying "a simple version has been posted at Treehugger". If you agree, email me or post here if you're happy with the simple blog post as is and I'll email the article to Treehugger.