Scientists warn of 6th Mass Extinction? Not Really.
Are We Really Entering a Sixth Mass Extinction?
A Critical Look at the Claims, the Counterclaims, and the Actual Evidence
Public conversations about biodiversity loss have become increasingly polarized. On one side, media outlets publish dramatic headlines warning that Earth is plunging into a sixth mass extinction. On the other, new research challenges the idea entirely, suggesting that extinction rates may actually be declining. Both narratives claim scientific authority. Both claim urgency. And both, when examined closely, reveal significant flaws in reasoning, methodology, and communication.
To understand what is actually happening, we need to step back from sensationalism and examine the claims with clarity. This essay dissects the fallacies in the MSNBC article written by Jay Marc Nojada, evaluates the limitations of the University of Arizona study that challenges it, and then reconstructs the consistent facts supported by real evidence.
The MSNBC Article by Jay Marc Nojada:
A Manufactured Crisis Without Scientific Foundation
The MSNBC article
authored by Jay Marc Nojada asserts that “scientists warn Earth is entering a sixth mass extinction,” yet it does not name a single scientist, cite a single study, or reference any verifiable data. For a claim of this magnitude, the absence of sources is not a minor oversight — it is a fundamental failure. When Nojada invokes anonymous “scientists” without attribution, the piece stops functioning as journalism and becomes an unverified narrative.
Instead of evidence, Nojada’s article leans on dramatic language, vague assertions, and mood‑driven storytelling. It uses phrases like “patterns resemble earlier collapses” and “extinction enters the discussion as an unfolding condition,” which sound authoritative but communicate nothing concrete or testable. This is science‑adjacent rhetoric: it borrows the tone of science while avoiding the responsibility of data and citations.
The article also commits a series of structural and logical errors. It blurs the line between population decline and extinction, treating any negative trend as if it were proof of irreversible loss. It conflates ecological change with ecological collapse, treating normal ecosystem shifts as symptoms of global breakdown. It implies a smooth, inevitable slide toward catastrophe, as if the biosphere were following a single predetermined trajectory. And it uses mollusks — chosen largely because their fossil record is convenient and visible — as a stand‑in for all biodiversity, which is methodologically indefensible.
Most importantly, Jay Marc Nojada frames speculative future scenarios as if they are already unfolding in real time. That is not careful science communication; it is narrative escalation designed to provoke fear.
The University of Arizona Study:
A More Rigorous but Still Incomplete Counterpoint
In contrast to Nojada’s MSNBC piece, the University of Arizona article summarizes a peer‑reviewed study by Kristen Saban and John Wiens that analyzes 500 years of extinction data across nearly two million species. Their conclusion is striking: documented extinction rates peaked roughly a century ago and have declined since. This directly undercuts the central claim pushed by Nojada that extinctions are rapidly accelerating into a new mass extinction.
The Arizona study also shows that most historical extinctions occurred on islands and were driven primarily by invasive species introduced by humans — rats, pigs, goats and other competitors or predators. These patterns do not match the global, cross‑taxa collapse implied in Nojada’s writing. The study further emphasizes that modern threats, such as widespread habitat destruction and climate change, differ significantly from the drivers of past extinctions, meaning past patterns cannot be reliably extrapolated into the future.
However, the Arizona study is not a perfect antidote to Nojada’s narrative. It has limitations that matter. It relies only on documented extinctions, which represent a tiny and biased fraction of total biodiversity, skewed toward well‑studied groups and regions with good historical record‑keeping. Many species likely vanished without ever being formally described or assessed. The study also uses IUCN threat categories as indicators of risk, but those classifications are uneven across taxa, regions, and funding priorities.
Declining extinction rates in the historical record do not automatically mean ecosystems are healthier today. They may reflect successful conservation efforts, data biases, or time lags between current ecological stress and future extinctions. The authors themselves stress that biodiversity loss is still a serious issue and that modern threats are real — they simply argue that the rhetoric of an already unfolding sixth mass extinction is not supported by the evidence.
Where Both Articles Fall Short
Despite directly contradicting each other, the Nojada MSNBC article and the University of Arizona piece share several conceptual weaknesses.
First, both treat extinction as a binary state: a species is either present or extinct. Neither grapples with the intermediate realities of decline, fragmentation, functional extinction, and possible recovery, even though these stages matter enormously for ecosystem function.
Second, both overgeneralize from limited datasets. Jay Marc Nojada leans on mollusks and a few well‑known groups like pollinators to imply a global pattern of collapse. The Arizona study, while more careful, still generalizes from documented extinctions that are disproportionately drawn from islands, vertebrates, and well‑studied taxa. In both cases, the visible data is only a slice of the whole.
Third, both narratives project more certainty than the evidence justifies. Nojada writes as if collapse is inevitable and already underway. The Arizona interpretation risks being read as “things are not that bad,” simply because extinction rates are not accelerating historically. In reality, the state of biodiversity is complex, uneven, and riddled with data gaps.
Finally, neither article fully integrates the role of human conservation efforts. Legal protections, habitat restoration, captive breeding, and targeted interventions have prevented many extinctions and slowed others. Any honest assessment of extinction trends has to account for the fact that humans are not only drivers of loss, but also active agents of preservation.
What the Evidence Actually Supports
Once we strip away the emotional framing of Jay Marc Nojada’s MSNBC article and the overconfident simplicity that some readers might infer from the Arizona article, a more balanced picture appears.
Biodiversity loss is real and measurable in multiple groups, especially in regions with intense habitat destruction, pollution, or overexploitation. Many species are declining, some rapidly. Modern drivers of risk — such as deforestation, land‑use change, and climate shifts — are serious and ongoing.
At the same time, the best available data does not support the claim that Earth is currently in a sixth mass extinction. The Arizona study shows that documented extinction rates peaked around a century ago and have since declined. Historical extinctions were concentrated on islands and driven largely by invasive species, not global ecosystem collapse. Climate change has not yet produced a documented surge in extinctions over the last two centuries, even though it clearly poses a growing threat for the future.
Mollusks, while useful for fossil comparisons and long‑term pattern analysis, cannot stand in for all biodiversity. Different groups experience different risks, and the fossil record itself is uneven. Monitoring gaps are significant: many species disappear before they are formally assessed, and entire regions remain under‑studied. These uncertainties cut both ways — they make catastrophic claims suspect, but they also prevent any complacent conclusion that everything is fine.
What we can say with confidence is this: there is no evidence of a global, synchronous, cross‑taxa die‑off of the kind that defines a true mass extinction in the geological record. There is also no evidence that ecosystems are stable and secure. The truth lies in the uncomfortable middle — real, uneven, and complex biodiversity loss in a world where our understanding is incomplete.
Conclusion: Why Naming the Author Matters, and Why Accuracy Matters Even More
It is not a trivial detail that the MSNBC story was written by Jay Marc Nojada. Naming the author assigns responsibility. It makes clear that this is not some anonymous voice of “science,” but a specific human narrative, crafted with particular rhetorical choices. Nojada chose to invoke unnamed “scientists,” to lean on emotionally charged language, and to frame speculative patterns as an “unfolding condition” of mass extinction without citing a single concrete source. That is not neutral reporting; it is a constructed story that demands scrutiny.
On the other side, the University of Arizona article, summarizing the work of Saban and Wiens, provides a valuable corrective to the panic‑driven narrative. It challenges the myth of an accelerating mass extinction using data and explicit methodology. But it, too, must be read with awareness of its limits: incomplete data, historical biases, and the difference between past patterns and future risks.
The consistent, evidence‑based reality is this:
Biodiversity loss is happening, but unevenly. Extinction rates are not currently accelerating, and past patterns cannot be naively projected into the future. Modern threats differ from historical ones, and conservation efforts matter. There is no solid scientific basis for declaring that Earth is already in a sixth mass extinction, and there is no excuse for dressing speculation up as inevitability.
If we care about the living world — and about public trust in science — we have to care more about accuracy than about drama. That starts with naming our sources, naming our authors, and refusing to let fear or comfort replace evidence.
The Responsibility of Authors and the Cost of Sensationalism
It matters — profoundly — that the MSNBC article was written by Jay Marc Nojada. Journalism is not an anonymous force of nature. It is the product of individual choices: what to include, what to omit, what to emphasize, and what emotional tone to adopt. Nojada chose to publish a sweeping claim about a global mass extinction without citing a single scientist, study, dataset, or institution. He chose to rely on dramatic language instead of evidence, and he chose to frame speculative interpretations as if they were established scientific fact.
This is not a harmless stylistic choice. Sensationalism has consequences. When journalists like Nojada present unverified claims as scientific consensus, they erode public trust in legitimate research. They distort public understanding of ecological issues. They create panic where nuance is needed, and they drown out the voices of scientists who are working to communicate real risks with precision.
The irony is that exaggeration does not strengthen environmental advocacy — it weakens it. When people discover that the “sixth mass extinction” narrative is not supported by the data, they may begin to doubt the seriousness of genuine ecological threats. Accuracy is not the enemy of urgency; it is the foundation of credibility.
Why the University of Arizona Study Matters — and Why It Must Be Read Carefully
The University of Arizona study by Kristen Saban and John Wiens is not a rebuttal to environmental concern. It is a rebuttal to bad science communication. Their work demonstrates that extinction rates have not been accelerating and that historical patterns cannot be projected forward without accounting for changes in the drivers of extinction.
But the study is not a license for complacency. It does not claim that biodiversity loss is trivial or that modern threats are insignificant. Instead, it calls for rigor, accuracy, and context — the very qualities missing from Jay Marc Nojada’s MSNBC article.
The study’s limitations are real: incomplete data, uneven monitoring, and reliance on documented extinctions. But its strengths are equally real: a broad dataset, transparent methodology, and a clear distinction between past patterns and future risks. It is a reminder that scientific conclusions must be grounded in evidence, not emotion.
The Real Story:
A Complex, Uneven, and Urgent Challenge
When we combine the insights from both articles — stripping away Nojada’s sensationalism and tempering the Arizona study’s historical focus — a more accurate picture emerges.
Biodiversity loss is happening, but it is not uniform. Some species are declining rapidly, others are stable, and some are increasing. Extinction rates are not accelerating, but ecological pressures are intensifying. Habitat destruction, land‑use change, pollution, and climate shifts are reshaping ecosystems in ways that may lead to future extinctions if left unaddressed.
We are not in a sixth mass extinction. But we are also not in a position to ignore the warning signs. The challenge is not to choose between panic and denial — it is to navigate the space between them with clarity and honesty.
What Responsible Science Communication Should Look Like
If journalists and researchers want the public to understand biodiversity loss, they must commit to:
1. Naming sources
No more anonymous “scientists.” If a claim is real, it can be attributed.
2. Distinguishing between decline and extinction
A species in trouble is not the same as a species gone.
3. Avoiding narrative exaggeration
Science is not a thriller novel. It does not need dramatic arcs.
4. Presenting uncertainty honestly
Uncertainty is not weakness — it is part of the scientific process.
5. Recognizing the role of conservation
Human action can cause harm, but it can also prevent it.
6. Avoiding simplistic global claims
Ecosystems differ. Risks differ. Patterns differ.
If Jay Marc Nojada had followed even half of these principles, his MSNBC article would not have misled readers into believing that a mass extinction is already underway.
Final Thoughts:
Truth Over Drama
The debate over the “sixth mass extinction” is not just about biology — it is about how we communicate science in an age of fear, polarization, and information overload. Jay Marc Nojada’s MSNBC article represents the worst tendencies of modern media: dramatic claims without evidence, emotional manipulation without accountability, and the exploitation of scientific language to create a sense of crisis.
The University of Arizona study represents something better: careful analysis, transparent methodology, and a willingness to challenge popular narratives when the data does not support them.
The truth lies between these extremes. Biodiversity loss is real, serious, and worthy of attention — but it is not the apocalyptic scenario Nojada portrays. The future of the planet will be shaped not by sensational headlines, but by the accuracy of our understanding and the effectiveness of our actions.
If we want to protect the natural world, we must begin by protecting the truth.
