I am thinking if the scientist in the article were comparing extinctions of recent years to mass extinction events his numbers would be radically different. He is comparing extinctions of modern times with the natural extinction rate of prior historical epochs.
The theme of the conversation is that species naturally go extinct all the time, but now in the age of industrial man the rate of extinction is much faster. This is likely a valid and accurate claim, but associating this claim with comparative quantities is not scientific.
I suggest you take great caution before casting aside entire analytical approaches used by scientists. Remember that intellectual humility is also part of being a good skeptic.
This is what's called an appeal to authority. Caution should not be taken in questioning scientific claims. It should happen continuously and vigorously.
The theme of the conversation is that species naturally go extinct all the time, but now in the age of industrial man the rate of extinction is much faster. This is likely a valid and accurate claim, but associating this claim with comparative quantities is not scientific.