Quote of the week #22 – Experts say that fears surrounding climate change are overblown

The prof and the IUCN are just sore because they aren’t getting the budgets that the AGW-mongers are getting.
Seems the lack of consensus on this issue is worse than was thought 😉

Of course, there is an idiotic article translated from New Scientist in our newspapers, stating that “all species are endangered”, “30% of all frogs and snakes will disappear soon” and “our children will never see those animals or plants we can see today”. There is also another article quoting Brown, calling for global tax on all international monetary transfers. Go figure.

True, other things people do are more important than climate change for species extinction, however:
“by the time climate change really kicks in, many species will not exist any more”
This is nonsense. We don’t have any clue about the state of biodiversity on the planet. For all we know the number of species could be increasing. Indeed, the number of species we know about is always increasing. Such is the state of our ignorance.
But there is a sensible solution to most species problems-seasonal hunting and making them food. If people like the taste of something, they are likely to protect it from disappearing.
A great example of this is the Alligators of Florida. They were endangered. Now we eat ’em. I’ve never had gator, but I here it’s tasty, if a bit gamey. Like muscular chicken.

Ya think?

“Christophe Vie, deputy head of the IUCN species program, which is responsible for compiling the international Redlist of endangered species.
…listed hunting, overfishing, and destruction of habitat by humans as more critical for the majority of species.
However, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds disagreed, saying that climate change was the single biggest threat to biodiversity on the planet. “There’s an absolutely undeniable affect that’s happening now,” said John Clare, an RSPB spokesman. “There have been huge declines in British sea birds.””
What a twit. He doesn’t seem to have a clue that there’s a huge difference between saying something “is happening” and saying what the causes are.
Typical of Warmists, though, who can never seem to get the idea that the fact that climate change is occurring is completely different from the claim that man is responsible for it.

“by the time climate change really kicks in, many species will not exist any more”
By this I take it that poor folks are deforesting land to survive. We would do the same thing in their place. This is an economics problem that the banking cartel has caused. Fix the %$@#&* banking system and we will all lead saner, more prosperous and sustainable lives.

I am not cheering about this article.
By mentioning land use the author is broadening the reasons for Government action on loss of species which again puts human kind on trial.
She does not deny Global Warming and assumes it will “kick in” sometimes in the future.
There is no reason whatsoever to think that human kind is responsible for the loss of species, other than over fishing and illegal deforestation, illegal trade in exotic animals and the use of toxins in agriculture and the war on drugs in Colombia
(still using agent orange to destroy dug plantations)
Where possible, effective measures have been undertaken to support rare species.
In Europe and the USA, the number of species is on the rise.
Area’s where the bear, wolf, the mountain Lion, the lynx and the beaver have disappeared during the past century, breeding and introduction programs and natural breeding and migration have resulted in the return of these animals in our national parks.
Western Europe now counts more bird species than 100 years ago.
Especially in cities and the free land around airports show a true boost of wild life.
City parks and gardens provide breeding places for birds, and all kind of mammals,
plants and insects.
Yes, we have to take care of unique bio spheres in the tropics but in the free world human kind and nature go well together.
We have cleaned up our environment after the industrial boost came after WOII.
Our rivers and lakes are clean and ful of life. We have created National Parks that are connected with each other allowing for wildlife to migrate.
We cleaned up our atmosphere and burn fossil fuels without poisoning the air we breath. We manage our forests and control our garbage without any negative effects to our environment.
Like all the wrong claims about our climate, loss of species is just another.
And after all the billion of dollars we have paid to organizations like Green peace and WWF we should not have any worries about this subject.
The most threatening developments are the mass application of wind farms killing our birds of prey and the incredible growth of palm oil plantations in the tropics for the production of bio fuels.
These are all green schemes promoted by the “Green” Governments and the Copenhagen treaty, as is the use of wood for fuel.
Kyoto and Copenhagen will be devastating in terms of deforestation, loss of habitat and species. Therefore quit all this nonsense and us the solar produced carbon fuels.
We have more of it than ever and it leaves us with 300 years to develop effective and affordable alternatives.

Soren
Here’s a bird being hit in Crete, (possibly, english was its second language?)
http://www.epaw.org/

Re the RSPB, if there is a drop in the number of seabirds around the british isles, it wil have far, far more to do with the industrial sand eel fishery. These wee critters are at the bottom of the North Sea food chain and are hoovered up to feed pigs in Europe. This fishery also has a lot to do with the poor cod and haddock stocks here.
Don’t get me started on the EU!!!
OT, the Science Museum Poll is now standing at 2268 in and 6547 out. They have improved the security of it. It will be interesting to see how they report that one (like they won’t bother).

The only danger of extinction from climate change right now are:
1. Scientists who interpret data in a cautious prudent manner, rather than becoming tabloid journalists in the Discussion section of submitted papers.
2. Referees who put a massive red pen through the Discussion section of climate change papers with the accompanying comment ‘not indicated by the data presented’
3. Politicians who link scientific evidence to political policy.

This is a very important article. I’ve always thought that the extinction threat for most (not all) species due to climate change was much overblown. And it is certainly clear to me that continued slow habitat destruction is driving many species toward extinction today, regardless of any changes in climate. There are hundreds of animals that have gone extinct in the last few decades. Thousands now survive in the wild with very small numbers (birds, primates, amphibians). The IUCN has done exceptional scientific work, to my mind, documenting such declines. It is well worth a visit to their website, if these species extinction and decline are of interest.
The group Conservation International has done exceptional work turning back the clock, helping some such species begin to recover, and helping preserving habitat for others. The Ocean Conservancy is doing the same to protect ocean habitat in US waters.
All this matters to me very much. Climate change, as most readers of this blog will likely agree, has been way over-hyped. The Michael Manns and Gavin Schmidts and Joe Romms of this world have been shamefully demagoguing the issue, trashing both science and scientists. Joe Romm has been acting like Joe McCarthy toward people he regards as getting in the way. What gives him the right to trash people so thoroughly, and despicably, just because they don’t happen to agree with his particular agenda?
So it is heartening to see that the pendulum might swing back to where it should be, protecting what we have today, and not following the pied pipers of hysteria, Al Gore and company.

Didnt I see somewhere that the planet is in an overall state of increasing greenness indicating generally more vegetation and notably more forest? I have seen comment that this is due at least in part to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Could this also due in part to the drift of population into cities and out of the countryside?
Someone who has been tracking this issue might like to comment.

Indeed, when I read the article this morning I thought it took an extremely sceptical stance, at least in relation to what has been the dominant line of recent years. For us hardcore sceptics, it was still rather flaccid though. I’ve noticed over the last two years or more, that public comments to articles like this (except those in the Guardian) are overwhelmingly sceptical. The mainstream media can only publish against this kind of tide for so long before they crack and start towing a more sceptical line, as they have been doing over recent months.
Arguments for adaptation are always missed as well, especially when it comes to the Human impact on eco-systems. It seems to me that it’s trivially true that species are under threat, but I don’t think CO2 or a warmer climate is the threat. Land use changes and competition with man for resources are obviously the major factor here.

further to (09:35:30)
“A bit more global cooling might reduce the current plague of Salamanders.”
Only a plague of the mythical type:
Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) wrote the following on the salamander: “This has no digestive organs, and gets no food but from the fire, in which it constantly renews its scaly skin. The salamander, which renews its scaly skin in the fire,—for virtue.” Later, Paracelsus (1493-1541) suggested that the salamander was the elemental of fire, which has had substantial influence on the role of salamanders in the occult.
Doh.

The Royal Society for the Protection of whichever Birds are currently “in” (ie, those which are most likely to make little old ladies dip into their purses or change their wills) has been for wind farms and against in recent years (according, one presumes, to what their research tells them about the little old ladies).
Red kites (which predate on song birds) are in; magpies are in (mainly because farmers and shooting estates hate them). I’m not sure which sea birds are currently under threat but I believe the puffin is enjoying a resurgence for some reason.
The belief that global warming per se is likely in general to have an adverse effect on sea bird population is a myth. More likely is that the bird’s range will extend wherever possible and this will depend on availability of food supply (as it does with every species).
I am still at a loss to understand why the RSPB or any of its sister, brother, cousin or aunt organisations should be so collectively thick as not to understand this. Of all the groups that have to deal with the environment I would have thought they more than most would be arguing against this claptrap.

I’d like to hear mention of Bjorn Lomborg here. I seem to remember he showed that the kind of figures I used to believe about disappearing species were way off the scale incorrect – groups had deliberately misrepresented the figures – and he got pilloried by way of thanks. Yet he started off as an active member of Greenp****.

I searched and found this – year old – story:
Sea birds in danger of dying out in UK, warns RSPB — here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3354091/Sea-birds-in-danger-of-dying-out-in-UK-warns-RSPB.html
While interesting, it is unconvincing as to global warming (sea surface temps) as the cause. Consider this statement:
“However other seabird species seem to be weathering the storm. Great skuas, gannets and cormorants have experienced modest increases in their numbers, while herring gulls have remained stable.”
But, the lead of “Sea birds in danger of dying out…” is likely as far as some readers would get into the story.
Fear seems to be an easy thing to grab on to, even though it isn’t exactly contagious in a literal sense.

Rob R (13:13:49) :
Regarding “Could this also due in part to the drift of population into cities and out of the countryside?”. This may be of interest, so much positive news but not for some…
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/science/earth/30forest.html?_r=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&pagewanted=all
New Jungles Prompt a Debate on Rain Forests
Tito Herrera for The New York Times
Here, and in other tropical countries around the world, small holdings like Ms. Ortega de Wing’s — and much larger swaths of farmland — are reverting to nature, as people abandon their land and move to the cities in search of better livings.
These new “secondary” forests are emerging in Latin America, Asia and other tropical regions at such a fast pace that the trend has set off a serious debate about whether saving primeval rain forest — an iconic environmental cause — may be less urgent than once thought. By one estimate, for every acre of rain forest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing in the tropics on land that was once farmed, logged or ravaged by natural disaster.
“There is far more forest here than there was 30 years ago,” said Ms. Ortega de Wing, 64, who remembers fields of mango trees and banana plants.
The new forests, the scientists argue, could blunt the effects of rain forest destruction by absorbing carbon dioxide, the leading heat-trapping gas linked to global warming, one crucial role that rain forests play. They could also, to a lesser extent, provide habitat for endangered species.
The idea has stirred outrage among environmentalists who believe that vigorous efforts to protect native rain forest should remain a top priority. But the notion has gained currency in mainstream organizations like the Smithsonian Institution and the United Nations, which in 2005 concluded that new forests were “increasing dramatically” and “undervalued” for their environmental benefits. The United Nations is undertaking the first global catalog of the new forests, which vary greatly in their stage of growth.
“Biologists were ignoring these huge population trends and acting as if only original forest has conservation value, and that’s just wrong,” said Joe Wright, a senior scientist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute here, who set off a firestorm two years ago by suggesting that the new forests could substantially compensate for rain forest destruction.
“Is this a real rain forest?” Dr. Wright asked, walking the land of a former American cacao plantation that was abandoned about 50 years ago, and pointing to fig trees and vast webs of community spiders and howler monkeys.
Dr. Wright and other scientists say they should be. About 38 million acres of original rain forest are being cut down every year, but in 2005, according to the most recent “State of the World’s Forests Report” by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, there were an estimated 2.1 billion acres of potential replacement forest growing in the tropics — an area almost as large as the United States. The new forest included secondary forest on former farmland and so-called degraded forest, land that has been partly logged or destroyed by natural disasters like fires and then left to nature. In Panama by the 1990s, the last decade for which data is available, the rain forest is being destroyed at a rate of 1.3 percent each year. The area of secondary forest is increasing by more than 4 percent yearly, Dr. Wright estimates.
This is also related. http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE57N00220090824?sp=true
Tree cover far bigger than expected on farms: study
By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent
OSLO (Reuters) – Almost half of the world’s farmland has at least 10 percent tree cover, according to a study on Monday indicating that farmers are far less destructive to carbon-storing forests than previously believed.
“The area revealed in this study is twice the size of the Amazon, and shows that farmers are protecting and planting trees spontaneously,” Dennis Garrity, Director General of the World Agroforestry Center in Nairobi, said in a statement.
The Centre’s report, based on satellite images and the first to estimate tree cover on the world’s farms, showed tree canopies exceeded 10 percent on farmland of 10 million square kms (3.9 million sq miles) — 46 percent of all agricultural land and an area the size of Canada or China.

It’s not just land use – it’s land use pattern.
Landscape ecologists speak of “edge”, “connectivity”, and even fractal dimension. All sorts of spatial-pattern metrics have been devised.
Of course the ideal pattern for one species may not be ideal for another. Think of the perspective of a slug trying to reach new habitat versus that of a bird, etc.
Some species need edge because they meet different needs in different “patches” (easier to do when the patches are adjacent).
Then there’s seed & pollen dispersal – one has to consider the vectors (carried by wind? birds? insects? – it varies by species).
Patch-dynamics at sea remain relatively mysterious.

This begs for sarcasm.
The world is suppose to end in thirty days.
Now, we are not going to be extinct.
I was hoping to stop paying taxes and buy a yacht with my savings and sail into the sunset.
What is next?
Cold Winters for 30 years.
Sunspots appear to be extinct.
Paul Pierett

Here in the southeast there is a real quandary. Many severe weather experts are demanding that all trees within 100ft of inhabited structures be removed as they might blow down and destroy or damage property with concurent injury or loss of life to the inhabitants. Then there are those that recomend that to save on energy that large hardwoods should be left to shade the homes and structures to reduce the denamd for electrical power in the warm months while the sheding of leaves in the cooler months reduces the use of power for heating. Whom do you listen to. Personally I like shade. Farm land here in my part of Alabama is changing much of the land that has been “row cropped” for generations (50%) in some areas has now gone to either pasture or back to native forest. The ability of the American farmer to produce more crops on less land and lower fuel usage has been phenominal over the past 50 years. Now with the cap and trade situation watch for the return of farm land to natural habitat. And watch the cost of feeding your family. As for the loss of sea birds, they are flighty critters tending to follow the little fisshies when they move to better climes. if it warms they move norty if it cools they move south. Perhaps more study is needed to see if they just up and went somewhere else for a better food supply, just as humans will adapt to either warming or cooling. My family is already adapting for some of this by producing much of the veggies we cnsume and using wood for a heating fuel. Last yer 100 gallons of propane $250.00 down significantly this year thus far but subject to change on short notice. Fire wood if you cut split and stack your self including cost of saw averaged out for life of saw. About $5.oo/cord. We cut, split and stack our own wood to reduce the cost of winter heating and makes great BBQ during the warm season. As for habitat, cut down an old growth forest and wait 5 years and make a recount of the species it will greatly multiply both in species and numbers of individual animals in each. New forest support much more wild life than old forest. All you have to do is just walk around and look to see the difference. Try it some day and see. All it takes is a couple of hours of hiking on a couple of days.
Bill Derryberry

Some one spoke of the demise of the American Buffalo. The hides were not the primary cause of the hunts that destroyed the herds. The hides were a secondary and bonus when sold. The primary was a bounty paid by the Federal Government through the U. S. Army to destroy the main source of food and housing for the American plains Native Americans. That was the reason for the demise of that animal. It is hard to wage war when you are starving and cold. Some times extinction is on purpose which seems justified at the time but later is cause for alarm. Hmmmmmm Cap and Tax wonder what it is going to do to our food supply. Makes one think.
Bill Derryberry

Soren
What exactly are birds (whether they can speak english or not) adapting too? You assured us that in Germany and Denmark, they do not get hit by turbines, and it has never been a problem?….What do they need to adapt to then? Where you being less than honest? The Cretan Vulture in the video, did’nt look like it had any time to adapt. I see studies (from California, for example) that suggest birds do get hit by turbines. And I see Wind factory developers own reports, suggesting numbers of birds (Golden Eagles, for example) they expect will be killed by their own developments. Are you casting doubt on these reports?

Why can’t people state environmental facts and figures without resorting to alarmism?

Non information by Reuters:
Senator Baucus says opposes Kerry-Boxer climate bill
Baucus opposes the Kerry Boxer climate bill because he wants a 17% CO2 reduction instead of the proposed 20% CO2 reduction in the bill.
If this is “opposition”, shoot me!
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE5A42V220091105

How about a 80% Reduction of Boxer?
That ought to be about the term she has left in office.
Leave now, and never come back.
But, we have the perfect job in mind for Boxer.
Vanna White needs a vacation, and Pat hasn’t been able to find a stand-in.

Re Soren (22:01:11), who said “All species adapt, otherwise this planet would be devoid of life.”
Many species do adapt very well — for example, generalists such as crows, gulls, city pigeons, starlings — species which can eat many things (including bread, or fries thrown into a garbage can), and which can live and breed in different environments. Another example: possums and raccoons can live well in cities — we had raccoons mating in a tree outside our bedroom window in Washington, DC a decade ago.
But many species for one reason or another cannot adapt well. Often they have very particular nesting or dietary requirements, or are of too much interest to humans as food or as pets.
For example, Kirtland’s warbler (nests in upstate Michigan) was down to a few hundred in number two decades ago, and no one knew why the numbers had plummeted. It turned out that to protect its nest from predators, it needed to nest in jack pine trees of a certain size and age (about 10 years, I think). Fire suppression had worked so well that there were hardly any pines left suitable for the bird, so nesting failed year after year. They couldn’t adapt. Once the science had been done, prescribed burning occurred on a regular basis, and now there are many places in upstate Michigan with the right age and size of pine for the bird to nest. And we now are back to about 2500 Kirtland’s warblers.
Many macaws and parrots are now in critically low numbers in the wild because they are captured for the pet bird trade. One (Lear’s Macaw) is now beginning to come back from a low of about two hundred in the wild because conservation groups have worked with local residents to protect it. We are now captive breeding some macaw and parrot species for sale in the pet bird trade so that there will be less value for wild-caught birds, hopefully reducing pressure for smuggling them. Again, the birds couldn’t adapt to the economic imperative to capture and sell them.
Some species (Passenger Pigeon, Eskimo Curlew) were good eating and were easily enough hunted, and are now gone. Many species have, through intervention by humans, have had their numbers rebound — bison, for example, and grizzly bears in three states in the lower 48.
So while some species can adapt, many cannot. That is why some of us who care about extinction of species feel the need to take proactive steps to ensure their survival. I’ve given some examples of early success for a few species above, but there are (thank goodness) many more such examples, as well as examples of recent extinctions. I am proud to support groups who in my view do this work well — Conservation International, Nature Conservancy, and Ocean Conservancy.

John (07:43:22) :
“For example, Kirtland’s warbler (nests in upstate Michigan) was down to a few hundred in number two decades ago, and no one knew why the numbers had plummeted. It turned out that to protect its nest from predators, it needed to nest in jack pine trees of a certain size and age (about 10 years, I think). Fire suppression had worked so well(?) that there were hardly any pines left suitable for the bird, so nesting failed year after year. They couldn’t adapt. Once the science had been done, prescribed burning occurred on a regular basis, and now there are many places in upstate Michigan with the right age and size of pine for the bird to nest. And we now are back to about 2500 Kirtland’s warblers.”
Another example of greenie understanding of nature?
What I want to know from the RSPB is whether they have asked the birds if they want to be protected. Most wild critters seem much happier to be left alone by humans.

It is stated that some bird species face extinction because they can’t find nesting space anymore due to the heat insulation programs of the housing in Western Europe.
The moment this came out people put in millions and millions of nesting cases everywhere.

As for sparrows in the UK.
Sparrow Hawks & various kites are now protected and have multiplied, so smaller birds have declined.
Animal rights activists released mink into the wild & they decimated wildlife.
These well meaning idiots have no idea!
DaveE.

Juraj V. (09:15:55) :
Of course, there is an idiotic article translated from New Scientist in our newspapers, stating that “all species are endangered”, “30% of all frogs and snakes will disappear soon” and “our children will never see those animals or plants we can see today”.
Here’s hoping they are correct about the snakes.