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 %$@ur momisugly#&* 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.