The Times posted a surprising story this weekend that has skeptics cheering and alarmists hopping mad. It’s deja vu all over again. (See QOTW#21) Roger Pielke Sr. will be happy, because land use change is prominently mentioned.
Here’s the line:
“The evidence of climate change-driven extinctions have really been overplayed,”
Here’s the article, highlights mine:
Experts say that fears surrounding climate change are overblown
Hannah Devlin
Alarming predictions that climate change will lead to the extinction of hundreds of species may be exaggerated, according to Oxford scientists.
They say that many biodiversity forecasts have not taken into account the complexities of the landscape and frequently underestimate the ability of plants and animals to adapt to changes in their environment.
“The evidence of climate change-driven extinctions have really been overplayed,” said Professor Kathy Willis, a long-term ecologist at the University of Oxford and lead author of the article.
Professor Willis warned that alarmist reports were leading to ill-founded biodiversity policies in government and some major conservation groups. She said that climate change has become a “buzz word” that is taking priority while, in practice, changes in human use of land have a greater impact on the survival of species. “I’m certainly not a climate change denier, far from it, but we have to have sound policies for managing our ecosystems,” she said.
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature backed the article, saying that climate change is “far from the number-one threat” to the survival of most species. “There are so many other immediate threats that, by the time climate change really kicks in, many species will not exist any more,” said Jean Christophe Vie, deputy head of the IUCN species program, which is responsible for compiling the international Redlist of endangered species.
He 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.”
The article, published today in the journal Science, reviews recent research on climate change and biodiversity, arguing that many simulations are not sufficiently detailed to give accurate predictions.
In particular, the landscape is often described at very low resolution, not taking into account finer variations in vegetation and altitude that are vital predictors for biodiversity.
Read the complete article at the Times here:
Experts say that fears surrounding climate change are overblown
“Phillip Bratby (09:41:47) :
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds … has lost a lot of members because it supports most applications for wind farms in the UK, even though it knows wind turbines kill thousands of birds…”
…It lost my support when I realised a charity set up to promote the interests of birds was responsible for the erection of hundreds of bird shredders.
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?
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.”
John Clare is a journalist and is Media Officer for RSPB – just in case you thought he was a “climate scientist”.
Why can’t people state environmental facts and figures without resorting to alarmism?
I think the upcoming UK elections are going to drive a change in the focus of UK government sponsored science research. It looks very much like a Conservative government will be elected, and most Conservatives’ views are very much like Monckton’s. If I was a UK climate researcher, I would be thinking of ‘settling’ the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis as ‘unproven” and start thinking of testing hypotheses that would address the measures needed to adapt to climate change. Researchers are well aware of the political agendas that directly or indirectly support their research, and will adapt accordingly.
Look to see more of this after the Conservatives are elected – after all reasearch scientists need to adapt to changing environments just like the species they study
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
Andrew Brown it’s justified to burn heretics!
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/andrew-brown-its-justified-to-burn.html
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.
This idea that evolution is affected by changing climate is intersting. When evolution was formulated, the assumption was that evolution didn’t end, as ends are not amenable to rational argument. So species are not fixed in a permanent state. There is no ideal cat and ideal donkey in the divine mind which has its permanent copy on earth. How many new species there are and how many species are extinct, and species yet undiscovered gives some cause of conjecture. I will say though if Darwin was around today and developed the theory of evolution in the late 20th century, then today, we would be told something along the lines of.
“Oh no! We’re fragile and not permanent souls. We never thought it was this frail to be alive. we could tip over at any point, and look what evolution says. Its worse than we thought!”
The 19th century was however, a more rational and curious period, scientifically.
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.
I’m with Ron De Haan on this one.
I live in England and the sparrow ( a bird ) population has noticebly decreased in the UK. Some blame it on global warming!
When I go to Spain or Potugal on holdiday , there are huge sparrow populations.
Its lovely to see the cheeky little chaps. Spain and Portugal are probably 10c overall warmer than the OK— not the 0.6C or less allegedly caused by AGW So why are there sparrows there and not so many in the UK?
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.
AdrianS (11:26:12) :
I’m with Ron De Haan on this one.
I live in England and the sparrow ( a bird ) population has noticebly decreased in the UK. Some blame it on global warming!
When I go to Spain or Potugal on holdiday , there are huge sparrow populations.
Its lovely to see the cheeky little chaps. Spain and Portugal are probably 10c overall warmer than the OK— not the 0.6C or less allegedly caused by AGW So why are there sparrows there and not so many in the UK?
Don’t forget Italy.
The super swarms over the city of Rome are famous but it’s inhabitants hate it because some times it “rains” bird shit.
There is a tv series titled “New Wilderness” celebrating how well nature and wild life has adapted to the human civilization and how they exploit the opportunities provided by the land use by humans, the parks and natural parks and resorts.
All those alarmists!
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.
Some things that happen really make me laugh loud. In the UK, for hundreds of years, people worked the forests for what was needed, which was firewood and long and straight poles. They would cut off a tree at a height of about 4 feet well within the forest. Then shoots would grow, and since the sunlight those shoots did get came from pretty much straight up, the shoots grew pretty much straight up. Branches which would have come from those shoots were “nipped in the bud”, resulting in knot free long poles. In about 15 or 20 years. Faster growing sprouts would be harvested as firewood when they got to the right diameter.
This practice opened up clearings in which animals and plants other than trees could do well.
This practice has stopped, as the products are no longer needed. The forests are closing in again on these previously clear spaces, and the various species other than trees no longer can grow, as their habitat is being destroyed by natural forces. So the scientists are wringing their hands with woe . . . because no longer are humans interferring with nature and many species are dying out.
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.
The Climate Engine!
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/the-climate-engine/
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.
Is not the extinction of various sub-species,that is,genetic mutations,merely an evolutionary regression to the mean?