Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
As Anthony Watts highlighted, the recent paper in Nature (paywalled, reported here) on extinctions agreed with the main conclusion that I had established in my post “Where Are The Corpses“. The conclusion was that the “species/area relationship” as currently used doesn’t work to predict extinctions, and thus there is no “Sixth Wave of Extinctions” going on.
===========================================
============================================
This example of an imaginary “wave of extinctions” once again highlights the difficulties of over-credulous scientists as well as the public. The consensus of scientific and public opinion has been that we are in the middle of a mythical “sixth wave” of extinction. In fact, this consensus was much more far-reaching than the claimed consensus regarding climate science … and just as wrong. Sadly, the “Sixth Wave of Extinction” meme is likely to be very hard to kill.
Figure 1. Another alarmist hockeystick. This is the most common graph that comes up on Google Images for “rate of extinction”. I cannot find any attribution for the graph. I do note that we haven’t seen the hundreds of extinctions claimed by whoever made the graph, and that the person who made the graph can’t spell “extinct”. But the graph is hugely popular, replicated on blog after blog.
One web site where this Fig. 1 image is found titles the thread “Bigger Threat Than Global Warming: Mass Species Extinction” … it is good that we have a new measurement standard for threats, because “Terrorism Threat Level Orange” sounds so last decade. And since we already have been informed that global warming is a bigger threat than terrorism, we now have a complete multi-level threat scale — mass extinction > global warming > terrorism. I also like how no animals went extinct from 1700 to 1900. But I digress … here’s the real historical extinction picture since the year 1500, from my post cited above;
Figure 2. Mammal and Bird Extinctions. All causes, all locations. 17 year Gaussian average. The first recorded extinctions resulted from introduced species during the first wave of European exploration of the Western Hemisphere, mostly on Caribbean Islands. The second wave of extinctions is coincident with the spread of various colonial empires (and their concomitant introduced cats, rabbits, diseases, mongooses, rifles, rats, dogs, etc) through the 18th and 19th and into the 20th centuries.
I have pleaded for common sense in this question by asking, where are the corpses of all of these supposedly extinct species? I looked high and low for birds or mammals that had gone extinct through habitat reduction. I found none. I searched the Red List. I searched the CREO list. I started investigating this question of extinctions at the end of 2001, as a result of E. O. Wilson, Stuart Pimm, and other co-authors publishing their extinction claims (pdf) in December 2001 as a rebuttal to Lomborg’s “The Skeptical Environmentalist”.
By March 2002 I had written and privately circulated what eventually (with much interesting research and analysis omitted) became my 2010 WUWT blog post on extinction, “Where Are The Corpses”. By dint of burning gallons of midnight oil (organic CO2-free oil, I might add), it took me three months, while working full-time at a day job, to establish from the actual extinction records that Wilson was wrong. I tried to get the results of my analysis published in 2004 with no success. And fair enough, my submission was not in the best of shape. If I were the editor I might have turned me down. Although the ideas were all there, the problem was I didn’t speak the scientific dialect of Journalese all that well back then. Still don’t, for that matter. But all along I have said that the huge, overblown extinction numbers were a fantasy. And almost a decade later, the latest study in Nature agrees.
There are several lessons that I draw from all of this. I sometimes divide lessons into three piles—the good, the bad, and the interesting. First, the good. Science eventually is self-correcting. The claim that 27,000 species are going extinct every year and the “Sixth Wave of Extinctions” will end up in the trash-bin of alarmist scientific claims.
Next, the bad news. The self-correction is way, way too slow. The claim of extraordinary extinctions was made by E. O. Wilson in 1992. It’s 20 years later, and the process of throwing out the garbage is just begun. C’mon, folks, this the 21st century. We need to become much more skeptical overall. The self-correction process of science needs to start moving faster. We can no longer afford the delays occasioned by the blind acceptance of incorrect theories. Scientists these days are nowhere near suspicious enough. And there’s more bad news.
Once again, we have a “scientific consensus” which is based on heartfelt emotion rather than actual data. I see Wilson’s claim as the source of all of this. In 1992, he said that some 27,000 species were going extinct each year. When I read that, my Urban Legend Alarm started ringing loud enough for Helen Keller to notice. I said “No way that can be right, the number’s way too big” … and it appears I was correct.
Unfortunately, this claim fit right in with the environmentalists reasonable desire to minimize clear-cutting of tropical forests. Confirmation bias raised its ugly head, and as a result the extinction numbers were never examined. Instead, the bogus claim immediately found its way onto bumper stickers and T-shirts and rainforest campaigns.
Now, I grew up in the middle of the forest, with no neighbors for miles, and I love the forest. So don’t get me wrong. The problem was not the environmentalists’ legitimate desire to properly protect or manage the forest.
The problem was the bogus claim of thousands of extinctions, a claim that unfortunately fit too perfectly into the reasonable desire to stop wantonly clear-cutting the rainforest. Here at last was the magic bullet, the way to the public’s consciousness (and wallet). It fit so well that nobody wanted to listen to their own urban legend alarms. Nobody wanted to be the one to say “27,000 extinctions a year since 1992 … that’s half a million species that are supposed to be dead … how come we haven’t seen any of them yet?”. So as in the CO2 debacle, the environmental movement once again, and from the best of motives, threw its not inconsiderably weight behind bogus science.
That’s the good and the bad, now for the interesting part. How does such a consensus persist? Generally, by special pleading. If you can’t argue the pig, you argue the squeal.
For example, one of the main exponents of the species/area consensus on extinctions is Dr. Stuart Pimm. He was one of the authors of the attack on The Skeptical Environmentalist that I mentioned above. He was also courageous enough to comment on this issue on the thread Anthony started that I cited above, and that gets my respect. I like to see a man who is willing to publicly stand up for his ideas.
Dr. Pimm says that his studies have shown that the species area relationship is actually borne out by the evidence. In his comment to that thread, he lays out his explanation in one of my favorite ways, the “thought experiment”, as follows:
Imagine destruction that wipes out 95% of the habitat in an area metaphorically “overnight”. How many species have disappeared “the following morning”? The paper tells you. It is not many, just those wholly restricted to the 95% (and absent from the 5% where they would survive). The important question is …
How many of additional species living lonely lives in their isolated patches (the 5%) would become extinct eventually because their population sizes are too small to be viable? A different species-area curve applies — the one for islands, which are isolated. It is a much larger number of extinctions, of course, and the one used in the studies mentioned above that find such compelling agreement between predicted against observed extinctions.
That sounds right … if his species/area relationship theory is correct. Some species would go extinct immediately. The rest would follow an exponential decay from that time to when they reach their new equilibrium. So we’d see an immediate effect, then a decreasing number of extinctions as the years went by until the final equilibrium was reached. If his theory is correct.
But when I read Dr. Pimm’s actual work, I don’t find the names of actual species that have gone extinct from habitat reduction. I don’t find “compelling agreement between predicted against observed extinctions”. Instead, I find things like this example, from “Timeline Between Deforestation and Bird Extinction in Tropical Forest Fragments” :
Our previous work employs the familiar, empirical relationship between the size of an area, A, and the number of species it contains, S, to predict how many species should eventually be lost when forest area is reduced. We have two cases studies: the Atlantic Forest region of South America (Brooks & Balmford 1996) and the islands of Southeast Asia (Brooks et al. 1997). The global survey of Collar et al. (1994) includes lists of the bird species threatened with extinction in these regions. The predicted numbers of species lost from deforestation closely match these independently compiled totals of threatened species. This match suggests that these threatened species will indeed become extinct in due course and thus that we can predict the eventual species losses.
Note that the “species/area relationship” being applied to extinctions is described as the “familiar, empirical relationship”. This is an indication of the strength of the consensus regarding the claimed relationship.
OK. What’s wrong with the logic in Dr. Pimm’s paragraph?
His logic goes as follows. Having noticed that there have not been any bird extinctions from habitat reduction, he explains this by saying that the birds are “destined for extinction”. His species/area relationship predicts a certain number of extinctions. He finds that according to the Red List, about that same number of birds are “threatened with extinction”. This, he says, shows that his estimates are very reasonable, supporting the idea that the species/area relationship is correct.
There are two problems with that. The first is a problem with the evidence. Even if we assume a fairly long period until the calculated number of species goes extinct, the cutting of the tropical forests has been going on for many decades now. Plus as Dr. Pimm says, some species, perhaps not a lot but certainly some, should have gone extinct immediately. So from those two effects, we should have seen some bird and mammal extinctions by now. But we haven’t seen those predicted extinctions from habitat reduction. This makes his claim very doubtful from the start.
So that’s a problem with the evidence. I go through the actual numbers in “Where Are The Corpses?“. By now, if we really were in the midst of the “Sixth Wave of Extinctions”, someone should be able to point to dozens of bird and mammal species that have gone extinct from habitat reduction even if the extinctions occur very slowly. So the evidence doesn’t support his claim.
(Let me digress a moment and request that people not say “but what about the quagga, it’s extinct”, or “you left that noble bird, the nimble-fingered purse-snatcher, off the list of bird extinctions”. CREO says the quagga is extant under a valid species name, but that’s not the point. I don’t wish to be sidetracked into debating the reality of one or two extinctions. According to Wilson we should have seen dozens and dozens of bird and mammal extinctions by now. Unless you know where those missing dozens and dozens of extinctions are, I don’t want to debate whether I should have included the extinction of the double-breasted seersucker. End of digression.)
Those are problems with the evidence. But what’s wrong with Dr. Pimm’s logic?
The problem with the logic is a bit more subtle. If you go to the Red List, yes, you will find that those birds he mentions are indeed listed as being threatened with extinction. So at first blush, it seems this supports his “species/area relationship” claim.
But why does the Red List say those birds are threatened with extinction?
Well … in most instances, because of loss of habitat … which they say leads to the grave threat of extinction because that is what’s predicted by the species/area relationship.
So Dr. Pimm’s logic is perfectly circular. As long as we accept that there is a mathematical relationship (species/area) between habitat reduction and extinctions, we can show that there is a mathematical relationship between habitat reduction and extinctions. We just declare species that have lost habitat as “Threatened With Extinction”, and presto! We now have the evidence to support the “species/area relationship”.
And since in the 21st century there is hardly a bird or mammal species which has not lost habitat, this allows the placing of more and more species onto the “threatened” lists. It also allows the putative cause called “habitat reduction” to be added to virtually any animal on the Red List … but there’s a huge problem.
The dang creatures just refuse to oblige by going extinct as Drs. Wilson and Pimm have been predicting for lo these many years. They won’t die, the cheeky beggars. Rather impolite of the birds and mammals, I’d say.
Finally, let me use this example to encourage people to use their common sense, to consider the “reasonableness” of the numbers that they encounter. The reality of the 21st century is that we need to run with our “bad number detectors” set to maximum gain. When someone claims that 27,000 species are going extinct every year, think about that number. Does it make sense? Does it seem to be a reasonable size? Extrapolate it out, that’s a quarter million species claimed to be going extinct per decade, a half million species since Wilson made the prediction. Is it reasonable that the world lost a half million species … but nobody can come up with any corpses?
Here is the rude truth about bird and mammal extinctions. Life is incredibly resilient. Once it gets started, it’s a bitch to stop. Almost all of the bird and mammal extinctions were the result of one species (specifically including humans) actively and tenaciously hunting another species to extinction. Most of the time this was an introduced species (specifically including Europeans during the waves of conquest and empire). The main extinction threat to mammals and birds around the planet has never been habitat reduction. It is species-on-species predation in its infinite variety. It was introduced brown tree snakes eating native birds in Guam, and humans hunting the Carolina Parakeets for their feathers to supply the millinery trade in New York.
And these days, of course, it is the “bushmeat” trade that is a huge threat to many African bird and mammal species, including rare and endangered primates. The idea that those species are threatened because of “habitat reduction” or “climate change” is a huge misdirection that obscures the real problems, which are the same problems as always … human predation and introduced species.
My regards to all,
w.
NOTES OF NOTE:
• While I strongly advocate checking to see if numbers are reasonable, “reasonableness” is not in itself something to stand on. It is simply one part of the “smell test”. And the smell test can’t falsify anything. But it certainly can indicate where to take a hard mathematical or observational look to find out why the number seems so far out of range.
• I grew up in the forest. I live in the forest now. When I look out from my back deck I see nothing but redwoods and oaks and bay laurel, with a tiny triangle of ocean glimmering in the distance. I believe in protecting and managing and harvesting and preserving the forests. In addition, biodiversity is always of value to an ecosystem, increasing its stability, adaptability, and longevity. This article is about extinctions, not about whether the forest should be properly protected, harvested, and managed.
• I see that my previous comments have made it into the Wall Street Journal.
Another wrinkle in “species” definition is that brown bears are only a colour variation of the “black bear”, which also occurs in “blue” (silvery), “red” (cinamon), “white” (the “Kermode” bear common in some areas of the B.C. coast, fewer elsewhere), and of course basic black. Biologists on the BC coast say some minor factor makes the visible difference.
(As well I suggest looking at habitat as a possible factor – distribution of brown versus black would be of interest as both are plentiful.) Food sources might be another (but the orangy tinge to the Kermode bear is only temporary, due to something salmon ingest, being a seasonal food for the bears).
And beware shade may vary with season, as coarser outer hair is grown or shed.
Grizzly bears are quite different from black bears, as are polar bears.
Wayne Richards:
Reality is that garter snakes are alive in simple lawns & gardens in the Victoria BC area.
There may be fewer than there used to be, but not the scarcity you claim. Do keep in mind they are not easy to spot, I’d expect that with more flower gardens and taller grass fewer would be noticed.
Predators certainly can be a problem, many big birds around for example.
The whole species thing seems dependent on how much people actually look, logically. When the small “sharp-tailed snake” got publicity in the southern VI/Gulf Islands area people reported more (I speculate they simply weren’t noticed or differentiated from worms, as they tend to stay hidden). And recently in Metchosin (west of Victoria) people found an amazing number of small critters and plants during a deliberate looking survey (like a bird-watching exercise).
DesertYote says:
June 4, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Thanks for that info. It does fit with the plasticity of some fish species, given the time involved in that story. And still does raise questions about what a ‘species’ means.
One that caught my eye was an alleged ‘species’ of dace and a similar isolation in a unique habitat, on an even shorter timespan, and classified back in the split-and-name-after-me- or-my-boss era. Long supposedly extinct. I assume that if you let the root dace stock recolonize that very local area they will morph back to something similar in (relative) no time to adapt to that environment. If that localized habitat hadn’t changed since then it could end up identical. That is happening now so we shall find out. Evolution never sleeps.
Willis wrote:
“If a particular species is only found in one location in the entire globe, obviously they didn’t get the message of “go forth and multiply”.
That is true of neo-endemics, completely false for paleo-endemics. The La Brea tar pit fauna lived in mixed cypress forest. Cypresses also covered vast areas of the nascent Sierra. Some of those cypress species are likely now extinct (palynologists and paleontologists are very cautious about attributing fossils to specific species for most groups of plants, so we cannot know for sure), others cling to a precarious existence in tiny islands of extant habitat. Torrey Pine, Monterey Pine, Sequoia, and Carpinteria are all members of the California charismatic megaflora that have been centimated by natural (or in a few cases possibly early human-induced) habitat loss. Well, that’s what a century of careful field work has shown, anyway. I would recommend the works of Raven and Axelrod on paleo-endemism in California, but beware…for some individuals, authoritative empirical treatises can have a tendency to dampen the free flow of ideas.
Thanks, Matt. You are 100% correct about “neo” (new) and “paleo” (old) endemics.
My point was that if a species only exists in a tiny restricted area of the planet, saying that it is habitat-limited (even though it may be) or that habitat loss is a problem for the species (which may also be true) doesn’t tell all of the story. For example, some species live in a tiny area, not because of habitat limitations, but because they are simply out-competed elsewhere. And there’s not a whole lot that humans can do about that.
w.
And another example of what people find when they actually are able to track the more mobile critters:
http://www.canada.com/technology/Killer+whale+tracked+making+incredible+journey+from+Arctic+Azores/4896781/story.html
An Orca (aka “killer whale”) has been tracked from Canada’s Arctic to near the Azores, where the radio tag stopped working.
Earlier a grey whale was tracked from the area of Russia/Japan around the top of the Pacific to near Baja California, where the radio tag stopped reporting.
In both cases the whale kept moving, once it started.
(The Orca stayed in the Arctic until it got cold. A real “snowbird”? 😉 Historical records say orcas were seen in quantity south of the Azores in the winter. Hey, they aren’t dumb – the Artic is cold in winter. 🙂
The article reports that orcas are being seen more frequently in the Arctic, especially in Hudson’s Bay, perhaps due to less ice and more prey. (The ones in the eastern Arctic appear to be eating sea mammals such as bowhead whales, on the west coast of NA some eat sea mammals like seals while others prefer salmon.)
Al Gored says:
June 2, 2011 at 10:16 pm
Maybe somebody someday can get some DNA samples analyzed. Somebody real honest as even that has been corrupted by the Conservation Biology gang and it is almost impossible to verify what they say due to the cost.
Just to follow up on this…
“Animal rights groups are pressing a case in federal court maintaining that wild horses roamed the West about 1.5 million years ago and didn’t disappear until as recently as 7,600 years ago. More important, they say, a growing stockpile of DNA evidence shows conclusively that today’s horses are genetically linked to those ancient ancestors.”
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/06/wild-horses-nevada-blm-native-species.html
LOL. No doubt they are “genetically linked” but that is, of course, meaningless in this context. The Spanish who brought the horse back were ‘genetically linked’ to Native North Americans too. Chimps are genetically linked to both. Just a hint of what lies can be told with ‘DNA evidence’ and it gets much worse than this. presumably this ‘eveidence’ did not need to be manufactured.
Gosh
I have left it a bit late. Everyone who is not extinct seems to have had a go at this. I admit to have not read all the posts so i apologise if someone has already made this following observation:
I really enjoyed reading what you say and I don’t argue with the main thrust of what you say about the fabrication of animal extinctions or the veracity of the research.
But I do take issue with the context.
What you have done is apply academic narrowness to the debate. This is an important problem with science in my view. This problem emerges when people focus down onto a small aspect of something and under such forensic examination, the big picture gets lost. And yet it is the Big Picture that counts in the end. In this case the end is about biodiversity conservation.
So, to respond at the simplest level (and my comment come from the Australian perspective as I know Australia best) I would argue that the absolute number of extinctions that have happened in the past 200 years, or ten years, is not all that important. EG, in the Big Picture, it is of very little significance if the Cape York Pin-striped Land Snail goes extinct.
What is important is ‘trending’. IE how is the extinction thing trending. Up, down or flat? And how are the drivers of extinction trending?
I would argue that what IS important is the number of species that are at risk of extinction. I believe that right around the world we are just seeing the tip of an emerging iceberg in terms of extinctions.
Firstly I would argue that (in terms of conservation of species) that by the time an animal becomes rare (or ‘near threatened’ in jargon) it is already nearly too late. In other words Willis, you are putting emphasis on absolute extinctions, when in fact you should be worrying about the status of a species long before it becomes extinct or even rare (Assuming that Humans are the cause of this rareness). This is because the importance of a species on our planet is not whether or not it is extinct, but whether or not it can fulfill its evolutionary role in the natural environment. What the Cane Toad has done in north Australia is a great example of this. Using your measure, the exotic pest the CaneT toad is not a problem as it has not caused one extinction (as far as we know). But this fails to recognise that the Cane Toad has single handedly removed Quolls, Goannas, Phascogales, Death Adders, King Brown Snakes and Olive Pythons etc., etc. from the natural ecological processes. As far as the landscape is concerned, it does not matter a rats bum if these species are technically ‘extinct’. This is because they are now PRACTICALLY extinct, in terms of their role in the landscape. This is called Ecological Extinction.
Then, in north Australia, when you add the exotic African Grasses and Mimosa pigra and Salvinia molesta to the equasion – it is easy to see that in 50 years there will be stacks of other species reduced to “ecological extinction”. But maybe you see this as OK? In the whole of arid Australia from Port Augusta in the south to Ningaloo in the west and Longreach in the east, we see the exotic Buffell Grass doing the same as African Grasses in the north. But this is OK because Buffell Grass may not cause any absolute extinctions?!!!
In fact, most of our conservation efforts need to be focussed on Near Threatened species; not those that are close to extinction. For these, it is already too late. Those that are close to extinction should be the subject of captive breeding programs, but I would call these “Counter Extinction” strategies, not “Conservation” strategies.
Next we have the problem of all species not being equal. So if people are arguing that ‘reports of our extinctions have been exaggerated’, one need to look at what species are involved – to put this into a relevant context. EG would you give equal weight to the extinction of the Cape York Pin-striped Land Snail and the Sumatran Rhinoceros? It may be very anthropocentric of me, but I would rather see the Rhino saved than the snail. Or Orangutans vs the Centralian Rock Rat? So I think that most people would agree with me that what species go extinct is more important than how many. As another example – the Top End of the Northern Territory of Australia appears to have had a shocking extinction rate amongst the land snails. Probably due to human induced changes in fire regimes. But you don’t read much about that. But you do hear about what Cane Toads have done to quolls.
Ah – but you might argue that we are just putting a human biased value on what is important or not – quolls are prettier than land snails.
OK, then lets look at it from a purely ecological point of view: Are all species equal in the eyes of nature (not humans)? Ask your self – is one of these more important than another if they go extinct: – the Pin-striped Land Snail or Antarctic krill?!!!!!!
I could go on about things such as:
How do you determine if something is extinct or not? This is not easy and can take decades.
Are we including microbiological species in the ledger, or only animals we can see?
Are we – as custodians of the earth – going to be happy in the knowledge that all we have to worry about are the numbers of absolute extinctions and not about all those thousands of spp. which are being reduced to Ecological Extinction?
What about the issue of regional extinctions? – eg the Eastern Quoll is extinct in New South Wales but still persists in the state of Victoria. Should NSW be sanguine about that?
SO – I love your argument and thank you for your work and effort – but in terms of nature conservation the whole focus on the word “extinction” is too narrow to be important, I reckon.
By by
“Academic narrowness.” You know, I don’t think I’ve ever been accused of that before, what with me not being an academic and all. And my interests range so widely, too.
In any case, “biodiversity conservation” is not the big picture. That’s your big picture. You don’t get to define what the big picture is for me and everyone else. While your big picture might be about biodiversity conservation, someone else’s big picture might be about how to best fit nine billion people onto the planet with as little damage as possible. (I’m not saying that’s my big picture, it’s just an example).
I, on the other hand, say that the claims about a “sixth wave” of extinctions are totally unsupported by the evidence. I think that works to the huge detriment of both the environment and the environmental movement. Using false claims to support an argument always backfires. Always. It gives your opponents ammunition, and lets them throw the baby out with the bathwater. Since I care about the forest and I care about the environment, I don’t want them to have that ammunition. So I write to show that the claims of 27,000 extinctions per year are hype. In this way I’m trying to push the debate where it should be, which (as I think we both agree) is not about extinctions. It’s about not damaging our healthy ecosystems more than necessary and possible.
That’s my big picture, Greg. Thanks for asking.
My point exactly. Globally, extinctions are trending down. Might change in the future, but that’s what the evidence shows to date. As to which way the “drivers” are going, there’s only one major “driver” — one species actively hunting another species to extinction. Almost all extinctions have been from that one cause. Humans certainly have hunted species to extinction in the past, and may in the future. And the introduction of “alien” species will cause extinctions for as long as it happens.
But a “sixth wave”? There’s no evidence for that at all. Nor is there evidence that habitat reduction by itself has ever driven any bird or mammal extinct … and with all of the forests that humans have cut down, if it was a significant effect we’d have seen at least some extinctions from that.
You can certainly argue that. My point is simple. You don’t have any evidence for that argument, which makes it ring hollow. Lots of people have been arguing that exact claim, that we are in or just about in or at the doorway to or just about to start or right at the tip of the “sixth wave” of evolution tomorrow, honest we are. The claim was first made abut twenty years ago, of 27,000 extinctions per year, that’s over half a million extinctions we should have had by now … but where are the corpses? You say it’s the “tip of the iceberg”, but without any corpses in the visible “tip” of the iceberg, it’s hard to worry about what’s claimed to be underwater.
Firstly, can I tell you how pompous it sounds for you to stand up and tell me what “in fact” I should be worrying about? Don’t you guys ever get tired of telling people what they should be doing, and what they should be believing, and what they should be worrying about?
Actually, what I worry about are folks who falsely claim that the rates of extinction are going through the roof. I think that they should be worrying about biodiversity rather than extinction, because the extinctions are a false claim, and so I fight against that claim … but hey, that’s just me.
Greg, I’ve never said that a species that doesn’t cause extinctions is not a problem, that’s a misunderstanding. Nor in general do I have a “measure”, as in your claim that “By your measure …”, for whether something is a problem. I look at each instance.
Yes, I understand that very well, except I call it either “functional extinction” or “local extinction” depending on the extent.. However, that’s not what I was discussing. You eco-folks all want me to discuss whatever your horror of the minute might be. Yes, your issues may well be important … but what does that have to do with me? What gives you the right to come in and tell me I shouldn’t be talking about extinction, but about some other subject? You are free to talk about what you think is important. Please extend me the same courtesy.
And maybe you see it as OK? What’s with the rhetorical question? When did I ever say it was OK?
Here’s the end of my main post on the subject, “Where are the Corpses?”
Now, call me crazy, but doesn’t that cover each and every one of your issues? I’ve already specifically addressed your questions. If you’re too lazy to read what I cited or to remember what it said, that’s on you. But for you to come and lecture me about not dealing with them? That just makes it clear that you didn’t do your homework.
Yes, I agree with all of that … so why are you re-stating it?
Well, I focused on the extinction of mammals and birds. Not because they are more or less important than other species, but because they are a) well studied, and b) often very visible. That gave me the most data.
Are all species equal? Of course not. I wouldn’t say one word if the four species of the malaria parasite all went extinct.
You are having an argument with yourself, as I’ve never taken the opposing position to your claims. And while initially it is a bit interesting to watch someone argue with themselves, at the end of the day it’s like listening to the wacked-out lady who stands on the street corner arguing with herself—there’s much more heat than light, and I’m not all that interested in either side of her personality.
Actually the CREO has an extensive set of rules for this … which you would know if you’d bothered to read the citations I gave.
I said in my essay what I was studying, birds and mammals … but what “ledger” are you speaking of?
It is exciting that you have been named to be one of the “Custodians” of the earth. I guess my invitation must have gotten lost in the mail. Is there a secret decoder ring that goes with being named Custodian? Does the post come with a good salary? If we don’t like you as Custodian, can we fire you?
In any case, I have no idea if the Custodians of the Earth are happy or not. I’m happy to know that nature is more resilient than I had thought. I’m happy to find out that 27,000 species haven’t gone extinct as had been repeated ad nauseum. I’d be happier if the environmental movement hadn’t bought into the bogus claims hook, line, and all the rest. That’s not good for the environment.
In any case, as their representative can you tell us if the Custodians of the Earth are happy, and what they’re happy about?
Me, I have hopes of someday being named a Citizen of the Earth, if I treat the other species with the respect they deserve … I’ll work on Custodian after that.
Local extinctions, local extinctions, that sounds familiar, why is that … oh, wait, I know why, because I SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED IT IN MY ESSAY.
Gosh, thanks for playing then. It’s always so much fun to get a visit from someone who hasn’t bothered to read what I wrote, a man who comes in to lecture me on what an idiot I am, lets me know that he’s one of the Custodians of the Earth, and tells me what he “reckons” is the only true path to salvation. It’s not often that we get an actual Custodian here at WUWT, it’s a rare honor.
I think you mean “Bye bye” … although I could be wrong. If it does mean “bye bye”, then thanks for dropping by, don’t let the habitat reduction extinctions hit you in the Quolls on the way out … oh, wait, how could that be, because despite extensive reductions throughout the last 500 years, there haven’t been any extinctions from that cause.
But don’t take that to mean that there’s no problems with your Quolls. I don’t want to be misunderstood again. Local extinction is a real issue … as I’ve said from the beginning. So don’t get your Quolls in an uproar, we actually agree much more than we disagree.
w.
PS – In a serious vein, Greg, as my quotation from my essay attests, in general I do agree with you—you just didn’t bother to read what I wrote. But you’re such a pompous and arrogant fellow (in writing, likely not in person), so obviously out to lecture us fools on the error of our ways, that all I want to do is push back. I’m sick of being lectured by Ecofanatics, I was on the front line of the ecology wars before most of them (and perhaps you) were born.
Now when you’ve managed to insult someone like myself, someone who basically agrees with you, when someone who is on your side of the argument thinks that you’re acting like an Ecofreak, it is a very strong sign that you should take a hard look at your style and deportment.
Just sayin’ …
Wow. Well and thoroughly deconstructed, Willis.
There’s another point: the examples from Australia also need to be put “in context”. If ever there was a territory designed for massive species overturn if a “bridge” allowing ingress of foreign species was ever opened, Australia is it. Born to be an extinction victim, it was. And preventing it would have required a level of self-control and foresight never yet observed, unfortunately.
Think of Australia and NZ as experiments in species isolation. The open the door to niche competition with the world. Predict the result. Now undo the consequences.
Oops.
typo: “then open the door”