Guest essay by Jim Steele,director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University and author of Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism
Thirty years ago I never would have dreamed I would or could utter the words of my title. As a left-leaning young ecologist, I hated the way Limbaugh painted all environmentalists as “whackos”! I was a strong believer in the Endangered Species Act as a law that would ensure people stopped to consider win-win solutions for humans and all other species. I believed conservation science could guide us toward wise environmental stewardship, and when married to innovative entrepreneurial endeavors, we could build a better world for all. As director of a university environmental field station, I met people of all political persuasions eager to enjoy and protect the environment, and I believed both the left and right would rally around sound environmental science. So why did Rush label us as whackos? I saw Limbaugh’s polarizing polemics as an attack on the environment. But now I must agree with Rush’s recent view that “Apocalyptic, Fear-Mongering Accelerates the Decline of Our Culture”. In his critique of a newly published paper, “Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction” (hereafter Ceballos and Ehrlich 2015), Rush correctly points out that it is just another example of apocalyptic fear mongering that drives some people into hopeless despair, while forcing others to ignore scientists’ steady drone that the end of the world is before us.
As an ecologist I read several papers a week, looking for pearls of wisdom that would make us better stewards of the environment. But Ceballos and Ehrlich 2015 offered absolutely nothing new and absolutely nothing useful. They simply created a framework that would dramatize their numbers stating, “Our analysis emphasizes that our global society has started to destroy species of other organisms at an accelerating rate, initiating a mass extinction episode unparalleled for 65 million years.” Started to destroy…??? What are we now doing to suddenly promote mass extinctions?
Indeed more species have likely gone extinct in the past 500 years due to habitat loss, overhunting and invasive species than are known to have gone extinct over the past 400 thousand years, despite the extreme climate shifts between the ice age glacials and warm interglacials. But the bulk of those extinctions were the result of past human actions that are now being rectified. At this essay’s conclusion, I added a table for the first 100 of the 140 extinct bird species from the same IUCN database that Ceballos and Ehrlich 2015 used for their paper. Unlike Ceballos and Ehrlich 2015, I included extinction dates and the reason the IUCN has justified their extinction status. Notice that most extinct species inhabited islands where organisms are extremely sensitive to all invasive species. That damage has already been done. So in contrast to claims we are “entering” an era of accelerated mass extinctions, it would be more honest to say humans are now reversing what began 500 years ago.
Most island die-offs began shortly after Columbus’ “discovery” of the New World that encouraged worldwide exploration. Of the 100 extinct birds listed below, three species were extinct in the 1500s, 17 in the 1600s, 18 in the 1700s, 32 in the 1800s, and 30 in the 1900s. Overhunting claimed many island species like the Dodo early on, as hungry sailors and settlers struggled to survive. However a large proportion of recent extinctions happened unintentionally due to introduced rats that stowed away on visiting ships, (or more recently the introduced brown tree snake). Without natural predators, rat populations exploded. So islanders intentionally introduced cats, ferrets and mongoose to kill the rats. But island wildlife had evolved without any threat from land predators, so most species were behaviorally ill adapted to survive the onslaught of these new arrivals. Many island birds evolved flightlessness and explorers reported island species as remarkably tame. Most of the other extinct vertebrate species on the IUCN list suffered a similar fate in the wake of introduced species. Many of the most recent extinctions in the 1900s were simply distressed species succumbing to centuries of depredation from introduced species and lost habitat. Oddly enough, when the Christian Science Monitor hyped Ceballos and Ehrlich 2015 with How To Prevent The Sixth Mass Extinction, their only solution was a cure that is much worse than the disease. They resurrected Camille Parmesan’s pitch for widespread introduction of species into new habitats where climate change is predicted to create a more favorable environment. Not only has that remedy always caused disastrous ecological disruptions, but climate models have been notoriously awful about simulating regional climate changes.
The causes of past extinctions have been noted for decades and centuries. Instead of hammering the public with gloom and doom, Ceballos and Ehrlich 2015 would have served us better by reporting how extensive recent efforts are saving species. Globally people have been diligently working to prevent further island extinctions. For example, the Aleutian Goose was once believed to be extinct until a few individuals were found on a remote island. The goose had disappeared from all its other breeding islands because fur farmers had introduced arctic and red foxes. Recognizing the problem, humans quickly removed the foxes and the species rebounded immediately (as did many other breeding sea birds). The Aleutian Goose is now so abundant it is considered a pest on its wintering grounds. Similarly worldwide efforts to eradicate introduced “pest” species are reporting various levels of success. For a more hopeful outlook, and to appreciate how human efforts are promoting biodiversity, I suggest visiting the websites of organizations like Island Conservation or reading about successful eradications.
Unconscionably, although most past extinctions, as well as presently endangered species, are found on islands, and despite widespread local efforts that are preventing further island extinctions, Ceballos and Ehrlich 2015’s so-called “science” and self-prmoting press releases are only generating horribly despairing and deceptive headlines proclaiming, “Sixth mass extinction is here: Humanity’s existence threatened.”.
Why didn’t Ceballos and Ehrlich 2015 point out productive efforts that are preventing further extinctions? Why not offer real conservation guidance and optimism? It appears they prefer denigrating modern society and promoting apocalyptic fear mongering rather than promoting good conservation and good science. They wrote, “Modern extinction rates have increased sharply over the past 200 years (corresponding to the rise of industrial society) and are considerably higher than background rates”. But suggesting modern industrial society “corresponds” with those extinction is a horrible illusion. A stronger case can be made that industrial society will be wildlife’s savior.
Although the geometric growth of human populations for the past 500 years has undeniably led to increased habitat destruction and overhunting. But population growth may soon plateau and then reverse its growth trend. The “evils” of population growth have been the mainstay of influential apocalyptic predictions from Malthus in the 1700s to Ehrlich in recent decades. In Ehrlich’s 1968 book The Population Bomb, he warned of the mass starvation in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation. But as Limbaugh noted, Ehrlich’s predictions have failed miserably. So perhaps his “new extinction research” is just an attempt to regain some support for his widely criticized “end of the earth” beliefs. But if Ehrlich is suggesting booming human populations will soon cause the Sixth Mass Extinction, then he has failed to report a more optimistic consensus that our modern industrial society is now reducing population pressures.
Ecologists divide animal reproductive strategies in to 2 broad categories. R-selected species provide little parental care and produce abundant young, anticipating high mortality. In contrast K-selected species produce few young but invest a lot of parental care. Modern industrial societies have encouraged humans to evolve from a R-selected to a K-selected species. Where humans once depended on cheap child labor to operate marginal subsistence farms, there was an economic advantage to having many children. In contrast industrial societies demand greater parental investment and more education, so reproduction is delayed and families are smaller. Furthermore mechanization of agriculture has reduced the demand for abundant cheap labor on marginal farms.
Ecologists calculate that human populations require a fertility rate of 2.1 births per female to offset deaths. A fertility rate below 2.1 causes the population to decline, while a higher fertility rate causes population to grow. In the 1950s, the decade of Baby Boomers, the USA had a fertility rate that averaged 3.7. By 1980 the rate dropped to 1.8. Now due largely to immigration, a slightly higher fertility rate stands at 2.0. Worldwide fertility rates similarly dropped from 2.67 in 1950 to 2.02 in 2000. These lower rates suggest the global human population will soon plateau and then decline. Thus decreasing population pressures will not cause an accelerating extinction rate. These decreasing fertility rates should be a cause for optimism. The graph below color-codes the fertility rates of every nation. Only the non-industrial societies are experiencing the high fertility rates (reds and yellows) that could strain the earth’s carrying capacity and diminish local biodiversity. So why does Ceballos and Ehrlich 2015 denigrate modern society?
Habitat loss has indeed been a major cause of local extinctions as burgeoning human populations converted more landscape for agricultural purposes. But better intensive agricultural practices, like mechanization, genetic engineering and other modern techniques, have allowed the world to feed more people on fewer acres. For example according to the USDA since 1950, “the average yield of corn rose from 39 bushels to 153 bushels per acre, and each farmer in 2000 produced on average 12 times as much farm output per hour worked as a farmer did in 1950. Again such improvements should be a cause for pride and optimism, as modern society has increasingly sacrificed less natural habitat for agriculture.
As more marginal farms are abandoned and land is returned to the wild, we would expect to see the return of more natural habitat and indeed this was the case for Vermont. In 1900, Vermont was 80% deforested. As marginal farms were abandoned, Vermont became 80% reforested supporting natural biodiversity. Similar patterns have been observed throughout New England. As marginal farmland became reforested moose migrated southward to warmer regions where they had been extirpated by the 1800s in contrast to global warming theory. Similar reversions to natural habitat were observed throughout the Great Plains. Furthermore land managers and private hunting groups like Ducks Unlimited have been improving species prime breeding habitat in the Prairie Potholes, so that in 2014 North American duck populations had increased to record highs, 43% above the 1950-80 average. But that landscape success story is now being threatened. As politicians become increasingly mesmerized by another apocalyptic story regards climate change, governments are subsidizing biofuels that are increasingly destroying habitat and stress groundwater supplies.
A 2013 paper from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science reported, “High corn and soybean prices, prompted largely by demand for biofuel feedstocks, are driving one of the most important land cover/land use change (LCLUC) events in recent US history; the accelerated conversion of grassland to cropland in the US Corn Belt.” Due to government biofuel subsidies, the rate of grassland conversion has accelerated land conversion rates that have not been seen since the Dust Bowl when wheat subsidies similarly encouraged the plowing under of grasslands the size of the state of Ohio. These researchers noted the landscape conversion is “comparable to deforestation rates in Brazil, Malaysia, and Indonesia, countries in which tropical forests were the principal sources of new agricultural land.”
Similarly, tropical deforestation and lost biodiversity has been accelerated by government subsidies for other biofuels. Although palm oil had been chiefly used in foods and cosmetics, the EU began subsidizing palm oil for biofuels in a misguided fight against climate change. European Union subsidies for palm oil raised prices and increased its demand as reported in 2013 in The EU Biofuel Policy And Palm Oil: Cutting Subsidies Or Cutting Rainforest? (see table below). This resulted in widespread deforestation throughout Indonesia that now threatens tropical species like the Orangutans and has been wreaking widespread ecological havoc. Similar subsidies for sugar cane are accelerating deforestation in Brazil.
| EU Palm Oil usage(Metric tones) | 2006 | 2012 – After Subsidies | % increase |
| Used for fuel and electrical generation | 822 | 2459 | 299.0% |
| Used for foods and cosmetics | 3692 | 3925 | 06.3% |
Apocalyptic fear mongering about climate change has similarly convinced politicians that burning trees (again eliminating more habitat) is better than burning coal under the guise of “sustainable fuel production”. Early settlers had decimated Great Britain’s forest thousands of years ago to create grazing land for their sheep. But recent conservation efforts were now making this one of the few nations with increasing forests. Unfortunately government subsidies are not only promoting cutting local forests, but those subsidies were creating a demand to import more trees from America and thus destroying distant habitat. Likewise, Haiti has denuded its landscape as it relies on wood burning. While due to its reliance on a fossil fuel economy, the Dominican Republic has preserved more forest. The difference is readily observed below in NASA’s satellite photo of the Haiti (left) and Dominican (right) border.
Whales, walrus and other marine mammals were nearly hunted to extinction during the Little Ice Age for their blubber. But the advent of the oil industry and modern industrial society provided an alternative energy source that reduced that hunting pressure, and likely prevented the extinction of most marine mammals. Although the disruption of industrial economies by two world wars caused a temporary spike in whaling, the recovery of industrial economies once again has alleviated hunting pressures. Gray Whales are now believed to have returned to their historic numbers (see graph below), Humpback Whales are increasing by about 13% a year, and most other species are steadily recovering but at a lower pace.
In contrast to apocalyptic headlines of climate change disruption, observations of large numbers of walruses hauling out on Alaskan beaches are evidence of conservation success as Pacific walruses have rebounded to equal historic numbers as discussed in Hijacking Successful Walrus Conservation. Indeed modern societies have reduced the extinction threats to most marine mammals that were decimated by overhunting for food and fuel. Again modern industrial society should engender optimism about our environment’s future, not elicit catastrophic predictions of mass extinctions.
Ceballos and Ehrlich 2015 suggest we can avoid a sixth mass extinction by alleviating pressures on stressed populations, caused notably by “habitat loss, over-exploitation for economic gain and climate change”. Yet modern society has been increasingly addressing those first 2 problems and there is no evidence that climate change has caused any extinctions. Contrary to climate change fears, since the Little Ice Age, whether or not warming was caused by rising CO2 or natural climate change, that warming has contributed to longer growing seasons which has only benefited the entire food web for all species including humans. Phytoplankton that form the base of the Arctic food web has increased 3 fold. It is beyond all reason that proponents of a CO2 driven apocalypse would suggest that the 1-degree colder temperatures of the Little Ice Age should be revered as the benchmark against which we evaluate our “optimal” climate. During the Little Ice Age upwelling was reduced lowering ocean productivity, glaciers threatened European villages, tree line dropped, and no new trees grew in several montane regions, and there was widespread starvation that the pope blamed on witches.
In his critique of Ceballos and Ehrlich’s 6th mass extinction madness, Limbaugh’s warns that apocalyptic fear mongering is engendering a lack of faith, and lack of hope in our children, and in our society. In a similar vein, science writer Matt Ridley recently wrote in “Climate Wars’ Damage to Science.” that climate fear mongering is even more damaging, denigrating the very scientific process itself. Most striking to me is the lost trustworthiness of the peer review process regards climate science. It seems as if all one has to do is suggest apocalyptic climate change to get published no matter how much contradictory evidence is known.
A blatant example of such damage to science, was the American Meteorological Society’s publication of Parmesan’s half-truths about climate-caused population extinctions, If she had honestly reported the whole story that only butterflies that had recently and opportunistically colonized a logged area had been extirpated, while just ten feet away in natural communities the same species was thriving, her apocalyptic climate interpretation would have been shunned (details here). Instead her story of half-truths was repeated by our top climate scientists in scientific journals as an example of deadly climate change, and the BAMS editors refused to retract her bogus paper. But this is not an isolated incidence. There is a long list of other apocryphal climate catastrophe publications in peer reviewed science.
Camille Parmesan was also one of the earliest authors to suggest climate change was extirpating populations in Climate and Species Range. However after careful perusal of her claims, I documented several fallacies (here) and then learned that many of her purported extirpated populations have now returned (according to her own research). Yet she has never published those more uplifting observations of natural resiliency. Later in an IPCC publication, she misdiagnosed a species’ range expansion in England due to successful conservation efforts in order to blame climate change (details here). Yet despite all of Parmesan’s bad science, she was honored at the White House and became one of a select few biologists invited to join the IPCC. While promoters of apocalyptic climate change have elevated Parmesan to hero status, the only person that publicly challenged her bad science was Rush Limbaugh.
Similarly J.A. Pounds joined the IPCC after publishing in Nature that climate change was causing extreme heat and dryness, which was killing Costa Rica’s amphibians. But other scientists provided overwhelming evidence that the inadvertent introduction of a chytrid fungus by researchers and the pet trade had caused the recent amphibian extinctions. Intensive laboratory studies then revealed that the deadly fungus could not tolerate extreme warmth or dryness, which contradicted all of Pounds’ earlier interpretations. So Pounds simply reversed his position to maintain his apocalyptic climate story, and he now argued global warming was causing cooler maximum temperatures and a wetter environment and therefore climate change was still the killer by enabling the deadly fungus. The editors at Nature never demanded that Pounds explain his contrary interpretations. As long as apocalyptic climate change was suggested, it got published (details here). While other scientists rallied to save threatened amphibians, Pounds attacked them for not blaming apocalyptic climate change.
Nature published other apocalyptic papers suggesting the imminent extinction of Emperor Penguins. Researchers blamed global warming despite the fact that there had been no warming trend at the site where the population of Emperors had declined. The most likely culprit causing lower Penguin numbers was researcher disturbance during brutal winter conditions (details here), but recent papers continue to suggest global warming was the cause to infer mass extinctions will happen by the turn of the century.
Despite the Inuit insistence that it is the time of the most polar bears, or the fact that researchers have documented increasing populations, polar bears have been elevated to icons of apocalyptic climate change. In another blatant example of editors “looking the other way” and defiling the scientific process, researchers first published that cycles of heavy sea ice in the Beaufort Sea had caused significant drops in ringed seals and polar bears. Then to support the apocalyptic meme, the same researchers published that those same populations declines were due to global warming and less ice (details here).
Pika are rabbit like creatures living in the mountainous western USA. Erik Beever published that pika were experiencing accelerated upslope dispersal and extinction due to climate change. But Beever admittedly eliminated all observations of pika moving to lower elevations. Although his statistical tinkering guaranteed “upslope movement” no matter how the climate changed, the editors considered this “good science.” In contrast more extensive surveys by other researchers have shown that 19% of all pika detections have been at lower elevations than first reported in the early 1900s. Nonetheless several papers and websites only report Dr. Beever’s interpretation of climate change, apocalyptically driving pika upwards and into extinction. (more details here)
When Limbaugh argues that apocalyptic fear mongering is the liberal rage, I thought Rush was overreacting via his political ideology. But after reading the conclusions of Ceballos and Ehrlich 2015, I realized Ehrlich’s paper was not about biology or good conservation, but just a vehicle to promote their politics. Ehrlich concluded, “Avoiding a true sixth mass extinction will require rapid, greatly intensified efforts to conserve already threatened species and to alleviate pressures on their populations…. All of these are related to human population size and growth, which increases consumption (especially among the rich), and economic inequity (6). [emphasis added] However, the window of opportunity is rapidly closing.”
That gave me a better understanding of Limbaugh’s perspective. Although I have yet to see Rush take a pro-environmental stance, his arguments are not anti-environment. He is railing against the political corruption of environmental science, something I have sadly observed (see above). He is fighting against those who misuse the Endangered Species Act to promote their politics. He is ranting against apocalyptic fear mongering that robs science of its objectivity and integrity, and robs people of hope in order to promote an agenda.
Yet apocalyptic fear mongering is powerfully persuasive. It has empowered a diverse menagerie of cult leaders through out the ages as those who preach about the apocalypse are eerily seen as humanity’s saviors. Mesmerized followers relinquish there critical thinking powers and anoint their leader as the bearer of all truth. Anyone who thinks for themselves, rejects an inevitable apocalypse, or exposes the bad science of fear mongering, are called deniers by a legion of ignorant but rabid internet stalkers (as exemplified here). I am reminded of the Heaven’s Gate cult that believed the world was coming to an end, and would soon be “recycled”. Several highly intelligent high tech workers embraced their leader’s apocalyptic vision, believing the path to salvation was to castrate themselves and drink the “kool-ade”, so they could be transported by an alien spaceship hiding behind the approaching Hale-Bopp comet and swept away to a “higher level.”
Once you believe the world is coming to an end, once you lose faith in humanity and nature’s resilience, once you lose hope, then like the Heaven’s Gate victims, you become easy prey for the charlatans that inhabit all walks of life, left or right, scientist or layperson. Indeed “Apocalyptic, Fear-Mongering Accelerates the Decline of Our Culture”.
Jim Steele is director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University and author of Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism
| 100 Extinct Bird Species from Ceballos 2015 | ||||
| Genus | Species | IUCN justification | Extinct Date | |
| 1 | Aegolius | gradyi | This raptor was recently-described from fossil records, and likely accounts for observations of owls on Bermuda in the early 17th century. It is long Extinct. | 1600s |
| 2 | Alectroenas | nitidissimus | This species was found on Mauritius, but it has been hunted to extinction. The last reports date from 1832 and it is thought to have been Extinct a few years later. | 1832 |
| 3 | Alectroenas | payandeei | This newly-recognised Extinct pigeon is known from a single subfossil record. It may have survived into the 17th century but most likely disappeared by the 1690s owing to predation by invasive rats. | 1600s |
| 4 | Alopecoenas | ferrugineus | This species is known from Tanna, Vanuatu, but the only record dates from 1774 and it is now Extinct. Hunting is likely to have been the main cause | 1774 |
| 5 | Alopecoenas | salamonis | This species was known from Makira, Solomon Islands, but is now Extinct as a result of predation by introduced species. The last record is a specimen dating from 1927, and searches in 1995 and more recently failed to find it. | 1927 |
| 6 | Alopochen | kervazoi | This species was endemic to the island of Réunion, but is now Extinct. The last record came from 1671-1672, and it had been lost to hunting by 1710. | 1710 |
| 7 | Alopochen | mauritiana | This species was endemic to Mauritius, but is now Extinct. It was last recorded in 1693, when it was said to be rare, and could not be found in 1698. Hunting is thought to have caused its extinction | 1693 |
| 8 | Amazona | martinicana | This species formerly occurred on Martinique, but it has been driven to extinction by hunting. The last record dates from 1779 and it is thought to have gone Extinct by the end of the 18th century. | 1779 |
| 9 | Amazona | violacea | This species was known from Guadeloupe, but it has been driven Extinct by hunting. The last records date from 1779. | 1779 |
| 10 | Anas | marecula | This species was found on Amsterdam Island, French Southern Territories, but it is now Extinct having not been seen since 1793. Hunting was the main cause of its extinction. | 1793 |
| 11 | Anas | theodori | This species was found on Mauritius, but is now Extinct having not been recorded since 1696. Hunting is likely to have caused its extinction. | 1696 |
| 12 | Anthornis | melanocephala | This species was found in the Chatham Islands, New Zealand, but it is now Extinct, probably mainly as a result of habitat loss. It was last recorded in 1906, and a search for it in 1938 was unsuccessful. | 1906 |
| 13 | Aphanapteryx | bonasia | This species was known from Mauritius, but went Extinct around 1693 due to cat predation and hunting. | 1693 |
| 14 | Aplonis | corvina | This species was known from the island of Kosrae, Micronesia, but it is now Extinct due to overpredation by introduced rats. The last specimens were taken in 1828, and it was absent when the island was next visited in 1880. | 1828 |
| 15 | Aplonis | fusca | This species was formerly found on the Australian islands of Norfolk and Lord Howe, but it is now Extinct owing to black rat predation. The last record was of the nominate subspecies on Norfolk Island in 1923; it was certainly gone by the time the island was visited in 1968. | 1923 |
| 16 | Aplonis | mavornata | This taxon was known from Mauke, Cook Islands, but it is now Extinct due to overpredation by introduced brown rats. The type specimen was taken in 1825, and the species was not found on the next ornithological visit to Mauke in 1975. | 1975? |
| 17 | Ara | tricolor | This species was known from Cuba, but hunting drove the population Extinct. The last reports of the species date from 1885. | 1885 |
| 18 | Atlantisia | podarces | This species was known from St Helena, but is now Extinct. It was presumably driven to extinction by hunting soon after the island was discovered in 1502. | 1502 |
| 19 | Bermuteo | avivorus | This raptor was recently-described from fossil records, and is thought to relate to raptors observed on Bermuda in 1603. It is long Extinct. | 1603 |
| 20 | Bowdleria | rufescens | This species was formerly found on the Chatham Islands, New Zealand, but is thought to have gone Extinct around 1892 when the last specimen was collected. Habitat destruction and invasive species were probably the major causes. | 1892 |
| 21 | Bulweria | bifax | This species was endemic to the island of St Helena, but is thought to have been hunted to extinction shortly after the island’s discovery in 1502. | 1502 |
| 22 | Cabalus | modestus | This species was known from the Chatham Islands, New Zealand, but became Extinct between 1893 and 1895. It is thought that invasive species are responsible, both through direct predation and habitat modification. | 1895 |
| 23 | Caloenas | maculata | The one specimen of this poorly-known species may have come from Tahiti, French Polynesia, but it has not been reported there since 1928, when the only possible sightings of the species were made. It is presumed Extinct, and is likely to have been hunted. | 1928 |
| 24 | Camptorhynchus | labradorius | This species was formerly distributed along the northeast coast of North America, but it is now Extinct as a result of hunting. There are no records since the collection of the last specimen, in 1875. | 1875 |
| 25 | Caracara | lutosa | This species was endemic to Guadalupe Island, Mexico, but has been driven Extinct due to persecution by settlers. It was last recorded in 1903. | 1903 |
| 26 | Chaetoptila | angustipluma | This species was known from the Hawaiian Islands, USA, but it has not been recorded since a specimen was collected in 1859. It was driven Extinct by the logging of its forest habitat. | 1859 |
| 27 | Chaunoproctus | ferreorostris | This species was known from Japan’s Ogasawara Islands, but it is now Extinct and has not been certainly reported since 1828. Forest destruction and predation by introduced species are thought to have been responsible. | 1828 |
| 28 | Chenonetta | finschi | This Extinct species is now thought to have survived beyond the year 1500 and has thus been assessed for the first time. | 1500 |
| 29 | Chloridops | kona | This species was known from the Hawaiian island of Lana’i, USA, but it has not been recorded since 1894 and is now Extinct. Logging of its forest habitat is likely to have been the primary cause. | 1894 |
| 30 | Chlorostilbon | bracei | This species is known from the island of New Providence, Bahamas, but has been driven to extinction by human disturbance. A specimen was taken in 1877 and it was probably Extinct soon afterwards: subsequent collectors found no trace of it. | 1877 |
| 31 | Chlorostilbon | elegans | This taxon is known from one specimen, probably from Jamaica, taken in 1860. It is now Extinct, likely due to deforestation or predation by introduced species. | 1860 |
| 32 | Ciridops | anna | This species is known from Hawaii’s Big Island, USA, but it is now Extinct due to logging of its forest habitat. The last confirmed records date from 1892. | 1892 |
| 33 | Coenocorypha | barrierensis | This species was extirpated from its historic range by introduced mammalian predators; it was last recorded in 1870 and is classified as Extinct. | 1870 |
| 34 | Coenocorypha | iredalei | This species has been extirpated from its historic range in New Zealand by introduced mammalian predators; it was last recorded in 1964 and is classified as Extinct. | 1964 |
| 35 | Colaptes | oceanicus | This woodpecker was recently-described from subfossil remains. It is likely to have persisted into the 17th century, but is long Extinct. | 1600s |
| 36 | Columba | jouyi | This species was formerly found in Japan’s Ryukyu Islands, but it has not been recorded since 1936 and is now Extinct. The reasons for this are unknown. | 1936 |
| 37 | Columba | thiriouxi | This Extinct species has been newly-described from subfossil remains. It is little-known but probably became extinct around 1730 as a result of overhunting, predation by rats, and deforestation. | 1730 |
| 38 | Columba | versicolor | This species was found in Japan’s Ogasawara Islands, but it has not been recorded since 1889 and is now Extinct. Habitat clearance is likely to have been the major factor driving its extinction. | 1889 |
| 39 | Conuropsis | carolinensis | This species formerly occurred in southeastern USA, but it is now Extinct, primarily as a result of persecution. The last wild records are of the subspecies ludoviciana in 1910. | 1910 |
| 40 | Coturnix | novaezelandiae | This species formerly occurred on New Zealand’s South Island, but is now Extinct, probably due to diseases spread by introduced game birds. A bird that died in 1875 is thought to represent the last individual of the species. | 1875 |
| 41 | Coua | delalandei | This species was endemic to Madagascar, but is now Extinct. It has not been reported since 1834 and likely succumbed to the complete destruction of its native forest. | 1834 |
| 42 | Cyanoramphus | ulietanus | This species was known from the island of Raiatea, French Polynesia, but it is now Extinct, probably as a result of habitat clearance or the action of invasive species. Two specimens were collected in 1773 and its extinction likely followed | 1793 |
| 43 | Cyanoramphus | zealandicus | This species was known from Tahiti, French Polynesia, but it has not been recorded since 1844 and is now Extinct. Possible causes include deforestation, hunting and predation by introduced species. | 1844 |
| 44 | Diaphorapteryx | hawkinsi | This species was known from the Chatham Islands, New Zealand, but is now Extinct as a result of hunting. It is thought to have persisted until at least 1895, when it was described in a letter. | 1895 |
| 45 | Drepanis | funerea | This species is known from the Hawaiian island of Lana’i, USA, but it has not been recorded since 1907 and is now Extinct. Predation and habitat destruction by invasive species were the major factors causing its extinction. | 1907 |
| 46 | Drepanis | pacifica | This species is known from the Hawaiian Islands, USA, but it has not been recorded since 1898 and is now Extinct. Habitat destruction was probably the major cause of its extinction. | 1898 |
| 47 | Dromaius | baudinianus | This species was formerly found on Kangaroo Island, Australia, but is now considered Extinct. It has not been recorded since its collection in 1802, and is thought to have succumbed to hunting pressure some years before the arrival of permanent settlers in 1836. | 1836 |
| 48 | Dromaius | minor | This species was formerly found on King Island, Australia, but is now considered Extinct. It was last recorded in 1802, and had been exterminated through hunting by 1805. | 1805 |
| 49 | Dryolimnas | augusti | This recently-described, probably flightless rail was likely driven Extinct in the late 17th century as a result of hunting pressure and predation by introduced rats and cats.
his recently-described, probably flightless rail was likely driven Extinct in the late 17th century as a result of hunting pressure and predation by introduced rats and cats |
1600s |
| 50 | Dysmorodrepanis | munroi | This species is known from the Hawaiian island of Lana’i, USA, but it has not been recorded since 1918 and is now Extinct. Habitat clearance and introduced predators were responsible for its decline. | 1918 |
| 51 | Eclectus | infectus | This recently-described parrot may have survived as recently as the late 18th century, but became Extinct most likely as a result of over-hunting and predation by invasive mammals. | 1700s |
| 52 | Ectopistes | migratorius | his species was formerly distributed across North America, but is now Extinct as a result of habitat clearance and hunting. The last reliable wild record dates from 1900, and a search beginning in 1910 failed to find it. | 1890s |
| 53 | Erythromachus | leguati | This species was endemic to the island of Rodrigues, Mauritius, but is now Extinct as a result of hunting. It was last recorded in 1726, and its absence was noted in 1761 | 1761 |
| 54 | Falco | duboisi | his species was endemic to the island of Réunion, but is now Extinct and has not been recorded since 1671-1672. Persecution is likely to have driven its decline. | 1672 |
| 55 | Fregilupus | varius | This species was known from the island of Réunion, but it became Extinct in the 1850s. Introduced disease and various forms of human disturbance are likely to have contributed to its decline. | 1850s |
| 56 | Fulica | newtonii | This species was found in the Mascarene Islands, but it has not been recorded since 1693 and is now Extinct. Hunting was the major cause of its decline. | 1693 |
| 57 | Gallinula | nesiotis | This species is likely to have become Extinct in the late 19th century as a result of predation by rats, though this may have been in combination with feral cat and pig predation, habitat destruction and hunting by islanders. | 1800s |
| 58 | Gerygone | insularis | This species was endemic to Lord Howe Island, Australia, but was driven Extinct by the depredations of introduced rats. It was last recorded in 1928, with none found on a survey in 1936. | 1936 |
| 59 | Haematopus | meadewaldoi | This species was found in the eastern Canary Islands, but is now Extinct due to overharvesting of its invertebrate prey. It was last collected in 1913, and locally reported to be absent by the 1940s | 1940s |
| 60 | Hemignathus | ellisianus | This species was found in the Hawaiian Islands, USA, but it is now Extinct as a result of forest clearance and introduced disease. The last report was of the subspecies stejnegeri on Kaua’i in 1969 | 1969 |
| 61 | Hemignathus | obscurus | This species was known from Hawaii’s Big Island, USA, but it has not been reported since 1940 and is now Extinct. Deforestation and introduced diseases are likely to have been responsible | 1940 |
| 62 | Hemignathus | sagittirostris | This species is known from Hawaii’s Big Island, USA, but it has not been recorded since 1901 and is now Extinct. Most of its habitat was cleared for agriculture, which is likely to have caused the extinction. | 1901 |
| 63 | Heteralocha | acutirostris | This species is known from New Zealand’s North Island, but it was last recorded in 1907 and is now Extinct. Habitat loss, hunting and disease have all been implicated in its decline. | 1907 |
| 64 | Hypotaenidia | dieffenbachii | This species was found on the Chatham Islands, New Zealand, but was driven to extinction by the depredations of introduced species. The type material was collected in 1840, and it was Extinct by 1872. | 1872 |
| 65 | Hypotaenidia | pacifica | This species was known from the Society Islands, French Polynesia, but has been driven Extinct by cat and rat predation. It was last recorded on Mehetia in the 1930s | 1930s |
| 66 | Hypotaenidia | poeciloptera | This species was found in Fiji, but it has not been recorded since 1973 and is now Extinct. Predation by introduced cats and mongooses is thought to have been responsible for its decline. | 1973 |
| 67 | Hypotaenidia | wakensis | This species was known from Wake Island in the United States Minor Outlying Islands, but went Extinct in the mid-1940s, being last recorded in 1945 and never seen by an observer who took up residence in 1946. It is thought to have been hunted to extinction by Japanese soldiers that were stranded on the island. | 1945 |
| 68 | Ixobrychus | novaezelandiae | This species was known from New Zealand’s South Island, but became Extinct for unknown reasons some time in the 1890s. | 1890s |
| 69 | Lophopsittacus | bensoni | This species was known from Mauritius, but hunting has driven it Extinct. It was last reported in 1764. | 1764 |
| 70 | Lophopsittacus | mauritianus | This species is known from Mauritius, but has been driven Extinct by hunting pressure. The last records date from 1673-1675, and it was absent in 1693. | 1693 |
| 71 | Mascarenotus | grucheti | This species formerly occurred on the island of Réunion. It was probably driven Extinct after the island was colonised in the early 17th century, as a result of habitat loss, hunting or predation by invasive species. | 1600s |
| 72 | Mascarenotus | murivorus | This species was endemic to the island of Rodrigues, Mauritius, but is now Extinct due to logging of its habitat. It was last recorded in 1726. | 1726 |
| 73 | Mascarenotus | sauzieri | This species was formerly found on Mauritius, but the logging of its forest habitat has driven it to extinction. It was last recorded in 1837, and certainly Extinct by 1859. | 1837 |
| 74 | Mascarinus | mascarin | This species was known from the island of Réunion, but it has gone Extinct as a result of hunting pressure. The last record of wild birds dates from 1775, and none were observed on a visit in 1804. | 1804 |
| 75 | Mergus | australis | This species was formerly found on the Auckland Islands, New Zealand, but it is now Extinct, primarily due to hunting. It was last recorded in 1902, and had been lost by the time a reserve was set up on the islands in 1910. | 1902 |
| 76 | Microgoura | meeki | This species is known from Choiseul, Solomon Islands, but it has not been recorded since 1904 and is now Extinct. It is likely to have been heavily predated by introduced dogs and cats. | 1904 |
| 77 | Moho | apicalis | This species is known from the Hawaiian island of O’ahu, USA, but is now Extinct as a result of habitat loss and introduced disease. The last record dates from 1837, and it was not found by the collectors that visited the island in the 1890s | 1837 |
| 78 | Moho | bishopi | This species was formerly found in the Hawaiian Islands, USA, but it has not been recorded since 1981 and is now considered Extinct. Habitat loss was probably the primary cause of its decline. | 1981 |
| 79 | Moho | braccatus | This species is known from the Hawaiian island of Kaua’i, USA, but it is now Extinct having been last recorded in 1987. Habitat destruction and invasive species were the major causes. | 1987 |
| 80 | Moho | nobilis | This species is known from the Hawaiian island of Kaua’i, USA, but it is now Extinct having been last recorded in 1987. Habitat destruction and invasive species were the major causes. | 1987 |
| 81 | Mundia | elpenor | This species was known from Ascension Island, St Helena, but is now Extinct. The only record of the species comes from 1656 and it is thought to have succumbed to predation by introduced rats and cats. | 1656 |
| 82 | Myadestes | myadestinus | This species formerly occurred on the Hawaiian island of Kaua’i, USA, but the multitude of threats in the region have driven it Extinct. The last definite record dates from 1985 and targeted searches in 1995 and 1997 yielded no confirmed reports. | 1995 |
| 83 | Myadestes | woahensis | This species is known from the Hawaiian island of O’ahu, USA, but it was driven Extinct by the logging of its forest habitat. The only record is that of the type specimen, collected in 1825. | 1825 |
| 84 | Myiagra | freycineti | This species formerly occurred on Guam, but became Extinct in 1983. Predation by the introduced brown tree-snake was the cause of its extinction. | 1983 |
| 85 | Nannococcyx | psix | This species was formerly found on St Helena. It is now Extinct, presumably as a result of island deforestation in the 18th century. | 1700s |
| 86 | Necropsar | rodericanus | This species was endemic to the island of Rodrigues, Mauritius, but is now Extinct, probably due to a combination of hunting, habitat loss and the action of invasive species. The last records date from 1726, and the species was not found on a visit in 1761. | 1761 |
| 87 | Necropsittacus | rodricanus | This species was endemic to the island of Rodrigues, Mauritius, but is now Extinct. It was last reported in 1761 and presumably hunted to extinction soon after. | 1761 |
| 88 | Nesillas | aldabrana | This species was formerly found on Aldabra, Seychelles, but it is now Extinct due to predation and habitat alteration by invasive species. It was last recorded in 1983, and searches in 1986 confirmed its extinction. | 1983 |
| 89 | Nesoenas | cicur | This Extinct species has been newly-described from subfossil remains. It is little-known but probably became extinct around 1730 as a result of overhunting, predation by rats, and deforestation. | 1730 |
| 90 | Nesoenas | duboisi | This species was found on the island of Réunion, but it was last recorded in 1674 and is thought to have been Extinct since the early 18th century. Predation by introduced cats and rats is likely to have been the primary cause of its extinction. | 1674 |
| 91 | Nesoenas | rodericanus | This Extinct species has been newly-described from subfossil remains. It is little-known but probably became extinct during the 18th century as a result of overhunting and predation by rats. | 1700s |
| 92 | Nestor | productus | This species was known from Norfolk Island, but went Extinct in the mid-late 1800s. Habitat clearance and hunting are thought to have been the major drivers. | 1850s |
| 93 | Nyctanassa | carcinocatactes | This species is known only from subfossil remains. It likely became Extinct during the early 17th century as a result of invasive predators and hunting for food by human settlers. | 1600s |
| 94 | Nycticorax | duboisi | This species was endemic to the island of Réunion. It was last recorded in 1674, and was probably driven Extinct by hunters before 1700. | 1674 |
| 95 | Nycticorax | mauritianus | This species is known from the mainland of Mauritius. It was last recorded in 1693, and was probably driven Extinct by hunters before 1700. | 1693 |
| 96 | Nycticorax | megacephalus | This species was endemic to the island of Rodrigues, Mauritius, but is now Extinct having been last recorded in 1726, and mentioned as absent in 1761. Hunting was the cause of its extinction. | 1761 |
| 97 | Paroreomyza | flammea | This species is known from the Hawaiian island of Lana’i, USA, but is now Extinct, probably as a result of habitat destruction and introduced diseases. The last records date from 1961-1963, and a survey in 1979 failed to find the species. | 1961 |
| 98 | Pezophaps | solitaria | This species was endemic to the island of Rodrigues, Mauritius, but was hunted to extinction in the 18th century. It was reported in 1761, but had become Extinct by 1778. | 1778 |
| 99 | Phalacrocorax | perspicillatus | This species was known from Russia’s Komandorski Islands, but is now Extinct: the last records date from the 1940s and the species is thought to have been lost by the early 1950s. Hunting was the primary cause of its extinction. | 1950s |
| 100 | Pinguinus | impennis | This species was formerly distributed across the north Atlantic, but is now Extinct as a result of hunting pressure. The last live bird was seen in 1852. | 1852 |
The global fertility map reports the highest fertility rates in areas likely to have population statistics of poor quality. I’d be willing to bet that those rates are somewhat exaggerated.
Those areas have the least industry, the least medical care and the least contraception, so they are indeed likely to have high fertility rates.
I would like to see a comparison between fertility rates and power stations.
precisely, precisely, precisely! Well said Mr. Steele! I have long argued that the banner of castastrophic climate change is a mere smoke screen to hide from the real causes of the changes being wrought at by the hands of humans – and for goodness sake, why is it there are never any *success stores???* Of course we are having success – we know more than we did back in the 1700s and 1800s! So for goodness sake, why don’t more castastrophic-followers celebrate the fact that we can and do reverse our destructive tendencies with a high degree of success and effectiveness at the small scale. This is far far more effective than relying on political hand-wringing to get one ‘global’ thing changed which is just based on predictive modelling and 20 years of field results have failed to support any predictive models, past or current!
>>Overhunting claimed many island species like the Dodo early on.
I think the best explanation for the extinction of the dodo, was again the introduction of a new species.
The dodo was not good to eat, and so the pig was introduced for meat production. And there is nothing a pig likes more, than a dodo egg laying on the ground. And since the dodo was ill-equipped to adapt to pig predation, they went extinct very quickly.
Ralph
Many outstanding points.
The biggest problems related to this issue, come from the “science is settled” “debate is over” mentality. If we are talking about gravity or the earth revolving around the sun, this is warranted.
If we are talking about how CO2 effects the planet, then to be objective, there is a powerful positive side, just considering photosynthesis. If one side completely ignores most of this, they are being subjective and not practicing good science but instead are promoting something that must be more important than just the pure objective science. If they are exaggerating the effects beyond what the science and observations support, that’s even more evidence that an ideology/agenda is at play which is filtering information via their belief system vs using the scientific method to interpret.
Lack of tolerance for any view that does not line up with theirs is another example. Even if I believe in the same physics that they do, regarding the effect of greenhouse gas warming but my estimate of the warming is, let’s say 50% of theirs, I am labelled a denier.
Only those with the exact same belief system(scientific and otherwise) and most importantly with the exact same solution to the theorized problem are tolerated. Veering in any way from the belief system or proposed solution means that you are an outsider that should be suppressed.
The objective has become the driving force……………while losing touch with the realities of much of the real world science effecting life on this planet.
Life on this planet that Jim Steele gives us a comprehensive, historical perspective of from a view that is not tolerated by the “settled science” party line.
Thanks
Jim–
Nice piece but we were after Parmesan early and often. Speaking charitably, her work is crap. See our analyses here:
September 16, 1996: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/previous_issues/vol2/v2n1/hot.htm
October 28, 1996: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/previous_issues/vol2/v2n4/hot.htm
July 5, 1999: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/previous_issues/vol4/v4n20/feature.htm
I think you will find these rather amusing and hopefully interesting
Pat, thanks for the links. I am sorry I didn’t see them earlier or I would vouched for your analyses. Indeed Parmesan is a piece of work. She has refused to make her data available and has kept contrary information “off the books”
Marvelous read. But it leaves me with a question: What, besides an emotional tug at the heart, is wrong with having a species go extinct? Have we suffered from the expiry of the dodo? Carrier pigeon? TRex?
By this, I mean that evolution aways fills an ecological niche.
Indeed. Its like saying that we must keep steam engines and mechanical computers. Times roll on.
Except that steam engines and computers are mechanical things, where birds are living creatures. We have newer, and perhaps better locomotives and PCs, but we don’t have newer and better birds, and very low chances of making our own.
There are examples of species adapting to local circumstance in our time and the process is fairly rapid.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8393443.stm
Steve P says that living creatures are not like steam engines and mechanical computers, and by inference deserve greater consideration.
Fine, I agree, in so far as it relates to individual organisms. Yes, they deserve particularly sensitive treatment (is it right to grow animals for food? – that’s a very serious moral question). But that’s individuals.
Those most keen on preserving rare species have little concern for individual animals (vide, for example, the RSPB’s predilection for birds of prey, over their prey, or the recent attempts to re-introduce European Lynx, or Wolf, to Scotland or northern England, without regard for prey species they will use).
The preservation of actual species is more akin to architectural activists listing notable buildings, or museum curators seeking the ‘full set’ of their chosen exhibits.
mothcatcher
June 25, 2015 at 3:12 pm
Well, it’s way beyond just apples and oranges. All living things are part of the fabric of life. Man has ripped out threads from this fabric before anyone had a chance to study its undisturbed textures, patterns, and colors, if you will, so of course when we try to put things back together, we may not really know what we’re doing.
Now all the King’s horses,
And all the King’s men,
Couldn’t put Humpty together again.
We gain valuable knowledge about our world by studying our fellow creatures, and their ways of coping with their environments, like Willis’s silver ants. Whatever secrets nature’s creatures may hold for mankind, we’ll only find out if these critters survive with us.
“Now let the music keep our spirits high
And let the buildings keep our children dry
Let creation reveal it’s secrets by and by
By and by…”
Before the Deluge
Jackson Browne
1974
Interesting, in light of Dr. Steele’s excellent post.
>>`the RSPB’s predilection for birds of prey, over their prey.
Indeed. The RSPB’s total disregard of birdlife in general is a national scandal. And for those over the pond, the RSPB is the: “Royal Society for the Protection of Birds”. — Not for the protection of raptors, but birds. But they prefer raptors just as Greenpeace prefers seals – they bring in more money.
Like all Green ‘charities’, the RSPB has just become a money-making machine, preying like a raptor on the gullible public. These Greenies don’t give a rat’s arce about the species or the environment, all they want is POWER.
Scandal of the RSPB…..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2817171/Botham-hits-RSPB-dictators-SIX-Cricket-legend-savages-charity-spending-donated-millions-TV-ads-56m-pension-deficit-forgetting-birds.html
.
“there is no evidence that climate change has caused any extinctions.”
I thought they would at least provide a list of extinctions caused by man-made climate change. But if they can’t prove it has caused even one extinction, how do they get off blaming climate change at all?
Does Ehrlich keep coming up with gloom and doom predictions because he really thinks they are true or because he simply wants them to be true? In any case, there are enough people who want to believe such prophecies that being a false prophet is a profitable enterprise.
My guess is he draws the former “700 club” crowd…
true story
it happened to me
lifelong Democrat
hated Limbaugh but would tune in now and then to see what the other side was saying
heard him say “there has been no global warming for 17 years”
lie, can’t be true
began to read and to my astonishment concluded ‘climate change’ is a political crock
now my opinion is that the Left is depraved
feel a bit embarrassed that I bought into some of this crap for as long as I did
the net has made it possible to expose the lying of the MSM (Limbaugh right again)
reminding myself to be careful about trusting anyone
… and I find climate skeptics to be really cool people and the warmists incredibly boring (IMO stupid)
as Twain said “one goes to Heaven for the weather, and to Hell for the company”
Don’t hit me for saying this, but DITTOS.
I guess defending freedom and liberty makes for strange bedfellows…
dittos back brother
strange bedfellows no problem
“defending Freedom and Liberty” absolutely GD right
the good people are gonna quietly continue to do the science
the rest of us left with fighting censorship and intellectual suppression
that’s why I am compelled to join this discussion
I want my name on this side of history
liberals used to be about questioning authority
I’m gonna question authority no matter what they call themselves
97% my pimply keister
I’ve said many times, I wish anyone but Rush was leading the charge against the AGW alarmists, because of just the sort of knee-jerk reaction in people like Mr. Steele – who is apparently just another ideologue – just a progressive one instead of conservative. The problem with the ideologues is that they look at everything through the artificial prism of their particular faith – sort of like looking at reality through a computer model.
It keeps you from seeing obvious reality.
knee-jerk reaction? What are smoking Joel? How is this essay evidence of me being an “ideologue”? I will gladly discuss any point of disagreement, but all you are doing is sniping. Perhaps you can share your unfiltered version of the the “true” reality.
Well, this condescending snark is a good example of a knee-jerk reaction. Basically, I was referring generally to the type that – if Rush (or some identifiable conservative) said it, it must be wrong, for no other reason than that. You said yourself you can’t believe you have to agree with him (hated his viewpoints, you said), which suggests to me that you started from a counterpoint opinion – ‘left leaning’ as you put it – and the fact that he pushes your buttons demonstrates that his bait works on you. And ‘obvious reality’ is that AGW touts ridiculous alarmism that blames human C02 emissions for everything from giant spiders to total Armageddon – the sort of thing that should never have been given serious consideration in the first place but now influences world policy.
Ideologue or not, what I was trying to say is that preconceived opinions go a long way towards defining your vision of reality – and sometimes its not reality at all, just circular logic.
Just out of curiosity, Mr. Steele, but did you arrive at your negative opinion of Limbough based on what you heard him say (something specific that you remember?), or what others told you about him – others who share a similar ideology as you?
If it’s the former, than it would be reasonable to take umbrage over the knee-jerk remark. If the latter, then I fear you were programmed by others to react as you do (did?) to him in a thoughtless (it must be so, since it would be based on zero evidence) knee-jerk reaction, and the shoe fits.
Regardless, this is an excellent analysis, and I thank you.
jtom, We are talking decades ago so details are likely blurred, but I would listen in from time to time because my conservative friends liked him. I don’t remember ever hearing a detailed analysis that justified or explained why he was calling people environmental whacks. I just remember the phrase being used along with other more general criticisms. I took umbrage at Joel’s remark because my essay shares my transition and my changing attitudes, yet Joel oddly characterizes that as being an ideologue. Either he doesn’t know what the word means or more likely Joel was reacting to the the first paragraphs and never read the whole essay.
Jim, this also might be a demonstration of how people are unfamiliar with certain types of rhetorical devices commonly used in essays. They take take words literally, despite contextual cues.
Rush’s recent view that “Apocalyptic, Fear-Mongering Accelerates the Decline of Our Culture”.
Limbaugh has been the master of fear mongering.
Maybe it takes one to know one, as it were. He can identify with the tactics.
as always,
be specific and provide the quote so we can analyze it with you.
Remarkable how easy it is to ID MSNBC bots when they characterize conservatives. Whether you agree with Limbaugh’s conclusions or not, his strength (and poison to libs) has always been the replaying of salient audio clips and demonstrating their contrast, or alignment, with reality: you can keep your insurance and will save $2500, they died because of a YouTube video, rogue Cincy agent, the litany of CAGW nonsense…
I remember no fear-mongering from Limbaugh, just an accurate prediction of the damage wrought by this administration- 8T in debt in 6 years w/out 3% growth despite rates at ZERO, 50% more Americans on food stamps, worst labor participation in 40 years, ~5% LOWER average income, Fed agencies targeting political opponents, utter incompetence in foreign affairs…
It was Rush that brought Dr. Spencer to my attention more than a decade ago, initiating my evolution from believer to realist. And it’s Rush that treats me to the incomparable brilliance of Mark Steyn.
Good description of species extinctions.
You missed a couple of points that even more solidly destroy Ehrlich and his ilk’s scare-mongering:
The number of species believed to have gone “extinct” in the 20th and 21st centuries is dwarfed by the number of NEW species “discovered” in the same time period.
Looking at just birds, here’s the new species discovered:
New bird species discovered in the 20th century:
1964
Barau’s petrel Pterodroma baraui
Greater yellow-headed vulture, Cathartes melambrotus
1973
Poʻo-uli Melamprosops phaeosoma
1981
Chubut steamerduck, Tachyeres leucocephalus
Okinawa rail, Gallirallus okinawae
Yellow-footed honeyguide, Melignomon eisentrauti
1982
Mirafra ashi
Malurus campbelli
Ploceus ruweti
Vidua raricola
Vidua larvaticola
1983
Amsterdam albatross, Diomedea amsterdamensis
Glaucidium albertinum
Cichloris llaneae
Gerygone ruficauda
Nectarinia rufipennis
Eungella honeyeater, Lichenostomus hindwoodi
1984
Batis occultus
1985
Red Sea swallow, Hirundo perdita
Phyllastrephus leucolepis
1986
Ash-throated antwren, Herpsilochmus parkeri
Ploceus victoriae
1987
Cettia carolinae
1991
Roviana rail, Gallirallus rovianae from Roviana, Solomon Islands [7]
1995
Certhia familiaris tianquanensis [8]
1997
Lina’s sunbird, Aethopyga linaraborae, from Mindanao, Philippines [9]
Red-shouldered vanga, Calicalicus rufocarpalis
Batrachostomus pygmeus
1998
Araripe manakin, Antilophia bokermanni
Sangihe scops owl, Otus collari [10]
1999
Jocotoco antpitta, Grallaria ridgelyi, from Ecuador [11]
New bird species discovered in just 2013:
Rinjani scops owl, Otus jolandae:George Sangster, Ben F. King, Philippe Verbelen and Colin R. Trainor (2013). “A New Owl Species of the Genus Otus (Aves: Strigidae) from Lombok, Indonesia”. PLoS ONE 8 (2): e53712. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053712. PMC 3572129. PMID 23418422.
Pincoya storm petrel, Oceanites pincoyae:Peter
Harrison, Michel Sallaberry, Chris P Gaskin, Karen A Baird, Alvaro
Jamarillo, Shirley Maria Metz, Mark Pearman, Michael O’Keeffe, Jim
Dowdall, Seamus Enright, Kieran Fahy, Jeff Gilligan and Gerard Lillie
(2013). “A new storm-petrel species from Chile”. The Auk 130 (1): 180–191. doi:10.1525/auk.2012.12071.
Delta Amacuro softtail, Thripophaga amacurensis:Steven
Leon Hilty, David Ascanio and Andrew W. Whittaker (2013). “A New
Species of Softtail (Furnariidae: Thripophaga) from the Delta of the
Orinoco River in Venezuela”. The Condor 115 (1): 143–154. doi:10.1525/cond.2012.110212.
Bermuda flicker, Colaptes oceanicus:Storrs L. Olson (2013). “Fossil woodpeckers from Bermuda with the description of a new species of Colaptes (Aves: Picidae)”. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 126 (1): 17–24. doi:10.2988/0006-324X-126.1.17.
Sao Miguel scops owl, Otus frutuosoi : Juan
Carlos Rando, Josep Antoni Alcover, Storrs L. Olson, Harald Pieper.
(2013). “A new species of extinct scops owl (Aves: Strigiformes:
Strigidae: Otus) from São Miguel Island (Azores Archipelago, North
Atlantic Ocean).”. Zootaxa 3647 (2): 343–357. doi:10.11646/zootaxa.3647.2.6.
Seram masked owl, Tyto almae:Knud
Andreas Jønsson, Michael Køie Poulsen, Tri Haryoko, Andrew Hart Reeve
and Pierre-Henri Fabre (2013). “A new species of masked-owl (Aves:
Strigiformes: Tytonidae) from Seram, Indonesia”. Zootaxa 3635 (1): 51–61. doi:10.11646/zootaxa.3635.1.5.
Junin tapaculo, Scytalopus gettyae:Peter
A. Hosner , Mark B. Robbins , Thomas Valqui , and A. Townsend Peterson
(2013). “A New Species of Scytalopus Tapaculo (Aves: Passeriformes:
Rhinocryptidae) from the Andes of Central Peru”. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 125 (2): 233–242. doi:10.1676/12-055.1.
Cambodian tailorbird Orthotomus chaktomuk:Simon
Mahood, Ashish John, Hong Chamnan, and Colin Poole (2013). “A new
species of lowland tailorbird (Passeriformes: Cisticolidae: Orthotomus)
from the Mekong floodplain of Cambodia”. Forktail 29: 1–14.
Tropeiro seedeater, Sporophila beltoni: Márcio
Repenning and Carla Suertegaray Fontana. (2013). “A new species of gray
seedeater (Emberizidae: Sporophila) from upland grasslands of southern
Brazil.”. The Auk 130 (4): 791–803. doi:10.1525/auk.2013.12167.
The following newly discovered 15 Brazilian species are described in the 17th volume of the Handbook of the Birds of the World:
Western striolated-puffbird, Nystalus obamai
Xingu woodcreeper, Dendrocolaptes retentus
Inambari woodcreeper, Lepidocolaptes fatimalimae
Tupana scythebill, Campylorhamphus gyldenstolpei
Tapajós scythebill, Campylorhamphus cardosoi
Roosevelt stipple-throated antwren, Epinecrophylla dentei
Bamboo antwren, Myrmotherula oreni
Predicted antwren, Herpsilochmus praedictus
Aripuana antwren, Herpsilochmus stotzi
Manicoré warbling antbird, Hypocnemis rondoni
Chico’s tyrannulet, Zimmerius chicomendesi
Acre tody-tyrant, Hemitriccus cohnhafti
Sucunduri yellow-margined flycatcher, Tolmomyias sucunduri
Inambari gnatcatcher, Polioptila attenboroughi
Campina jay, Cyanocorax hafferi
Sierra Madre ground warbler Robsonius thompsoni: Peter
A. Hosner, Nikki C. Boggess, Phillip Alviola, Luis A. Sánchez-González,
Carl H. Oliveros, Rolly Urriza and Robert G. Moyle. (2013).
“Phylogeography of the Robsonius Ground-Warblers (Passeriformes:
Locustellidae) Reveals an Undescribed Species from Northeastern Luzon,
Philippines.”. The Condor 115 (3): 630–639. doi:10.1525/cond.2013.120124.
Guerrero brush-finch Arremon kuehnerii: Adolfo
G. Navarro-Sigüenza, Martha A. García-Hernández and A. Townsend
Peterson. (2013). “A new species of Brush-Finch (Arremon; Emberizidae)
from western Mexico.”. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 125 (3): 443–453. doi:10.1676/12-136.1.
Omani owl Strix omanensis: Magnus Robb, Arnoud B van den Berg & Mark Constantine. (2013). “A new species of Strix owl from Oman.”. Dutch Birding 35 (5): 275–310.
New Caledonia snipe, Coenocorypha neocaledonica: Trevor Worthy, Atholl Anderson and Christophe Sand. (2013). “An extinct Austral snipe Aves: Coenocorypha from New Caledonia.”. Emu 113 (4): 383–393. doi:10.1071/MU13019.
Most excellent point!
Nice! 🙂
excellent issue. I think it might be useful to look at the “biodiversity” preserved by healthy productive modern farming. I know that the hay fields that will feed the beef in winter are making terrifically healthy elk, mule deer, and pronghorn around these parts!
A Species Exploration expert believes that we have only discovered a tiny percentage of existing species:
“”Quentin Wheeler, president of SUNY-ESF and founding director of the International Institute for Species Exploration,
says these animals represent a tiny sliver of the world’s undiscovered species. There are perhaps 12 million species of plants, animals, and fungi—and about 50 million if you add bacteria and microbes called archaea—of which we’ve discovered and described fewer than two million.”
“We have not increased our rate of species discovery and description at all since before World War II,” said Wheeler. “It’s pretty much a steady state of 17,000 to 18,000 species a year. Given the technological advances in recent decades, I find that really inexcusable. We could easily be working an order of magnitude faster.”
Excellent article and puts so much into perspective. Hey guess what? This will continue as long as we introduce 90+ million people onto the planet each year! Whatever, don’t mention the War!!
Your assertion that Limbaugh portrays “all environmentalists” as whackos reveals a bit of sensitivity. You’re probably rightly sensitive, because it sure sounds like you used to run with a whacko crowd–it’s okay to admit you were wrong.
Limbaugh portrays whacko’s as whacko. He does not make a generalization that you claim.
Here’s a good summary of his positions on environmental whacko-ism, from his 1993 book:
“On no issue has the evidence of my foresight and keen political instincts been more compelling than that of the environment. Come, let us count the ways:
“Despite the hysterics of a few pseudo-scientists, there is no reason to believe in global warming
“Mankind is not responsible for depleting the ozone layer
“The Earth’s ecosystem is not fragile, and humans are not capable of destroying it
“The real enemies of the radical environmental leadership are capitalism & the American way of life
“There are more acres of forest land in America today than in 1492
“Less-developed cultures are not kinder to nature than technologically sophisticated civilizations. The reverse more often is true
“Big-government regulation is not the best way to protect the environment
“Many environmental groups have adopted their cause with all the enthusiasm of a religious crusade, abandoning reason and accepting many faulty premises on faith
“Mankind is part of nature and not necessarily the enemy.”
Source: See, I Told You So, p.189-90 , Jul 2, 1993
I think you may have misunderstood what he said.
He can correct me if I’m wrong but, I believe “”painted all environmentalists as “whackos”” refers to his past perception, not his present perception, as your use of the present tense implies.
20 to 30 years ago there were conservationist (not extreme) and the “wackos” (extremist). Both cared about the environment. Conservationist wanted to protect it FOR people. The “wackos” wanted to protect FROM people.
One more thing to add.
Rush has always been concerned with the politics behind what’s going on.
When the USEPA was formed there was a need to address the issues. Both were all for addressing the issues.
The problem was those good intentions, any ulterior motives aside, was that a bureaucracy was set up to deal issues. Its regulations have the effect of law but bypass the normal legal process. They make government big and unanswerable to The People.
We are seeing now what was to be a tool for good being used as a weapon in the wrong hands.
That’s the nature of the beast.
Gunga,
Thanks, I’m pretty good at understanding “what people say.” I take Steele at his word. You’re putting words into his mouth–likely understanding “what you think he meant to say.”
The issue here is that Steele implies, and you infer, that he is no longer a frothing at the mouth Politically Correct Progressive–or in his prim description, “left-leaning young ecologist.”
Yet his essay, written this week, not 30 years ago, asserts that “Limbaugh painted all environmentalists as “whackos.”
Steele did not say that in his prior incarnation as a “left-leaning young ecologist” he was wrong in his perception of Limbaugh’s views. He stated that “Limbaugh painted all environmentalists as “whackos.” If Steele had actually listened to Rush in the 1980s, he would know that Rush did NOT “paint all environmentalists as whackos.” This representation of Rush’s views is straight out of the PC-Progressives denigration handbook.
I provided Steele with contemporaneous quotes from Limbaugh (From 22 years ago. Rush’s radio show is not yet 30 years old) demonstrating Rush’s careful delineation of who the whacko’s are, and what their beliefs are. You may want to refer to the quote from Rush’s book cited above.
Steele could have made his points about Ehrlich, alarmism, and extinctions, while describing his own (apparent) transformation from environmental whacko to a denizen of Real-ville, without denigrating Rush.
Also, note the actual title of the essay: “Apocalyptic Fear-mongering: Sometimes Rush Limbaugh is Right!”
This clearly delineates that the author does NOT agree with Rush, and implies that the author USUALLY does not agree with Rush.
Steele thinks that his “essay shares my transition and my changing attitudes…” If so, it is couched in terminology intended to telegraph to his whacko buddies that he’s still with them, just not so much any more.
For a great example of how to communicate your conversion to reality from the netherworld of PC-Progressivism, see this article by David Mamet:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/david-mamet-why-i-am-no-longer-a-brain-dead-liberal-6429407
“David Mamet: Why I Am No Longer a ‘Brain-Dead Liberal’
“I took the liberal view for many decades, but I believe I have changed my mind.”
A better approach for Steele would have been to title the essay: “John Steele: Why I am No Longer an Environmental Whacko”
Thank you for linking to Mamet’s very interesting essay.
However, I don’t think it says what you think it does.
He doesn’t document–or argue for–a conversion from Liberal to Conservative. It isn’t a political tract. It is finer and more nuanced than its provocative title.
TakeBack,
You’re welcome.
I’m pretty sure that I know exactly what Mamet’s piece says.
He has expounded on his conversion extensively since then. I’ll provide you a couple links to interviews.
The point, however, is not my understanding of Mamet’s conversion, but that Mamet’s article, including its title is a perfect model for Steele’s apparent attempt at describing his conversion experience. Mamet did not, and does not, try to moderate his clear understanding of PC-Progs and their mission to destroy American culture.
In fact, Mamet (as you apparently do not know) wrote a follow-up book on just that subject:
“The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture” He makes NO attempt to avoid offending his former Willing Accomplices.
Here’s the publisher’s description of Mamet’s book:
“In 2008 Mamet wrote a hugely controversial op-ed for the Village Voice, “Why I Am No Longer a ‘Brain-Dead Liberal'”, in which he methodically attacked liberal beliefs, eviscerating them as efficiently as he did Method acting in his bestselling book True and False.
“Now Mamet employs his trademark intellectual force and vigor to take on all the key political issues of our times, from religion to political correctness to global warming. The legendary playwright, author, director, and filmmaker pulls no punches in his art or in his politics. And as a former liberal who woke up, Mamet will win over an entirely new audience of others who have grown irate over America’s current direction.”
Leaving aside the usefulness of publishers’ descriptions, which are designed to sell books…
Here is how Mamet closes his essay: “The right is mooing about faith, the left is mooing about change, and many are incensed about the fools on the other side—but, at the end of the day, they are the same folks we meet at the water cooler.” It sounds like a view from the middle, where people who get things done have to meet, as he points out repeatedly in the essay. (If I had to boil his essay down to a political checkbox, it would be Libertarian.)
If you actually believe that “PC-progs” are the entirety of the problem, rather than people at BOTH extremes; and if you also believe that a significant number of people who are to the left of center literally want to “destroy America,” then I have no hope of changing your mind. I leave you to your own devices, and sincerely hope you’ve hit upon a solution.
I’ll be with Mamet (and the rest of the vast majority in the middle of the political Bell curve), talking at the water cooler, trying to keep my pointing finger in check.
Regards!
Takeback,
Thanks for your note.
You may think you’re with Mamet at the water cooler. You’d better read Mamet’s book before you fill your paper cup–cuz you’ll get an earful of “finger pointing.” His coming-out article was just the beginning. Read his book–The Secret Knowledge–and you’ll forget about his water cooler talk. He names and shames his former ideological soul-mates from the PC crowd.
In the book, “Mamet elaborates on what he calls “the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Radicalism, and the Command Economy.’’
Probably not gonna gain a lot of water cooler buddies from the Obama crowd with that sort of comment. The book is an entire collection of such observations.
Regardless of what I think, you have “no hope of changing my mind” at all, without facts and a cogent, logical argument. Happy to engage in one–but it is sort of a waste of your time if your argument is based on what you think I understand. I state pretty clearly what I think and understand, and am happy to discuss my research and analysis that led to this knowledge.
What does “left of center” mean? What is the center? The Left vs Right paradigm has no meaning in America today.
For an introduction to who our opponents are, what their belief system is, and its origins, you’re invited to check out my book: Willing Accomplices–paperback, Kindle and Audible at Amazon: http://www.willingaccomplices.com If you’d like, I’ll offer you a review copy.
All the best. Think positive!
Kent
kentclizbe, you imagine many things without knowing me or asking me to clarify. That is a true knee-jerk reaction. It may surprise you to know I am a registered LIbertarian now and that transition was triggered by listening to the Afro-American libertarian Walt Williams whose was a guest host on Rush’s show. I only occasionally listen to radio and only occasionally listen or read about Rush. So I couldn’t tell you how much I now agre or disagree with. Regardless, I am sure I will disagree with many things as I disagree with many things that people say from all political persuasions.
You wrote, “Steele thinks that his “essay shares my transition and my changing attitudes…” If so, it is couched in terminology intended to telegraph to his whacko buddies that he’s still with them, just not so much any more.”
Your reference to my “whacko buddies” is the kind of polemics that divides people away and prevents a respectul discussion that can bring people together. There is a wide spectrum of beliefs among my “Whacko buddies”, yet without knowing anything you make insulting comments. That is why many people to the left of Rush have a knee-jerk reaction to dismiss whatever he says. Although there are indeed a few that I too would call whackos, most are very thoughtful, try to look at both sides, but but many avoid Rush and people like you because they feel there is no room to respectfully disagree, no gray area to discuss.
What you suggest is “telegraphing my whacko buddies”, was my intent to provide a middle ground for those people who may have turned off to Rush for whatever reason. I found his message regards apocalyptic fear mongering important and indeed wanted to “telegraph” all those people that here is a nugget of truth we can all agree on. But as Margaret Thatcher warned it is hard to govern from the middle of the road because you get hit by traffic in both directions. I considered leaving out my personal history of once being left-leaning because I expected it would be a lightening rod for people like you. But it was simply who I am and the road I took. I have no regrets.
If your aim is to denigrate anyone with whom you disagree, then you are doing a good job. BUt you are only preaching to the choir and that does precious little to open other people’s eyes. Treating Rush as infallible and thus beyond any disagreement is a mistake. It is as if you are demanding my total allegiance, or else I am you enemy. It is the same uncritical thinking that Ehrilch’s supporters embrace. And I know, because I have a few whacko friends who like Ehrlich, who will attack in the same way you are now doing. But most of my friends are simply looking for cogent arguments, and their politics are more issue based, vs ideology.
So what baffles me though is that even though I am supporting Rush’s latest statements, you would begrudge me for past disagreements as if that was your most sacred mission, and choose to ignore the more important points that are the thrust of the essay.
Perfect reply. Every word of it.
kentclizbe,
Gunga has a much better and correct understanding of what I said!
Jim,
Thanks for your response. While your apparent intentions are laudable–your implementation left much to be desired. From the title to the text, you fairly oozed regret that you were forced to agree with Rush on something.
I’d again refer you to David Mamet’s “conversion to conservativism” mea culpa linked above. If that is what you intended here, you missed the mark–as a writer, you’re a great bird bander!
As for your, and others’, belief that the way to convert PC-Progressives to the real-world point of view is to tone-down, modify, and soft-sell the truth, you cite Walter Williams as the one whose views converted you.
Walter Williams does not “soft peddle” or tone down his conservative beliefs, nor does he strike a “moderate” note in communicating his beliefs. Neither does Rush. Both Williams and Rush speak the truth, in clear, honest declarations.
The idea that full strength Rush will “scare off those who most need to hear the message” is misguided at best. People respond to the truth. It may take a while, it may take multiple exposures, but if they are going to respond, they will only respond to the actual truth—not a homogenized, washed-out, fake version of it, served up lukewarm and bland, with the intention of avoiding offense.
Trying to have your cake and eat it too—wanting to avoid offending PC-Progs—won’t work
Look at comments here—several people have shared their conversion experiences after listening to Rush—do you think they were converted because Rush tried to avoid offending them? Rush’s commentary is full strength, not watered down.
You’ve right I don’t know you—but there are a lot of biodata points in your article: you’ve lived in San Francisco for more than 30 years, are/were an instructor in a state university, considered yourself a “left-leaning environmentalist,” and have been involved in environmental issues in northern California. Combine that biodata with your clear attempts to straddle the fence on this issue (implying you agree with Rush, but signaling that you’re a bit ashamed, and realize it’s not polite to do so—viz your title), and a pretty clear understanding can be arrived at.
Let’s assume that you reject the PC-Progressive anti-capitalist AGW scam. You still live in San Francisco—the most Politically Correct city in America. You’ve chosen to live there. You’re surrounded by PC. You have PC friends. Your entire environment is pure PC. Voicing your true beliefs would be dangerous, in many ways–socially, professionally, personally, maybe even for your security.
While it may be helpful for your social status, the only effect of being wishy-washy is that you may not be totally written off some PC-Progs invitation lists.
Do you really want to be at their parties?
The danger to you, and other Normals, comes because the PC-Progs are the “fashionable” ones—the “elites.” They control social, cultural, and many economic power structures. If you do not conform, you’ll be written off—losing your social status, and possibly economic status.
But if you have the courage of your convictions, as do Rush and Williams, you’ll speak up, loud and proud, full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes.
Hope that helps. We’re on the same team. My comments are intended to help you fine-tune your message and effectiveness.
All the best.
Kent
http://www.kentclizbe.com
Jim,
Thanks for your response. While your apparent intentions are laudable–your implementation left much to be desired. From the title to the text, you fairly oozed regret that you were forced to agree with Rush on something.
I’d again refer you to David Mamet’s “conversion to conservativism” mea culpa linked above. If that is what you intended here, you missed the mark–as a writer, you’re a great bird bander!
As for your, and others’, belief that the way to convert PC-Progressives to the real-world point of view is to tone-down, modify, and soft-sell the truth, you cite Walter Williams as the one whose views converted you.
Walter Williams does not “soft peddle” or tone down his conservative beliefs, nor does he strike a “moderate” note in communicating his beliefs. Neither does Rush. Both Williams and Rush speak the truth, in clear, honest declarations.
The idea that full strength Rush will “scare off those who most need to hear the message” is misguided at best. People respond to the truth. It may take a while, it may take multiple exposures, but if they are going to respond, they will only respond to the actual truth—not a homogenized, washed-out, fake version of it, served up lukewarm and bland, with the intention of avoiding offense.
Trying to have your cake and eat it too—wanting to avoid offending PC-Progs—won’t work
Look at comments here—several people have shared their conversion experiences after listening to Rush—do you think they were converted because Rush tried to avoid offending them? Rush’s commentary is full strength, not watered down.
You’ve right I don’t know you—but there are a lot of biodata points in your article: you’ve lived in San Francisco for more than 30 years, are/were an instructor in a state university, considered yourself a “left-leaning environmentalist,” and have been involved in environmental issues in northern California. Combine that biodata with your clear attempts to straddle the fence on this issue (implying you agree with Rush, but signaling that you’re a bit ashamed, and realize it’s not polite to do so—viz your title), and a pretty clear understanding can be arrived at.
Let’s assume that you reject the PC-Progressive anti-capitalist AGW scam. You still live in San Francisco—the most Politically Correct city in America. You’ve chosen to live there. You’re surrounded by PC. You have PC friends. Your entire environment is pure PC. Voicing your true beliefs would be dangerous, in many ways–socially, professionally, personally, maybe even for your security.
While it may be helpful for your social status, the only effect of being wishy-washy is that you may not be totally written off some PC-Progs invitation lists.
Do you really want to be at their parties?
The danger to you, and other Normals, comes because the PC-Progs are the “fashionable” ones—the “elites.” They control social, cultural, and many economic power structures. If you do not conform, you’ll be written off—losing your social status, and possibly economic status.
But if you have the courage of your convictions, as do Rush and Williams, you’ll speak up, loud and proud, full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes.
Hope that helps. We’re on the same team. My comments are intended to help you fine-tune your message and effectiveness.
All the best.
Kent
kent,
You can list all the “bio data” points to justify your prejudice, but it doesn’t make you any better or any more correct or any less insulting. For me, your tactics has resulted in categorizing you as an extremist not worth listening to, even though we share similar thoughts. So consider how your words might effect someone who is less open minded.
I have never argued that a hard-hitting sell vs a soft cell is either better or worse. I think a hard hitting sell of our beliefs is often needed. And indeed most people respond to the truth. But that does not negate the fact that a soft sell is an equally useful approach. Tell people they are wrong, stupid or wish washy and most people will defend themselves by trying prove it s you who is wrong, and the truth of the argument is lost.
Our disagreement resides in your implied suggestions that only a hard sell trumpeting that everything Rush says is correct and the truth, and the implication that if people dont’ get it, hit them harder. I simply argue there are many paths that reveal the truth. As an educator for 30 years I have long realized each student responds best to a different tactic. Some need a more forceful approach and others need a softer sell. I know that my chosen path has opened the minds of people around me, that you would prefer to write off as whackos. They are immune to your preferred tactics. So I would suggest to you that everyone does not need to engage in the same methods embraced by Kent in order to engage people in truth seeking. And to believe your way is always the bes,t will do more harm than good.
Kent,
I just visited your website to find you declare being a CIA Counter-terrorism Operations Expert
So let me ask you this. In your experience, when the USA or any country has invaded another country, no matter how righteous the reason, my impression is that such a hard hitting tactic often pushes many moderates and centrists who we intended to help, to resist that invasion and even join forces with the very people we are trying to stop. Is there any truth that?
Jim,
Thanks for your note. Yes, I’m a practitioner of, professor of, and historian of intelligence operations–specifically information operations, otherwise known as covert influence, covert actions, or other related terms.
Here’s a good interview I did with my colleague, Mike Davidson, of AND magazine, about covert influence operations.
You may not realize it, but that’s what we (realists vs. apocalypsists) are engaged in. And they’re kicking our butts.
Our (realists’) Achilles heel is that we have technical guys on the front lines of our information warfare. And to make it even worse, the technical guys waging our information warfare do not understand what it is they are engaged in, nor do they understand our opponents’ strategy or tactics. They are great at their technical specialties, but far out of their depths in information warfare.
Besides outright capitulation to apocalyptic insanity, one of the worst possible tactics is to try to appeal to those under the whacko influence by softening or weakening our reality message.
There are several case studies, just in this comments thread, of conversion experiences–specifically from formerly scared-of-CO2 cult member based on their listening to Rush. Your case is another–you saw the light while listening to Walter Williams speak the truth. Here’s how Williams describes his latest book:
“Skewering the self-righteous and self-important forces throughout society, he makes the case for what he calls the “the moral superiority of personal liberty and its main ingredient—limited government.”
That is the truth–unvarnished, straight, and clear.
Our strength comes from speaking the truth.
Happy to provide more details about information warfare and the battle for the soul of our country that has been fought for the last 90 years. Hint: we’re losing.
All the best.
Kent
EXCEPT – Fiction well-served trumps truth every time. I am a scientist who is a member of The Right Climate Stuff Research Team – a group almost entirely made up of retired NASA scientists and engineers, with a small spattering of journeymen scientist and engineers like me. The team tries to speak to climate change on a level that laymen can understand. We speak about empirical evidence and theorems, not hypotheses. We explain climate models and their weaknesses to show that the climate issuers are not settled science – FAR FROM IT. You are correct in speaking about the “whackos” – it boils down to this simple phrase – “Don’t confuse them with facts, their mind is already made”.
To sell the reasonable person – the soft sell, using FACTS, is the best approach by far.
Howard,
Thanks for your work. Sounds like a great approach.
Our side has the truth. Using the mendacious, manipulative, lie-based covert influence approach would negate our advantage.
Think positive!
Can all the Rush Limbaugh fans just let it go. Rush certainly would welcome the information in the article and most likely have a good laugh over the title. For crying out loud don’t take umbrage with a modest attempt at humor or make a straw dog out of what it might really mean. That’d be “wacko”
Ehrlich was a wacko then and nothing appears to have improved in the interim.
Doom doom thrice doom , the guy is a basket case with an agenda (21?) in his pocket.
He has been talking tripe his entire life and has done nicely out of it , his solution to the Worlds alleged problems is the elimination of around 7 billion people.. Meanwhile in the real world………
I hope Ceballos and Erlich are lobbying the IUCN to get the assessment of Homo sapiens changed in the Red List from ‘Least Concern’ to ‘Endangered’ if they think things are so bad.
If they are not lobbying then their apocalyptic vision is just a pocket-lining exercise isn’t it?
Wonderful piece! Thanks Jim.
Being German I didn’t care for Rush Limbaugh, only noticed that he seemed to be some sort of Antichrist to the American Left, still didn’t care, some day somebody sent me a link to a podcast or something, I listened to it and found him perfectly reasonable.
Now I make sure that any time the Left this or that side of the Atlantic vilifies someone I listen to that person because it’s a sure sign of approval.
This man of Steele always Steals the show!
One should always be open to the possibility that someone whose politics are far from yours gets it right on an issue. I still agree with the left on many things, but one of their errors is to exclude the possibility that a right-winger can be right about anything. I was also stunned when Rush Limbaugh was right. A bit off-topic, but something similar happened in the UK, when the only people who talked about Muslim child-grooming gangs were the extreme right. Eventually, the right was proven right, and even the Guardian had to admit it.
I just read the article on Rush Limbaugh’s website which Jim Steele linked to. I take it back – Limbaugh is an idiot, like so many, unfortunately, of the loudest supporters of skepticism in the USA. With friends like this, science doesn’t need enemies.
Well stated, Jim. Maybe Anthony will let you post your resume on this site after San Francisco State fires you for telling the truth.
thanks Jim Steele great post.
Rush, or the Progressives reaction to him is most revealing, exactly like Climate Science.
Where the source is far more important than the facts.
This is the reasoning of Zealots, more moderate people shy away from being sucked into this vile and vacuous mindset, the result being the true believers exist in a bubble of like minded unthinking.
Reality has a way of colliding most unpleasantly with such set minds.
Yes Rush is right, but most of the afflicted believe the disease looks good on them and would rather die than lose face.
We live in interesting times, our cultural progressives are facing an unprecedented collapse, in areas where they have held power for generations, life is not better for the captive population.
Magical thinking has not changed any aspect of trade,economics or human nature.
Now we have two generations of young adults who have never heard “NO” or faced serious resistance to their ideological pap.It is quite amazing to observe how they fall apart when faced with determined opposition.
Fools and Bandits have and will always be with us, the Gang Green are fully exposed as shameless liars,opportunists and rent seeking parasites.The high ideals that many of us thought we shared with them have turned out to be a means of abusing the public trust.
Seems we actual conservatives and seekers after a more harmonious world have enabled a voracious gangrene to attack the foundations of our civilization.
The summary of this current infestation of the publicly financed Doom and Gloom brigade is ;
Parasitic Overload.
I wish people at the extreme left and the extreme right could see themselves clearly: villifying, blaming and shouting down those at the other extreme, unaware how similar their mindsets are, how equally they impede progress.
The way forward will most certainly come from somewhere in the quieter, more practical middle…
Wonderful, fact filled essay and discussion! Thanks!
Jim Steele, excellent presentation. A simple yet thorough untwisting of the “facts” as presented by those who have their panties in a wad.
Matt Ridley has a great article much in line with this essay and well worth reading at http://www.mattridley.co.uk/blog/eco-modernism-and-sustainable-intensification.aspx