*UPDATE/CORRECTION: This post was based on an article in the Independent, which has since been changed. This is the original headline:
It is only available on the wayback machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20161208201537/http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-global-warming-mass-extinctions-species-study-donald-trump-kill-himself-joke-a7464391.html
Now it reads:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-global-warming-mass-extinctions-species-study-donald-trump-kill-himself-joke-a7464391.html
Many other outlets, including Yahoo News picked up the story.
This has come about because the biologist in question made a joke, and the reporter used the quote verbatim. The blog “On Second Thought” delved into the details:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wiens confirmed that he did, in fact, say Trump should kill himself, but noted the statement was made as joke:
“On Thursday, December 8, I was contacted by Ian Johnston from The Independent, ostensibly to talk about my paper on climate change and extinction that was being published in PLoS Biology (the paper actually received serious reporting by Brandie Wiekle from CBC News and others).
“Unfortunately, Mr. Johnston admitted that he had not read my paper, and apparently had little interest in talking about it. It turned out that he only wanted to talk about Donald Trump. I did not. He asked me what I would say to Donald Trump. I said that I really did not think that Donald Trump cared at all what I thought.
“Obviously, I hoped that this would be the end of the topic. He persisted. I did therefore say that Trump should “kill himself immediately” (i.e., his doing this seems about as likely as him following any recommendation from an obscure scientist like myself about stopping climate change). I then made sure that it was clear that it was a joke.”
Johnston’s original story did note it was a joke, but Wiens was nonetheless surprised it got into print:
“I also assumed, wrongly, that it (the joke) would not be reported, since the statement was meant to be ridiculous. He did NOT report my preceding statement that I did not think Trump cared what I thought. He then kept persisting with the same question about Trump.
“Next, to further indicate that I wanted to change the subject, I suggested that the UK should make its former colonies switch leaders, so that the U.S. gets Justin Trudeau and Canada gets Donald Trump (as in, to make both the U.S. and Donald Trump nicer after a few years).”
In a subsequent email, Wiens told me that he and Johnston are in disagreement over what was on or off the record.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So for those confused by the headline, Weins did in fact say that, intended it as a joke, and thought he was in the clear. This illustrates the perils of making jokes while talking to a reporter. President Ronald Reagan learned the hard way back in the 80’s with his famous bombing quote. From the Wikipedia account:
On August 11, 1984, United StatesPresidentRonald Reagan, while running for re-election, was preparing to make his weekly Saturday radio address on National Public Radio. During a sound check before the address, Reagan made the following joke to the radio technicians: “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.” The joke was a parody of the opening line of that day’s speech: “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you that today I signed legislation that will allow student religious groups to begin enjoying a right they’ve too long been denied — the freedom to meet in public high schools during nonschool hours, just as other student groups are allowed to do.”[1]
Contrary to popular misconception, this microphone gaffe was not broadcast over the air, but rather leaked later to the general populace.
So for all those people who got their panties in a twist over this (Brandon S. for example), that’s the clarification.
-Anthony Watts
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Yahoo reports on another outbreak of green peace and love, this time from Arizona Professor John Wiens.
‘Kill yourself immediately’: Biologist takes aim at climate change denier Donald Trump
An evolutionary biologist who says all animal life could be wiped out in as little as 50 years has instructed Donald Trump to “kill yourself immediately”.
Professor John Wiens took aim at the controversial president elect, who refutes the existence of climate change, while describing the “global disaster” taking hold of our planet.
The Arizona University scientist found that 47 per cent of almost 1000 species had suffered local extinctions linked to climate change, according to the Independent.
…
Professor Wiens joked that if he ever got to meet Trump he would instruct him to “kill himself”, but when questioned again he gave a more serious answer.
“I guess I would tell him ‘what would you think if there was a country on the other side of the world that was releasing gas that was going to cause extinctions in our country, to hurt our crops and make people starve?’
“He would say, ‘tell me where it is and we’ll bomb them tomorrow’. Then I’d say, ‘this is what we’re doing to other countries because we are the big polluters’.”
…
You might think Professor Wiens has eaten one field trip mushroom too many, but in terms of Arizona academics he’s actually an optimist. WUWT reported in November this year that according to Arizona colleague Professor-emeritus Guy McPherson we don’t have to worry about climate change, because the 6th mass extinction will kill us all off in the next ten years, regardless of what we do.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“I guess I would tell him ‘what would you think if there was a country on the other side of the world that was releasing gas that was going to cause extinctions in our country, to hurt our crops and make people starve?’
“He would say, ‘tell me where it is and we’ll bomb them tomorrow’.
No, Trump would say, “Yes, I know because I have worked a great deal with China and Chinese suppliers. This is one reason I would like to move production back to the US where that is practical, because we can do a better job of working in a way which will protect our small planet.”
So this guy doesn’t get a visit from the Secret Service? What? I suppose we should follow his lead! Let’s rid ourselves of Climate Warmist, in his position. Would not that be their example to the Deniers? If HRC had been elected, would not the same professor be embolden to do worst? The pendulum must swing both ways. The distance traveled by the pendulum is almost as great as the first swing. Given a push, it will travel further than the last….no? The left has created the momentum by which the pendulum swings to the right. We should take full advantage of such. And then thank them for the opportunity.
Let me be the first….thank you Warmist for this opportunity to crush you as you desired to crush us Deniers. No more so, but surly, no less.
Perhaps this should be forwarded to the Secret Service?
Hmm,, i wonder if Trump’s comments about grabbing women by the pussy has been forwarded to police stations around the country along with his picture and description as a self-proclaimed sexual predator. We actually have his comments on audio tape, not to mention the many accusations of his sexual misconduct from a variety of women. I think Trump poses more of a threat than dr Wiens does….
That is called freedom of speech. The odd thing about freedom of speech is that it does not protect speech you like, but speech you do not like. And it is not illegal.
However the actions are. And that was Bill Clinton. Guess we dodged a bullet by making sure he was not doing it again in the Whitehouse!
Not expecting less from anyone linking local events to man-made climate change conjecture. After all, the latter is observable only globally over decades by their own definition.
Rather than just engage in ad hominem. It would be much more effective to read the original research and show that both Wiens and the Independent draw absolutely incredible conclusions from the original research. To begin with Wiens definition of “local extinctions” is so tortured, one wonders how this ever got through peer review (until one remembers that PLOS is a pay to play journal). Then, the “data” come from a secondary analysis of published articles, Wiens alone seemed to pick to suit is purposes. He did not actually directly see, taste, touch, feel, or hear any of the 1000 highly localized local populations (good lord not entire “species”) he references in the article. Junk science meets hysterical alrmist reporting. This shoddiness of the work would be a better target than the person who did the work.
Funny those people so concerned are the last to do what they advise others to…
It is comforting to know that I’ll get all of my Social Security, and pension, and I won’t outlive my savings (which are meager at best), since we’re all going to be dead in ten years (Guy McPherson). I was afraid I was going to linger well past the exhaustion of the Social Insecurity Trust Fund. Now I have hope.
And maybe Wiens should take his own advice, since he’s so adamant. It is so funny how these envirowackos always want someone else to do the “heavy lifting” , and won’t do any themselves.
Vlad
I think it has to be asked:
“What difference at this point does it make?”
Seriously, if we’re all dead in 10 to 50 years, then Trump is absolutely the man for the job because it makes no difference at all.
Imagine this headline instead: “Majority of local extinctions due to natural climate change, says UofA Prof.”
I believe the re-emergence of non-politicized science will result in a targeted mass extinction limited to those preaching unsupportable conclusions about “climate change”.
This is exactly why, common core should be eliminated from every school and university. The teachers became a completely idiots lefties.
Well, that’s a relief. It’s a slow news day, and I worried I was going to have to finally go a day without a leftist death-wish.
Silly me!
Watch your back, John WHINES. You will die suddenly. Wait for it!
Marlene, are you making a death threat against Dr. Wiens? IS this part of the intimidation of scientists that so many societies engage in? I saw this kind of thing first hand in the mid east…if you don’t agree with what someone says, just threaten to kill them. How wonderful to see that that kind of bullying and fear-mongering is at work here in the US as well.
Tell it to Weins!
So you ADMIT that Weins was threatening the President elect! You just ensured he will be on the no fly list.
See how that works? With friends like you, that id-10-t does not need enemies!
We have to look at the positive angle here. If goofballs like Wiens weren’t safely sequestered in the Halls of Academia, they’d be loose on the streets.
““I guess I would tell him ‘what would you think if there was a country on the other side of the world that was releasing gas that was going to cause extinctions in our country, to hurt our crops and make people starve?’”
Ummmm it’s called CHINA and no we can’t bomb them because they have nukes too.
Second “hurt our crops”?? WTF?? Greater drought resistance and growth due to extra CO2 is “hurting” our crops? In what way?
Absolutely gobsmacked by the arrogance and ignorance of this prof. Wow. Just wow.
There was a “climate-related local extinction” of human beings in Greenland when it got too cold for them, but somehow humity seems to have carried on.
Prof. Wiens is prolific and delusional, a dangerous combination. His latest book is a collection of rediculous screeds (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9781118895078 ). His chapter on sea level (don’t bother to read it, certainly don’t buy it) doesn’t once mention the measurement of sea level over the last century, except to say “sea levels have risen some 20 cm over the past century” (roughly true as best we can measure) and “the rate of increase has doubled over the last two decades” (false). I visited the University of Arizona last year and toured one of their labs (not biology) and have a high respect for some of their scientists. Not this one.
Sounds like some shirttail relative of Anthony Weiner.
It has already been proven that azz hats like you made up this climate change thing. So do us all a favor and shut up.
So the vast majority of scientists believe in climate change…actual educated people who do research, not just idiots who cruise the net and form their science from whatever . Climate change is not “made up”. What’s laughable is how the effects of climate change are starting to change people’s lives,in overall negative ways, but they still refuse to believe in it. You can’t argue with idiots i guess.
The vast majority of Rosicrucians believe there is such a thing as ‘black magic’. The vast majority of searchers for Sasquatch believe that a primordial great ape roams the forests. The vast majority of UFO enthusiasts believe that little green men fly around in saucers. The vast majority of children believe in Santa Claus. Three billion Muslims believe that Big Mo was the perfect man. I suppose, therefore, that in your mind these ‘vast majorities’ make it true. Do you have any evidence to suggest that a ‘vast majority’ of scientists share the same ludicrous proposals? Do you have ANY idea what a LOGICAL FALLACY is?
Correction – little GRAY men fly around in spaceships. 😉
Marie,
No one knows what share of the millions of scientists in the world “believe in climate change”. They have not all been surveyed. The bogus “97%” lie is based upon a poll of 10,257 scientists, of whom 3146 responded and 79 were selected by the conductors of the survey.
Of these 79 cherry-picked “climate scientists”, 77 answered yes to Question 1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Most skeptics would say the same.
Of these 77 respondents, 75 also answered yes to Question 2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” Again, some skeptics might even agree with this statement, but it’s practically meaningless, since “significant” isn’t quantified. Does it mean five, ten, 25, 50% or more of whatever “climate change” has actually been observed?
The other 3067 respondents answered “yes” to both questions at lower rates.
But science isn’t based upon voting. It’s based upon making predictions subject to test, which are capable of being shown false. On that score, man-made “climate change” fails miserably.
“What’s laughable is how the effects of climate change are starting to change people’s lives,in overall negative ways,”
?itok=6gEIytga
Yep, like this:
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
Or this:
http://www.cargill.com/wcm/groups/public/@ccom/documents/image/na31900963.jpg
You haven’t the first clue what you’re wittering about, have you?
One of the uneducated overly believing types on here is you Marie. Obviously, you don’t follow what goes on here. Almost all the people here are degreed and have made some meaningful inquiries into what is passed off as climate science. I haven’t seen anywhere you have presented anything in the way of ideas. You are just another one of those that appeal to authority with the ability to copy and paste. Explain how someone can write a paper using data from NOAA showing that co2 follows temperature, and NOAA changes the data. Explain that. While you are at it, explain how global temperature drops, where does that energy go ? It takes 100 years for the temperature to rise 0.8 C and drops 0.5 C in 6 months. Why isn’t co2 holding the heat ? Is it being transferred Somewhere? Tell me the process, we all want to know. Perhaps it’s hiding in the deep ocean, or maybe there’s a tropical hotspot. I’d like to here your spin on that. Similar how global warming makes it colder. You should put on a white lab coat and stand up for science. What do you know ?
Please tell us about some ways that human caused climate change is affecting peoples’ lives. What exactly has changed…be quantatative… and explain how that has caused hardship.
Then, explain what concrete steps you would take to mitigate the changes. Quantatative cost/benefit analysis would be informative
Thanks
Mary Brown
Hmmmn.
Well, EVERYBODY on earth (now some 7 billion of us) are enjoying MORE food, MORE fuel, MORE fodder, MORE farms and MORE fruitful lives with MORE plants and MORE growth of larger trees, plants, and ALL green growing things worldwide – ALL growing 12 – 27% FASTER, TALLER, HIGHER, and MORE PRODUCTIVELY – due to the recent release of MORE CO2 from the earth’s reserves of long-fossilized carbon into the atmosphere. So, some 8-12% of those 7 billion are getting fed directly from the extra CO2 and the longer growing seasons of a slightly warmer planet.
And the remaining 5 billion are getting fed, clothed, sheltered, and granted clean drinking water and rational sewage disposal due to fossil fuel. So, no fossil fuels = 4 billion deaths.
Not a bad trade, I’d say.
Especially given that there are NO problems associated with the recent release of CO2 into the atmosphere …. All gain. 5 billion lives improved. No bad, not bad at all.
In addition, it would help if Marie were to describe what her perception of “climate” actually is.
Her perception might not conform to the definition which is “the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a REGION, such as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of thirty years or more.” Climate can be quantified with metrics such as the Koppen-Geiger classification, or the Trewartha classification (or Alisov, Holdridge, or Vahl)
So a necessary step is to identify a region, and determine whether the classification has changed in the last hundred years or so. If that is the case, try to determine whether that is due to land use, urban sprawl, or natural variation.
See, the Earth doesn’t have a “climate” any more than it has a global language or a global currency. The only way to determine whether a parameter such as a climate has changed is to compare with identical metrics.
The problem with the claim “ALL green growing things worldwide – ALL growing 12 – 27% FASTER, TALLER, HIGHER, and MORE PRODUCTIVELY” is twofold.
…
The first is that WEEDS are also benefiting, and the weeds DECREASE food production.
..
The second is that you are attributing these benefits strictly to CO2 when in fact it is a multi-variate dependancy , and you cannot prove 100% of the benefits come ONLY from CO2. (i.e. irrigation, fertilizers, improved strains, etc.)
So you fertilize weeds?
And you cannot prove that ALL the benefits do NOT come from increased CO2. However, there are 2 problems with your claims.
#1 – No one is claiming 100% cause and effect. They are looking at a statistical relationship based upon established biological facts and coming up with a r2 value in excess of .95 that shows SOME relationship,.
#2 – Weeds are a problem at ANY CO2 level, and farmers have gotten very good at controlling them. You even contradict yourself on that, by saying other factors MAY be contributing to higher yields!
“The first is that WEEDS are also benefiting, and the weeds DECREASE food production.”
Assuming we have been warming since 1960, this would appear to show otherwise.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-47Wsn_A8inQ/TV0ie6E5K1I/AAAAAAAABjc/9UD4_O5DPGc/s1600/Screen+shot+2011-02-17+at+8.25.09+AM.png
The second is that you are attributing these benefits strictly to CO2 when in fact it is a multi-variate dependancy , and you cannot prove 100% of the benefits come ONLY from CO2. (i.e. irrigation, fertilizers, improved strains, etc.)”
Take it up with NASA.
“Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
Yes markl, when you apply fertilizer to the soil in the field, the weeds can use it just like the crops do. Have you ever done any gardening?
Climate change is eternal. It happened before the advent of Homo Sapiens, and it will happen after they are gone. You do not need “years and years” of science to tell you that. So you are claiming he wasted his life. Not a bad supposition given his penultimate pronouncement is for the President Elect to kill himself.
“Have you ever done any gardening?”
Certainly have.
Have you ever done any farming?
Don’t bother answering that, you very clearly haven’t.
I live in Tucson, home of the pathetic, below-average institution called the “University” (haha) of Arizona, and it really disgusts me that my taxpayer’s dollars are going towards the salary of this dimwit.
I do believe in freedom of thought, but most of the communists who are utterly unaccountable to we Arizona taxpayers, themselves are devout Stalinists who never believed in freedom of speech unless it agreed with theirs.
We must clean out these rat nests!!
Seriously, so now you are resorting to calling people you disagree with communists? Or Stalinists? Wow, how original. And how stupid. Where in any of this has communism come into the picture? How does an economic system get dragged into this? Anyways, Dr. Wiens is not a communist, and unless having an IQ above 160 quailfies one as a dimwit, he is not a dimwit either. He happens to agree and support freedom of speech very much. Even the freedom of speech of ill informed, idiotic folks like most of the people posting here.
I assume you’d only be happy if your tax dollars were going to a University where everyone agreed with you..whatever your idealogy is…It appears your idealogy is to ignore scientific evidence, and try to spin climate change as something good because you can cherry pick a few not so harmful results and ignore the bigger picture. And i guess you’d outlaw communism in your University. Although how that squares with freedom of speech and freedom of thought i dont know, It’s not actually illegal to be a communist, or a Muslim, or an educated scientist, or a socialist, though you’d never know that from reading some of these comments.
And freedom of speech like calling for your opponents death? Actually no one is claiming he violated any laws. So your crutch on free speech is off base. He has the freedom to make a fool of himself. And he jumped into that hole head first.
What amuses me is that all the things you accuse others here of are not in evidence. Ridicule at stupidity is also protected by the right you want to trample on, except when it is something you agree with.
Being a ‘denier’ myself, if the professor came to me and told me to kill myself immediately I would tell him ‘You first.”
Kind of the Progressive solution for everything, isn’t it. Ninety percent human population reduction solves a lot of problems. Kind of a Gordian knot solution perhaps, but remember, guys like Prof Wiens never seem to consider themselves part of the ninety percent that’s gotta go. But they do seem to like Final Solutions.
For all the people who have been apathetic toward me pointing out this piece uses at least one fake quotation, I have a fascinating update. A while after I started posting about how at least one of the quotations provided must be fake, The Independent secretly edited its piece on this story to delete any mention of or reference to any version of the quotation. Their article no longer makes any mention of the idea anyone told Donald Trump to kill himself, and they provide no indication their story has been changed.
This is dishonest and unethical. It would also seem to confirm that a fabricated quote was used. Given The Independent has removed any and all versions of the quotation from their piece, it is entirely plausible Professor Wiens never said anything like what got so many people riled up. You can see documentation and detail in my post about it here:
http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/12/newspapers-fabricated-quote-suckers-skeptics/
I don’t claim my actions caused The Independent to do anything (it could easily have been triggered by someone else, perhaps even Wiens himself, noticing the issue), but it would appear I was completely correct. At this point, there is absolutely no reason to believe the headline of this post is true or accurate. There is no credibility to the idea Professor Wiens said he’d tell Donald Trump to kill himself in any fashion.
You started it 🙂 But now you are making an assumption that because the quote was withdrawn it was not true. I don’t know and I don’t think you do either.
I’m not sure why you think I’m making such an assumption. First, the phrase “the quote” is misleading as The Independent provided two different quotations. I have stated from the beginning one of those quotations must be fake simply because they don’t match.
Aside from that though, I have not said we know what Professor Wiens said. I’ve said The Independent’s dishonest and unethical behavior supports the idea a fake quote was used (which already seemed obvious) and calls into question the idea any such quotation was said. That doesn’t rule out the possibility Wiens said something like this. It just means (I think) there is no credibility to the quotation. I don’t think it is reasonable to consider a quotation credible if the people who provide the quotation try to cover up the fact they ever published it.
I don’t know what Wiens said. What I know is absent actual evidence or a statement directly from Wiens himself, I’m not going to believe something based solely upon a contradictory portrayal by The Independent which it has now secretly deleted and tried to cover up. I don’t think anyone else should either.
We’re quibbling over the blind leading the blind. If you are claiming that it could be a total fake report from the very beginning you win. I agree you cannot trust anything but a direct quote that can be verified anymore. I don’t think this falls into that category.
OR, it could be that greenies don’t want their opinions posted publically and there was pressure to get their genuine opinions removed.
It won’t be the first time, will it?
Ah, another “love trumps hate” believer! I am sure he also preaches “make love not war”. The hypocrisy is strong with this one!
There is a very big difference between an environmentalist and a conservationist. A conservationist believes in protecting the environment and keeping a balance within nature. They want clean air, clean water, and abundant animal life. They are angry when pets or livestock are abused. While the environmentalists will do absolutely anything to push a political agenda. Did you know Greenpeace executes millions of dogs and cats while claiming to be rescuing them? In essence it is the realists versus the Green whacko’s. You know, the extremists who want to reduce world population of humans who want to give animals human rights. Or PETA who is completely insane.
As for this professor… Well life is all about birth and death. Even the stars are born and die and born again from the scattered debris. We are all star dust. Yes we should protect species from going extinct but sometimes thats the way it is and the way its always been long before man roamed this Earth. Millions of species have gone extinct through no action on mankind’s part because mankind didn’t exist. The Earth has been both hotter and cooler many times over millions of years and each time Man wasn’t present. I do not believe that man can impact the environment as much as these experts claim. Especially when one large volcanic event can put more carbon and toxins into the atmosphere in a month than the entire industrial revolution till today. Or the sun can slow it’s activity to the point of a mini-ice age which we are now headed for by 2030. Climate change happens and has been happening long before man. They gave up on the term Global Warming because it snowed every time they had a conference. Again, this is not to say we should not continue making things cleaner and more efficient but the lengths they propose are insane. The solutions are not solutions they are a transfer of wealth.
Duh, of course climate change has been happening long before mankind arrived, It amazes me how many people spout that like it’s some new discovery that biologists and climate scientists have somehow overlooked. Scientists like Dr Wiens and others are well aware of changes in the Earth’s environment that come about due to things that are unrelated to human activity The issue is not whether climate change happens…the issue is whether it is reaching new and dangerous levels due to human activity. And most scientists agree that yes human activity is messing with “the climate:, in ways that will prove harmful in the end to humans and that could have its more devestating consequences mitigated by human action. What is so threatening to you people behind that simple idea? Saying bullshit like “well life is about birth and death and we are all star dust” is just evading the hard truths of what is in our power to do. If someone has cancer, do you just deny them treatment and spout off about how death is a part of life and they should just accept that and not fight it? Or do you try and actually cure that person’s cancer? Or would that be some unacceptable transfer of wealth or communist plot?
What is so threatening to people in the idea that human activity is having negative consequences on the environment and there are some things tht can be done to slow down or stop these negative consequences? Or is it just a knee jerk reaction that anything people do is okay and beyond reproach?
47% of 1000 species? What they don’t say is that all of those species in peril make up less than 1% of the entire animal biomass. None of them are keystone species. And every one of them would be subject to extinction from normal climate and biome change even if humans never existed. Yep, they’ll disappear and we’ll have less total diversity; less diverse, un-adaptable, un-selected for survival species. Darwinian natural selection at work.
In Arizona, if you walk uphill two or three feet a year, global warming is mitigated by elevation change. If a species is so weak that that kills it, then it was doomed for extinction anyway.
This whole business of blaming extinction on human climate change is absurd. It is theoretically possible in the future but certainly is not happening now