Wild claim: Climate change impacts on endangered wildlife massively under reported

From the “please send money to solve this manufactured crisis” department and the WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY comes this giant load of bollocks. They can’t even separate what the difference between weather and climate is, thinking that climate change is the “here and now” . The money quote:

…we need to communicate this to wider public and we need to ensure key decisions makers know that something significant needs to happen now to stop species going extinct. Climate change is not a future threat anymore.”

How specific, “something significant”. Climate change is right outside your window. It’s making species go extinct! Act now!

Organizations like this rely on alarm to generate donations. Just one visit to the webpage tells you all you need to know, between the popup window pleas to save “x” on every page, the financials tell the story – its about money, lots of it:

…operating revenue of $234.6 million supporting $198.1 million in programmatic activity in our parks and in the field, representing over 84% of total expenses. Net assets totaled $973.6 million…

In my opinion, they’ve figured out that climate change as a future threat just isn’t scary enough to generate enough shakedowns donations from the fearful. So, making climate change in the “here and now” rather than the future, makes it an immediate threat, likely to generate more concern and donations. It reminds me of this famous and controversial cover image from National Lampoon magazine:



Replace the image of the dog with the Gorilla from their web page and you have the same effect (yellow text mine):



Climate change impacts on endangered wildlife massively under reported


NEW YORK (February 13, 2017) – A team of scientists reporting in the journal Nature Climate Change say that negative impacts of climate change on threatened and endangered wildlife have been massively underreported.

In a new analysis, authors found that nearly half of the mammals and nearly a quarter of the birds on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species are negatively impacted by climate change, with nearly 700 species affected. Previous assessments said only seven percent of mammals and four percent of birds on the Red List were impacted.

The paper reviewed 130 studies, making it the most comprehensive assessment to date on how climate change is affecting our most well-studied species.

Impacts for mammals are wide ranging and include a lower ability to exploit resources and adapt to new environmental conditions. For example, primates and marsupials, many of which have evolved in stable tropical areas, are vulnerable to rapid changes and extreme events brought on by climate change. In addition, primates and elephants, which are characterized by very slow reproductive rates that reduce their ability to adapt to rapid changes in environmental conditions, are also vulnerable. On the other hand, rodent species that can burrow, and thus avoid some extreme conditions, will be less vulnerable.

For birds, negative responses in both breeding and non-breeding areas were generally observed in species that experienced large changes in temperatures in the past 60 years, live at high altitudes, and have low temperature seasonality within their distributions. Many impacted species inhabit aquatic environments, which are considered among the most vulnerable to temperature increase due to habitat loss, fragmentation, and harmful algal blooms. In addition, changes in climate in tropical and subtropical forest areas, already exacerbated by habitat degradation, may threaten forest-dependent species.

Said lead author Michela Pacifici of the Global Mammal Assessment Program at Sapienza University of Rome: “It is likely that many of these species have a high probability of being very negatively impacted by expected future changes in the climate.”

Said co-author Dr James Watson of the Wildlife Conservation Society and University of Queensland: “Our results clearly show that the impact of climate change on mammals and birds to date is currently greatly under-estimated and reported upon. We need to greatly improve assessments of the impacts of climate change on species right now, we need to communicate this to wider public and we need to ensure key decisions makers know that something significant needs to happen now to stop species going extinct. Climate change is not a future threat anymore.”

The authors recommend that research and conservation efforts give greater attention to the `here and now’ of climate change impacts on life on Earth. This also has significant implications for intergovernmental policy fora such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, and the revision of the strategic plan of the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change.


What’s worse, they aren’t actually seeing species go extinct, it’s all based on a model. The press release sure reads a lot different than the paper…but I’ve already explained why.


Species’ traits influenced their response to recent climate change


Although it is widely accepted that future climatic change—if unabated—is likely to have major impacts on biodiversity1, 2, few studies have attempted to quantify the number of species whose populations have already been impacted by climate change3, 4. Using a systematic review of published literature, we identified mammals and birds for which there is evidence that they have already been impacted by climate change. We modelled the relationships between observed responses and intrinsic (for example, body mass) and spatial traits (for example, temperature seasonality within the geographic range). Using this model, we estimated that 47% of terrestrial non-volant threatened mammals (out of 873 species) and 23.4% of threatened birds (out of 1,272 species) may have already been negatively impacted by climate change in at least part of their distribution. Our results suggest that populations of large numbers of threatened species are likely to be already affected by climate change, and that conservation managers, planners and policy makers must take this into account in efforts to safeguard the future of biodiversity.

139 thoughts on “Wild claim: Climate change impacts on endangered wildlife massively under reported

  1. This amounts to a massive misdirection play from deforestation, poaching, encroachment and a list of far more immediate issues for protection. This is a money egg hunt.

    • So if climatic conditions change, many species will be “affected”. It’s no brainer. If the next 20y gets cooler again I will be “affected”. Species which are already at risk

      …may have already been negatively impacted by climate change in at least part of their distribution.

      The usual could-be / may-be claims that are so vague that they can never be wrong. You do not need to do a study to make such general and non-committal statements.

      Our results suggest that populations of large numbers of threatened species are likely to be already affected by climate change,

      “suggests” that could-be / may-be ; likely etc. etc.

      … and that conservation managers, planners and policy makers must take this into account in efforts to safeguard the future of biodiversity.

      How can any policy makers take appropriate action based on such vague claims. There is also an inherent assumption in all this that the “climate change” in question is a) totally caused by man and b) totally under our control.
      They do not even define what they mean by “climate change” before demanding action to prevent it. They probably feel very warm and fuzzy inside that they have “done their bit” for the cause and of course now sit back hoping for lots of dollars to roll in so that they can continue to produce meaningless claims from “studies” in the published literature.

    • I stopped listening to “this endangered animal will really, REALLY be endangered when the danger gets really dangerous” stuff when someone said that the coelacanth was in danger of getting itself extinct because of…climate change.
      Yes, after literally millions of years, living through every iteration of the earth’s climate from really cold, to really hot, its gonna slip its wind from a “rapid” change in climate that can barely be discerned from static in the record.

    • YES!!!!! I literally read this thinking “Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.” I have been involved in wildlife conservation in one way or another for the last decade and a half. Climate change is nothing. The ACTUAL big problems are horrible land management by humans, massive increases in animal trafficking (much of which is now run by organized crime outfits), and decreased habitat due to human expansion.
      THE TIGER IS GOING EXTINCT IN THE WILD BECAUSE IDIOTS IN ASIA THINK ITS BODY PARTS ARE MAGIC. Even if climate change was real in the way they claim, it would not matter to most endangered species because those species will be gone before any actual change would happen. Estimation is 10 years for tigers, this is one of a very few predictions that have the potential to come to pass. Rhino numbers are massively down due to poaching. Humans directly killing animals is a HUGE problem.
      The gorillas are in danger because their last refuges are in poor war-torn countries (the wars may “officially” be over, but the violence continues), so there is little local support for protecting them. Why worry about a gorilla when most of the country is one big hellhole? Gorillas get poached, they get shot as a message (the rangers better not mess with the fighters, etc.), they are killed by people who illegally live in the park (competition for resources and resentment). Climate change isn’t doing squat. You want to help the gorillas, ask the Belgian guy in the Congo what to do. I am pretty sure his answer will not be “build more windmills”.

  2. “It is likely that many of these species have a high probability of being very negatively impacted by expected future changes in the climate.”
    How many adjectives and adverbs can a person in one sentence?

  3. They all sing from the same hymn book. Senator Whitehouse made similar statements while questioning Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen. She was polite and basically said responding to climate change was not part of her job.

    • I’m going out on a limb and make the assumption that mess actually makes sense to you.
      Both HAARP and “tropospheric Aersol Injection” in one all purpose chart? Congratulations.

    • You are censoring without understanding the topic.
      Intentionally or not, You are supporting and spreading geoengineering, climate control propaganda!
      Why are You cutting everything about climate control!

      • “Why are You cutting everything about climate control!”
        I suspect but cannot know, that Mr. Watts is afraid he will lose credibility if he doesn’t stifle all discussion of this (to me) blatantly obvious possibility. On the other hand, I also suspect but cannot know, that he’s aware of another purpose for spraying stuff into the air, having to do with defeating potential “stealth” technology in the event of a strategic attack . .

      • Nobody is spraying anything into the air.
        Having nut cases spread their lunacy does not help this sites credibility.

      • I have watched stuff being sprayed into the air, for years, Mark. You can imagine whatever you like, but I don’t have that option in this regard.

      • Jet fuel is kerosene.
        When kerosene is burned by a jet engine two products released are carbon dioxide and water in form of vapour
        2 C12H26 + 37 O2 = 24 CO2+ 26 H2O
        No mystery .

      • What you see is nothing more than standard water vapor condensing and forming contrails.
        Something that’s been happening since planes got powerful enough to get up into the really cold air.

      • I read a report that German fighter pilots would use the contrails to hide in until they could get close to the bomber formations.

    • Umbly begging your pardon Mod but may I go off topic?
      New research published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters describes how scientists have used the world’s largest array of seismic sensors to map a deep-Earth area of melting carbon covering 1.8 million square kilometres. Situated under the Western US
      As a result of this study, scientists now understand the amount of CO2 in the Earth’s upper mantle may be up to 100 trillion metric tons. In comparison, the US Environmental Protection Agency estimates the global carbon emission in 2011 was nearly 10 billion metric tons – a tiny amount in comparison. The deep carbon reservoir discovered by Dr. Hier-Majumder will eventually make its way to the surface

      • Haven’t read your link yet, so maybe the answer is in there, but at first glance, 1.8 million acres is bigger than the state of Alaska, and about 18% of the area of the United States. Second, two weasel-word adjectives, “deep” and “eventually.” How “deep’ and how “eventually”?
        OK, quick scan.
        1)How deep? upper mantle, 350 km. FU.
        2) Eventually? “The deep carbon reservoir discovered by Dr. Hier-Majumder will eventually make its way to the surface through volcanic eruptions, and contribute to climate change albeit very slowly.” FU
        3) Don’t get me started on the difference between carbonate and carbon. Fu
        4) Money/scare quote… and I mean money in the sense that this is the only reason why it was published.

        We might not think of the deep structure of the Earth as linked to climate change above us, but this discovery not only has implications for subterranean mapping but also for our future atmosphere,” concluded Dr Hier-Majumder,”For example, releasing only 1% of this CO2 into the atmosphere will be the equivalent of burning 2.3 trillion barrels of oil. The existence of such deep reservoirs show how important is the role of deep Earth in the global carbon cycle.

        Unless you missed a /sarc tag, FU.

      • EricHa,
        I humbly and deeply apologize for the tone of this post. I’ve read several of your posts below and see that I completely misread or misunderstood this post. Beggin’ forgiveness (but I still need an excuse, so I blame it on the wine).

      • Eric – that can’t be serious can it. “Melting carbon” – what mind-bogglingly staggering level of ignorance can write those words? Really? I looked at the link, and it appears to be serious, and – OK they are talking about carbonate rocks. not carbon. That’s a pretty big slice of subducted limestone. Can they tell that just from its seismic characteristics? Maybe, I’d be very surprised, but then I haven’t kept up with stuff like that. Still it sounds more like a guess than a deduction.
        But for totally ignorant media releases about a scientific paper, that takes the biscuit. Melting carbon. Jesus H. whatsisname, what happened to universal education? It’s ………………… (words fail me)
        And the abstract has the audacity to talk about all the “carbon” coming to surface “eventually”, as if that might be a century or two away. Oh my……………… (shakes head and goes off sniffing drainpipes).

      • SR
        Don’t know enough about it myself. There are lots of geology bods on here who might be able to shed some light on it.
        Racking my brains and pondering the carbon cycle I learnt at school, at a subduction zone the sedimentary limestone is forced down into the mantle where it is heated and comes up in volcanoes as CO2 etc. Usual graphic is the west coast of the Americas, Cascade volcanic arc etc.. Thinking about it now the ocean crust is made from solidified mantle which isn’t carbonate, so I guess any carbon down there would be the skeletons of sea creatures deposited on the ocean floor. If that is what it is 100 trillion tonnes is a lot of skeleton.
        Anyway, if what they say is right then there is a lot of hot carbonate and when you heat carbonate you get CO2 released which they say is released in volcanic eruptions. But who is to say that it isn’t being released all the time in small cracks and seeps. Thinking about other situations of trapped gas i.e. a natural gas field, these are usually covered by a caprock of solid sandstone. Well the west coast of the Americas is definitely not solid sandstone, it is fractured to bug gery, and no way is that going to keep it down there.
        Soo I looked at a map of subduction zones
        Then I looked at the OCO-2 satellite images. Here is one
        Lots of CO2 along all the subduction zones, even the one just east of Italy.
        So I was wondering if earthquakes could seriously affect the amount of CO2 released and found
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/16/another-known-unknown-volcanic-outgassing-of-co2/ 🙂
        Pondering if what might cause earthquakes and the Earth’s orbit I found this
        Which isn’t conclusive.
        Anyway, seems to me that the idea that the CO2 content of the atmosphere was stable until man came along and started burning fossil fuels is tenuous to say the least.
        That’s how I spent an hour or so of my morning. I love this site. Always gets me thinking 😀 I might have completely the wrong end of the stick here but the Earth’s orbit might affect the level of CO2 in the atmosphere other than the changes in TSI and orbit. As good a theory as some of the whack job ideas coming out of the Green Machine.

  4. They could try to do something about palm oil/biodiesel production impacting various species, but that would be off message.

      • Endangered and threatened species don’t count when it come to wind turbines. Migratory birds don’t matter either.
        Wind developers claim that bird and bat deaths can be mitigated. Then, after construction, the developers control the mortality numbers. Host wind turbine land owners have gag clauses in their contracts so they can’t report bird and bat mortality data.

  5. Endangered species are the result of man changing their local environment, encroachment on their habitat, hunting, poaching, over-using the species or their food chain.
    All of these can be addressed but we seem to lack the political will power to do so.
    So instead let’s blame it on climate change where there is misguided political will power a plenty.

  6. Gorillas consume vegetation
    vegetation consume Carbon Dioxide
    Blue Whales consume krill
    krill consume phytoplankton
    phytoplankton consume Carbon Dioxide
    Carbon Dioxide is the base of the food chain for all endangered species. More Carbon Dioxide supports more food growth for endangered species. We need to increase atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.

    • It’s even worse — anchovies consume zooplankton. Zooplankton replace phytoplankton (which feeds coral reefs and consumes carbon dioxide) and zooplankton carcasses cover coral reefs to prevent growth. Fishermen overfish anchovies and blame climate change for the destruction of coral reefs.

      • @ Phil R, Feb 14 12.29 pm. I am trying my best to make up for those that do not like anchovies. A Pizza is not a Pizza without anchovies and neither is a Caesar’s Salad! And btw they don’t always end up being the oversalted one you use in those meals , there are many different ways of ways to use them , I wonder our resident fisherman Willis can help me out there? Please and thanks!

      • The mammals evolved in a “Stable tropical climate”. Liar liars pants on fire. It is the instability of climate and environment that drives evolutionary change. This is yet another climate hype scam. Toss out the rubbish.

      • Off the coast of Africa, anchovies are very popular. It’s may be their number one “fish crop”.
        It is a very fishy flavor, but it also has a good calorie content.

      • I heard about a man who had an ex-wife who was dating a man who swore his uncle’s cousin had read a story in the grocery store waiting line that proved climate change (i.e. global warming) was found to be true by seances held by some of the smartest climate scientists. It was right below the story about the 16 year old boy who could bend railroad rails with his chin.

  7. Like the “climate change is not a future threat anymore ” gag, some of us never thought it was on the so called evidence presented so far .

    • Couldn’t agree more, Chesh. I;m sometimes a little embarrassed here by over-the-top comments and put-downs, but in this case I’ll withdraw my objection. From the abstract it looks like a ‘number you first though of’ paper.
      ALL change, however arising, is likely to impact on the bulk of species, simply because they are so sharply adapted to the status quo. [A minority of species, of course ( I call them ‘weed’ species) – those that are rapidly evolving so as to find and exploit evolving niches – will fare better]. So, up to a point, their suit is a tautology.
      The real issue, of course, is whether the climate changes we currently observe are unprecedented in comparison with the historical record, or whether we are obsessed with the snapshot of tiny changes that we now see (or THINK we see) and building preposterous theses upon them. Before you can ascribe extinctions to a change in climate, you had better first establish that there is a change in climate. Anthony puts it rather more eloquently.

      • I seriously doubt ANYTHING we see is “unpredented in comparison with the historical record.” Whether the antics of Nature or on the human scene, few things on this Earth have not happened before.

  8. There is literally NOTHING on the dangers of Climate Change that is ‘under-reported’.
    EXCEPT the dangers caused by what activists will try to do about it – THOSE dangers get chirping crickets.

  9. So they’ve checked what amount to their own press releases and found that they are not being reported with sufficient alarm. This passes for published science. More like published rubbish.
    Thr only thing natural about this is the gullibility of thier intended audience.

  10. If you give to a hospice you pay for nursing.
    If you give to a homeless shelter you pay for breakfast.
    But if you give to a wildlife charity, what are you buying?
    OK. I see the value in a Cat’s Home but an undomesticated wildlife charity?
    What does the money do?

    • One would think the RSPB would be protecting birds but
      The RSPB hit the headlines after Sir Ian Botham said it was more interested in politics than wildlife. Is that true? Like many charities, the RSPB generates income from commercial activities – £21 million of its total £122 million income in the latest accounts.
      But the costs of its commercial activities are £18.4 million, so only £2.6 million of the £21 million raised by selling things goes into the kitty for charitable purposes and administration. Of the £122 million total, the RSPB spent £115 million and retained £7 million for future use.
      The £115 million can be split into £32.5 million generating its income and £82.6 million on what it classed as ‘charitable spending’ – roughly 72 per cent. But what does it class as ‘charitable expenditure’?
      Some £4 million went on managing its membership, which raised £32 million. Most would regard this as an administration cost, rather than genuine charitable expenditure. Another £14.2 million was used for ‘Education and Communication’ and £34.7 million on ‘Research, Policy and Advisory’ – nearly £50 million on what could loosely be described on campaigns.
      The final £29.6 million – just £2.57 of every £10 spent – was actually used for the proper front-line work that many donors might normally associate with the RSPB.

      So it doesn’t really matter that they say they are spending it on undomesticated animals as it goes to the very domesticated fat cats that spend it on champagne and fast cars.

      • EricHa, thank you for that link. I only had to read a few paragraphs before I came to this sentence:
        “Parkinson recognised how bureaucracies find increasing quantities of real or fictitious work which leads to the apparent necessity for them to keep growing and pay themselves more because of the increasing amount of work they enthusiastically create for themselves”
        After spending three days of trying to fill out our applications for various , ( hard earned ) pension benefits, a few months ago I was informed I had send them in too early. Rather than sending the lot back to me to resend 6 weeks later they held them back and told me to resubmit all of them all over again and no copying ( of course which I done) allowed.
        I will not even get into the fact that for each individual available benefit I had to fill out the EXACT same information on the exact same piece of paper, the only difference being that one was form A3645 ( fictional #’s) and the others had one or two letters or a number changed. I will also point out that they require original documents like passports etc, that you need to send “registered” so they add for each mailing roughly $15 US to your cost! ( Each department of course has a different mailing address).
        The sky inside our residence was for days a beautiful blue I can tell you that!
        But thanks anyway it is an important link that will be shared and the only two charities we give to is the Local Children’s Hospital Ward and the Food Bank ( in food only)

    • I too see the value of cat houses… and wild life. For wildlife, they ought to be buying up acreage to set aside as wildlife preserves. But property is expensive, so instead they put it into education so they can hector our school children not to drive SUVs. As with the Daily Mail article, once you examine their books with a magnifier you will find that little is actually spent on things that would benefit animals. Mostly it benefits the humans who are running the charity.

      • There might be a transposition problem here:
        “I too see the value of cat houses… and wild life.”
        To control rats, one needs house cats. What you wrote describes the location for the activity commonly associated with climate science(tm). The location is also associated with the wild life.

  11. It has been clear to me for awhile that, of the threats to species, carbon dioxide is minimal. Yet, it is being hyped as the cause of the next great extinction event. (Known as the “6th great extinction event.”)
    Humans have been a cause of extinctions ever since we have roamed the earth. In particular, most of the megafauna species became extinct within a few millenia of humans encroaching on an area (think everything from Mastodons to giant sloths to goliath kangaroos.) After that, the development of farming destroyed a number of predators and, most recently, the practice of over-fishing is a chronic danger; not just to those fish, but also their predators and the changes to the ecosystem when predators disappear and their food becomes overgrown. (ex. the crown-of-thorns starfish.)
    Everytime a species is declared endangered by climate change, a little research proves that the immediate danger is not climate change, but is often some other man-made cause (or, like the American Pika and Polar Bears, they are not endangered at all.) The problem is that scientists are pressured to include climate change as a risk so that they can tap into that science funding and then it becomes a self-fulfilling scientific prophecy (they need more money.)
    Polar bears are the classic example. They were endangered due to over-hunting and over-hunting of their food source (especially, the very valuable seal pup fur.) Basic conservation efforts limiting hunting has allowed their population to recover, but rather than celebrate the success, scientists still need the press to support their fund raising efforts.
    There are real dangers to species that basic conservation will help. However, when climate change gets the blame, then there is no pressure to understand the other man-made stresses. If an Pacific Island can blame climate change for the danger, then they have no pressure to reduce the destructive fishing practices which are the real danger to these species. Their fishermen don’t want to reduce their fishing — that’s their livelihood. Their government doesn’t want to put pressure on their own population when they can blame first world nation’s at semi-annual climate change conferences.

    • An accurate and very important point Robert. It reminded me of a passage from the introduction to Bill Brysons excellent book, “A Short History of Nearly Everything” :
      “So thank goodness for atoms. But the fact that you have atoms and that they assemble in such a willing manner is only part of what got you here. To be here now, alive in the twenty-first century and smart enough to know it, you also had to be the beneficiary of an extraordinary string of biological good fortune. Survival on Earth is a surprisingly tricky business. Of the billions and billions of species of living thing that have existed since the dawn of time, most (99.99 percent) are no longer around. Life on Earth, you see, is not only brief but dismayingly tenuous. It is a curious feature of our existence that we come from a planet that is very good at promoting life but even better at extinguishing it.”

  12. Fear mongering used to be frowned upon. Now it’s a shrieking-for-attention competitive activity and an entire business “model”. Pathetic.

  13. Climate alarmist Allan Savory slaughtered 40,000 elephants in a vain attempt to save the planet by stopping desertification. So yes climate change is killing off animals.

    • Didn’t that backfire?
      His research, validated by a committee of scientists, led to the government culling of 40,000 elephants in following years but he later concluded the culling did not reverse the degradation of the land, calling that decision “the saddest and greatest blunder of my life. Wiki
      Seems killing the elephants and reducing the dung being spread on the land caused desertification.
      Anyone see the parallels with the demonization of CO2?

  14. “elephants, which are characterized by very slow reproductive rates that reduce their ability to adapt to rapid changes in environmental conditions, are also vulnerable. ”
    Utter nonsense. Elephants breed slowly, yes, which makes them quite vulnerable to e. g. poaching. But they are extraordinarily insensitive to environmental conditions. Elephants thrive in tropical rainforest and swamp (e. g. in the Niger Delta), in montane rainforest (e. g. Mount Kenya), in savannahs (e. g. Tsavo), in subtropical forest (Addo) in dry scrub and woodland (e. g. Kruger NP) and even in semi-desert (e. g. western Etosha). As far as I know they only avoid extreme desert and really deep water (but they swim extremely well, and can easily cross even fairly wide straits).

    • Further the idea that a gradual and tiny change in the temperature anomaly constitutes a “rapid change in environmental conditions” is not intuitive to me. I’m curious about those places that have experienced “large changes in temperatures in the past 60 years” and yet “have low temperature seasonality within their distributions.” Is there anywhere on earth where the anomaly change in the last sixty years comes within shouting distance of seasonal or daily variations in temperature?

      • It is an obvious point about Climate Change that the claimed increase in temperatures is far smaller than natural variation on even an annual or decadal basis. If it was not, this site would note exist and we would all be driving electric cars.
        That is why there is a seemingly endless number of papers published that claim to show the increase, but which need yet more models and yet more adjustments to do so.
        This paper is pure nonsense – the animals at risk cannot possibly tell that the winter “should” have been 5 degrees when it is 5.5 degrees, because they are used to the winter being somewhere between 1 and 7 degrees (for example).

  15. The image of that Mad Magazine issue popped into my head as soon as I saw the picture of the WCS ad.
    And I take the claim in the ad as seriously as I took the claim in Mad. Except I probably bought a copy of Mad,

    • It’s the National Lampoon, actually. Which was MAD magazine on steroids and very, very “R” rated. I really miss the O’Rourke era Lampoon.

  16. We’re under what looks like more than a metre of snow in eastern Ontario and a deep freeze. The neutral temperatures along the equatorial Pacific may be lulling some into thinking we won’t get much of a La Nina cooling, but the big effect is the large Cold Blobs in the the temperate zones both NH and SH.
    Where the gorillas live, the temperature doesn’t change but marginally (think polar amplification for global warming). I was in Nigeria, Benin and Togo (equatorial) in the mid 1960s, late 1990s and in Tanzania and Kenya in the late 1980s and mid 1990s and the temps were the same as they are now.

  17. “we identified mammals and birds for which there is evidence that they have already been impacted by climate change”
    I can top that easily. It applies to every mammal and bird species on the planet. Essentially all species are old enough to have lived through one or more glacial cycles, when climate changed vastly more than in recent centuries, repeatedly and often very abruptly. Essentially every species has had to live in very different cimates or has had to move, again and again and again. Usually both.
    “We modelled the relationships between observed responses and intrinsic (for example, body mass) and spatial traits (for example, temperature seasonality within the geographic range). ”
    And how do they model “temperature seasonality within the geographic range”. That geographic range only applies just now, and even if not affected by human interference (unusual), almost certainly does not represent the complete climatic tolerance of the species as everybody who knows anything about paleontology is well aware. Not even nearly. At the moment lions and reindeer would probably not be considered to live under the same “temperature seasonality”, and yet they have lived side by side for much of the history of both species. The same applies to e. g. horses and muskox, alligators and bison or california condor and prairie chicken, to take a few random examples. Those species aren’t extinct but the climates they lived in are (for the moment, they will come back during future ice ages).

    • “we identified mammals and birds for which there is evidence that they have already been impacted by climate change”
      I can top that easily. It applies to every mammal and bird species on the planet. Essentially all species are old enough to have lived through one or more glacial cycles, when climate changed vastly more than in recent centuries, repeatedly and often very abruptly. Essentially every species has had to live in very different climates or has had to move, again and again and again. Usually both.

      And that’s precisely the point. Just because a species is “impacted” does not mean that it is harmful, helpful, or significant. It is such a low standard to claim that species are “impacted”. More importantly, most of the impacts may not be from ‘climate change’ as opposed to other changes such as agriculture development. (FWIW — I was always taught, “don’t use ‘impacted’ unless you are talking about teeth.” It’s a noun, not a verb.)

    • I used to volunteer at a zoo and speak with visitors about several African species. One of the things I told people was that our idea of an animal’s “normal” range was almost always wrong if one looked at the historical record. Example: cheetahs. They used to live in almost all of Africa, the Middle East, down into India, and up near the Caspian Sea. There are still a few cheetahs in the mountains of Iran/Afghanistan. Cheetahs can easily live in much cooler climates than one sees in an African savannah. They can also live in much less hospitable places – there is a subspecies that lives in the Sahel. Those cats probably love the CO2-caused greening. (All >250 of them.)

  18. The only place on earth where there really is climate change is the Sahel. And the change is universally considered good.
    The activist use of “climate change” is undefined, hence meaningless. You are just supposed to be afraid of it. Coz they said so.

    • Gamecock “The only place on earth where there really is climate change is the Sahel” There are many other areas as well, along the edge of the Boreal woodlands for instance there seems to be a slow creep further northwards. I wonder how many more species will move and evolve there? ( as well in the Sahel of course).
      I am not sure what is happening in the interior of the Australian continent, maybe our friends down under have info.? ( or even in the Chinese deserts?).
      I am a firm believer of our atmosphere needing CO2 at a level of at least 600 to sustain a healthy environment. Part of my family owned greenhouses and even in those days ( 1960’s) they were pumping CO2 into them without questions asked. Their explanation : Plants eat CO2, breath oxygen and grow cukes/tomatoes/ eating grapes/ lettuce/ peppers etc etc. So only good things came out of them, When natural gas hit the Western European greenhouse growers, it became even an easier and more sustainable business because prior to that heating greenhouses was an incredible expense. Once NG became available the price of vegetables came way down and way more available to even lower income families, I remember it well, What was once a luxury for people became a part of everyone’s diet a huge health benefit !.
      I just wish the warmists would just see what is the backbone of our society and what sustains them. I don’t want to go all religious here but we used to take a few moments before each meal and contemplate on what was in front of us on our plates, a simple thanks to the people that grew the food, delivered it to our door steps ( in those days) and of course those that provided them for our families.
      ( sorry about the length of the rant, 3rd beer)

  19. “It is likely that many of these species have a high probability of being very negatively impacted by expected future changes in the climate.”
    “It is likely that many of these snake oil salesmen have a high probability of being very positively impacted by expected future changes in their income as a result of insanely dubious weasel words that the weak-minded will take at face value for gospel truth.”

  20. Climate change has been going on for eons and wild animals have survived. Compared to the past, current climate change is extremely benign and requires very sophistocated instrumentation to just detect. Climate change is not routine changes in weather or longer term weather cycles. The real problems that wild animals face is loss of habitat due to Mankind’s out of control population.

  21. Anthony,
    I am EXTREMELY impressed with your introductory adjectival clause, “giant load of bollocks” !
    It is so reassuring to read that particular British expression: it says it ALL.
    For those not acquainted; “bollocks” (English, slang for testacles) is a derogatory term meaning:- garbage, rubbish, drivel, nonsense. It is used as a direct insult and I must applaud your useage; it is just PERFECT.
    Regards and Many thanks,

    • “For those not acquainted; “bollocks” (English, slang for testacles) ”
      This was tested in court when the Sex Pistols came to trial (corrupting public morals or some such bollocks) and it was concluded that bollocks is Anglo-Saxon for small pebbles and perfectly acceptable to put on the cover of an album.

  22. Environmentalists make the claim that 17,000 to 100,000 species vanish every year. The former co-founder of Greenpeace (now turned skeptic), Patrick Moore, tried to find the source of this statement. The difficulty of finding the source is compounded, because various environmental organizations would repeat the statement from other environmental groups. He eventually traced it to a model running on the desk computer of Harvard professor E. O. Wilson.
    You would think that if it were true, these groups could name some of the 17,000 to 100,000 species that vanished during the year. Maybe 10,000? 5,000? How about 100?
    I wonder where the bodies are buried?

    • Jim, you have to understand that these species that are going extinct, haven’t been discovered yet. That’s why they can’t give them any names. it’s based on a model, so it must be right.
      better use a /sarc – too many literalists around here

  23. Don’t worry! Humans could be extinct in 10 years.
    I guess there’s no point in saving for retirement…
    Could abrupt climate change lead to human extinction within 10 years?
    One of the world’s most outspoken climate-change Cassandras is U.S. conservation biologist Guy McPherson.
    A professor emeritus of natural resources and the environment at the University of Arizona, he’s warned that sharply rising methane emissions are going to create a catastrophe in our lifetimes.

  24. A team of scientists reporting in the journal Nature Climate Change say that negative impacts of climate change on threatened and endangered wildlife have been massively underreported.

    This has been nominated for “Best example of chutzpah in a press release” award.

  25. “..The authors recommend that research and conservation efforts give greater attention…”
    Abstract mentions conservation efforts. But research?

  26. John P. A. Ioannidis has boldly stated “most research findings are false for most research designs and for most fields”. Further, Ioannidis states quite simply: “Claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias”.
    The later is the case with this study and the cause of the result. The IUCN Red List information represents the prevailing bias of the field of species conservation — that everything is going to be adversely affected by future climate change. This idea is trivially true if at all. Where climates are changing contrary to the needs of local species, there can and will be adverse effects. Where climates are changing in ways that are advantageous for local species, there will be positive effects. We have yet to see a study from environmentalists that cite improving conditions due to climate change — for anything. Such an idea runs against the prevailing bias.
    In general, environmentalists groups all hold to the idea that whatever conditions existed before humans appeared on the local scene were “ideal” — the Golden Age, the Nobel Savage, Idyllic Pristine Nature. Simply not true of course, conditions were always changing for the better for some and for the worse for others, species wise.
    The study is a study of opinions — not facts.

  27. This is the truly heartbreaking aspect of all the climate change waste. There are real issues to address, and instead, the greedy environmental groups simply choose to play politics and spend taxpayer money on nonsense.
    Hey California!!!, Wind and Solar Don’t Work in a Flood
    Just How Much Does 1 Degree C Cost?

  28. Well the New York Times is up with a story linking Oroville dam and climate change. Knew that was coming. Hopefully nobody suffers whiplash from the perpetual drought narrative.

  29. The whole climate extinctions thing is worse than shlockey science. Great fund raiser– polar bears and American pika and Adelie penguins. Now gorillas. All nonsense. The ‘deliberate’ (no other explanation is rational) misrepresentation of same by AR4 WG2 exposes the IPCC agenda. Dissected in long essay No Bodies in ebook Blowing Smoke.

  30. The implication seems to be that representatives of endangered species have more important things to do than to blog about how climate change is impacting their lives. 🙂

  31. Climate has always been changing for 4 billion years, and yet here we all still are.
    When will these people get off their sad addiction to drama-queen dystopia and start doing some real science?

  32. Here in the UK, we get tv commercials from WWF, complete with doom-laden voiceover, telling us how climate change is affecting both the polar bears (Arctic) and penguins (Antarctic) – and therefore we must send £3 to help the WWF with ‘its work’ – and for your three quid you’ll get a cuddly polar bear or penguin toy…
    What are they ACTUALLY going to do – blow cold air over the poles..?

  33. We actually had to read “The Fate of the Earth” and “Entropy” in high school back in the 80s. Ronnie Ray-gun had his finger on the nuclear trigger (had to watch that movie about nuclear war as well). Why, we weren’t going to make it to the 90s, let alone the millennium!
    I once won a high school debate when arguing the “things are actually pretty ok” side. All I had to do was ask, nicely, now many species there actually ARE. I got several widely different quotes from the “we’re all doomed” side.
    “If you can’t tell how many species we HAVE, how can you POSSIBLY tell us how many are going missing, and at what rate”?
    Then again, we’re not dealing with logic here, just plain emotionalism.
    And they’d do better, perhaps, if so many of these potential extinctions, at least for plants, wasn’t couched in a “what if its a cure of cancer”?
    Such speciesism….

  34. Do you remember this Group?
    This was of course the website for Save The Fragile Unicorn. Unfortunately since unicorns went extinct they had to stop seeking donations
    Or this one?
    Everybody remembers Save the Common Cockroach group. They closed shop because they heroically saved the common cockroach.
    As far as I can tell, no other lobby group has ever gotten enough donations to have solved their cause. We have to step up folks. Give more, give until it hurts, give till it bleeds, then shakedown your neighbors and friends and make them give too. Eventually some group is going to join the two above. I am just sure of it.

  35. New report on CBS News this morning: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-diaries-antarctica-penguin-population-decline-palmer-station/

    “In this installment of our “Climate Diaries” series, CBS News correspondent Mark Phillips continues his reporting from Antarctica, one of the most remote places on earth. He shows us the dramatic shifts happening around a half-century-old research base. The icescape and the area’s penguin population reveal the impact of the rapid pace of climate change.”

    Except, here are the facts:
    1) There are 18 species of penguins. The Antarctic species (Emperor Penquin and the Adelie Penguin) are among the least threatened. Whereas tropical penguins are the most endangered. That has very little to do with sea ice. http://rainforests.mongabay.com/endangered/charts/birds-penguins.html
    2) The primary reason for their species being threatened is overfishing of their food source and pollution. “Penguins have had to endure that many species of fish and squid are common targets of the fishing industry, so food availability is reducing for them. For example, the anchovy is a highly exploited type of fish and is the preferred food of the Humboldt penguins. The overexploitation of anchoveta is a major factor in reducing the number of these penguins.” http://www.penguins-world.com/penguins-endangered/ and “Penguins are endangered because of large-scale fishing operations that diminish their food supply, poachers who steal their eggs and kill adults for their oil, and oil spills that pollute their environment and kill thousands of penguins at once.” https://www.reference.com/pets-animals/penguins-endangered-2370b08e9bffb6ea
    3) Like the polar bears, climate change is a convenient scapegoat, but it is a negligible factor in those species which are declining. Climate news gets the press and the press coverage gets funding. If you read those reports, they sound exactly like the “bad” polar bear science. (Penguins need sea ice & less sea ice means fewer penguins — except that is not the problem with penguins.)

  36. The comments above in the greenies belief that the Earth was somehow a pristine paradise before modern humanity started making everything a mess/extinct/polluted/dangerous or whatever you want to insert here, reminded me of a really interesting piece of history that the first conquistador who travelled into the interior of the the Amazon basin found roadways and huge cities extending far into the interior and that the interior was in fact a hugely influenced and man managed environment, not some primeval Eden (whatever that might be). Of course the subsequent destruction of those native populations through measles,smallpox etc undoubtedly would please the haters of humanity’s progress. Today we have antibiotics and modern medicine to thank for not killing ourselves so easily but the eco-loons still want to deny the third world of the benefits of golden rice and a host of other life improving and saving innovations.

    • In N. America, the natives routinely used fire to control the underbrush in order to make hunting easier.
      The heavily wooded areas found by white settlers as they moved inland was not the “natural” state for those forests. It was the result of diseases wiping out the natives.

  37. Another attempt at bringing CO2 under the endangered species protection. They will then be able to bring legal action against emitters on the basis of harming Pandas in China and antlered rabbits in America. Anything to tie up Trump’s agenda. GK

Comments are closed.