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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheeseface
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
Abstract
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.
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)
“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.”
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.
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,
WL
“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.
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
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
Plus most of them are bugs or bacteria. So no bodies. Convenient.
Send lots and lots of money NOW or the gorilla gets it!!
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.
http://www.straight.com/news/868051/could-abrupt-climate-change-lead-human-extinction-within-10-20-years
This has been nominated for “Best example of chutzpah in a press release” award.
“..The authors recommend that research and conservation efforts give greater attention…”
Abstract mentions conservation efforts. But research?
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.
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
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02/13/hey-california-wind-and-solar-dont-work-in-a-flood/
Just How Much Does 1 Degree C Cost?
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/25/just-how-much-does-1-degree-c-cost/
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.
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.
The picture with the claim at the beginning reminds me of a National Lampoon magazine cover.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=if+you+don%27t+buy+this+magazine+we%27ll+kill+this+dog&rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS717US717&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1rdKRi5HSAhVGyGMKHfbAAAoQsAQIGw&biw=1600&bih=770
Love the dog’s face!
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. 🙂
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?
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..?
Just set the heat pump to “AUTO” and thermostat 70F (21.11111111…C) and your climate is adjusted.
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….
Do you remember this Group?
http://www.stfu..com
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?
http://www.stcc..com
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.
hmmm, me thinks it is the spread of non-native species which is causing the problems
Careful now, you may be fired from ESPN for the Gorilla cover.
New report on CBS News this morning: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-diaries-antarctica-penguin-population-decline-palmer-station/
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.)
As Griff would say.
Number of penguins are going down.
CO2 is going up.
What more proof do you need.
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.