Claim: Climate change will result in a "simplified ecological landscape" – contradicted by other research

From STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY, where they apparently didn’t get this memo:

New research suggests that sea temperatures of around 25C (77F) and a lack of permanent polar ice sheets fuelled an explosion of species diversity that eventually led to the human race.

Study suggests early animals diversified in a greenhouse world, with a climate similar to that in which the dinosaurs lived.

But, they are entitled to their simplification opinion, so here it is:


Biodiversity suffers as climate warms

Biodiversity gets the worst end of the stick as climate warms

A simplified ecological landscape – with significant biodiversity loss – might be the outcome if a global temperature increase cannot be restricted to 1.5°C above historical pre-industrial levels.

This is the warning from Professor Guy Midgley, a world-leading expert on global change and its impact on biodiversity, in an insight article published in Science this week

“Warming by more than two degrees will take the world into a temperature state that it hasn’t seen for several millions of years,” he says from his office in the Department of Botany and Zoology at Stellenbosch University, South Africa.

This is in reaction to a report from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, also published in this issue of Science, in which Professor Rachel Warren and others show that if the global temperature increase cannot be limited to 1.5°C, but is allowed to rise with 2°C, it roughly doubles the risks associated with warming for plants, animals and insects.

With current pledges by nations towards limiting climate change, scientists predict a corresponding warming of about 3.2°C. This could see 47% of insect species, 26% of vertebrate and 16% of plant species standing to lose at least half of their geographic ranges.

Professor Midgley says higher levels of warming would lead to systemic ecological simplification, a process where many “climate losers” are replaced by far fewer “climate winners”. Such a simplified ecological landscape could have impacts on ecosystem services such as water quality, soil conservation, flood prevention, all of which are important for human well-being. Fewer insects also mean fewer pollinators and hence concomitant implications for many plant species, and related food production.

But even if governments and industry manage to limit warming to 1.5°C, recent research shows that large tracts of land would have to be made available for capturing and storing carbon: some estimates are for up to 18% of the land surface or 24-36% of current arable cropland by the end of this century.

Either way, biodiversity may get the worst end of the bargain, because the expanding land use itself could threaten remaining habitats.

“We need to stay as close to 1.5°C as possible. That is really the conclusion from the Warren et al paper. So here is the irony. In order to achieve the 1.5°C target, we may well damage many of the habitats that support biodiversity in order to achieve a target that will save biodiversity.

“There is way too much debate about the issue of climate change and whether or not it is real. What we really need to be doing is debating how we solve this problem. Those very high CO2 concentrations could well change the ecosystems of the world irrevocably. If we increase CO2 to over a thousand parts per million, over the next fifty to sixty years, which we are quite capable of doing if we fail to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, we could literally move the world back 20 to 30 million years in the space of a century. It is like moving ecosystems backwards in time at the speed of light.

“We need to find the combinations of options that minimise conflicts between these competing demands. Only if we succeed in solving this nexus between climate security, land use and biodiversity conservation, will we be able to ensure a sustainable future in the long-term,” he concludes.

Professor Midgley is lead author in an upcoming global assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services, due in May 2019, for the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

###

Advertisements

98 thoughts on “Claim: Climate change will result in a "simplified ecological landscape" – contradicted by other research

  1. clear as mud……explains why there’s so much “diversity” at both poles…..and the Amazon rain forest is empty

    • Think of how uninhabitable it will be in Antarctica when it’s 1.5 degrees warmer at night! Penguins will need to evolve to shed their feathers or something.

      • Gotta love the acronym
        Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)
        I am just waiting for the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Treaty(I P BEST)

      • Rich D.,
        It wouldn’t be 1.5 degrees warmer, if we judged it as a portion of the GLOBAL 1.5-degree increase. It would more likely be a mere fraction of a degree warmer, if THAT, … possibly a few degrees COOLER, because some other area of the world would be a few degrees WARMER to offset the “global average” to the proper 1.5-degree threshold.
        That’s the absurdity of a “global average” — in such small ranges, like 1.5 degrees — it doesn’t take much change regionally to make that figure meaningless.

    • Latitude:
      “explains why there’s so much “diversity” at both poles…..and the Amazon rain forest is empty”
      What’s your explanation?

      • ..lots of little things…make lots of other little things….which makes lots of bigger things

    • Nope. Biodiversity is determined exclusively by whether the climate is exactly the same as it was 150 years ago in the same location. Any deviation is catastrophic. For example, let’s say that land adjacent to a tropical rain forest warms by 2 degrees and becomes exactly the same as the land a little closer to the equator was 150 years ago. It will of course become less diverse, with many more climate losers than climate winners. It may even be utterly devoid of life, because it changed from it’s natural pristine condition 150 years ago by an unprecedented 2 degrees. A change like that with the climate moving backwards is maybe exceeding the speed of light.
      You don’t see that? You question a world-leading expert on global change and its impact on biodiversity?
      There’s far too much debate about Climate Change (TM).

      • Unless your response is clever sarcasm — nope yourself. Your response is nonsense. Example — Any deviation is catastrophic. What does that mean? Another — changed from it’s natural pristine condition. Again, huh? What is a “pristine condition”? Yet another A change like that with the climate moving backwards is maybe exceeding the speed of light. This is so much nonsense I’m beginning to think you’re being clever? If so, congrats. If not, you’re a complete fruitcake.

        • yep, it’s argumentum ad absurdum
          But that doesn’t mean I’m not a complete fruitcake.

      • Sorry Rich, that’s a fail. Yes, I know it’s sarc, but with the climate alarmist loonies, there is no sarc you can invent that is as stupid as something they will actually say in all seriousness.

      • @Ron House.
        As demonstrated by several comments below, even some otherwise sensible sceptics fail to recognise Rich’s subtle sarcasm.
        HINT: He signs off with “Climate Change (TM)”

    • You are mistaken again Tom, the article says that temperatures 2 degrees warmer have not been seen for MILLIONS of years. The HCO was only 5-9ka ago. And we were only burning biomass fuels back then, so obviously, it was cooler than today. (Check the hockey stick again, please).

    • It was about 2 degrees warmer globally during the previous interglacial 117-130 000 years ago. Up to 10 degrees in the arctic.

      • Rich,
        Your repeating a factually incorrect assertion does not make it true.
        We are not anywhere close to the warmest time in millions of years.
        We are nowhere close to 1000 ppm CO2, and if you climate kooks would allow nuclear power, we never would get close to that level.
        There is literally no data driven evidence to support the alarmist claptrap you seem to accept without critical thinking. Warm wet climates in the real world, have more, not less, biodiversity.
        Now if the planet is covered in solar power farm and wind mill complexes, that will damage diversity.
        But since the increase in CO2 is directly linked to *more* greening of the Earth, perhaps a moment of reflection on your part would appropriate.

        • Sorry hunter, as my wife ALWAYS tells me, “You think you’re funny, but you’re not!”
          I was being my sarcastic self, not serious.

      • Rich,
        I apologize. I read your excellent sarcasm pre-coffee this morning.
        My bad.
        I have read more of your posts and you are great.
        Please keep up the good work.

  2. There are more different types of plants and animals in the Amazon, than there are plants and animals in the arctic.

    • Is that really true? Can you cite peer reviewed literature on that? I think you’re just spouting off the top of your head.
      (Just giving Kristi and Nick a little help here.)

      • After you cite honest “peer reviewed” literature that proves through direct observations Midgely’s doom predictions have any validity.
        Sound like nick and silber, get treated like them.

      • At the risk of stating the obvious, I was trying to illustrate the absurdity that we can never draw conclusions from obvious facts unless we have peer-reviewed study to validate the “theory”.
        For example: How do we know that there is less UV exposure at night in the Antarctic than there is in the daytime at the equator? Do you have data to prove that?

      • Or how often do we see studies like “Scientists discover men are different from women”, or “New studies show it’s darker at night”
        This comes from the “publish or perish” ethic.

  3. This GUY is a “true believer” and when it comes
    ” time to improve the soil” by ” digging-in-a-greenie ”
    I CLAIM THIS ONE……because he would be so good……..
    ………..He’s JUST FULL OF THE GOOD STUFF !!
    My “garden bio-diversity” will take a giant-leap 30 million years BACK to the “greener times”.!

  4. To paraphrase a past President:
    “Well, the trouble with [ Professor Midgley ] is not that [ he’s ] ignorant; it’s just that [ he says ] so much that isn’t so.”

  5. When will the bone-headed What if? studies stop? So-called climate research plunges deeper and deeper into fantasy land: predicting the future based on a prediction of the future that is completely untested. Go Figure!

  6. It is like moving ecosystems backwards in time at the speed of light
    Wow, I’m awestruck in the presence of such an incandescently brilliant scientific mind.

    • This idiot gets paid handsomely to hand wave. And the LEFTISTS/MARXISTS eat it up. Idiots all.

  7. How do such people have the nerve to call themselves scientists? This is truly hyperbole run amok. How does Midgely even imagine that his thoughts are even a bad, poorly thought through hypothesis much less close to reality? Did these folks learn no history whatsoever? As I have said before it is like they have all been infected by some virus or prion affecting their brains. After all they closely associate themselves with each other so transmission would be relatively easy.

  8. the expanding land use itself could threaten remaining habitats
    You mean like the millions of acres to be used for your sacred wind & solar installations?

  9. Parables from the Priesthood. It’s ‘change’. Small ‘c’. Maybe. Deal with it. You can’t “fix-ate’ Mother Nature. She always wins.

  10. Don’t like over 50% of all of earth’s species live in hot tropical rainforests?

  11. Good friggin’ grief!!!
    How do my tetras and guppies and aquatic veggies survive in my aquarium when I screw up the heater thremostat and the tank increases 2 degrees in two days?
    How come my tomatoes endured a very hot and dry April-May down here in the Panhandle?
    Did this guy ever think about “Darwin” and other folks that studied the evolution of species, including his own?
    Meanwhile, I found a neat formula for Kool-aid from one of the “Gold Rush” crew that just got back from Guyana.
    Gums wonders….

  12. “Professor Guy Midgley, a world-leading expert on global change, from SellenBosch University…”
    This guys ludicrous opinions, name, and appearance, seem to be right out of a bad Monty Python skit!

  13. Is there any horrible end of days scenario they have failed to cover with this “The climate is going to kill mankind and take the planet with it” alamrist hysteria?

  14. “Climate change will …”
    What climate change are you talking about?
    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/alley-2004.jpg
    The most fundamental property of climate is that it is always changing.
    Climate by its very nature is always changing.
    So “climate change” is a meaningless phrase diagnostic of low intelligence.
    How can people not get that climate is, always has been and always will be, changing?
    Guess I’m not smart enough to get that.

    • Another aspect of that chart is that it implies that about 90% of the last 10K years has been warmer than the last 100 years.

  15. Then he got in his car and drove home, turned on the lights and the AC and then flew to a climate conference.

  16. Professor Midgley is terribly ignorant of the latitudinal diversity gradient (LDG), The increase in species richness or biodiversity that occurs from the poles to the tropics, observed as soon as naturalists started traveling to the tropics.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latitudinal_gradients_in_species_diversity
    Warmer biomes are richer biomes. The reasons are discussed but I am a firm believer of the energy hypotheses. More energy available makes for richer ecosystems. With the increase in temperature, CO2, and precipitation, ecosystems become more productive. Plants produce more leafs and seeds, and support more animals. The winter culling of animals is reduced.

  17. 1000 ppm or 0.1% as opposed to the current 0.04% with the well established theory of the logarithmic effect of CO2 decreasing in influence of temperatures at higher concentrations seems to have eluded him.His berry fondling has a similar logarithmic relationship with his scientific prowess!

    • With current pledges by nations towards limiting climate change, scientists predict a corresponding warming of about 3.2°C.

      I assume that’s compared with preindustrial levels.
      Given Lewis and Curry’s climate sensitivity of 1.66, that warming represents two doublings of atmospheric CO2. If we take a preindustrial level of 280 ppm that implies that the atmospheric CO2 will reach 1120 ppm (close enough to 1000).
      This paper shows that the maximum possible achievable atmospheric CO2 level is 800 ppm.
      800 ppm is roughly double today’s level. That implies a temperature (using Lewis and Curry) of 1.7°C above today’s temperature. That’s if we do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions.

  18. Another “professor” who doesn’t know that plants and animals have no trouble adjusting there ranges when climate changes.

  19. The real shame isn’t that these pseudo scientists get to ramble on about the next approaching apocalypse like the man on the corner with a sandwich board but that they get reported about like it’s fact.

  20. Honestly, this guys views read like a bad Monty Python skit!
    The ‘CO2 Time Machine’ skit opens with the character Professor Guy Midgley, played by John Cleese….
    Professor Guy Midgley, a world-leading expert on global change from SellenBosch University says “If we increase CO2 to over a thousand parts per million…. we could literally move the world back 20 to 30 million years in the space of a century. It is like moving ecosystems backwards in time at the speed of light.”
    Literally….. ‘And we want a shrubbery! Ni!’

  21. I will say it again the global warming era is over. All this talk about what global warming may or may not do is a waste of time .
    Another waste of time has been the topics which discuss why AGW theory may or may not be correct.
    This I could see being discussed when AGW theory just came out but at this point in time I see further discussions on this topic as a big waste of time. It has been exhausted.
    Where the focus should be is with solar/climate relationships which will be gaining in popularity as the warming ends.
    What governs the climate are the amounts of energy coming into the climate system and leaving the climate system along with very slight changes in albedo and overall sea surface temperatures.
    Co2 may inhibit long wave radiation from escaping into space but CO2 concentrations are a result of the climate not the cause and as levels of C02 increase the effects are much less. To add to this is there is no positive feedback between increasing amounts of CO2 and water vapor.
    My forecast has been and is that this year is a transitional year to cooler temperatures as we march forward.
    Less overall solar radiation and weak solar /geo magnetic field should result in a reduction of overall global temperatures by increasing global snow cloud coverage(galactic cosmic rays, more meridional atmospheric circulation( decreasing EUV light)), and increasing major explosive volcanic eruptions(galactic cosmic rays) , while overall sea surface temperatures lower, (less solar radiation).
    The geo magnetic not only weakening but changing orientation (magnetic poles moving equatorward) will serve to compound given low solar radiation/low solar magnetic effects in my opinion.
    This is my two cents on the subject of climate change we should find out much very soon, as ;long as solar conditions remain as is for the next few years which is very likely.

  22. Professor Midgle appears to have been dealt with severely by biology and is at a disadvantage when it comes to critical thinking. The Antarctic is nearly dead, but the Amazon teems with Life.

  23. Wow just wow, I am starting to believe the brain infection hypothesis. I’m not big on pharmaceuticals but if there is a pill that could help these people I think they should take it

  24. Hmm… my Garden of Eden Earth^тм fueled by rampant CO2 greening/habitat growth, coinciding with peaking world population at 8-9B people, burgeoning harvests, abundant resources and technological change, all driving prosperity and peace, still isn’t getting any traction. What does it take?!!
    Midgley old boy, Ehrlich the petri-dish-world by’o’goliest (are there any of these clones that arent petri-dish thinkers) made the award winning worst doomster forecast ever and wound up diametrically wrong with double the population suffering from a rising obesity crisis and a tripling of oil and gas resources and an epidemic of prosperity. He even got an award recently from rhe marksbrothers at Royal Society for the most imaginative contribution to other worldly by’o’gollyness scienstition. Midge, you got to do better than that.

  25. “We need to stay as close to 1.5°C as possible. That is really the conclusion from the Warren et al paper. So here is the irony. In order to achieve the 1.5°C target, we may well damage many of the habitats that support biodiversity in order to achieve a target that will save biodiversity.
    There is way too much debate about the issue of climate change and whether or not it is real. What we really need to be doing is debating how we solve this problem. Those very high CO2 concentrations could well change the ecosystems of the world irrevocably. If we increase CO2 to over a thousand parts per million, over the next fifty to sixty years, which we are quite capable of doing if we fail to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, we could literally move the world back 20 to 30 million years in the space of a century. It is like moving ecosystems backwards in time at the speed of light.
    “We need to find the combinations of options that minimise conflicts between these competing demands. Only if we succeed in solving this nexus between climate security, land use and biodiversity conservation, will we be able to ensure a sustainable future in the long-term,” he concludes.”

    A) “In order to achieve the 1.5°C target, we may well damage many of the habitats that support biodiversity”
    “May”, meaning spur of the moment “made up” to drive fear.
    This alleged expert appears to be unaware that every habitat on Earth experiences regular fluctuation greater than 1.5°
    B) “There is way too much debate about the issue of climate change and whether or not it is real
    Another shut down debate on the science; not that doomists and alarmists have ever allowed a climate change discussion.
    C) “What we really need to be doing is debating how we solve this problem
    Thirty years into the great global warming scam and here is another alarmist telling us to debate solutions.
    D) “Those very high CO2 concentrations could well change the ecosystems of the world irrevocably
    Again, the snake oil salesperson resorts to falsehoods to drive mental disaster fears.
    400 ppm is not a high, let alone a very high CO₂ concentration. At 400 ppm, Earth is near plant starvation levels and definitely in reduced plant growth CO₂ levels.
    E) If we increase CO2 to over a thousand parts per million, over the next fifty to sixty years
    Another math challenged pseudo scientist, incapable of calculating CO₂ rates of increase.
    F) if we fail to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels”
    Any odds that this character utterly fails to take his own advice?
    Those glasses of his required fossil fuels for metal smelting and refining, eyeglass production, final grinding and fitting them to a frame. Good luck getting wind or solar power to make glasses.
    G) “we could literally move the world back 20 to 30 million years in the space of a century”
    “Could”, another wishful waffle word.
    “Move the world back 20 to 30 million year ago”? How does that work? Exactly?
    Just more fake fear mongering; this time on the irrational side.
    H) It is like moving ecosystems backwards in time at the speed of light
    Snake oil man uses false metaphors at the speed of light.
    I) “We need to find the combinations of options that minimise conflicts between these competing demands”
    Again, thirty years of global warming doom talk, over a trillion dollars spent and viable solutions equals zero.
    J) “Only if we succeed in solving this nexus between climate security, land use and biodiversity conservation, will we be able to ensure a sustainable future in the long-term
    “If”? More waffle dream words.
    “Nexus between climate security, land use and biodiversity conservation”, hooboy!
    “Biodiversity conservation” which amounts to don’t build cities over habitat, plant oil seed crops where forest grew, prevent market gunning to supply urban markets.
    “Land use”? This creep has never looked into the land usage, better phrased as the loss of land use caused byf solar and wind farms..
    “Climate security”? Never has been nor will there ever be “climate security”. That is known as a pure delusional belief.
    Iffn this guy was Pinocchio, his nose would supply England’s wood chips demand for a long time.

    “Professor Midgley is lead author in an upcoming global assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services, due in May 2019, for the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).”

    After that mealy mouthed waffling set of gross assumptions, doom predictions and horrendous misunderstanding of biology diversity; one thing is absolutely clear, this miscreant should not be a “lead author”.

  26. Hey! My Carboniferous era shrimp is getting kind of insulted about the whackadoodle nonsense these so-called climate sci-fi guys are spouting. Shrimpy thinks it’s time someone dragged these bozos into the Tardis and escorted them back to the REALLY, REALLY warm time when Shirmpy swam the Mazon Creek Delta and it was warm, warm, wam water and air. Shrimpy thinks Does Guyses are dumber than a Tully Monster’s front proboscis.

  27. What many on this site fail to realize is it’s not just the amount but also the rate of change that leads to loss of biodiversity.

  28. Over 95% of all animals that have ever existed are already extinct.
    Do these so called ‘experts’ not understand that nature is not a static proposition but a dynamic and ever changing continuum. Changes in the climate will only ensure that this dynamic evolution continues. The flora and fauna will change (over time) to best exploit the changing conditions.

  29. I am unsure about positing climate change as the reason for the evolution of the human brain. Why were only hominids so affected and not other types of animals?
    I am equally unsure about the concept that more CO2 will create ecological havoc. If there were no CO2, the entire world would be something like Antarctica. At some unspecified level of CO2, we have ideal ecological conditions to maximise ecological diversity. Any tiny increment decreases diversity? Why the implicit non-linearity?

  30. We are please to inform your esteem buying company the petroleum products you are looking for is available in our storage tanks and reservoir for immediate delivery. Such as:
    1) D2 DIESEL GAS OIL L-0.2-62 GOST 305-82.
    2) D6 VIRGIN FUEL OIL
    3) JET FUEL JP54
    4) JET FUEL JPA1
    Provide your official email or contact us via email to enable us issue our official soft corporate offer (SCO).Thanks.
    BELOW IS OUR CONTACT INFORMATION,
    E-mail: neftegazagent@yandex.ru
    E: neftegazagent@mail.ru
    E: neftegazagent@yahoo.com
    Skype: neftegazagent
    VLADISLAV YAKOV
    open
    [The mods DO NOT recommend any WUWT reader send their email address or credit card information to any on-line, unsolicited (Russian) advertisement for fuel oil, jet fuel, diesel fuel or wind energy provider. .mod]

    • Off topic, and possibly a source of spear fishing or other malware/viral infections.
      Please delete.

  31. The eminent professor Midgely is from the profoundly blinkered school which sees only one side of a problem. In his case, any climatic change can cause a loss of species, but there is nothing that can cause an increase in species. With this all-too-pervasive limited thinking, any change is a disaster – and this is the standard “green” thinking.
    There is so much wrong with his “research” – all flowing from his unstated erroneous premise – that it is difficult to know where to begin countering the individual errors. Perhaps with “if we fail to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, we could literally move the world back 20 to 30 million years in the space of a century”. Why just 20-30 million years? Why not 50 million years? Is it because 50 million years ago, CO2 levels were way higher than they are now? If you take the 50-million-year view, CO2 levels are now dangerously low. That “20-30 million years” is starting to look like a cherry-pick.

  32. “Extreme Heat – Of the 18 hottest years on record, 17 have occurred this century. If we don’t reduce the greenhouse gases heating up our atmosphere, more and more of us will face the deadly threshold of extreme heat on our fragile human bodies.”

    • How hot weather have you ever experienced by the way? My personal record is 52 degrees Celsius, which was admittedly rather bad. However my cold record -45.5 degrees was worse.

      • +55 C in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and without energy intensive a/c would have been equally as bad as -25 C which I have experienced in Poland.

      • Wow, 52C. I think my limit was about 48C in Phoenix. That’s about 30 degrees warmer than today. Amazing that we are both still alive and spouting pseudoscientific nonsense against the Narrative, eh ivankinsman? Imagine the horrors if our average nighttime temperatures go up 1.5 degrees!
        The best way to make sure that more of us die of heat stress would be to take away access to affordable energy on the theory that our activity is driving change. However, that will kill far more people in cold regions than in hot.

    • Please. Even letting you cheat on adjusting the past down and the present up, how is this remotely relevant? The instumented record is so short even in comparison to human recorded history (let alone to pre-recorded human history), that it is less than a blink of an eye. It’s well-established that temperatures were higher during multiple climate optima corresponding to the heights of various civilizations.
      It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that you are being disingenuous since you cannot be ignorant of this fact, can you?

      • It is very well established from any number of proxies.
        Pollen
        Subfossils (of animals north/south/higher than current distribution)
        Biogeography (e. g. relictual distributions)
        TEX-86
        Alkenone
        Mg/Ca-ratios
        Oxygen isotopes (ice cores and deep sea deposits)
        Deuterium ratios
        Arthropods (e. g. Chironomids and Beetles)
        Forams
        Ostracods
        Radiolaria
        Molluscs
        Dinoflagellates (Dinocysts)
        Coccoliths
        Historical sources (e. g. chinese data on northern limits for specific crops at different times, dates when ice forms/melts on lakes and rivers etc)
        Archaeology (e. g. grapes grown north of present limits, barley grown on Greenland)
        Treeline changes
        Geomorphology (e. g. wave-modified beaches in areas where there is never open water today, weathering etc)
        Speleothems
        I think that covers the most important ones.

        • Thanks for the assist!
          But you didn’t cite multiple peer-reviewed articles for each of those, so I’m sure the usual suspects will be descending on you imminently.

  33. There are several costs associated with AGW, biodiversity being one of them. The sceptic community always ignores these of course because it does not fit in with their narrative.
    More extreme weather events are costing the US billions and this is only set to rise as the planet warms. So sceptics IT seems want to make Americans poorer and the coy let’s economy less competitive by failing to mitigate AGW: https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.wordpress.com/2018/05/20/extreme-weather-and-the-climate-crisis-what-you-need-to-know-three-worlds-one-vision/

    • Would You kindly provide some concrete information about negative biodiversity effects caused by AGW.
      And not even IPCC believes in that “extreme weather” story.

    • It’s telling that you interpret skeptical thought to be driven by a “narrative”. In fact that’s projection on your part. You repeat the stories that other people have told you, uncritically, and you maintain an impervious shield against any hint of doubt about the Truth of your CAGW dogmas.
      I would venture to guess that a majority of skeptics initially believed some of the CAGW narrative because they didn’t know the facts and hadn’t looked beyond the headlines. They probably became concerned enough at some point to look at facts and then finding that the facts do not support the CAGW narrative, they changed their view. But in this I may be the one projecting.

      • “But in this I may be the one projecting.”
        Not in my case. I started doubting in 2008-2009 when I noticed that formerly highly respected entities like NOAA and Nature were publishing data that I knew were dubious or flat-out wrong and that anyone competent in the field must know were wrong (they dealt specifically with paleoclimate and paleosealevels, two subjects I happen to know very well).

Comments are closed.