BBC: All the Cute Animals will Die from Global Warming

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to the BBC cockroaches will survive, but Pandas and humans won’t make it. Reptiles are also doomed because they can’t regulate their body temperature.

The animals that will survive climate change

With one in every four species facing extinction, which animals are the best equipped to survive the climate crisis? (Spoiler alert: it’s probably not humans).

By Christine Ro
5 August 2019

“I don’t think it will be the humans. I think we’ll go quite early on,” says Julie Gray with a laugh. I’ve just asked Gray, a plant molecular biologist at the University of Sheffield, which species she thinks would be the last ones standing if we don’t take transformative action on climate change. Even with our extraordinary capacity for innovation and adaptability, humans, it turns out, probably won’t be among the survivors.

This is partly because humans reproduce agonisingly slowly and generally just one or two at a time – as do some other favourite animals, like pandas. Organisms that can produce many offspring quickly may have a better shot at avoiding extinction.

Another source of uncertainty has to do with life forms’ capacity to adapt. Take ectotherms (cold-blooded animals like reptiles and amphibians), which have historically been slower to adapt to climatic change than endotherms. For one thing, they are less able to adjust their body temperatures. But there are exceptions, like the American bullfrog, which may actually find more habitable environments as a consequence of warming.

The historical record does point to the tenacity of cockroaches. These largely unloved critters “have survived every mass extinction event in history so far”, says Asmeret Asefaw Berhe, a soil biogeochemist at the University of California, Merced. For instance, cockroaches adapted to an increasingly arid Australia, tens of millions of years ago, by starting to burrow into soil.

Read more: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190730-the-animals-that-will-survive-climate-change

Anyone who thinks reptiles have a problem with warm temperatures has never visited Australia. And I’m not just talking about our politicians.

Advertisements

112 thoughts on “BBC: All the Cute Animals will Die from Global Warming

  1. If we abandon fossil fuel as an energy source to rely solely on renewable Wind and Solar we will certainly be the first species extinction.

      • Dave you are an fool if you believe my post was anything other than sarcasm. Trouble with faith based believers is they have no capacity to distinguish nonsense from reality which is in large part why they think the end is 12 years out.

    • You may have been sarcastic, but there’s truth in what you say. Our way of life across the entire globe is heavily dependent on oil and gas. Our clothing is an oil byproduct. Concrete and asphalt are oil byproducts. Soaps, shampoos, medicines, etc… Bicycles cannot be made without oil. Food cannot be efficiently grown, harvested, and transported without oil. We cannot manufacture Tesla batteries without oil. I could go on and on, but the point is a massive percentage of the population would die if we stopped using oil completely. Starvation. Sickness. Heat exhaustion.

  2. I believe reptiles did very well for a few hundred million years with CO2 at 4000ppm. Could be wrong but I think so

    • Exactly, dinos were reptiles and the world was warmer and wetter and more lush back then ( thanks to high CO2 ). Dinosaurs did not die heat exhaustion but allegedly a “nuclear winter” caused by a massive meteor strike.

      Maybe we should take note of that when evaluating our risks for the future.

      • Greg, if the dinosaurs (lizards) flourished because of the exceptionally high atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities were driving the lush green biomass growth …….. they why are the “experts” blaming the demise of the dinosaurs (lizards) on an allegedly, ….. possibly, …. per-chancy, …. theoretical, ….. or highly iffy “nuclear winter” that might have been caused by a massive meteor (asteroid) strike?

        Iffen the rise of the dinosaurs was the result of the increase in CO2, ….. then wouldn’t the decrease in CO2 result in the demise of the dinosaurs? ….. I THINK IT WOULD, …. I THINK IT WOULD.

        Iffen a “nuclear winter” was caused by a massive meteor strike, ….. then the majority of all life forms on the surface and in the surface waters would have perished (gone extinct). ….. BUT THAT DIDN’T HAPPEN, …… DIDN’T HAPPEN.

    • Greg, dino’s ancestors are still among us – crocodiles, ‘gators and hens and chickens.

      • Penguins. You left out penguins. And the albatross. How can you forget the albatrossesses?

        This article is just plain silly. It’s almost as though these science peeps want to see life extinguished. They should be careful what they wish for. They might be the first to = well, just Poof!!!

        • “Real” scientists who do “real” science have already gone extinct. You’d think after 80 years of predictions, models, etc and every single one has been wrong that they’d come up with a new theory as science would demand.

          • The qualification and the grant system eliminate any proper scientists from the profession. I became a sceptic as a result of working with three engineers who used to be climate scientists till they did research work that trashed a well known and often published paper and had to sign a gagging order which would have been more effective it had not been sent reply all instead of reply sender.

      • Johann Wundersamer – August 5, 2019 at 12:46 pm

        dino’s ancestors are still among us – crocodiles, ‘gators and hens and chickens.

        “YUP”, they sure are …….. and the fossil record infers the “dino” birds (Archaeopteryx) evolved during the Upper Jurassic Period (200 myBP) of the Mesozoic Period …… which means all of their “bird” descendants would have also perished at the end of the Cretaceous Period (66 myBP) …. as a result of a “nuclear winter” being caused by an asteroid strike.

        Without any food to eat, small animals will starve to death just as quick as large animals.

    • Survived also much wider temperature swings.

      Humans and many other critters are well able to exist in wide variations. Add a degree or two makes no difference.

      • Mark, ……. “nuclear winters” are a wee bit DIFFERENT than the per stated “wide variations” in surface temperatures.

        Just one (1) “nuclear winters”, ….. max of 18 months, ….. would cause massive deaths of most species

    • It’s the variance in weather not co2 or the possible max temp. Typical of science denying sites, nobody on this page understands the points that you attempt, badly, to dismiss with half understood science mixed with woo woo.

      • I think the half understood science mixed with woo-woo is largely found in climate catastrophe predictions, politics, and climate science. Since none of the predictions about the future course of the climate have ever come true prediction of the future climate is on quick sand. There is no basis for predicting climate change because we don’t understand how the climate works. Even the natural world has a hard time figuring out when birds should migrate, when plants should flower, when it’s going to rain. Trillions of plants and animals die because the conditions develop differently from year to year.

    • Ah yes, and we’ll follow the lead of Douglas Adams. All global warming alarmists, BBC employees, telephone sanitizers and the like will leave first, in the “B Ark.”

  3. “I don’t think it will be the humans [that survive]. I think we’ll go quite early on, …”

    This is potentially a self fulfilling prophecy, since if the radical left has its way, civilization as we know it is certainly doomed as it reverts back to a pre-industrial existence of hardship, hunger, short life spans, disease, a larger economic gap between the elites and the masses, more war over land and resources and there will still be nukes.

    • This is stunningly stupid statement for a scientist to make. We are supposed to believe that animals will all die off with a few degrees of temperature rise yet humans who can survive in Siberia and the Arctic N. America , dug towns into and under the earth millennia ago and have managed to travel to the moon with not be able to protect themselves and survive.

      It seems impossible that she can not be aware of that, so it is yet more willful deception: aka lying.

      • Stunningly stupid is about right. I don’t understand how people with that level of mental accuity can be scientists. Something is dreadfully wrong with the system.

      • The problem here, Greg, is that while the no doubt charming Julie Gray is actually a scientist, science is a big place and Julie is in fact a plant molecular biologist.

        So, if Julie was to speak to us about plants and how their molecular science is science and plants and plant science (or whatever plant molecular biologists actually talk about, I’m an engineering professional, I honestly don’t really know) then we could also probably sit back in nodding agreement. This would be her field. Safe assumption is that she walks the walk in molecular plant science.

        HOWEVER, the BBC have done a fastie on us. They have dragged in someone who agrees with their world view, flashed up SCIENTIST in big letters, molecular biologist in very small letters and have basically structured an entire article around the ‘Look! A Scientist!’ process of suppressing debate. Julie is a Scientist. You are not. The BBC is a Trusted Media Organisation. You are not. Ergo, shut up and agree with everything we tell you.

        Climate Emergency(tm) (cause Climate Change(tm) is so 2017…) and MSM don’t live in the real world. In the real world people can be held legally responsible for their actions. You don’t let the work experience kid sign off on design. You don’t let the physio do heart surgery. You don’t let heart surgeons design radar networks. That is how the real world works because the real world expects safe results to the agreed budget.

        Climate Emergency? Nope – Say what you feel. Tis for the good of the planet.

        • But it is always OK to pontificate on the global warming disaster no matter what you do or what knowledge you have. If you are criticising it then you have to be a climate ‘scientist’ and therefore you would be a believer and so wouldn’t take a contrary view anyway.

        • Plants are BEGGING for more CO2. Plants don’t die because of heat. They die because of lack of water. If the equator gets too hot for life, then suddenly we have Siberia, Antarctica, and Canada to live in. There’s no emergency here, and it’ll be a lot cheaper for some of the population to relocate than out the entire planet on “green” energy. (I’m pretending green energy is green, as we know we can’t produce a solar panel, wind turbine or battery without mining and foundry work that needs oil.

        • ….Safe assumption is that she walks the walk in molecular plant science…… Climate science proves that is no longer true. I was sent as a result of the failure to use reply sender instead reply all a copy of a gagging order for three climate scientists who produced clearly correct evidence of adjusted data and clearly manipulated conclusions in a frequently used university research paper. The reason used was it was against the interest of the university concerned as it would lose several lucrative projects for one poorly funded one. Unfortunately it was sent to work so I was not able to copy it ind use it as evidence.
          Scientists to me are failed engineers who only learn the theory part and not the “it has to match and work in the real world” part.

        • Argumentum ad Verecundiam fallacy.

          BBC editors have no training in basic logic. How embarrassing!

      • “Dr.” Gray’s statement would be (possibly) truthful if ancient humans had never harnessed fire, in any form. In which case, it wouldn’t take any Climate Change™ to do us in, 98% of humanity lives in locations where an unprotected (no clothes, even) human could not survive an entire year if they couldn’t even make a fire. Apparently, all that toughness was exchanged for a big brain, which made up for all the shortcomings in all the other areas. Seems “Dr.” Gray failed to recognize the full capability of the human species.

    • What utter ignorance. No cockroach could or would ever attempt to limit its reproductive rate based upon environmental sustainability. It’s simply beyond their comprehension.
      Humans reproduce at whatever level we deem fit with gestation rates and sustainability. We are one of the few creatures who seem to understand our position and effects on the surrounding environment. We have managed to also alter the sustainability equilibrium as well as mortality rates. Population growth seems to have outstripped out mortality rates for the present as we move to a different equilibrium condition.
      Of course artificially imposed restrictions will handicap human sustainability.

      • In doing geneological research on my family tree, I was stuck by the fact that just a few generations ago my ancestors would have at least a half dozen progeny (at least that survived to adulthood). Now a days, my cousins have had one or two children at most. As civilization prospers the need to have many offspring to support you in old age diminishes.

        • Mumbles McGuirck = August 5, 2019 at 1:19 pm

          As civilization prospers the need to have many offspring to support you in old age diminishes.

          Actually, it had nothing to do with old age. If civilization, ….. and especially the man and wife “family unit” was going to prosper, it required the need of having several offspring (3, 4, a dozen).

          Actually, the more children the better, simply because the death rate of children was quite high, …. and the ones that survived was “free labor” that was necessary for survival of the family.

  4. These idjits seem to think that the temperature of the Earth will be the same everywhere !
    I was born in the frigid North of Canada (minus 30 C in winter)
    At 16, I moved to Florida (plus 70 C in winter) to escape the cold…
    That is a 100 degree difference ! (Somehow, miraculously, I survived that horrible transition) !
    Hmmmm, I guess I got “acclimatized” (adapted) by spending my days in the blazing Sun, living on beach, drinking inexpensive American beer 80% of the time..(20% was for sleep…sometimes) ; )
    So obviously, in order for the Human race to survive, we need to produce more American beer !

    • Somehow, Mark, I think you mean plus 70 F in winter, not C. Although your point is good. I remember one year I lived through 50 C (122 F) in the Arizona summer and then minus 30 C (-22F) that winter in South Dakota. Neither was all that pleasant, but I survived and even managed to get some work done out doors in both extremes.

  5. “…plant molecular biologist…”

    Not talking plants. They couldn’t get a quote from someone more appropriate?

  6. Spoiler alert: it’s probably not humans

    Humans have learned to thrive everywhere. We don’t have to evolve.

    Talib has a description for PhDs who couldn’t find a Coconut on Coconut Island, Intellectual Yet Idiot (IYI).

  7. OK.
    So cockroaches survive, humans go extinct.
    This radical new idea has only been around since the 1950s, if not earlier. It has been an ongoing idea floating around the University since forever. It is a theme which has made it’s appearance in movies, on television, in books, and on and on.
    By the way, does anybody know if it has made an appearance in a Broadway musical?

    Our intrepid BBC reporter must be a product of our modern education system, not to know any of this.
    Imagine stumbling across an old, shopworn storyline which has been used to death, and thinking you have found something totally new. Now imagine having an editor who does not know the difference either.
    They just get dumber and dumber.
    Used to be that “grumpy old men” said that.
    Now it is true.

    • Hmmmm … “Thermogeddon, the Musical”
      Thermogeddon, what a show
      Our children won’t recognize snow
      No more ice in our drinks
      Life without a/c really stinks
      Thermogeddon, it’s the end of the line!

      Tap dancers then squash about a bazillion cockroaches.
      Produced by Bialystok and Bloom

      They just get dumber and dumber.
      Used to be that “grumpy old men” said that.
      Now it is true.

      Alternate hypothesis – you have now become a grumpy old man. Just sayin’.

    • ##The historical record does point to the tenacity of cockroaches. These largely unloved critters “have survived every mass extinction event in history so far”, says Asmeret Asefaw Berhe, a soil biogeochemist at the University of California, Merced.##

      Cockroaches survived the End-Ediacaran mass extinction 100 million years or more before there was a recognisable insect on the Earth? They are pretty smart creatures.

    • “Our intrepid BBC reporter must be a product of our modern education system, not to know any of this.”

      …and then asks a plant molecular biologist about it.

  8. Let me get this straight, if someone that lives in Canada goes to Florida they can’t survive? The SnowBirds I saw in Florida looked to be surviving in great style. Some of the younger ones looked like they could reproduce more SnowBirds as needed. This plant molecular biologist can’t imagine herself competing with a cockroach? There is not an ounce of common sense in this story. I think I will have a drink and look for some cockroaches to squash.

  9. If I wanted to go pessimistic, I’m not sure I would have to go so far as to say modern civilization might fall, not completely anyway? Notice how immune the biggest authoritarian or non democratic countries seem to be to all the climate hysteria! It just seems as though Western democracy could be the thing that is about to fall, with some relatively practical dictatorship or oligarchy standing right by to pick up the pieces.

    As for nuclear, it’s not too obvious why lack of reliable energy and resulting poverty would increase the risk of that a lot? If democracy fails due to bad ideology and economic mismanagement, it’s not going to help corrupt elites very much to risk nuclear holocaust too?

    On a more optimistic note, there are plenty of signs that the current level of eco-extremism and/or ‘extreme leftism’ will pass, eventually. That is, if the greenies, etc., don’t spend us all into the ground, or just plain irritate us to death in the meantime ..

  10. Does this article have even a modicum of science somewhere within it? Or has it been written by a green, social justice warrior, high priestess of the climate change/ global warming religion, devoid of the slightest trace of common sense?

    Pandas were on their way out anyway and crocodiles do quite well in the warmer weather. They would have a royal feast off the members of her congregation

  11. I believe those large, rather nasty reptiles ruled the Earth for over 140 million years. Humans, not so much.

  12. it is incredibly irresponsible for people to pump out this kind of propaganda so constantly. People actually believe this shit and it is driving people insane. Each one of these recent shooters cited part of their rationale for their actions was the destruction of the environment and the coming apocalypse from automation. Most of these concerns are nonsensical future predictions by people who get paid by the click and thus make up insane (****) – cherry picking anything they can to justify their claims.

    it creates people that are hopeless and nihilistic — and who are angry at the world and ready to do things to destroy some small corner of it. Its (*****) sad.

    [Edited for language. Mod]

    • That one shooter sounded a lot like the bomber Ted Kazinski and his manifesto. Leftwing eco insanity.

      The Democrats are blaming everything on Trump, of course.

      I’m surprised there was not a “good guy with a gun” there in Texas to stop that psychopath, although they say the El Paso Wall Mart was a “gun-free zone, but who pays attention to that? Certainly not the criminals.

      In these kinds of incidents we can’t count on the police to get there in time, we have to be able to defend ourselves on a moments notice. That’s all there is to it. Don’t come to my Wall Mart! 🙂

      • Apparently, the “good guy with the gun” was a veteran who was carrying and was at Foot Locker when the shooting started. He reportedly got out of Foot Locker, drew his weapon, but then saw a bunch of unsupervised, frightened children (described as “lost”, unsupervised, etc. Not sure where the parents were….) and scooped them up and took them to safety. By that time, the police had the situation under control. An armed good guy has to be close enough to do some good, so in this case, more than one was needed or by blind chance the armed guy had to be where the shooter was.

        • Thanks, Sheri, I hadn’t heard that story.

          I’m still surprised there were not more armed people in a Walmart in Texas.

          To any shooters out there: Don’t come to Oklahoma and try that because there are armed citizens in this state, and come November 1, every legal, sane citizen of Oklahoma will be eligible to carry a gun legally, no license required.

      • Fortunatly, in Dayton the cops were there and stopped the nut in minutes.
        Turns out the nut was pro-gun control and an Elizabeth Warren supporter. (Won’t see many headlines about that.)
        But you’re right. The problem isn’t the gun in the nut’s hand. It’s banning the gun in the victims’ hands.

    • Why are so many politicos deceived+/- corrupted by the worst fraud so far, Comunism aside?
      Th May, Greens, Left/Liberals, SNP some of the worst.
      In the West, Donald Trump has rightly set a good sense course, in the East, President Xi of China.

  13. Facts and common sense should never be allowed to get in the way of ideology. The example of religious teachings is evident in the way ideologists rant. If things are good “it’s because God is pleased”, more prayer ,penance and money to the church to keep it that way. If things are bad ” it’s because God is displeased”, more prayer, penance and money to the church to make amends. This is the way of controlling the herd instinct in the population and it has worked for centuries. Better education has made people see through this charlatan ideology so a more sophisticated story had to be invented. Step up to the plate “Climate doomsday caused by mankind burning fossil fuel”. The only cure is to turn the clock back to a more idyllic time when life expectancy was only half of today, poverty, hunger and subsistence levels of life. The energy provided by beasts of burden. Of course, it will require half the world’s population to perish as food, health provision, housing, heat, light and power will be in very short supply without the adequate distribution ability that is taken for granted today. The real catastrophe for the world will be if these climate zealots get their own way. The fact that the climate doom and gloom predictions during the past 50 years have never materialised in no way serves to stay the verbal rubbish uttered every day by self-opinionated (and self-serving) tossers who pass themselves as serious scientists, able politicians, representatives of the media and saviours of the planet.

  14. So the cockroaches will survive, and I bet they’ll be extremely angry at any human who ever tried to milk them.

    • Just look at how an alien cockroach responded when “J” stepped on a few of his domestic brethren.
      See this clip at about 2:28 into it.

  15. All extant animals have, by definition, “survived every mass extinction event in history so far”.

    And as for ectotherms being sensitive to high temperatures, you would then expect tundras to teem with them and tropical deserts to lack them. Of course it is the other way around.

    It is true that cockroaches are originally mostly animals of rainforest understory and can only survive in northern areas thanks to humans, so in a warmer climate they will undoubtedly extend their (outdoor) range.

    And humans are remarkably resistant to extinction. And, if we diregard cases where actions by other humans were the reason, nearly all documented cases where human populations have become extinct have been in arctic areas. There are also a few cases where isolated island populations have died out, probably through inbreeding.

    • Yeah, my ancestors seemed to do pretty well during the last glacial maximum, the proof being that I’m here. And they did it with animal-hide clothing and knapped stone tools.

      Climate change? I eat climate change for breakfast.

    • Absolutely true, or at least their ancestors survived – and survived massive climate changes including the last glacial maximum. All insects except for some bees are ‘ectotherms’, so this article is remarkably ignorant and illogical. That plant molecular biologist is either badly misquoted or poorly educated or both.

  16. Only one in every four? The BBC are in danger of losing relevance – should have said three in every four. Hell, 99 out of 100!

    The stupid, it burns like the surface of Venus. You know: James Hansen’s field of expertise.

  17. Spoiler alert; humans will do just fine since “manmade climate change” is just a fantasy. The coming cooling which could be significant will test our mettle though. Wasting umpteen $billions changing our energy systems fighting a phantom menace certainly won’t help. The biggest threat to humanity it seems is that The Stupid appears to be reigning supreme. Indeed, we’d be easy pickings right now for some enterprising space aliens deciding to take over our Earth. It would be a cake walk.

  18. Raccoons have often been considered by biologists to be THE successful mammalian survivor.

    “Raccoons (Procyon lotor) are best suited to riverine environments.” “The ecosystems in these areas are peculiar and fragile.” Like the one in the dumpster?
    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2019/07/raccoons-expanding-range-climate-change/

    NG not now well known for its ecological knowledge. Perhaps trained by these types of people– “His point was that science should be more about storytelling and unafraid of personalization; he urged scientists to be more involved in speaking out against the anti-science rhetoric that has been issuing from a variety of individuals and groups….Scientific societies and organizations such as ours are seizing the moment and helping scientists become proficient in public engagement.. ”
    https://www.americanscientist.org/blog/macroscope/visibility-may-be-the-key-to-increasing-support-for-science

    We had a pet raccoon once. Better to keep your mouth shut.

    • Raccoons regularly stroll around my neighborhood, dine out of trash cans and hang around my backyard pool at night. Heck, one even stole my pool thermometer. I guess “cute” is in the eye of the beholder, but I for one would not shed a tear if they were to vanish forever. 😉

      • They are at least as numerous as roaches here, maybe more so since I’ve yet to see a roach. Very destructive, I’ll need to call my removal guy for the third time in two years soon, as yet another is trying to tear into our roof.

        Greta would loathe him – black powder and bow hunter, more than prepared for climate apocalypse – just the very worst sort of human imaginable! Climbs onto steeply pitched rooftops to catch trash pandas and release them out in the countryside. Has actual physical skill and courage; a real freak in the year 2019. 😉

        • He may not be releasing them in the countryside or anywhere else. In quite a few states now it is illegal to capture and transport a racoon. The spread of racoon rabies from an isolated Florida population to much larger and previously uninfected populations came about by the transportation of racoons from that rabid population to new locations. Your pest control guy may very well be required by law to kill the animal once it’s captured. The USDA now regularly carries out a program of vaccination by airdropping baits laced with vaccine in a number of areas in an effort to slow the spread of the disease which can infect domestic animals, livestock and humans.

          • Ah, but this is Canuckistan. Still might be the case though.

            When I was a park natural history interpreter, raccoons had to be culled regularly because eejits kept leaving heaps of dog food out for them, resulting in way too many raccoons. Typical result of sentimentality applied to wild animals: love ‘em to death, just so you get to feel good.

  19. Cockroaches “have survived every mass extinction event in history so far”. Duh. Every single animal alive today belongs to a species that survived every single mass extinction event in its history.

    Not one of the known mass extinction events (MEE) was caused by global warming. Some of the literature refers to “cooling or warming” as an MEE cause, and some even try rather desperately to make it sound like CO2 played a role, but if you check the details the culprit is never warming (eg. https://www.thoughtco.com/permian-period-300-250-million-years-1091430). And as others have pointed out, reptiles just love heat.

  20. “With one in every four species facing extinction, which animals are the best equipped to survive the climate crisis? (Spoiler alert: it’s probably not humans).

    By Christine Ro”

    (Spoiler alert: it’s probably not humans).

    By Christine Ro

  21. Some of the more environmentally aware dinosaurs were worried about the consequences of an accident with the new Iridium enriched fusion reactor. “If it goes off only the cockroaches and mammals will survive…” they said

    • Hey, the dinosaurs lived life large, and had their day in the sun.

      Most biological extinction events are not actually some sort of a holocaust (to use the word in its historical meaning), but simply a case of a species not having enough successful sex over many generations.

      The decline of the Roman Empire over a period of many hundreds of years was probably also not that bad for most of its citizens. It’s only later reporters who like to ham it up into a sudden cataclysmic event.

  22. “I don’t think it will be the humans. I think we’ll go quite early on,” says Julie Gray with a laugh. I’ve just asked Gray, a plant molecular biologist at the University of Sheffield, which species she thinks would be the last ones standing if we don’t take transformative action on climate change. Even with our extraordinary capacity for innovation and adaptability, humans, it turns out, probably won’t be among the survivors.

    This is partly because humans reproduce agonisingly slowly and generally just one or two at a time – as do some other favourite animals, like pandas. Organisms that can produce many offspring quickly may have a better shot at avoiding extinction.”
    __________________________________________________________

    So Julie Gray will feel flattered if she is called a “tick”. Or a “rat”.

    Because of her high fertility rate, her offspring will be the last standing due to their faster generations sequence and the resulting better adabtibility.

    Good luck.

    • Maybe she subscribes to the PETA philosophy, “a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy”?

  23. I wonder if Christine Ro (writer) and Julie Gray (plant biologist) are friends and/or related. Second, did Ro’s boss ask for a ‘filler’ piece on a very short deadline.
    The extinction story reported isn’t interesting, but the story behind the story might be. For instance, what were these two drinking when the topic was discussed?

  24. How did we possibly survive coming out of the last ice age? Remember the last woolly mammoth you ate? Neither do I.

  25. ‘For one thing, they are less able to adjust their body temperatures. Take ectotherms (cold-blooded animals like reptiles and amphibians), which have historically been slower to adapt to climatic change than endotherms.’

    Heterothermorphism. Poikilotherms don’t care.

    ‘Julie Gray with a laugh. I’ve just asked Gray, a plant molecular biologist’

    Ahhh, that explains it. No competent zoologist would say ‘cold-blooded.’

    ‘historically been slower to adapt to climatic change’

    Wut? She just completely made that up.

  26. in a previous media release, it was rats multiplying while cuddily animals die due to global warming. John Robson wrote at National Post Why will global warming kill only the cute animals?
    https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-robson-why-will-global-warming-only-kill-the-cute-animals

    My synopsis:

    Monday’s Post headline actually said “Explosion of rats feared as climate warms.” So the good news is rats aren’t increasing any more than temperature. The bad news is a further increase in passive-voice predictions of doom.

    Before the rats reach your face I’d like to note that this “news” story is remarkable for having the plumbing on the outside. It starts “Scientists have shown that the likely 2 degrees of global warming to come this century will be extremely dangerous, but, you know, ‘2 degrees’ is hardly a phrase from horror films. How about ‘rat explosion?’ ”

    Exactly. It’s openly a story about hype not science. “The physics of climate change doesn’t have the same fear factor as the biology.” So cue the Fu Manchu-style mandibles, mould and plague because “it’s the creatures multiplying in outbreaks and infestations that generate horror.”

    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/11/07/global-warming-favors-rats-over-cute-animals/

    • Beat me to it. Obviously these ”experts” know very little about reptiles with moronic statements like this…”Reptiles are also doomed because they can’t regulate their body temperature.

  27. Christine Ro:
    Education: MPhil in Development Studies, University of Oxford; BA in English and Sociology, University of California, Berkeley

  28. During the PETM 55 million years ago global temperatures rose 5-8 degrees. We don’t know how fast, because it was geologically instantaneous, too fast to be measurable at this distance in time.

    Was the result a mass extinction? Contrariwise. Almost everything living flourished as never before or since. Most mammalian orders for example first show up during the PETM and spread over the Earth.

    The only extinctions paleontologists have been able to scrape up is a number of benthic foraminifera (bottom-living marine micro-organisms).

  29. The real whopper in this story is the statement that 1 in 4 species is facing extinction.

    • Yes, where on Earth do they get that claim? And how on earth do they report it as if it’s some settled fact?

      It’s nothing more than a wild and extreme possibility based on wild and extreme assumptions. It is utterly shameful that the BBC treat as something real and scientific.

  30. 1 in 4 facing extinction? Really?

    Within 5 years they will be claiming that everything is already dead.

  31. Given they have been around on this rock for a good couple of hundred million years and have seen many climate changes, I think they would be OK too.

  32. So this is why cold blooded reptiles and amphibians survived the KT extinction event? Clearly they should not be here since that asteroid impact surely caused more climate change than any worst case scenarios imagined for today’s world!

  33. She is talking about a STATISTICAL ANOMALY!!!!!
    Of tenths of a degree PER DECADE!!!!!

    Completely unnoticeable for any animals of any KIND!!!
    If her and her posse didn’t keep wailing about how HORRIBLE it is, and how HORRIBLE it will be, no one would notice the change, let alone be killed by it.
    We have a stupidity problem that is a FAR greater problem than any insignificant changes in the climate, that we MIGHT be experiencing.

    • And then only a global average against a long term global average. The simple truth is that virtually nowhere today will have a temperature any different from the natural variability of temperatures pre-industrial levels of CO2. Where I am in the UK will be indistinguishable from 1950, 1930 and 1890.

  34. If I remember correctly, during the nuclear winter scare of the last millennium, the only species to have a chance of surviving a nuclear war was, you guessed it, the cockroach.

  35. his is partly because humans reproduce agonisingly slowly

    Our reproduction rate is immaterial because we ceased evolving centuries ago. We are the ultimate survivor because we are the only species that can, and does, adapt the world to our needs instead of the other way around.

    We clear the land of species that are no use to us, and cover it with ones that are. We call them crops and herds. Anything that threatens them (and hence our food supply) we deal with mercilessly. Herbicides, fungicides and pesticides protect our crops, fencing and other measures to ward of the predators that would feed on our herds. We modify crops and herds through breeding programs to enhance their ability to both serve us and to immunize them from harm. When climate changes (and it does) a combination of breeding programs and the ability to proactively change what crops and herds we raise where ensure their (and our) continuing survivability.

    Diseases? When was the last time a friend or relative died of smallpox? Black plague? Yellow fever? Polio? We didn’t adapt to those threats, we destroyed them.

    As for ability to adapt to temperature on a personal level, again, we adapt the world to us, not the other way around. The benefit of cheap energy is that when it is -30 outside, it is +20 inside. When it is +30 outside, it is +20 inside (for those of us who are lucky enough to have access to stead electricity and fossil fuels). If the earth warms by a degree or two… So at -28 it will still be +20 inside and when it is +32 outside, it will still be +20 inside.

  36. This is a fun game you can play – google an animal with the words climate change.

    If you choose a cute animal like say a koala or hedgehog, you will find that it is under threat from climate change.

    But if you choose creatures generally regarded as a nuisance, like rats or mosquitoes, it always turns out that these are going to flourish because of climate change.

    It’s an amazing coincidence how “the science” always works out this way.

  37. This post… not so much an “essay”, but rather a target for negative comments and hatred.
    Author had nothing intelligent to say about the piece of “journalism” presented. Net gain=0.
    We can do better than just pointing at things and saying “look, this is dumb”, and then sitting back while everyone who agrees has their say.
    Do something constructive. Promote dialogue, not hatred and anger.
    I get that we humans love a bit of outrage with our breakfast, but it does nothing to move us forward.

  38. This so-called educated person thinks humans won’t survive? The ONE and ONLY species capable of altering its environment to include everything from the equator to Antartica???? She is seriously lacking in intelligence. Maybe she’s thinking of herself, not the hardy members of the species?

  39. Raccoons are mentioned above. Vancouver has too many plaguey critters.
    On the north side against the mountains there are urban cougars and urban bears.
    And everywhere–urban coyotes, urban raccoons, urban skunks and urban socialists.

  40. Sorry, I accepted that this was the most viewed climate change site on the internet, cos the internet=truth… But… Not true. Maybe America has it right! 🇺🇸 =more guns, less people! USA USA!

  41. Until Climate Alarmists start telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, I will forever be a “denier.” I see no reason to radically change my life and my taxes when the rest of the world isn’t on board. Sure, you can PRETEND the Paris Agreement had 170+ countries on board but I’ve read what the countries “promised.” China, for example, promised to CONTINUE INCREASING CO2 EMISSIONS until 2030 with no promise to decrease them after 2030. India pretty much promised the same. Other countries like Zimbabwe pretty much submitted a piece of paper acknowledging there’s a potential problem, but they aren’t an emitter. Countries like Germany promised a lot, but are FAILING to meet their own goals. So, why should I be forced to pay up or change what I drive? (This is all assuming there’s a problem, and I don’t see it.) Weren’t the polar bears supposed to be suffering? Guess what?! Polar bears are THRIVING!!!

  42. “Even the animals, that survive will not be cute and cuddly”
    .. isn’t that the famous Tim Flannery quote ?

  43. Australian Humorist Barry Humphries some years ago launched “Save the Funnel Web Spider”, ( ‘It’s endangered, you know’), as a joke as a fake charity, along with “Friends of Prostate Cancer”.
    It’s hard being a humorist when the BBC are intent on trumping your material.

  44. If the BBC is right about climate then it can be proud of the fact it is the biggest promoter of scepticism of all.
    As a supposedly reputable source of reliable data it has a duty to tell us the truth. This means if the case is beyond question then it has to show either no questions can be thought up. Clearly this idea is the most ridiculous drivel, or that any question can be answered.
    They claim the science is beyond question. Come on BBC instead of the mindless brainwashing rubbish you put out by what are when based purely on the standard they broadcast, sub moron level presenters like Attenborough, put on programs where you go through the accuracy of data collection to show it meet normal engineering standards of QA departments in life critical applications for both numbers of measuring stations compared to the variability of temperatures and for the station quality.
    Show the trend analysis meets not the worse than primitive methods of a narrowly trained and out of their depth climate science fraternity but the best in class trend analysis methods.
    Show the computer models meet best in class standards for both methodology and for prediction accuracy.
    Most important of all show the greatest temperature anomalies match area by area fossil fuel use. Remember where the fuel is used you get both the direct heating and the claimed greenhouse effect. If this does not occur prove matches the CO2 transfers and the the solar radiation in that area matches the temperature rise patterns.
    These are all non technical issues readily understood by most TV and radio audiences.
    As long as non believers see the BBC corrupted into a mere low end Nazi style brainwashing organisation no action will be taken just because it will not be socially acceptable to well over half the population. They will clearly be surprised at the number who are not willing to have our industrial policies dictated to by a clearly very sub normal teenage activist and a gullible or corrupt “elite”.
    When I start having to pay for my licence again I intend to start a campaign of small claims for refunds for failure to meet its charter obligations of impartiality. Of course many who just object to the licence fee might well join in.

Comments are closed.