A follow up to the post about the Channel 4 programme with environmentalists beating their breasts is this very succinct cartoon from Josh which encapsulates the whole story very nicely:
Posts Tagged ‘Alarmism’
“What the Green Movement got wrong” (cont’d)
November 6, 2010Some species extinction is necessary – and COP10 Nagoya is not
October 26, 2010Species, like an ideal gas, expand to fill the space available to them. Most species – so far -have had a life of less than 10 million years though some (the living fossils) may exist for hundreds of millions of years. More species have become extinct over the years than are in existence today. It is stated that over 99% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. The death of a species is nearly always due to competitive pressure from other species or by a change in their surrounding conditions that the species fails to adapt to. There have been at least 5 so-called mass extinctions over geological time — though in each case sufficient species remained so that evolution and development could continue in new directions. If the dinosaurs had not become extinct then man would probably never have evolved. If man ever does become extinct then it will surely provide the room for the possible development of some other species.
Any strategy to try and “guide” the future development of humankind must – it seems to me – include for the expansion of the species and cannot be based on the stagnation of the species. It is inevitable that less successful species will die out in the face of this competition. To merely conserve a species to continue its existence in a Zoo (and there is no nature reserve or wildlife park which is not ultimately just a zoo) without any room for the development or growth of that species may satisfy some deep seated aesthetic, human urge, but it is of no significance in terms of development of either the species being protected or of the human species. Why then is there so much fuss about the possible extinction of some current species today?
Intentionally terminating a species merely for the sake of terminating that species ought then to be “wrong”. And so it is; except when mankind perceives that the quality of life of the human species is jeopardised by the existence of that other species. There are no qualms therefore in the eradication – or the attempted eradication – of parasites, viruses, bacteria or the tsetse fly or certain types of mosquitoes.
That it is desirable that tigers and lions or other species that are threatened by competition with humans continue to exist, is driven primarily by aesthetic values. If human aesthetics desire the preservation of such species in reservations, then that is perfectly allowable. But such “protected” species are effectively frozen in time and have no space for expansion or evolution. They are effectively removed from being active contributors to the “web of life”. Furthermore the dependence of man as a species on the diversity of other existing species is decreasing. As we increase the use of IVF, or genetically engineered crops, or animal-cloning or selective animal breeding programmes, the dependence of mankind on the ad hoc food-chains that exist is reduced. (I observe that the use of the words “natural” or “unnatural” here are meaningless. The intervention of humans in any “natural” process is not more “unnatural” than breeding cows or creating over 200 breeds of dogs. Since humans are part of “nature” then anything humans do is – by definition – “natural”). As drugs – which may have first been extracted from some particular plants – are synthesised and tailored to meet human needs the dependence upon the plant species disappears.
The objectives of the Biodiversity conference currently being held in Nagoya are the most inconsequential platitudes which are irrational, unscientific and merely exhibit a “woolly” sentimentality.
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) entered into force on 29 December 1993. It has 3 main objectives:
- The conservation of biological diversity
- The sustainable use of the components of biological diversity
- The fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources.
What is not addressed at all is why the conservation (or more correctly the stagnation) of biological diversity is something to be desired and by which species. I take it as axiomatic that the ultimate beneficiary must be the human species – if not necessarily individual humans. (Here too I would observe that it is by ensuring benefits to individuals that we shall probably do the greatest good for the species). The conservation of a species for the sake of conservation is just as wrong as the extermination of a species for the sake of extermination.
The Convention states
As demographic pressures and consumption levels increase, biodiversity decreases, and the ability of the natural world to continue delivering the goods and services on which humanity ultimately depends may be undermined.
This would imply an acceptance that other species exist only to serve the human species. The conclusion then must be that if a species does not contribute to the supply of goods and services for man then it is redundant as a species. If such a redundant species becomes extinct it may be aesthetically displeasing but it is of no consequence for the advancement of the human species. The second objective “the sustainable use of the components of biodiversity” then means that as human ingenuity and intervention ensures the supply of goods and services needed (whether by farming techniques or fish farming or cattle and poultry breeding or by synthetic techniques), then other species which were contributing to such supply become redundant.
The 3rd objective regarding “fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources” has really nothing at all to do with the diversity of species and instead is an issue of distribution of the benefits of exploiting other species. For example, it is the issue of drug companies from developed countries extracting medicinal materials from plants only found in developing countries and of ensuring that monetary benefits also find their way to the country in which the plant grows. But once the medicinal materials can be synthesised the plant – as a species – becomes redundant.
Sometimes it is claimed that biodiversity is needed to maintain the gene pool. But to what end do we need this gene pool where genes do not cross species boundaries? This makes no sense unless one is trying to ensure the evolution and development of replacement species once humans are extinct. It is also claimed at times that we know so little about the various interactions between species that it would be dangerous to allow any species to become extinct. But this is mere alarmism. Focusing on real benefits to humans in need of food or medicine or water or space would be much more constructive than harping on “not doing something” for fear of unknown and unquantifiable dangers.
The COP10 conference in Nagoya seems to be going the way of the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009 – and that is probably a very good thing.
That the success of humans as a species is reducing the habitat for and the viability of other species is obvious.
That this is “unnatural” or undesirable is nonsensical.
Earth is starting to crumble due to global warming !
October 15, 2010
Planchón-Peteroa: Image via Wikipedia
Alarmism is alive and well at ENTRIX and at the New Scientist.
When in doubt it seems you can always get a paper published if you put it down to global warming. The key finding in this new paper seems to be that “large-scale glacial melting, including at the end of the Pleistocene, caused a significant increase in the incidence of large volcanic sector collapse and debris flows on then-active volcanoes”.
The Pleistocene is the period from 2.588 million to 12000 years ago. But since there is no explanation for the above finding there is no hesitation in jumping to the conclusion about the present “With current accelerated rates of glacial melting, glaciated active volcanoes are at an increasing risk of sector collapse, debris flow and landslide. These catastrophic events are Earth’s most damaging erosion phenomenon, causing extensive property damage and loss of life”.
The New Scientist then chips in with the headline “EARTH is starting to crumble under the strain of climate change”.
Daniel Tormey of ENTRIX, an environmental consultancy based in Los Angeles, studied a huge landslide that occurred 11,000 years ago on Planchón-Peteroa. He focused on this glaciated volcano in Chile because its altitude and latitude make it likely to feel the effects of climate change before others.
“Around one-third of the volcanic cone collapsed,” Tormey says. Ten billion cubic metres of rock crashed down the mountain and smothered 370 square kilometres of land, travelling 95 kilometres in total (Global and Planetary Change, DOI: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2010.08.003). Studies have suggested that intense rain cannot provide the lubrication needed for this to happen, so Tormey concludes that glacier melt must have been to blame. With global temperatures on a steady rise, Tormey is concerned that history will repeat itself on volcanoes all over the world.
He thinks that many volcanoes in temperate zones could be at risk, including in the Ring of Fire – the horseshoe of volcanoes that surrounds the Pacific Ocean . “There are far more human settlements and activities near the slopes of glaciated active volcanoes today than there were 10,000 years ago, so the effects could be catastrophic,” he says.
Maybe I am just a little cynical but I suspect that the author’s environmental consultancy business would be advantaged by getting a few more studies funded and that would be more likely if catastrophes were imminent. A clear case of a conflict of interest I would think.
Vicious attack on Dr. Fred Singer by Der Spiegel
October 9, 2010Der Spiegel likes to keep its many feet in every possible camp.
In May this year they had published an article: How the Science of Global Warming Was Compromised by Axel Bojanowski.
But clearly they feel the need to show how impartial they are and that they can also be as alarmist as the rest of the media !!!!!!
Yesterday they published The Traveling Salesmen of Climate Skepticism by Cordula Meyer which is a vicious attack on Fred Singer and , in passing, on Gerd Weber. From her previous articles, she does not seem to have any special science credentials and clearly is one of the global warming groupies who believes that consensus science is good science : “According to a US study, 97 percent of all climatologists worldwide assume that greenhouse gases produced by humans are warming the Earth”.
‘Science as the Enemy’
A handful of US scientists have made names for themselves by casting doubt on global warming research. In the past, the same people have also downplayed the dangers of passive smoking, acid rain and the ozone hole. In all cases, the tactics are the same: Spread doubt and claim it’s too soon to take action.
Biodiversity 100 – another 10.10 crisis?
October 4, 2010The Guardian today (and they have yet to distance themselves from their support for their 10: 10 partners):
Talk has not halted biodiversity loss – now it’s time for action
Guillaume Chapron and George Monbiot: “Help us compile a list of 100 tasks (that’s 10.10 to the rest of us) that G20 governments should undertake to prove their commitment to tackling the biodiversity crisis”.
Lurching from one crisis to the next
This comes a day after such headlines as:
Oceans could contain 750,000 undiscovered species
The world’s oceans are teeming with far greater diversity of life than was previously thought, according to the first Census of Marine Life.
This plethora of manufactured crises is becoming farcical.
Mr. Monbiot has been silent regarding the 10:10 fiasco.
The Guardian is busy positioning itself for the next crisis when biodiversity becomes less fashionable.
The water footprint
Onwards and upwards.
Walrus and melting ice story was a hoax
September 18, 2010
Image via Wikipedia
This post was from 2010. See 2014 post where the gullible media regurgitate the whole story again!
There were headlines across the environmental lobbies and the NYT and others just swallowed it.
But it was all just nonsense and a hoax.
Walrus landing on the beaches is nothing unusual. Yes, the beaches in Alaska have been invaded by thousands of walrus. But it turns out that this is nothing unusual. The Tucson Citizen reports here that according to the The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
The largest concentrations are found near the coasts, between 70 degrees North and Pt. Barrow in the east and between Bering Strait and Wrangel Island in the west. Concentrations, mainly of males, are also found on and near terrestrial haulouts in the Bering Sea in Bristol Bay and the northern Gulf of Anadyr throughout the summer. In October the pack ice develops rapidly in the Chukchi Sea, and large herds begin to move southward. Many come ashore on haulouts in the Bering Strait region. Depending on ice conditions, those haulout sites continue to be occupied through November and into December, but with the continuing development of ice, most of them move south of St. Lawrence Island and the Chukchi Peninsula by early to mid-December.
Why are they early this year? The Tucson Citizen also quotes the Alaska Fish & Game Department, which says that concentrations of walrus on beaches is not unusual.
Best known among the Walrus Islands is Round Island, where each summer large numbers of male walruses haul out on exposed, rocky beaches.” “Walrus return to these haulouts every spring as the ice pack recedes northward, remaining hauled out on the beach for several days between each feeding foray.
Started by environmental groups and spread by a gullible media.
Ecofascism – the new shameful face of environmentalism
September 18, 2010The Guardian (Micah White) gives a lot of space to effectively promoting the views of a self-styled “ecofascist”.
Anti-consumerist and ecofascist Micah White
Micah White is a self-styled activist who clearly supports the suspension of democracies and the introduction of an “authoritarian, ecological regime that ruthlessly suppresses consumers”. That the Guardian would give so much space to ranting of this kind is not very surprising but is irresponsible. Apologists for fascists and terrorists – even by adding the prefix “eco” – remain apologists for fascists and terrorists.
Pentti Linkola, a Finnish fisherman and ecological philosopher. Whereas Lovelock puts his faith in advanced technology, Linkola proposes a turn to fascistic primitivism. Their only point of agreement is on the need to suspend democracy. Linkola has built an environmentalist following by calling for an authoritarian, ecological regime that ruthlessly suppresses consumers.
Ecofascist Pentti Linkola
Largely unknown outside of Finland until the first English translation of his work was published last year, Linkola represents environmentalism pushed to its totalitarian extreme. “An ecocatastrophe is taking place on earth,” he writes concluding several pages later that “discipline, prohibition, enforcement and oppression” are the only solution.
Linkola has a cunning ability to blend reasonable ecological precepts with shocking authoritarian solutions. His bold political programme includes ending the freedom to procreate, abolishing fossil fuels, revoking all international trade agreements, banning air traffic, demolishing the suburbs, and reforesting parking lots. As for those “most responsible for the present economic growth and competition”, Linkola explains that they will be sent to the mountains for “re-education” in eco-gulags: “the sole glimmer of hope,” he declares, “lies in a centralised government and the tireless control of citizens.”
Defence lobbies enlist the sun
September 18, 2010“Solar flares could paralyse Britain’s power and communications”.
The UK Defence Secretary will next week attend a summit of scientists and security advisers who believe the infrastructure that underpins modern life in Western economies is potentially vulnerable to electromagnetic disruption. Dr Liam Fox will tell the conference he believes there is a growing threat, and he wants to address the “vulnerabilities” in Britain’s high-tech infrastructure. “As the nature of our technology becomes more complex, so the threat becomes more widespread,” he will say.
Brahmos Missiles
The meeting will be addressed by Avi Schnurr, a former US government adviser who said that “super-flares” occur about once every hundred years, meaning the next is overdue. The electrical grid, computers, telephones, transportation, water supply, food production are all vulnerable to a major flare, said Mr Schnurr, who also works for the Israel Missile Defence Association, a lobby group.
David Williams, acting head of the UK Space Agency, told a Commons committee that any negative impacts on technology, particularly satellites, would have “severe problems both short-term and long-term” for Britain.
A few weeks ago the talk was of a Solar Tsunami which turned out to be little more than a pretty ripple. https://ktwop.wordpress.com/2010/08/04/alarmism-exaggerations-aplenty/.
The Telegraph contributed to the alarmism http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7923069/Nasa-scientists-braced-for-solar-tsunami-to-hit-earth.html
That lobbyists will use whatever scare scenario they can find to increase budgets and sales of totally unnecessary equipment (Y2K for example) is understandable. But Ministers are expected to be a little more discerning. Applying the nonsensical precautionary principle for an event that may occur once in a hundred years and which will affect the “enemy” as much as anyone else seems a feeble argument to increase defence budgets.
Doomsday postponed!
September 17, 2010
Ozone hole - Wikipedia
There is hope. Doomsday is being postponed
- The ozone layer in the upper atmosphere has ceased diminishing. The scientists say the area of the ozone that has thinned out should largely be restored by mid century.
- From Anthony Watts: Global warming has morphed first to climate change and now to global climate disruption.
- Polar bears can adapt to melting ice
- BP oil plume was mainly gas and has largely been eaten up by microbes
- Biodiversity has survived many “extinctions” in the past and is a manufactured crisis
- North Atlantic ocean storms should actually become less frequent by the end of the century, due to climate change.
- Global hunger reduction resulted largely from economic growth
- Sea level is not rising due to climate change
- The sun is doing its own thing and global temperatures have declined for a decade.
But no doubt some new catastrophic scenarios will be found (invented).
Bitter cold wave in S. America — blamed on global warming!!
August 29, 2010The bitter cold wave being experienced in S. America does not conform to the Global Warming Religion’s creeds. Facts cannot be suppressed forever and Nature has finally acknowledged one cold event in Bolivia but even here finds a way to contort itself to claim this ” as an example of a sudden climatic change wreaking havoc on wildlife”.
Antarctic cold snap kills millions of aquatic animals in the Amazon. Cold empties Bolivian rivers of fish
With high Andean peaks and a humid tropical forest, Bolivia is a country of ecological extremes. But during the Southern Hemisphere’s recent winter, unusually low temperatures in part of the country’s tropical region hit freshwater species hard, killing an estimated 6 million fish and thousands of alligators, turtles and river dolphins.
But the cold wave is not an isolated incident and appears to be widespread over a large part of the southern hemisphere. Der Spiegel (translation in Politically Incorrect) reports today that:
Cold wave in South America: The continent is experiencing one of the harshest winters in many years. Altogether 175 people have died as a result of the bitter cold, according to official statements. Especially affected are the more impoverished population groups who are often poorly protected from the cold by precarious housing that has no heating and are poorly cared for.
In Argentina, such low temperatures haven’t been recorded for ten years. There, 16 people froze to death, another eleven died from Carbon Monoxide poisoning because of faulty stoves. It was also unusually cold in the bordering countries: In Bolivia, 18 people fell victim to the cold, in Paraguay it was five, in Chile and Uruguay there were two each, and in southern Brazil nine people.
In addition, thousands of cattle froze to death in the pastures of Paraguay and Brazil. There aren’t stalls because normally it doesn’t get very cold, even in the winter.
In some regions of Bolivia and Peru, children had school-free days until the end of the week. In the larger cities of the region emergency shelters were opened for people who live on the street. The system for supplying electricity and natural gas were working to capacity in many communties. In Argentina there were even shortages in some provinces.
With La Niña already established the Northern Hemisphere may also be in for another harsh winter.
Further contortions are likely by the religious fanatics to show that it is just further evidence of global warming !
The k2p blog 