Bishop Hill What next for greenery?
Could biodiversity loss be the next big thing for scientific scaremongers and their allies in Big Green? It certainly looks that way from the BBC's latest seminar. Richard Black, the Beeb's online green PR guy was in the chair, alongside a guy from London Zoo and another environmental consultant from PriceWaterHouseCoopers. The video is here and there's an associated blog posting here.
It's Richard's slack-jawed acceptance of the premise of the piece that I find so interesting. I mean, don't we pay the guy to question what greens and scientists are telling us? Do you think a seminar in which the views of the biodiversity crisismongers were challenged might illuminate things more than what we see here?
To me, this looks very much like the BBC staff being briefed on the next narrative. There is no sense of BBC journalists being asked to consider different sides of a scientific debate, no sense that the assembled journalists are meant to question anything. We simply have one scientist saying what he thinks the problem is and another telling the journalists how to convey that scientist's message to the public.
The planning of a propaganda campaign in full public view? What do you think?
Bishop Hill
Biodiversity loss the next big thing? Surely not.
Reader Comments (67)
Bishop - Having looked at the link to the BBC College of Journalism blog I think the piece might be better titled "What next for journalism?".... Keep at 'em :-)
They said it -"another inconvenient truth...." or "Inconvenient Truth", perhaps.
I seem to remember that in the leaked CRU emails, Richard Black was mentioned almost as an "insider". Someone in the Beeb was stupid enough to report something that upset the Cru team and in emails they said that they would have a word with Richard to get it sorted, or words to that effect.
I also seem to remember that he featured in your MSM debate about reporting AGW (Why does the stupid public not realise that they have already been fried and how can we convince them?)
In my opinion, the man is 100% sold on AGW and uses his media position to the full extent to promote this point of view. I have not detected the slightest hint of an open mind despite the fact that he is supposed to be an objective journalist.
They've blown it.
5 years ago I would have believed this eco-babble. Not now. They bet the ranch on global warming and they lost big time.
Now I don't even bother to investigate their claims - I just assume they are bogus nonsense just like all their other claims.
I saw Richard Black's bogus rice story a few days ago and just assumed it was rubbish. This morning something caused me to investigate it. Now I've found 2 big problems:
1) Richard has mis-represented the study. The study says that annual increases in rice production have slowed a bit recently - Richard says rice production is falling.
2) The study itself is a crock. An economist (!) has studied the rice numbers and found a small drop in the rate of increase in some regions. He pins this on "climate change" instead of looking at any other factor - like it being harder and harder to increase crop yields. The study then guesses about the future.
Hmmmm..... an earthquake in Haiti and a drought and Russia equate to "biodiversity"?
I'm not sure I get the connection, and in fact these examples further confuse what is meant by "biodiversity." What do "bio" and "diverse" have to do with droughts and earthquakes?
But it does explain why BBC journalists and PWC consultants have to "pitch" the idea of "biodiversity" with stained metaphors and heavy handed hyperbole and emotional appeal.
Sorry Bish, that link appears to be broken.
It takes you to a page that starts with "THIS IS A MASSIVE STORY" and continues in shouty shouty vein for a while. Then stops, thankfully.
But does not articulate what the threat is. I have to assume that the threat is articulated in great detail and length in the videos - so perhaps I am being unfair in criticizing [is that spelt right - it looks wrong] the 'article'. But TBH it reads more like a facebook posting.. YMMV
There are two things i hear in most lectures by scientists in relation to AGW:
1 - It seems that most of the time somewhere in the story they tell that it is "hard" for people to understand.
2 - They make a lot of assumptions
Also in this video i heard a couple of times that it is difficult to make it clear to people, and they always seem to assume that it is because it is to hard for people to understand. But it doesn't seem that scientist or journalists understand that most people are to busy with managing there own life to spend a lot of time on this stuff.
What i find really terrible about this video is the lack of questions about the assumptions from the scientist, for instance. He tells a lot about that mammals and then he starts about plants and insect, and all of a sudden he says well the percentage that goes for the mammels are the same for plants and insects becausse whe did samples. And nobody seems to be intrested. Maybe becausse it is a "massive" story ?
RS talks, I will go and report back, should be fun.
This is a professional news organization? I tried watching the first 5 minutes of the video, and the graphic presentations projected on the screen were bleached out and could not be viewed. Just as well, the propaganda scare tactics in the opening portion were the usual OMGIWTWT.
Aug 11, 2010 at 10:57 PM | Jack Hughes
They've blown it.
5 years ago I would have believed this eco-babble. Not now. They bet the ranch on global warming and they lost big time.
Now I don't even bother to investigate their claims - I just assume they are bogus nonsense just like all their other claims.
I feel the same way, and I believe many others do too. What's puzzling to me is why by "signing on to the premise of CAGW" the scientific societies (physical, chemical, etc.) aren't aware of the risk they incur. If I were in charge of a "scientific society", I would oppose the claims made by the CAGW community--not so much because I know or even believe they're wrong; but because by almost any scientific standard, the claims are not established. Backing a position for which the science is at best marginal, comes with a risk. I believe the scientific societies had better hire some PR experts to handle the "catastrophic" loss in public trust that is about to be their lot. They're going to need them.
"...another environmental consultant from PriceWaterHouseCoopers..."
Uh oh - have they started trading biodiversity offsets now?
One of the strange fascinations of following this field is the creeping inkling that it would be a lot easier to switch sides, pick up grant money for cherry picking tree rings and inventing jargon, and dabble on a few side bets in the trillion dollar trading schemes.
Now we know how cynical Incas felt when the call went up for another round of "volunteers" to stave off the eclipse.
And watch for the constant re-branding with ecological, biodiversity and sustainability. I notice the zoo here in Sydney is now under the Taronga Conservation Society. We need to get rid of all those dirty words like Zoo - little bit by little bit of course - stealth is the favourite method - just ask the Fabians.
I guess ocean 'acidification' didn't get enough traction...
Aug 11, 2010 at 11:58 PM | Reed Coray and Jack Hughes earlier comment...
The problem now is that the politicians and the cheerleaders for greenie scares - and I include the majority of the MSM in that group - don't appear to be listening to anyone other than each other.
It's some years now since I started noticing this "detachment" by both politicians and the media from issues that actually matter to most of their electorate: initially I put this down to New Labour just losing touch as all governments ultimately do. But nothing much seems to have changed since the new lot got in. Early days yet but the narrative seems to have been picked up where NL left off.
I think it'll take another major blow like Climategate for sensible politicians to start speaking up and publicly distancing themselves from the environmental hijack that's taken place over the last 15+ years. That and/or the imminent arrival of the bill for nonsensical job-destroying measures which can't be hidden in the small print by electricity and gas suppliers as occurs at the moment.
there's no doubt "biodiversity" is the new meme. abc's "bush telegraph" is a radio show, which used to inform farmers, but it's mostly used to promote CAGW these days. the david salt mentioned was on the show with a male interviewer this week talking about how "terrifying" the loss of biodiversity is, etc:
10 Aug: ABC Bush Telegraph: Margot Foster: Australian target for 2010 International Year of Biodiversity missed
This has important implications for food security as narrowing the genetic pool increases our vulnerability at a time of climate change and forced adaptation.
In this report: David Salt is a science writer and conservation and ecology specialist based at the Australian National University in Canberra.
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/telegraph/content/2010/s2978780.htm
10 Aug: ABC: Sarina Locke: Australia’s biodiversity record not good, says writer
David Salt, who is a member of the think tank Australia 21 is raising the issue at a National Science Week seminar in Canberra on biodiversity and resilience…
“We’re losing options, and in a changing world, in a world under pressure especially with climate change, when our existing production systems fail we haven’t got anywhere to turn to.”…
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/regions/content/201008/2978283.htm?site=northtas
it's cropping up elsewhere as well and will no doubt continue:
10 Aug: SMH: AAP: Steve Gray: Grazing 'the best option for country'
Environmentalist and former Australian of the Year Professor Tim Flannery believes it can...
(Flannery) "200 years on we are starting to learn how we can integrate some of these large mammals back into functioning ecosystems to give us a double benefit - biodiversity protection and a productive livestock sector."..
"If we get the stocking levels right, we get the management techniques right and the management of water and of biodiversity right, I think we can have a very sustainable system of livestock management."...
Corey Watts of the Climate Institute said pastoralism stood to lose much from climate change...
However it was essential a price on pollution be introduced through an emissions trading scheme, he said...
Arron (Arron) Wood, educator and recipient of a UN award for outstanding service to the environment, said a recent survey of children showed their second biggest fear, behind the deaths of their parents, was climate change and the environment.
"The idea that our next generation is fearing climate change like the monster under the bed should concern all of us," Mr Wood said...
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/grazing-the-best-option-for-country-20100810-11wug.html
no mention of what study had the children terrified of "climate change" but this is one aspect of the CAGW campaign that irks me most.
I like the fact that when viewing the previous post, I read the first paragraph and thought "that's from Pat".
This truly is my spiritual home...
I've just received an invite to the Royal Society of Western Australia for a lecture on biodiversity and climate change which I may just take up.
On the face of it, climate change and associated loss of biodiversity is a perfectly reasonable concept.
Biodiversity results from stable conditions where evolution allows more and more specialisation of organisms to fit ever smaller ecological niches. If you suddenly change the environment, many of the too specialised organisms will be affected and probably die out.
In Australia there was a large range of tree types up until the coming of early man when their fire starting habits made major changes. Trees that were resistant to fire survived - mainly Eucalypts - while those that were easily fire affected died out. Australia now has a large dominance by Eucalypt species.
At the same time, heathlands in the mid-west of Western Australia - subject to fire and drought - have incredibly high species density because the plants have evolved to take every bit of nourishment from a dry and harsh landscape, each in a slightly different way.
If you want to be able to discuss biodiversity and climate change intelligently, mandatory reading is The Greening of Gondwana by M White, and even more importantly her second book After The Greening: The Browning of Australia
Messenger
"Inconvenient Truth™" :)
Jerry
Do it.
Gareth
I guess ocean 'acidification' didn't get enough traction...
Yeap, a polar bear jumped into to Arctic Ocean and didn't dissolve, so they gave it up. Or maybe someone pointed out that oceans of the world are a gigantic bicarbonate/carbonate buffer solution and unlikely to change pH until all the coral melted.
Once again I ask "why do you pay tele taxes to pay for idiots like this?"
BBC World News is best news we can get on television on west side of pond. It's an hour' worth hosted by a very droll and conspicuously sceptical Matt Frei. He seems to have an especially good nose for BS - it tends to wrinkle. We have no equal on any of our nightly shows.
This evening's news included a bit on the antibiotic-resistant bacteria associated with e-coli that are beginning to show up over your way. There was an informative interview with a very sharp UK doctor, a scene in a sub-continent pharmacy with a voice-over that drugs are available there without doctor's supervision and that frequently they are self prescribed and not taken for a period sufficient to assure the destruction of the target bacterium. This was said to encourage development of more drug resistant strains which is how the current challenge was thought to have originated.
But that wasn't enough. Another announcer appeared to note that this process would be accelerated by Climate Warming.
Did they show this thing over there?
BBC really does seem to have a problem.
I should add "best news" in my opinion and I do understand that there are other opinions.
a search has not shown up the children's survey mentioned in my previous post, but arron is certainly a media darling, with plenty of funding:
Arron Wood
He is the pioneer and Managing Director of Kids Teaching Kids, an education model that aims to inspire future environmental ...
Arron received The Centenary Medal for outstanding contribution to conservation and the environment, awarded by the Governor-General and recently completed a Churchill Fellowship which took him to New York and Geneva working with the United Nations to research replication of environmental education programs on a global scale. Arron recently won the prestigious Melbourne Business Award for Contribution to the Environment and was selected to complete Al Gore's Climate Change Leadership Program...
Arron's commitment to the environment was covered on ABC's Australian Story, watched by 1.4 million viewers, and he hosted and co-produced Channel Seven documentary Our Water, Our Future....
Arron initiated and now runs the highly successful International River Health Conference for students from around the world which has attracted $18 million in funding over the life of the project (single-handedly raised by Arron) and seen 15,000 students participate in the program.
Arron has appeared on Network Ten's Totally Wild and 9am with David and Kim, and Channel 7's Sunrise and Saturday Disney. In 2001 he was chosen as the Australian representative for the 25 most inspirational 25 year olds from around the world as profiled in French Canadian Magazine La Actualite...
http://www.saxton.com.au/default.asp?sd8=2417
What the bio-diversity alarmists never mention is that there are more species in the world that have yet to be identified than have already been. No ever questions why there is only one species of the genus Homo - what happened to the Neanderthals and other hominids? It's called evolution; change or die.
j ferguson
BBC World News is best news we can get on television on west side of pond.
I think you need a new map if you are in the UK. I, in California, live on the west side of the pond. :-)
And if you are saying BBC America is the best news in the US, I do challenge that. I much prefer Fox News. Hell, they even cut in stuff from BskyB
Also "best" does not mean "good", or even "acceptable". And you pay taxes for it? At least in the US we get the BBC America for free.
In the US, we have our version of the BBC, called NPR (for radio) and PBS (for tele). It is ignored except by a small group of tree huggers as far as news is concerned.
What you need is some good old competition for the advertising dollars, euros, pounds or whatever. With that arrangement, either you draw an audience or you are out. That does not seem to happen in the BBC much.
David Chappell
Yes, you are right. I read some where that 99.999% of all species that were on this world are now extinct. I wish I could find that reference.
Still, we should control ourselves in slaughtering everything that moves. Most of the extinctions in the last 10,000 or so years were probably done by man.
Hilarity ensues from these sorts of things (and they wonder at the fact that their credibility
is falling thru the floor)
It beats me how they get traction with this guff...even a cursory examination shows
the large piles of droppings being used instead of science.
How do they reconcile the contradictory nature of their pronoucements
simple observation yeilds the following...
1) Many more species live in the warmer areas of the planet than in the colder areas
(Theory ... warmer is better for species diversification than colder)
2) If the world is warming as they keep telling us it is..
(Theory.... this will mean more warmer areas therefore MORE species diversity)
So unless they have announced global cooling has commenced I doubt we have any biodiversity issues
Its the same as "their" attempts to make us believe that the oceans were BOTH releasing MORE co2 into the atmosphere as they warmed (therefore adding to the chance of run a way global warming.. ) BUT at the same time trying to run the scare campaign that the oceans were absorbing more CO2 leading to possible acidification of the oceans...
Both things can not occur at the same time, except in these drongos prognostications.
cheers
J
"The disappearance and degradation of biodiversity is costing the global economy more than the banking crisis, according to UN-backed analysis." - from the BEEB site.
The operative words are "according to UN-backed analysis". If the UN is involved, then it's a sure bet that the claims are over-exaggerated and, therefore, spurious.
And just in case the "biodiversity" gambit fails (faster than they thought), the UN has recently resurrected the "sustainability" gambit:
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/rudd-joins-un-sustainability-panel/story-fn5z3z83-1225903340268
Sustainability is so much more ... well ... seductive (as I had discovered in the late 80's) ... long before I'd ever heard of "climate change", "global warming" or "biodiversity"
The Australian has reprinted a Times article about plant adaptation to climate change
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/flowers-adapt-to-climate-change/story-e6frg6nf-1225904127986
Just look at the Guardian's CiF site: the hard left is backing away from CAGW with black smoke coming from the tyres; the propagandist employed by quangos are desperately ramping as they try to get new careers.
Spotted in the Guardian website last Sunday: "France and Japan propose an 'IPCC for nature'".
"The planning of a propaganda campaign in full public view? "
Probably not a campaign but a sign that the greenies have are not so focussed on climate any more, after all their brains have to keep churning and like lemmings they are all turning to a new interest that allows them to continue speculating on an upcoming eco disaster and pontificate about the evil in destroying the environment Of course research grants have nothing to do with it, they will just fall out of the politicians pocket when enough senior scientific personnel speak as one.
The greatest talent of nature is how it adapts to survive. Its what it does. The very idea of "sustainability" is a weaselly lie - that you can/should stop evolution. Biodiversity assumes you have only the curent stock of species and any change means fewer, which ignores the new adaptations to come. "Save the Dinosaur" anyone?
Unlike AGW, I consider loss of biodiversity to be a real issue. Whether it will impact on our wellbeing as a species is debateable, and no doubt many environmentalists and those with a political bent will milk it as much as they can. True, many species go extinct naturally as it is part of the evolutionary process but I for one would rather not see us accelerating this rate. Some of us have a great passion to understand and preserve our natural heritage on earth, while others may have other priorities or interests. I think it says something of us maturing as a species when we value things like the arts, our cultural heritage and our natural heritage. Unfortunately the wolf crying over AGW has desensitised many to real environmental issues such as species loss.
@DaveB - yes the "wolf crying" has desensitised me.
It's more serious than that - I now assume that everything these people are saying is wrong. I rarely bother to investigate further because every time I have done this deeper digging I find serious errors.
Biodiversity might be a problem - or it might be just a load of tosh. The burden of proof is with these people who have lied before and the standard of proof just gets higher every time. And as well as showing there really is a problem they have to propose some realistic solutions - not just "Operation Pollyanna".
This is the ongoing "Economic valuation of biodiversity" meme - put a price on a tree/species/natural resource so as to charge those responsible for it's demise. It's not designed to stop loss of biodiversity, merely to cash in on it. ( like the WWF business model)
This is not a new meme: see Nunes and van den Bergh Ecological Economics, 2001
Ah Don,
I reckon Massachusetts west side of pond,
The second post was for you. BBC World is on directv and is not entirely built on poly-alarmist nonsense typically carried by the non-fox sources.
Have you seen Richard's latest effort in spinning a "Rice Yield Falling under Global Warming" story here?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10918591
He mistakes a slight reduction in the growth of rice production with an absolute decline! Easily done when you're the BBC's top Science correspondent.
Here's the original press release that he spun to make it even more alarmist than it originally was
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-08/uoc--htt080610.php
I have pointed out his error in 2 emails to him. No reply so far!
WUWT is on to the rice story, too, here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/10/rice-yields-co2-and-temperature-you-write-the-article/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/11/of-rice-and-men/
Richard is obviously preparing the alarmist ground for the upcoming climate summit.
marchesarosa
The press release headlines the drop in yield growth - as you state
but inside the release includes sound-bites such as
and
The problem seems to be the disparity between headline - drop in yield growth - versus drop in absolute yield in the body.
To resolve this requires reading the original paper. All I have is the abstract which includes
Which seems to support the headline, but not the sound-bites of the press-release.
"...another environmental consultant from PriceWaterHouseCoopers..."
ZT, PwC are indeed enthusiastic fliers of the green flag (for the moment, anyway.) Here's an article about their report on biodiversity this May:
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2263514/pwc-businesses-blind-5tr
"Global consultancy giant PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) will today release a major report warning that the vast majority of the world's largest companies are ignoring the threat to their operations posed by biodiversity loss, despite estimates that the economic cost of environmental degradation and biodiversity loss is estimated to range from $2tn (£1.4tn) to $4.5tn."
And here's a recent article about PwC and renewable energy:
http://www.electricityforum.com/news/jul10/Offshoreneedsbillionstomeetgreentargets.html
'"A massive injection of money is needed," Michael Hurley, head of energy at PwC, said.'
"There are a variety of options available to the Government to help spur investment in offshore wind, says PwC. The simplest – already adopted in parts of the United States – is to add a flat levy to customer bills, to be spelled out separately from existing standing and usage charges. It is difficult to estimate the size of such a levy."
The root of all the green gambits (biodiversity, sustainability, climate change, etc) appears to be an anti-human form of nihilism.
"Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy." from http://www.iep.utm.edu/nihilism/
John
j ferguson
I have DirecTv too, so I am aware of their one hour news show on BBCA and half hour show on PBS.
However, I do agree with you about the rest of the American "Press" and think Fox is about the best, but not good enough by far. There are several topics which they too have a "party line" and so spin the hell out of it. In short, Fox is the best of a very bad lot.
I instead use the internet and read a large number of non-US sources, including RTE for Irish news, but also such things as Al Jerezza. The best, however is Bloomberg.com. FT has gone behind a paywall, and is now almost as biased as Times of London (also behind a paywall). It was at one time the only source I respected. Now I dig out the facts for myself. That is why I spend so much time here at the Bishop's pad. Everyday I get to see what twelve or so wise men have to say, and each has a different twist, but eventually I can see the elephant.
In short, BH is one of my better sources of what the f#$% is going on.
As for BBC and BBCA, I do love their dramas, and Dr WHO, but ignore their news. Almost as bad as CNN and MSNBC . Oddly, I watch CNBC for their business coverage, which gives a lot of insight in the news of the world. There are also business shows from Hong Kong, Singapore, and Australia, which all give local insight into happenings.
Jerry
Willis Eschenbach HAS seen the rice research article and comments here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/11/of-rice-and-men/
The point of my first post is that Richard Black is spinning and has come unstuck. AND he is ignorant in mistaking a slight purported reduction in growth rate for an absolute reduction and then placing this is his headline.
The world story re rice production is a continuing success story of ever upward production. Why would a BBC science correspondent wish to portray it otherwise?
The biodiversity story is legit. It's just a 20-year old story, so it's weird that the BBC post frames it as some new crisis that is being ignored by journalists. A whole field--conservation biology--grew out of concerns for loss of biodiversity. E.O. Wilson was instrumental in articulating the concerns over 20 years ago it's been covered frequently and extensively in the media since then.
It's just that climate change is the big story nowadays, so biodiversity (along with other environmental issues) get much less play.
Hmmmm dont know where to start?
Sustainability:
Did somebody say that Molecular manufacturing was no longer feasible?
If we run out of molecules then yes we are indeed in deep doodoo.
Telegraph story this week:
Within 5 years a commercially viable system of covering windows (and may other things) with an almost transparent film (containing nano particles) that will produce energy far more efficiently than current solar panels.
Biodiversity:
Assuming that a drop in biodiversity IS happening and that biodiversity DOES mean a reduction in the number of species on the planet, so what?
Man is the only life form on the planet that might eventually figure out how to stop a 5 mile wide meteor impacting on our planet and wiping out 99.99% of surface life (again).
Give man a chance!
If I got promoted to GOD status then I would indeed remove from the planet a large part of the human race. I would however be very picky about which parts I removed.
As god I would be free from accusations of racial or religious prejudice.
Without that miracle we are left with what we have got, it is not possible to stop the rise in human population, species will therefore be lost.
Th UN and IPCC are doing thir best to wipe us out but I beieve that we will survive.
BBC to issue correction on rice yields story
Posted on August 12, 2010 by Anthony Watts
wattsupwiththat.com/
From: Richard Black
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 7:01 AM
To: Anthony Watts
Subject: RE: Your article on rice yields
Dear Anthony,
Thanks for your email. You are correct – I am mistaken – a correction will be made to the news story shortly.
Best regards,
Richard Black
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/10/rice-yields-co2-and-temperature-you-write-the-article/
But I sent Richard an email first! Where's MY reply?
So how much biodiversity is left in those areas where the huge wind farms have been built and are being built, to 'save the planet'?
I am looking forward to the mental contortions the greenies are bound to produce when they try to get both into one argument.
As has been said above and in many other places: the underlying theme of greenery is a hate of humankind, which they seem to regard as vermin.
Keith
I know it's a legitimate question, but it's still a question. The BBC should be investigating it as a question and not as a means to launch a propaganda campaign.
It is scientifically established that biodiversity loss is occurring. All I'm saying is that this is not a new story and the reason why we don't read about it so much anymore is that climate change sucks up all the oxygen in the media (on the environment beat).
You buy into this notion that this is somehow a new story when you write: "Could biodiversity loss be the next big thing for scientific scaremongers and their allies in Big Green?"
Additionally, your language in that sentence implies that this is a bogus issue. It's not bogus. It's for real. One can can quibble with the way the journalist in question approaches this story, but this doesn't negate the fact that biodiversity loss is occurring.
What really gets my goat is that UK TV owners are forced under pain of imprisonment to pay for the endless propagandising by the BBC on so many issues. Bias at the BBC is visceral, a corporate leftie groupthink. Bias by commission in the stories they push, bias by omission in what they fail to report.
On AGW they excel themselves, climate alarmism crops up right across BBC programming, not just in the "news" - and Richard Black in particular is incorrigible.
After so many lapses, I cannot trust his "reporting" any further than I can throw a double-decker bus.
JohninLondon
WELL SAID! :)
kkloor
It is scientifically established that biodiversity loss is occurring
I am aware of no censuses of animal/plant species. Do you have a reference for such a study done by a reputable scientific organization (not WWF and the like)? True, there are extinctions. But that has been the nature of nature for billions of years. As for biodiversity decreasing, where? Every day I read about new "alien" species moving into where they are not welcomed. Is this not an increase in biodiversity?
And every day I find reports about new "unknown" species being discovered.
This not so say that we should hunt species to extinction as we have, but for every lost specie there has been a new opportunity for another to expand. Indeed, if it were not for the asteroid that supposedly wiped out the dinosaurs, we might still be tasty little snacks for them as our ancestor mice-like progenitors were.