Friday
Aug132010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Sheep
More evidence of a concerted media push on the biodiversity front. The Guardian is asking what actions government should take ahead of what appears to be a concerted campaign.
Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Nov 11 - US Design Hub
on
Launched my very own online store. -
Nov 11 - Kenna Morgan
on
The Benefits of Using Tutorbin for Custom Writing Services
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (43)
"We're particularly interested to hear from scientists, NGO employees, as well as people concerned and interested in environmental issues."
or....
"We're particularly interested to hear from scientists who are finding it hard to connect anything else to Climate Change, NGO employees who wish to change the world and sod democracy, as well as people concerned and interested in environmental issues (as long as you 100% agree with our views, there will be no dissent)."
I'm sorry, that's just the cynic in me. My interest and concern in environmental issues sadly leads me to ask questions, which some people think make me ignorant.
Like a London taxi, they can turn on a sixpence, can't they.
I remember the week "global warming" seamlessly became "climate change", a concept which had been denounced as a myth up to that point, at least as part of natural cycles.
While it is clear that Georgie boy Moonbat has moved on to something new, I suspect it will not gain much traction beyond the predictable cadre of true believer fanboi. Why?
First, this card has been played sooooooo many times over the last few decades. We already have dozens of silly laws on the books, much like the gully in my backyard is a spate salmon river.
The second, beyond the fanboi who cares? The average guy in the street would have been effected by "Global Warming" because his house would be underwater, or something. But if the Spotted Owl disappears, who but the fanboi would notice? How does it affect him?
They need a cause that will grab the average punter by the short hair. This does not do it any longer. It's been overplayed already and this time around, it will be just noise.
Very organised, aren't they?
I submitted my "comments" to the Guardian which I'm sure will not be considered.
I asked if someone intended to define a rational scope for "biodiversity", since there was a another article this week that asserted the recent Haiti earthquake and the current Russia drought as primary examples of "the biodiversity crisis."
Those examples are irrational and make no sense whatsoever.
Been concerned about biodiversity since I did ecology in the late '70's. The point is...they can't tax biodiversity...oopps unless they can link it to climate change...!!!
Here's my input to the gruniad...perhaps this is an opportunity too good to miss...tell your friends !
Stop worrying about climate change...we can't do anything about that and spend money on buying land in the Amazon and such...With all the money wasted on CO2 reduction you could probably have bought most of the Amazon basin by now!
Your link leads eventually to an article by Monbiot, who is on the camplaign trail again. Something (his meeting with Keenan and McIntyre?) has put him off global warming, and he’s decided to devote the remaining years of the planet to prolonging the existence of more deserving species than ourselves.
The only example of a threatened species which he gives is the Pyrenean brown bear, of which fewer than 20 remain. He says “Extensive scientific research shows that this population is not viable. European agreements oblige France to sustain the population. Yet the government knows that the political costs of reintroducing more bears outweigh the costs of inaction. Immediate special interests triumph over the world's natural wonders”.
So ignorant of his subject is Monbiot that he can’t even mention one threatened species in an article on the subject. Far from being one of the world’s natural wonders, the Pyrenean brown bear is just a bunch of Polish immigrants, imported to boost the tourist trade and make some ecologists happy.
As for organising campaigns, the Campaign against Climate Change (chairman G Monbiot) does nothing else. Their website devoted to stirring the masses to action gets one twitter a day, on average, and their blogs has received three comments so far this month.
well i've done my bit and filled the form in
i think windmills shoud be banned - why? - because they kill birds!
simple isnt it!
do i get a nobel prize for this insight?
Due to the title of this post, I've now got a Pink Floyd track playing inside my head..it's also appropriate, on a few levels!
Biodiversity, a perfect all encompassing term which allows self-styled "experts" to come crawling out of the woodwork, with copious quantities of assumptions with which to dream up more scares and headlines.
I'm reminded of a line in a film:
Assumption is the mother of all F***-ups.
So it appears. The warmists will all be looking for new jobs.
Noticed on the Beeb in their article about Vampire bats in Peru, no warming but, surprise surprise....
" Some local people have suggested this latest outbreak of attacks may be linked to the unusually low temperatures the Peruvian Amazon in recent years."
AT BLOODY LAST!
I’d prefer it if attention did turn from AGW to biodiversity, though I’m not sure anything can be done to change the course either. People and wild flora and fauna don’t mix.
It’s ironic that British voices are amongst the loudest calling for preservation of wild habitats. We live in one of the most artificial landscapes on the planet, having almost nothing left to bite us, sting us or run us down. It’s very easy to demand the safety of the tiger, when it’s not your livelihood or kids that are at risk. We happily banned DDT when malaria was no longer a local threat but are considering bringing it back because we’re threatened by ravening hoards of bed bugs.
Environmentalists need to choose a priority or they’ll end up with nothing. Already I turn many charities down for donation giving the following excuse “sorry but since your charity places a very high priority on AGW I’ve decided to put all the donations I would have given you towards insulating my home.”
If saving the rainforest is number one then they should do that. Of course it won't happen, environmentalists couldn't organise a drink up in a brewery.
What is a 'good' level of biodiversity? Where is the 'acceptable' level? What is the 'right' level for any species? Is it just what we have today? If so, that's entirely arbitrary. If biodiversity was twice what it is today, then the Greenies would consider today's level to be appalling.
This reminds me of the Royal Society's definition of dangerous climate change - they define all climate change, however small, as dangerous. But since climate has been changing quite naturally for thousands of years, then by this definition the world and the biosphere has always been in mortal danger.
When people start thinking like this they have ceased to be rational and are well on the road to becoming deranged.
Don't forget that nearly all the species that have ever lived on this planet are now extinct. We're left with, what, 0.1% of all the biodiversity that there has been. Of extant species, it is estimated that less than than 10% have been discovered; and of those extant discovered species, less than 1% have ever been studied in any way. So, we have studies of 0.0001% (one part per million) of the biodiversity of this planet. I wouldn't draw too many conclusions about biodiversity from that.
See Matt Ridley's Rational Optimist blog for a good take on this sort of thing.
The only reason there's a media push on biodiversity is that the friendly cadre who brought you climate change as an anthropogenically-driven crisis have all the groundwork laid to raise a presumed anthropogenically-driven biodiversity crisis to your street. The intent was for this "crisis" to be climate change's peer as a crisis that must be responded to immediately and out of your own personal purse. Because of the eruption that's been taking place in the climate science and policy worlds as at least a partial result of what we now call Climategate, the intent has shifted to put the biodiversity "crisis" in the lead.
Skeptical on this point?
Consider . . .
2010 is the UN-designated "Year of Biodiversity". There's a major report due out October-ish.
Then there's the "Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity" (www.teebweb.org), where there's a whole lot of very expensive, highly eye-candied reports advising government, business, and every other facet of society on what "must" be done to save the planet . . . generally boiling down to the wealthy nations "must" give their wealth to the developing world.
This, of course, leads inevitably to equality of misery . . . but we'll all feel so good about having had a very important role in "saving" the three-toed nimble tree snail.
You will, of course, be astonished to see The Guardian's banner on the TEEB-web home page.
Perhaps you will be motivated to run a quick connect-the-dots exercise, just to see where all of this leads. I've done my own, and am reasonably certain that I don't have a complete picture.
Maurice and his buddies are not coming at civilization from a single point on the compass. When you are working to overwhelm, you use many points of attack. (When was the last time you read Sun Tzu?). Those who would work to protect and restore civilization are placed at a disadvantage as a result of their bent toward independence . . . which means that they don't herd well. Those of a more "progressive" bent do the lemming run a whole lot more predictably.
So . . . do you prefer to remain on the traditional science side, or do you work more on the policy side? (Always remembering, of course, that the role of science is to INFORM policy, and not to FORM policy.)
We do live in interesting times.
We are in a target-rich environment.
We are a long way from having adequate support and focus.
There are many windows of opportunity. Some are opening, some are closing, everything is in motion.
scr
Do include a graphic example in your posting:
Watch bird wacked by windmill at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwVz5hdAMGU
or
Fatal Attraction: Birds and Wind Turbines - KQED QUEST at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtgBWNKwBkE
njm
The only reason there's a media push on biodiversity is that the friendly cadre who brought you climate change as an anthropogenically-driven crisis have all the groundwork laid to raise a presumed anthropogenically-driven biodiversity crisis to your street.
Yes, I agree. However, we should propose a "Bird Wacking Tax" on windmils (see my previous post). They could have Bird credits and all that. Just let your imagination run. For example, each of us gets to kill so many birds a year. Let's say five. We could either go hunting for grouse, ducks, or what not, or sell our quota to the hunters who want more. Or we could sell them to the windmill companies.
Well they tried Uncertainty but that just made the climate look...uncertain. 'Biodiversity' might also backfire as CO2 is great for plants, which is great for everything else that lives off them...let's watch how this one is spun.
The truth about global warming, climate change and now biodiversity is that its ultimately all about money. For the UN, left leaning governments and geographical regions such as the EU its about the redistribution of wealth and it can be seen that they are the driving force behind organisations like the IPCC. The UN/IPCC have stated CAGW does exist and pour billions into so called academic organisations the world over to come up with results which confirm the hypothesis, even if it means bending the scientific and mathematical rules here and there.
Remember some years ago when Gordon Brown had his "big idea" to irradicate poverty in Africa and the publicity machine was initially in overdrive urging business, individuals, charitable organisations and governments to donate. Ultimately it died a quick death, but who was it at Copenhagen saying that the west "owed" developing nations and urged the payment of "climate debt" to the tune of $100 Billion......step forward G. Brown esquire. Most of the third world nations only attended on the presumption of a hand out at the end. Cue much nashing of teeth went it went pear shaped.
CAGW has lost, and is continuing to lose credibility although governments and the scientific establishment are doing there best to stem the flow. Biodiversity will inevitably be linked to CAGW and yet more cap and trade type financial mechanisms, taxes and levy's will be introduced to relieve us of our hard earned cash.
Lets just get the Swiss bank account numbers of the third world dictators and donate directly...with a slice for the UN of course, after all we wouldn't want them to miss their share of the spoils.
Mactheknife
While I agree with you, the biodiversity gambit will backfire when things like bird kills caused by windmills are pointed out. And there are very graphic examples of that every little lady will scream at.
Nope. They will move on to something else. This one is a non-starter when you look at it closely. Too much dirty linen of their own.
The 2nd of their points creeps me out...
This really looks like they want to raise a ballyhoo rather than get anything done.
Jack Hughes
You are right, as usual. However, let's look at the goals"
I have the perfect suggestion! Outlaw Windmills --
Point 1) they are killing very endangered species like the California Burrowing Owl.
Point 2) I am sure that the Greens would find the outlawing of windmills politically impossible
Point 3) Fatal Attraction: Birds and Wind Turbines - KQED QUEST at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtgBWNKwBkE
Remember that KQED is the PBS channel in San Francisco. :)
Is that not a PERFECT fit? Somebody, perhaps a couple hundred, should send it in to them
It's all very well if you're furry and cuddly, but if you're a coprophagous, pathogenic virus carrying, louse ridden, rabid but highly endangered rat, they'll still kill you first and ask questions later.
Pharos
You appear to have a low opinion of yourself or your abilities. Have you tired? :)
Still, my point is valid. Push it -- somebody -- and then let it come back to them.
They asked for input, give it to them and then scream when they ignore you. That is what they would do.
I think it is time for all you arm chair thinkers to get out there and do what is necessary.
Play their game better than they are. I have given you a perfect opportunity. Play it or shut up.
This idiots have made a classic mistake, now drive it home up their -- ah, backside.
njm,
An interesting post, but you're telling me that CAGW is over. Some part of the apparatus realises and is trying to change the subject.
Those hitching a ride would do better to morph it into energy security, ( a bit nationalistic and might involve dealing with proper engineers and physicists who are notoriously prickly) or Peak Oil. The plight of "the three-toed nimble tree snail", just doesn't have much appeal. It's been done before with pandas and baby seals and "The Whale". The plight of the Black Mamba is one they'd find a hard sell, they are difficult creatures to warm to and unlike pandas, few could even imagine cuddling one.
I have seen a newspaper article talking about the threat from an asteroid impact; that's more the line, but the comments weren't altogether sympathetic.
We're all going to die horribly through churning out CO2, has a certain resonance in times when people are sufficiently well fed, have enough leisure time to consider it and paying for it is a distant prospect and can be comfortably assumed to be done by others. Right scare at the right time.
The problem with coming at things from different directions is that you divide your forces and concentration.
I think we're seeing the end of a classic mass mania like the South Sea Bubble. The problem in this case is that the political establishment (in the West) has climbed aboard and a huge amount of effort has gone into constructing apparatus to defeat the terrible threat. It has a large inertia.
Don Pablo -Bottom line- Let rip with global warming for biodiversity.
Although there seem to be plenty of papers discussing the 'forthcoming biodiversity crisis', this one is quite interesting
http://www.bio.puc.cl/caseb/pdf/prog6/Fernandez_global_patterns_biodiversity_2007.pdf
It tends to confirm my experience of the fossil record: that increased warmth promotes increased biodiversity and biomass, except it finds that for unknown reasons the trend is reversed in molluscs in the SE Pacific. (I used to be a 'bug-picker' -was trained way back in the dark ages pre-environmentalism as a post-grad in micropalaeontology and palaeoecology),
"well i've done my bit and filled the form in i think windmills shoud be banned - why? - because they kill birds! simple isnt it!"
What about the bats? Don't forget the bats!
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:W5f6aAcKyooJ:www.wind-watch.org/news/2010/06/16/wind-farms-spell-extinction-for-bats-other-wildlife/+wind+turbines+bat+deaths&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au
Pharos
It tends to confirm my experience of the fossil record: that increased warmth promotes increased biodiversity and biomass, except it finds that for unknown reasons the trend is reversed in molluscs in the SE Pacific.
I think it is pretty evident that there are slightly more plants and animals in the middle of the jungle than in the frozen tundra of the north. And even deserts have more than you would expect.
However, given that this is not an argument about facts -- they could care about reality -- but rhetoric, my argument was to stuff it back up their backsides.
Someday we will learn. I hope.
Allen Ford
Hard to have pictures of bats getting wacked in the middle of the night, but I am sure it happens. But we do have ugly videos for the little old ladies to get upset about showing nice golden eagles getting it in plain daylight.
Watch eagle being wacked by windmill at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwVz5hdAMGU"
That is MUCH more emotional than some bat nobody loves getting it. And it is by a "Green" windmill saving our planet.
When I first began to encounter the term "climate change", I wasn't certain what it meant. I questioned its use. I asked: What constitutes climate change? How do you measure climate change. How do you quantify it? What units of measure are employed? I was never satisfied that it was anything more than a catchy phrase or a paint brush .... it sounded good. People though used the expression like they knew what is was or what it meant. In the end I just substituted "global warming" for "climate change".
Now we have a new vocabulary word: "biodiversity". I am having the same problem. What does it mean? And it's a "crisis". Are we talking about DNA or species or ecology or what? How do you measure it or quantify it? I read the stupid article in the Guardian, and it seemed to me that it was a political action word of some sort, to be used by government to implement some worthwhile purpose. (Ah yes, government, our answer to all the world's problems, even problems we don't know exist.) Then I read the suggestions that people had submitted to the Guardian. Seems like there is quite a spread in what people think "biodiversity" means. A number of the comments related to population control measures like infecting males with a virus so they could not reproduce or providing free contraception; some comments were aimed at fostering organic foods and banning all pesticides; others for banning cigarette smoking and plastic bottles and automobiles; etc. (I even saw the comments of our two illustrious contributors above.) Now I am wondering what will government use "biodiversity crisis" to justify? You don't suppose that in the name of "biodiversity crisis" the government will restrict use of fossil fuels? Think that is ridiculous? Well, haven't they already blamed "climate change" as one reason for causing "biodiversity loss"?
I need a post modern dictionary.
DrCrinum
As usual, you make excellent points. However, it is impractical to actually write a Post-Modern Dictionary as it would be obsolete before the ink dried, or even before it was compiled. The language changes by the hour.
Perhaps we could start a pool and see who will guess the next "in" buzz word.
Don Pablo de la Sierra
Go easy on the bats, already!
They are useful critters with an appallingly bad press, with the scaring of little old ladies being the least of their alleged sins. Most of them are insectivores, devouring huge quantities of insects to the betterment of farmers, while others are important pollinators and seed dispersers.
Pix of them being assaulted by whirling turbine blades do exist, captured mostly by thermal imaging. Their chief means of despatch is not by physical violence so much as by the sudden changes in air pressure collapsing their little lungs, as they negotiate the disturbed aerodynamic environment of the aforementioned whirling blades. Apart from the thermo-photo evidence, their turbine induced demise is evidenced by the landscape being littered by their pathetic little autopsied corpses.
If we are going to save the planet, wind turbines are not the way to go, bats and birds notwithstanding.
Thanks for the idea, Don Pablo. Submitted.
Here's an interesting recent article about species dissemination thanks to humans moving them around. This is not the first time I've heard this.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/08/10/invasion-of-the-invasive-speci
Although it is of almost zero scientific value, the site http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/Pages/default.aspx shows all 'biodiversity hotspots' are mid-latitude or tropical.
An obvious interpretation is that the warmer it is, the more biodiversity. This is probably wrong
The reality is that biodiversity results from relative stability for a period of time. High latitudes have been stable for only 10,000 years or so. I don't know if this is enough to develop narrow niche biodiversity or not. In particular I don't know if mid-latitude regions have experienced less change than high latitude regions over the past 10,000 years - resulting in higher biodiversity.
Quantifying the actual changes in different regions over time is a first step to understanding the effect of climate change on biodiversity.
Bruce Wayne
Go easy on the bats, already!
I did not mean to denigrate your little friends, Bruce -- they are just not very good poster children.
By the way -- I love your new pseudonym, "Allen Ford". And how's the weather in Gotham City?
:--)
P.S. Yes, I know you're right about bats. I watch them at twilight flying over my back yard having a good time.
I happen to like bats because most are insectivores. My previous home had a high arching carport formally attached to the house including brick support pillars. At the peak of the arch, there was a small opening that had not been completely sealed when the house was built. Well, bats discovered that it made a nice roosting site inside when there was open space between the beams and the plywood ceiling. I knew they were present because I occasionally would note one flying out of the opening near dusk. There was also a small black smudge area on the white colored bricks adjacent to the opening. Eventually we decided to sell the home and to build a new one. I mentioned to the real estate agent as she was inspecting the outside that we had a few bats inhabiting the eaves over the carport and showed her the entrance site circa 12 feet above ground level. She said that we had to hire an exterminator because absolutely no one would purchase a house that had bats living in the carport roof. The exterminator came and said that he would smoke them out; send smoke in via a lower portion of the roof eaves. When driven out by the smoke, he would then seal the entrance to the roost and that would take care of the problem. So he set out to work and began sending smoke into the eaves. Sure enough, bats began to depart, and I decided to count them as they exited. I stopped counting at 300; they were still exiting. I was completely bewildered at the numbers. I think there is a name for a bat colony of this size -- a "camp".
If you have never visited Carlsbad Caverns and watched the bats exit the cavern at dusk -- it is an amazing spectacle; hundreds of thousands of them in a vortex.
DrCrinum
And I bet the new owners of the house were eaten alive by insects of all sorts each summer's night. That will teach them about biodiversity. Get rid of one species and find a thousand new ones in their place.
No, bats are good, but their guano can be messy and they can spread some nasty diseases. Rabies being one, if you have blood sucking bats, but that was unlikely.
Still, I believe in Biodiversity, when it comes to bats and birds, lions, and tigers, elephants, whales and dozens of other species. However, rose-eating deer are not on my list. The reason is there are not many cougars around any more. I do have some coyotes down the hill and I have seen some bobcats and one cougar. Obviously, I keep local biodiversity going by keeping my cats inside, but those #$(%*#& deer are a total pain.
Now if the Greenies could come up with a deer-wacking wind turbine, I might even send in a donation.
Don Pablo
a deer-wacking wind turbine - isn't that a 4x4 SUV?
Don Pablo - There's a stand-up comedian named Louis C.K. who does a bit about deer and how obnoxious and hateful they are, and how he throws rocks at them in his back yard while trying to kill them. There's also a funny part about the retarded deer that deliberately ran into his car after he'd already completely stopped for it. The routine is much funnier than it reads, and anyone who's had the experience of suburban deer jumping into the street during rush hour or snacking on the tomato garden will understand the sentiment. Caveat: Louis C.K. is very profane and can be raunchy.
David Chappell
a deer-wacking wind turbine - isn't that a 4x4 SUV?
That will work, but where I live, we have Al Qaeda deer. They wait patiently by the side of the road, usually behind a tree or bush and then charge out in front of any vehicle they can. Fortunately, they haven't figured out how to make suicide vests, but they do do their damnest to take out your car. One nearly got me last week.
I kid you not. The population of deer is so high because of the lack of predation that they appear to do just that. And then there is the starvation in winter. Every so often a cougar will come down from the high country and take one or two then go back to where it came from because of the car traffic where I live. The deer are seriously overpopulated because of our lack of balance in our ecology. However, I serious doubt any of my neighbors would appreciate my having a cougar as a pet -- even on a long chain.
Garry
I do fully understand why people would find it funny. The deer population is a serious problem. I am all for biodiversity. Bring back the big cats.
Don Pablo
You have it very easy with your nice friendly deer. Asides from a slight tendency to run in front of cars, and acting as a host for Lyme disease, no real problems.
I've just returned from a bicycle ride around my local lake. In the space 60 minutes I've only just avoided riding over two different tiger snakes - the 4th deadliest snake species in the world, with a 60% mortality rate.
Now as it's the middle of winter here I can only assume global warming is a reality. These snakes are supposed to hibernate all through winter but it's obviously warm enough for them to come out and bask in the sunlight on paths. As an added bonus they will be heavily envenomed at this time, so a single bite will have enough venom to kill several horses.
Here is my attempt to put a link into a page - to the deadly snake ratings
Deadliest Snakes
Halleluja! it worked, not so my attempts with a Wikipedia link. Is there a fatwa on wikipedia links?
Creature whacking machines?.....We have them in rural areas, and in London too...
http://libertygibbert.wordpress.com/rare-scribbling/fenbeagle/handy-green-recycling-advice/
http://libertygibbert.wordpress.com/rare-scribbling/fenbeagle/random-sketchings/green-london/
Well, since they're asking, I vote for "none".