… and by the time I’d fired up WordPress to blog about the fictional nature of climate science, the Telegraph was pretending that there was no such story.
Fictional inputs, fictional result… and a compliant media.
Plus ça change…
The Telegraph has a new blog up by the inestimable Brendan O’Neill regarding the equally inestimable Reginald D Hunter falling foul of the fatuous political correctness lobby.
O’Neill’s article accurately skewers the manner in which the self-appointed arbiters of political correctness have effectively shut down debate on subjects such as race by divorcing language from meaning.
Good on the Telegraph for giving the subject an airing but I’m somewhat bemused by the irony of the paper declining to permit comments on the article…
The ever-increasing failure by government, the media and the proliferation of special interest groups to give Britons a voice with regard to their country, their culture and their heritage is just one of many reasons why UKIP will take a lot of votes in tomorrow’s council elections.
Good.
Daily Mail - 29 July 2011
Ministers have abandoned an inquiry into the rise of secretive Sharia councils that deal in Islamic justice – because the Muslim courts refused to help.
The failure of the Ministry of Justice probe has generated new fears among politicians and pressure groups about the increasing influence of Sharia courts.
They are worried the courts’ decisions may run against the law of the land, particularly in divorce settlements for women.
The scrapping of the inquiry comes in a week when Islamic extremists have launched a campaign to declare ‘Sharia-controlled zones’ across Britain.
By contrast…
Daily Telegraph - 29 July 2011
Regardless of one’s opinion on the Murdoch/NOTW/hacking story, is it not small beer compared to the rise of a parallel and unaccountable system of Islamic justice that is inimical to our own?
Why is it that our politicians expend so much energy over a relatively trivial matter – and even consider themselves at liberty to try by TV non-British citizens such as Rupert Murdoch – but allow resident Muslim citizens to refuse to be questioned at all?
Instead of limply abandoning their investigations of Sharia, shouldn’t our government be fiercely defending the British system of justice? It does, after all, it enshrine the moral values that we are told underpin the Murdoch enquiry.
Daily Telegraph - 19 July 2011
Speaking on Radio 4’s Today Programme Sir Hugh said: “We routinely accept when we get things wrong, that is one of the great strengths of British policing.”
Sly words given that Cressida Dick – whose incompetence led to the execution of Jean Charles de Menezes – has enjoyed a meteoric rise through the ranks and has now replaced John Yates in charge of counter-terrorism.
Orde is tipped to replace Sir Paul Stephenson as the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. I can’t decide whether its arrogance or stupidity that qualifies him.
Apparently, this story is sourced from the Daily Telegraph but I’m unable to find it online. The Daily Mail’s version doesn’t make too much sense but it does appear to suggest that the long-awaited review of the BBC’s science output is recommending the stifling of any debate against the so-called consensus view.
According to the Daily Telegraph, the report draws heavily on an independent review of BBC coverage by Steve Jones, a professor of genetics at University College London.
Prof Jones is understood to have cleared the BBC of any suggestion of bias in its programming.
That depends on how you define bias, I suppose. Here’s Peter Sissons’ view:
The BBC’s editorial policy on climate change, however, was spelled out in a report by the BBC Trust — whose job is to oversee the workings of the BBC in the interests of the public — in 2007. This disclosed that the BBC had held ‘a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’.
The error here, of course, was that the BBC never at any stage gave equal space to the opponents of the consensus.
But the Trust continued its pretence that climate change dissenters had been, and still would be, heard on its airwaves. ‘Impartiality,’ it said, ‘always requires a breadth of view, for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space.’
And this is Jeremy Paxman’s view:
I have neither the learning nor the experience to know whether the doomsayers are right about the human causes of climate change. But I am willing to acknowledge that people who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that it is the consequence of our own behaviour.
I assume that this is why the BBC’s coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago.
Straight from the horse’s mouth, we have this from the BBC’s June 2007 report ‘From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel, Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century’;
The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.
So how on earth does Professor Jones determine that there is no bias? It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with his sideline as a regular BBC ‘talking head’ could it? (see here for just page 1 of a Google search).
But the main conclusion made by Prof Jones is that in cases where there is a widely held scientific view, such as on GM crops or the MMR jab, the BBC shouldn’t give airtime to critics of the scientific consensus.
Good grief! Who is the arbiter for such a decision? The government? Professor Frankenstein? The Flat Earth Society? Or, perhaps, one of those august public bodies who, as discussed yesterday, no longer appear to have any accountability?
The moment we suppress debate on these issues – and both GM crops and the MMR jab have significant ethical dimensions, remember – we effectively place our faith in the hands of ‘experts’ who may be fools, tyrants or, worse, pushing an agenda.
Climate ceased to be about science long ago: what Jones is doing is recommending the suppression of one whole area of political debate; he is advocating tyranny.
If this report proves to be true, I’ve bought my last TV licence. Join me; we need to starve the beast.
Update When I threw this together through the red mist this morning, I was not aware of a recent paper by Nasif S Nahle which – on the basis of the conclusion – would seem to show that the greenhouse theory is wrong.
Abstract:Through this controlled experiment, I demonstrate that the warming effect in a real greenhouse is not due to longwave infrared radiation trapped inside the building, but to the blockage of convective heat transfer with the surroundings, as proven by Professor Wood in his 1909 experiment.
From which I gather that the greenhouse effect is a function of the flask in which the CO2 is contained rather than the CO2 itself.
Such is the danger of the consensus controlling the media. You can bet that the BBC will choose not to give you the details of this or any other story that undermines their chosen view.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has issued a report on the failings of Castlebeck’s Winterbourne View Hospital following the exposé broadcast by the BBC’s Panorama programme.
Unsurprisingly, it concludes that there ‘was a “systemic failure to protect people” by the owners of a Bristol hospital’.
I think most of us had worked that out for ourselves, despite not having the benefit of the expensive and pointless exercise in back-covering indulged in by the inept CQC. Even Castlebeck had worked it out: they closed the hospital on 24 June.
CQC criticised Castlebeck for failing to investigate allegations of abuse, a bit rich from an organisation that ignored the complaints of whistleblower Terry Bryan, a senior nurse at the hospital.
They added Castlebeck failed to meet essential standards, required by law, including:
- The managers did not ensure that major incidents were reported to the Care Quality Commission as required;
- Planning and delivery of care did not meet people’s individual needs;
- They did not have robust systems to assess and monitor the quality of services;
- They did not identify, and manage, risks relating to the health, welfare and safety of patients;
- They had not responded to or considered complaints and views of people about the service;
- Investigations into the conduct of staff were not robust and had not safeguarded people;
- They did not take reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent it before it occurred;
- They did not respond appropriately to allegations of abuse;
- They did not have arrangements in place to protect the people against unlawful or excessive use of restraint;
- They did not operate effective recruitment procedures or take appropriate steps in relation to persons who were not fit to work in care settings;
- They failed in their responsibilities to provide appropriate training and supervision to staff.
Meanwhile, there are no reports of anybody at the CQC being criticised or losing their handsomely-remunerated jobs despite the body ignoring repeated whistleblowing reports and despite their December 2009 inspection report of Winterbourne View as summarised below (my highlighting):
Safety
Number Standard Topic Assessment
C24 Controlled Drugs Almost met
C23 Ordering and Storage of Medicines Almost met
M8 Suicide Prevention Met
M32 Management of Serious/Untoward
Incidents, Adverse Health Events and
Near Misses Met
M34 Patients Absconding Met
M35 Patient Restraint and Physical
Interventions MetClinical and cost effectiveness
Number Standard Assessment
C4 Monitoring Quality Met
M4 Clinical Audit MetGovernance
Number Standard Assessment
C30 Completion of Health Records Met
M6 Staff Training Almost met
M22 Patient’s Records MetPatient focus
Number Standard Assessment
C1 Information for Patients Almost met
C14 Complaints Process Met
C15 Information for Patients about
Complaints Met
M10 Resuscitation Procedures Met
M27 Quality of Life for Patients Met
(No?)
Care environment and amenities
Number Standard Topic Assessment
A9 Health and Safety Almost metSummary data courtesy of Paul Williams here
These events have remarkable parallels with the recent Baby P case in which Ofsted produced a glowing report of the Social Services department involved, 17 weeks after Baby P’s death (there was an interesting coda to this case when Ofsted ‘overlooked’ the provision of their original findings to the Shoesmith tribunal – Sharon Shoesmith being the person who carried the can – and was subsequently exonerated).
Both of these cases – as well as the Clare Ward case I wrote about yesterday – are symptomatic of the growing divide between the state and ourselves as well as the increasing tendency to palm the blame to the little people.
Honour and accountability in public office has all but disappeared. But unlike the mote that was the News of the World, our politicians show absolutely no interest in the planks of the public sector.
Your eyes meet across the crowded room. You turn away.
Moments pass – you glance again.
She smiles.
Love’s dance has begun.
“I have to go.”
“Can I give you a lift?”
You pull up outside her block. There’s an awkwardness before she leans over and kisses you on the cheek.
She pulls back and you sit looking at each other, silently. She seems reluctant to get out of the car and your heart is pounding as you sense the question forming in her mind.
Finally, after what seems an eternity;
“Would you like..”
“Yes!” your thoughts are screaming.
“.. to write down your full name, address and NI number so that I can check you out on the Domestic Violence Register?”
Result! You’ve pulled.
© William Mcgonagall – Bills & Moon – 2011
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
The girlies are getting together again, determined to introduce another law to protect themselves from we nasty, nasty men.
Based on a recommendation from a (female) Coroner, Hazel Blears and Louise Casey, the Government’s Victims Commissioner (good grief) together with two token men from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) – great minds, all – claim that it will empower women. It’s a strange sort of empowerment that encourages somebody to rely on the wayward infallibility of the state rather than their own senses of intuition and judgement – but there you go.
The proposal is being called Clare’s Law in reference to Clare Wood, who was murdered in 2009. Ms Wood met George Appleton, her killer, via Facebook without being aware of his record of domestic violence against previous partners.
Appleton murdered her and set her body on fire before hanging himself.
The proposal, which is backed by Ms Wood’s father Michael Brown, comes amid concern that women are increasingly meeting men via the internet with little or no knowledge of their pasts.
Ahh.. that horrible internet again. Because, of course, we all know about the pasts of people we meet face-to-face..
I abhor violence and I particularly abhor violence to women; I deplore what happened to Clare Wood. But I fail to understand how this proposed law would have made her safer; I fail to understand how it has any relevance to the circumstances of her death. Clare had broken off the relationship with her killer – which would suggest that it was her discovery of his real nature and her subsequent rebuff of him that had precipitated her murder. Why would an earlier discovery have changed the outcome?
The involvement of ACPO in this proposal is telling – it’s another exercise in diversion.
Because Clare Wood was empowered. She took the decision to break off the relationship with her killer but he sought revenge.
The 36-year-old victim, who had a 10-year-old daughter, was strangled and set on fire by George Appleton, 40, after she broke off their relationship.
Police watchdogs concluded Ms Wood had been badly let down by ‘individual and systemic’ failures by Greater Manchester Police (GMP).
In the months before her murder she had repeatedly contacted GMP alleging Appleton had caused criminal damage, harassed her, threatened to kill her and tried to rape her.
Appleton, from Adelphi Court, had a history of violence towards women and was known to prowl online dating websites including Facebook, in search of partners.
(Manchester Evening News May 23 2011)
So the police let her down. She did all she could to protect herself but our police ‘service’ failed to properly assist her against a known thug.
Ms Wood was found dead at her home in Blackfriars on Friday. Police are hunting suspect George Appleton, 40.
A man had previously been arrested and bailed over the alleged assault.
(BBC Online February 11 2009)
A man (with a record of violence against women was arrested as a result of Clare Wood’s serious allegations… and then they bailed him??
Here’s how the pathetic Blears spins it in the Telegraph:
”Women in Clare’s situation are often unaware of their partner’s previous relationships and this can mean they start a relationship with someone with no idea if they have a violent past.
”Clare’s tragic death shows how vulnerable women aren’t always protected under the current law, and until women are given the right to know if their partner has a history of serial domestic abuse, they can’t be sure of the risk that they face.
”By changing the law we can empower women so that they can take informed action about their relationship and give them the chance to protect themselves and prevent domestic abuse from happening before it begins.”
RIP, Clare. If you’re ever memorialised in law, I hope that its more appropriately directed at those whose failings led to your death instead of this proposed exercise in diverting attention away from them. Real empowerment would involve holding the state to account…
It’s Sod’s Law, I suppose, that has given us the greyest, wettest day of the summer for the Stony Stratford uprising: the greatest of respect to all those involved for defending our real interests.
Courtesy of Man Widdicombe, Dick Puddlecote has a recording of the local radio interview in which Councillor Paul Bartlett attempts to defend his proposal to ban smoking on the streets of Stony Stratford.
Listening to it is not an edifying experience as Councillor Bartlett is less than clear on his motivation. My interpretation is that Bartlett – who sounds as though he may not be blessed with 20/20 thinking – is either a petty dictator or, more likely, he wants to be liked; looking for approbation, he blindly jumped on the New York smoking ban-dwagon believing he had discovered a sure-fire, PC winner.
He certainly covers all the nanny-state bases – litter, children, health and the environment (he doesn’t go quite as far as saying that smoking causes global warming though he’ll get there soon enough) but there is no commitment, no evidence and no coherence. So lacking are these qualities that if I were of a cynical bent, I’d say his proposal looks like a shoo-in..
Meanwhile, over at Underdogs Bite Upwards, Leg-iron mentions two drug-related deaths – one from a prescribed drug and the other – allegedly – from a recreational drug. As LI points out, the media reaction to each is quite different; the first is treated as a tragic accident, the second is framed as the inevitable result of some silly girly indulging in illegal activity. The truth is that both are equally awful and both may have been avoidable (the death of the clubber may yet prove to have been a natural death).
‘What’s the difference?’ asks Leg-iron. ‘One is state-sanctioned while the other isn’t’, say I – although I suspect Leg-iron knew that already.
But it did set me thinking about how little individual autonomy we really have. We are surrounded by the likes of Councillor Bartlett and his ilk all determined to make us live and die only in ways that meet with their approval; to hell with us determining the course of our own lives.
There is no escaping this nannying: it’s on your cereal packets, cigarette packets, nuts, booze, toy packaging – everything (I haven’t seen it in the UK yet but in France, pre-packed ham even attempts to environmentally guilt-trip you by providing the carbon footprint of the pig); it’s on every train and every station, it’s in every surgery, it’s on every plastic bag, it’s in every other advertisement, it’s on the BBC, it stops pancake races and it’s now creeping on to every motorway sign.
Do this, don’t do that, Danger of Electrocution!, contains scenes of a disturbing nature, Wet Floor, Cliff Edge, shares may go down.. We’re told to eat 5 fruit and veg a day, drink less than some totally made-up safe quantity of alcohol, limit our red meat intake, cut out sugar, cut out salt (oh, as you were!), drink red wine, don’t drink red wine, diet, eat (you became anorexic on your diet). We’re chided about what we say, what we think, our weight, for watching TV, for spending too much time on the net, for sitting down, for going out when there’s a bit of snow on the ground…
We are being systematically infantilised. We’re being conditioned into believing that we’re stupid, that we’re not responsible, that the state will take better care of us than we can ourselves.
Which – you’ll be pleased to hear – brings me to what prompted this rant..
Daily Telegraph - 16 July 201i
In a barely disguised plug for his new book, Theodore Dalrymple takes up one my pet peeves and asks why Britain has such a litter problem:
An Englishman’s street is now his dining room, and his country ishis litter-bin. When Englishmen – or a sizeable number to judge by the results – arrive at a beauty-spot their first impulse is to chuck at it a vividly coloured empty bottle or tin of revolting drink with which they have recently refreshed themselves.
Drive down the A14 from the M6 to Huntingdon or Cambridge and every verge, every roundabout, is littered by the thousand, or the million. Such filth is not the handiwork of a handful. Until I drove down and saw it flapping in the trees, I hadn’t appreciated how much polythene there was in the world. Where does it come from? Who knows? Even more to the point, who cares? Certainly not the local authorities, that have so many other bigger worries – like how to pay the pensions of staff who took early retirement.
From observation, I know that much of the litter in my own area is caused by our rubbish collection service. On a windy day, a considerable amount of paper escapes the recycling boxes between the lids being removed by one dustman and the bin being emptied by another.
However, it cannot have escaped anybody’s attention that so many people now treat the outside world as one vast rubbish dump:
Britain was not always so filthy. I suspect that it is the result of a toxic mixture of excessive individualism (there is no such thing as society), and of an easily inflamed awareness of inalienable rights (who are you to tell me what to do? I know my rights). What I do is right because it is I who do it; the customer is always right, and life is my supermarket.
Being a fan of individualism, I celebrate many excessive examples who have advanced thought and deed in engineering, science and the arts but if Dalrymple is talking about exclusive individualism – ie, a lack of social commitment – I think he’s probably bang on the money. But what has brought it about?
My preamble was not for nothing, dear Reader..
It seems to me that the carelessness of littering – along with many of our more serious ills such as family breakdown and a general decline in civility – has been brought about as an unintended consequence of the nanny state (not the welfare state which though in need of overhaul, serves a vital purpose in a purportedly civilised country) and nanny’s insistence on living our lives for us.
Nanny has spent decades weaning us away from the notion of personal responsibility: by way of example, we have developed an entire generation of politicians with no apparent understanding of the concept. Until nanny realises that personal responsibility is the key to respect for ourselves and for others, the country’s decline will continue.
Stand down the politicians, stand down the ‘experts’, stand down the social workers, stand down the nutritionists and for pity’s sake, stop telling us to take our belongings with us.
Return to us the responsibility to lead our own lives and the freedom to make our own mistakes. What blessed relief that would be.
I recently signed up to Google Alerts and in the space of less than 2 days, I have received 26 e-mails, mostly containing multiple ‘news’ items sympathetic to the CO2 consensus meme.
The alarmists’ propaganda machine is admirably tireless…
Al Gore’s new world-saving initiative gets some coverage but there is little detail as yet. Once it’s fleshed out, I hope there will be opportunities to subvert his self-publicising faux-environmentalism. Meanwhile, prepare for Gore-effect snow in September.
There’s also a great deal of self-congratulatory back-slapping for the backstabbing Australian PM, Julia Gillard, who has introduced a carbon tax – despite ruling it out during her pre-election hustings; welsh by nationality, welch by nature.
I’ve yet to receive a Google alert about this story from Watts up with That, though. I wonder why?
However, my main interest was drawn to the story picked up by several news sources: 
This refers to ‘research’ conducted by the University of Exeter who, by any stretch of the imagination, cannot be regarded as independent in climate matters. The university has a close relationship with the Met Office and maintains a substantial climate faculty. I’d certainly expect any reputable university to steer well clear of the questionable IPCC but as Exeter’s website proudly informs us;
Recently, it was revealed that seven of the University’s researchers would contribute to the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report on climate change – more than any other academic institution in the UK. Combined with the eight researchers taking part in the report for the Met Office, this means there are more experts from Exeter taking part in this globally significant report than from any other city in the world.
We’re not actually told what these researchers’ expertise is. My guess would be hegemony.
So what does this press release tell us?
One in 10 species could face extinction by the year 2100 if current climate change impacts continue. This is the result of University of Exeter research, examining studies on the effects of recent climate change on plant and animal species and comparing this with predictions of future declines.
Not that old chestnut again, you’ll be thinking.
And you’d be right; the research paper is no more than a re-fettling of previous studies. Exeter may well list all of the species they regard as threatened (no, I don’t really think so, either) but this press release lists just six by name. Given that it is by no means certain that the six named species will go extinct – and it is certainly not proven that declines in their numbers are the result of anthropogenic global warming/climate change/climate disruption because AGW is unproven – I would venture that the university’s finding is tenuous, to say the least.
For a start – and as I’ve mentioned before here and here – we do not know just how many species we have on the planet; more than 1000 new species have been discovered in the last decade alone and, therefore, absolutely no confidence can be placed in any claim given in terms of a percentage of species numbers.
Another problem that we face is that we cannot know with any certainty that a species has gone extinct: the coelacanth famously reappeared in rather large numbers after it had been posted as missing since the Cretaceous period and just last week, a mushroom reappeared having last been seen 170 years ago. Only today, this beautiful little fellow came back from the dead almost 90 years after it had been written off.
It may be the fault of the press release but it really does appear as though the university did no more than to collate existing studies of species decline and then attribute those declines to climate change (with the implication that the change was due to human activity). There is no evidence that the university thoroughly investigated alternative causes for declining populations – or even that they checked some of the more longstanding conclusions – but even assuming that they did, we are still left to wonder how the university and its contributors define ‘climate change’?
It’s a phrase we hear constantly and it usually implies an increase in global temperature. Lately though – as the warming has gone into reverse – there have been less than convincing efforts to redefine the original (settled science!) warming model in terms of a ragbag of climatic changes such as heavy snow, floods, droughts, ocean acidification and hurricane frequency. Any form of weather is now ‘proof’ of climate disruption (try getting any of them to tell you what ‘normal’ weather is).
Regardless of the validity of the CO2 model, the definition of its outputs and the accuracy of the data supporting it – we cannot escape the fact that the construct is made in global terms. To clarify, the Central England Temperature (CET) record shows that our own climate has not warmed at all and many of the data points around the world (long dropped from the ‘approved’ datasets) similarly show no long-term variation; for the claimed increase in global temperatures (and it’s important to remember that the increase peaked at just 0.7ºC after 150 years), other parts of the world need to have increased at above the average rate. Because all the climate measurements are aggregated, ‘adjusted’, smoothed and averaged from a variety of sources, it must follow that climate change does not affect all of the planet in the same way – to talk of it as a global effect is actually meaningless in real world terms.
Nevertheless, based on this report, species all over the world are said to be declining in the face of a single threat to their various local climates – warming. This might suggest that Exeter has applied a uniform warming model to all of these studies regardless of local conditions – there are no suggestions of extinctions due to cooling although in the non-average real world, such a possibility must exist, surely?
And of course, everything is worse than we expected;
Many studies have predicted that future climate change will threaten a range of plants and animals with extinction. Some of these studies have been treated with caution because of uncertainty about how species will respond to climate change. But widely published research showing how animals and plants are already responding to climate change gave the Exeter team the opportunity to check whether the predictions were wide of the mark. By producing the largest review ever of such studies, they show that predictions have, on average, been accurate, or even slightly too cautious.
Lead author Dr Ilya Maclean of the University of Exeter said: “Our study is a wake-up call for action. The many species that are already declining could become extinct if things continue as they are. It is time to stop using the uncertainties as an excuse for not acting. Our research shows that the harmful effects of climate change are already happening and, if anything, exceed predictions.”
(my highlighting)
The following are the examples given of this phenomenon (bear in mind these are likely to be the most dramatic examples that the authors can provide!);
Decreased ice cover in the Bering Sea reduced the abundance of bivalve molluscs from about 12 to three per square metre over a very short period of time (1999-2001). These shells are the main food source for species higher up the food chain, such as Spectacled Eider.
Not a good start for the alarmists. If their findings are true (we’ll give them the benefit of the doubt when the author describes bivalves as shells), it would certainly represent a dramatic decline. However, it is well known that bivalves are heavily fished by the Russians: they are also extremely common throughout the world and it seems rather strange that populations elsewhere – including those in areas not noted for sea ice – appear to be unthreatened. There is no suggestion that the Bering Sea bivalves are a unique species.
We need to ask, too, why the evaluation period was so short and what efforts were made by Exeter to update the data during their ‘research’ and prediction-checking. Might they have avoided such a course because of this?
Alaska Weather and Climate Highlights - March 2008
Climatic warming and droughts are causing severe declines in once-common amphibian species native to Yellowstone National Park in the United States of America. Between 1992-1993 and 2006- 2008, the number of blotched tiger salamander populations fell by nearly half, the number of spotted frog populations by 68 per cent, and the number of chorus frog populations by 75 per cent.
More very short-term studies with – frankly – unbelievable outcomes. These species certainly require wetlands and will be affected by drought. However, reference to the paper “Annual precipitation in the Yellowstone National Park region since AD 1173″ (Stephen T. Gray, Lisa J. Graumlich, Julio L. Betancourt) 2006 shows no significant long-term variance in precipitation and concludes, “Extreme wet and dry years during the instrumental period all fall within the range of past variability, and both the duration and magnitude of the worst case droughts of the 20th century AD (i.e. 1930s and 1950s)
were likely equaled or exceeded on numerous occasions in the pre-instrumental era.”
Assuming these species survived the worst 20th Century droughts in the 30s and 50s, it seems they would have been less likely to succumb to any lesser drought thereafter. Besides, none of them are solely represented by their Yellowstone Park populations which would suggest that talk of their extinction at the hands of the climate is no more than alarmist hyperbole.
Additionally, the Park authorities are not above manipulating the local ecosystem; they recently successfully reintroduced the wolf to re-balance the wildlife population. I’m sure it would not be beyond them to reintroduce any other species should they feel it necessary.
By the way, you’re in luck if you want to know what happened after 2008:
Yellowstone Park entrance - 12 April 2011
In Antarctica, few animals exist on land, but one of the most abundant, a nematode worm living in the soil in dry, cold valleys experienced a 65 per cent decline between 1993 and 2005 as a result of climate change.
Minus 59º instead of minus 60? Nematode worms are one of the most diverse of all animals which “have successfully adapted to nearly every ecosystem from marine to fresh water, from the polar regions to the tropics, as well as the highest to the lowest of elevations. They are ubiquitous in freshwater, marine, and terrestrial environments, where they often outnumber other animals in both individual and species counts, and are found in locations as diverse as mountains, deserts, oceanic trenches, and within the earth’s lithosphere. They represent, for example, 90% of all life forms on the ocean floor. Their many parasitic forms include pathogens in most plants and animals (including humans).” (Wikipedia)
On Tenerife, an endemic plant, the Caňadas rockrose has a 74 to 83 per cent chance of going extinct in the next 100 years as a result of climate change related droughts.
The Caňadas rockrose is peculiar to the Teide National Park. This is what their website tells us; “Even in a habitat as dry as this, there are springs and moist zones where water loving species grow, like the aromatic mint (Mentha longifolia) and the Canary island hair grass. Some of these species are endemic species found exclusively in the National Park, where their populations barely reach a hundred specimens. Thus, several of these species are undergoing genetic recovery trials to guarantee their survival, as is the case of the Cañadas rockrose (Helianthemum juliae)..”
So the rockrose has always had a tenuous grasp on its habitat but here’s an interesting little titbit from what appears to be the summary of the study that Exeter considered (“Population viability of the narrow endemic Helianthemum juliae (CISTACEAE) in relation to climate variability” – Marrero-Gomez Manuel V, Oostermeijer J. Gerard B, Carquk-Jilamo Eduardo, Bafiares-Baudet Angel – 2007): “Most of the mortality in the population seemed drought-related, and no other threats were identified… This plant is likely to be at risk under scenarios of global warming.”
I love that last sentence.
Clearly, Exeter has decided, contrary to many alarmists, that precipitation will diminish as a result of warming. Until the next (cyclical!) flood, of course.
In Madagascar, climate warming is predicted to cause endemic reptiles and amphibians, often found in mountain ranges, to retreat towards the summit of the mounts. With a warming of just two degrees Celsius, well within current projections, three species are predicted to lose all of their habitat.
Of course it’s well within current projections. The current projections are all well in excess of reality. For some reason, the ‘settled science’ failed to account for the cyclical quiet sun that we’re experiencing..
Birds living in northern Boreal Forests in Europe are expected to decline as a result of global warming. Species such as Dotterel are predicted to decline by 97 per cent by 2100 and species such as Two-barred Crossbill and Pine Grosbeak could lose their entire range within Fenno-Scandia. Wombles will relocate to Iceland.
Not all of this last paragraph is as originally written. Note, this exercise in idle speculation does not speak of extinctions. It talks of birds relocating. Most of them are past masters at that.
There are serious questions to arise from all this. Let’s for a moment make the daft assumption that the planet will significantly warm as a result of human activities and that these species face extinction as a result.
Is it really worth while returning to the pre-industrial age to preserve them? Do we not have to take a more pragmatic approach and accept that our position as the dominant species inevitably means that some other species will suffer as a result? Isn’t that an immutable law of nature?
Above all, is the precautionary approach to save a handful of species really worth £1,000 a year to every household, especially when the rest of the world is producing far more additional CO2 than we can ever save?
It only costs £2 a month to save a child.
I am not a smoker and have never been a smoker.
However, as somebody who places liberty above most else, I’ve never believed that the world should be fashioned entirely in one image – as such, I abhor the petty vindictiveness of the blanket pub smoking ban.
Before the ban, I always had the choice of whether to go to the pub or not. Since the ban, I’ve retained the choice but lost the will to exercise it; the ‘cleaner’ air has made for a less convivial atmosphere – my freedom of association has been diminished.
But the zealots are not done. They are coming for you smokers in your cars, in your homes… and now they are coming for you on the street as well. Town Councillor Paul Bartlett is seeking to ban smoking on the streets of Stony Stratford, 10 miles or so from Milton Keynes.
And unless you’ve been totally divorced from reality, you’ll already know that the zealots have others in their sights – you drinkers, you drivers, you chubbies.. you’re we’re next.
But for once there is good news – and if you’ve been an industrious reader of the sites on my blogroll you will already be aware that Dick Puddlecote has organised a good humoured act of rebellion. If you’ve not peviously visited DP’s site (for shame!), you can arm yourself with the details here.
For reasons of poverty (the story of my life – but no regrets), I’m unable to be there on the day. If you or yours are able to lend support to the beleaguered libertarians of Stony Stratford, I’m sure you’ll be made very welcome.
Stony Stratford… it even has the ring of legend, don’t you think?
Adventures in Time Travel 