Biodiversity – an ecology of dirty test tubes

[ UPDATE 19 Sept 2010 –  6/10 of all plant species just went “extinct” and more animals become unextinct! I love sloppy highly politicized biodiversity “science” 😉  ]

Hello fellow Life Lovers,

It looks like the love of our life is likely lost. 😉
All our plants and animals are going, going, gone … again!  Hmmm ….

How ecologists seem to view contact between humans and all other species.

But fear not! Our official Life Lovers are planning to save us …

“New UN science body to monitor biosphere – ‘IPCC for biodiversity’ approved after long negotiation”

Maybe not such a good idea … considering the (94 and counting) scandals we have had with the IPCC in the past.

Now we have an advance copy of this world biodiversity TEEB report ,..

… but the problem again is … even at this early stage it is riddled with “IPCC likeerrors. These ecological errors have happened (lots) in the past too. Like world leading ecologist Prof. Paul Ehrlich’s famous 1981 prediction:”… half the world’s species extinct by 2000 and all gone by 2010-2025″

3 dirty test tubes (yellow) showing some normal tap water to be very acidic ... ... but 1 clean test tube (blue) shows the same tap water to be just slightly alkaline, that is, perfectly safe.

What is the real story behind this biodiversity “crisis”? Are ecologists using dirty test tubes … again? When did the “science” of biodiversity begin to go so terribly wrong? Well …

(thanks to Willis Eschenbach for his original work)

… let me introduce you to:

The Bottleneck Problem  (or … what’s wrong with The Species-Area Formula?) – which says: 90% decrease in area = 50% species loss (E.O.Wilson 1963), see Mann, C.C, 1991, Extinction: Are Ecologists Crying Wolf? Science, 253, 5021, 736-738.

 “… looking at actual extinctions there is no evidence that the species-area relationship works at all to predict extinctions.” … but the Species-Area formula is still used (religiously?) by ecologists. Why? … you will have to answer that non-scientific question yourselves 😉 
 

Brazilian Atlantic rainforest in the 1800s

Fact #1: This happened in the 1800s, so we have had more than 100 years to see the ‘barely hanging on species’ die out, and they haven’t. The IUCN (World Conservation Union, the organization which manages all species threats and extinctions with it’s famous Red List) found this evidence quite disturbing as to the species-area relationship.”The coastal forests of Brazil have been reduced in area as severely as any tropical forest type in the world. According to calculation, this should have led to considerable species loss.Yet no known species of its old, largely endemic, fauna can be regarded as extinct.

The Brazilian Atlantic rainforest has been cut down by about 90%. Yet, when the Brazilian Society of Zoology analyzed a group of almost 300 animals they could not find a single species which had died out. Likewise, when they examined their list of plants, they could find no extinctions either. Stewart, 1992, Species extinctions in tropical forests, in Whitmore & Sawyer, 1992, Tropical deforestation and species extinction, Chapman & Hall Press, London

 

Puerto Rico island, Gulf of Mexico

Fact #2: The largest tropical study of the correlation between rainforest and the extinction of species was carried out on the island of Puerto Rico by Ariel Lugo of the United States Department of Agriculture. He found that the primary forest had been reduced by 99 percent over a period of 400 years. Only 7 out of 60 species of birds had become extinct although the island today is home to 97 species of birds. Gentry, 1986, Endemism in tropical versus temperate plant communities, in Soule, Conservation Biology, Sunderland Press.

US forests

 

Fact #3: Few species went extinct when the eastern forests of the U.S. were reduced to 1 to 2 percent of their original area.- Simberloff, 1992, Do species area curves predict extinction in fragmented forest?, in Whitmore & Sawyer, 1992, Tropical deforestation and species extinction, Chapman & Hall Press, London

Now, that was 3 clean test tubes against E.O.Wilson’s 1 dirty test tube. Do you think that the ecologists changed their minds 20 years ago when presented with this falsifying evidence? … Nope.

That ecologists base their “we are saving the world” ideology heavily on computer models rather actual observations is accurately documented in many critical books such as  Prof. Aynsley Kellow’s 2007 critique about the virtuous corruption of virtual environmental science.
Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science 

This book argues that the virtual nature of much environmental science and the application of non-science principles such as the precautionary principle facilitate the virtuous corruption of environmental science. Drawing upon examples from conservation biology and diversity Prof. Aynsley Kellow illustrates that the problem is more widespread than this area alone would suggest and is common in the important field of climate science. He argues the importance of reliable science as the basis for environmental policy and management …”

He shows the absurd effects of  an ideology running Ecology, such as the example of the Loch Ness Monster and the Swedish Storsjön Monster being officially listed as endangered species. 

Scotland's Loch Ness Monster

Sweden’s Storsjön monster

See Kellow’s numerous other examples, starting on page 17. These are not nearly so rare instances of “conservation gone wrong” as we would hope.

Sooooo …. where does that leave us in 2010? What do scientific observations tell us about the Earth’s biosphere? Do Ecologist’s computer programs match the facts? 

Well … let’s start with our real green friends: The Plants of Planet Earth.

A print resolution picture of SeaWiFS global biosphere decadal average over Africa and Europe.A print resolution picture of SeaWiFS global biosphere decadal average over Asia and Australia.A print resolution picture of SeaWiFS global biosphere decadal average over the Pacific Ocean.

Steven Running of the University of Montana and Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA … found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth’s vegetated landmass — almost 110 million square kilometres — enjoyed significant increases…”

But what about The Amazon? You know the A-M-A-Z-O-N ???

Amazon Rainforest

 The largest increase was in tropical ecosystems. Amazon rain forests accounted for 42% of the global increase in net primary production, owing mainly to decreased cloud cover and the resulting increase in solar radiation.”

Oh, what great news! Don’t tell The Greens or they’ll be furious. Especially don’t tell the WWF (World Wildlife Fund) or their $60 billion rainforest money making scheme might fall through. Now that’s what I call Big Business or should I say … Big Green? 🙂

Here in my home university town of Uppsala, just north of Stockholm, we have the Agricultural University as well as Uppsala University, with their ArtDatabanken, …

… sharing some of the riches of this Unitied Nations driven money pot (almost 1 billion Swedish crowns. “… Ett [propaganda]jippo som SLU aningslöst har accepterat och ställt upp på”. WOW! … or in English, for you non-Swedish speakers out there 😉  : ” … A propoganda-cart which the Agricultural University has willingly accepted and supported“)

Anybody else out there think that the plants are … growing? Yessiree!

Galloping Jungle – farmlands revert back to nature as saving the rainforests becomes less urgent 
Tear down the Amazon rainforest idol  ‘Save the trees’ more political myth than environmental truth.
Tropical Rain Forest: A Political Ecology of Hegemonic myth making
Tropical rainforests: exposing the myths
Shaky science behind save-rainforest effort
Clear-Cutting the Myths About the Amazon and Tropical Rainforests  

Another problem with “saving the Amazon” is that the scientific evidence seems to show that this rainforest in neither ancient nor virgin.

OK … Animals … now it’s your turn to speak up about your extinction prospects. What say ye noble beasts?

“No continental forest bird or mammal is recorded as having gone extinct from any cause.” … such as habitat reduction – WOW!

Let’s check this claim by cross checking the environmental organisations’ “impartiality challenged” IUCN Red List of endangered, threatened, almost threatened, has-to-be worried, let’s include it anyway, you’ll never get off our list, and extinct animals …

 

… with the more independent and scientific … CREO extinction lists.

Creo

3 continental mammals have gone extinct — 1 antelope hunted to extinction, and 1 rare rabbit and 1 rarer antelope gone from unknown causes. 6 continental birds have gone extinct — 3 prolific terrestrial bird species hunted to extinction, and 3 single-habitat freshwater bird species hunted, drained dry, eaten by fish, and polluted to extinction. This historical record of 9 continental extinctions in 500 years contrasts starkly with Wilson’s predictions of over thirty continental bird and mammal extinctions per year, each and every year.”

NONE by habitat loss in these 500 years!
But how about the Dodo, you know … the D-O-D-O ?

“…95% of all recorded bird (129) and mammal (61) extinctions (over 500 years) are island or Australian species” … these were the last places on Earth that had been separated from the continents, for 40 million years or so since te depths of the last Ice Age, and hence the initial introduction of European species into island habitats was a one-time only event.

The BIG problem with these Blasted Beasts is that they refuse to die off!

Western Lowland Gorillas, Congo, Africa

Exhibit A: Aug. 5, 2008 — Wildlife researchers said Tuesday that they’ve discovered 125,000 western lowland Gorillas deep in the forests of the Republic of Congo, calling it a major increase in the animal’s estimated population

Irrawaddy Dolphin

Exhibit B: 3 April 2009 – The world population of Irrawaddy Dolphins was thought to be just total about 900. However the Wildlife Conservation Agency has just found a population of over 6000 Irrawaddy Dolphins in the Sundarban mangroves of Bangladesh.

Range of the Irrawaddy Dolphin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 

10 new Emperor Penguin colonies found from space

Exhibit C: 1 June 2009 Using satellite data, the scientists found 10 new colonies of penguins. Overall, 38 colonies were spotted from above, according to Fretwell’s paper, published in the journal Global Ecology and Biogeography.

 

 

And how about  the fishies of the seven seas? What say ye, our fine finned friends?

Here are the famous fished-to-extinction Sockeyed Salmon:

Canadian Pacific Sockeyed Salmon in record numbers

Fishery officials estimated Tuesday, 31 Aug 2010, that more than 25 million sockeye salmon will return to the Fraser River this year, the largest number since 1913. Last year’s return was 1.7 million — the lowest in more than 50 years. And the estimate could yet go higher as Tuesday’s test catch was the largest all year, said Barry Rosenberger, area director for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.”

These natural booms and busts in fish populations have been known for years, but ecologists apparently refuse to look at the evidence, for unknown (non-scientific?) reasons. See Patterson, R.T., Prokoph A.,Wright, C., Chang, A.S., Thomson, R.E., and Ware, D.M., 2004. “Holocene Solar Variability and Pelagic Fish Productivity in the NE Pacific”. Palaeontologia Electronica, v. 6 (1). 17 pp.

And some skeptical Americans in their own funnily “special” way, call the Extinction spade a spade. Penn and Teller – Endangered Species

Soooo … the notion of a decrease in Earth’s biodiversity relies on:
ignoring the inconvenient truths of the non-extinction of real species 
+ the wide acceptance by ecologists of the false model of the species-area  formula
= a true ecology of dirty test tubes.

A dead virtuous virtual environmnental "science" Dodo

The only thing that seems to be dead in biodiversity is the scientific method and the science in environmental “science”. Dead as a DoDo one could say.

Best biological wishes,

Life-loving and life-enjoying Brady

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Books, Education, Extinction, Greens, Political Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Biodiversity – an ecology of dirty test tubes

  1. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Ya know, if you are going to use my work, a bit of credit would be nice …

    • Brady says:

      Sorry Willis. I provided a few links back to your work but I should have mentioned you specifically as well. All fixed and apologies again.

  2. tty says:

    Much of what you say is true, but to claim only 9 continental extictions in 500 years is ridiculous. I make it 15 continental mammals and 16 continental birds that have gone extinct during this period.

  3. al says:

    i agree mostly with this site’s POV but don’t we already have enough humans on the planet already – isn’t 6 billion enough?….to me that is the main problem to the environment(if there is any) because people do indeed clear land and destroy habitat because they can make money by doing so…i would rather see the population decline to 2 billion or so at most if it means that most of the rest of the species will survive…

    • Hi al, you word “enough” is questionable. Have a look at Matt Ridley’s latest post, for example, …
      http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/hope-springs-wells
      “Population, you reply. Well, did you know that population is growing at the rate of a little over 1% a year, whereas in the 1960s, it was growing at 2% per year. The number of net new people born each year has been falling for 20 years. World population quadrupled in the twentieth century. It won’t even double in the twenty-first. The median UN projection has it levelling off in 2075 at roughly 1.5 times today’s level.”
      … for the start of an investigation into the REAL facts about the over-population non-problem, as well as many other common environmental scares that lack evidence.

  4. Bernd Felsche says:

    As I said on Jo Nova’s blog:

    Apparently, not much is wrong with nature. Except that some are deluded into believing that they understand it all and that they need to make it better.

  5. Aynsley Kellow says:

    Brady,
    Glad you enjoyed my book!

    I think the important point in all this is just how lacking in a scientific foundation is much ‘political ecology’. The accepted paradigm in ecological science – since c1990 – has been once of change, perturbation, and even chaos. Political ecology is still operating on a paradigm of ‘Nature’s fragile, harmonious balance’, so that any change is immediately attributed to the evil actions of mankind. Usually all on the basis of very few observations of what is ‘normal’.

    In Australia, policy is still predicated on a ‘healthy’ river system in the Murray-Darling Basin, when we are talking about a seriously modified system that was always subject to extreme flow variations, and the issues should be about what values humans wish to see favoured in how we manage it. And, of course, the Great Barrier Reef is iconic. Coral bleaching form El Nino events causes ‘catastrophe’ (mainly for local tourism operators) until it recovers. I cane still remember the catastrophe of Crown of Thorns starfish infestations 20 years ago, and the inevitable search for human agency – until the geological record showed that such things happened from time-to-time.

    None of this means we should not seek to protect wonderful creatures like Orangutans, but let’s be honest and say that we would prefer this an ‘Nature’ is indifferent to their fate – indeed, it is incapable of preferences!

  6. Pingback: Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, Sep. 16th 2010 « The Daily Bayonet

  7. Mervyn Sullivan says:

    Q. When did the “science” of biodiversity begin to go so terribly wrong?

    A. When scientists began to lose sight of what science is truly all about, and began to forget the meaning of important words… words such as honesty, integrity and ethics.

Comments are closed.