Laughable Hyperbole And Stupidity From Alarmists, Again!



There’s a new study out!

Quantifying the benefit of early climate change mitigation in avoiding biodiversity loss

From the abstract…..

Climate change is expected to have significant influences on terrestrial biodiversity at all system levels…….Our global analysis of future climatic range change of common and widespread species shows that without mitigation, 57±6% of plants and 34±7% of animals are likely to lose ≥50% of their present climatic range by the 2080s. With mitigation, however, losses are reduced by 60% if emissions peak in 2016 or 40% if emissions peak in 2030.

Yes, the old ambiguous “climate change“.  HuffPo was happy to herald this pronouncement of doom.    In neither the announcing article nor the paper’s abstract come close to describing what exactly the “climate change” is.  It’s just “climate change“.  It could be hotter, or wetter, or drier, or less snow or more snow, and unbelievably, we’ve even seen some proclaim a warmer world could mean an icier world.  But, in this case it isn’t defined, it’s just “climate change“. 

But, here’s the giveaway that this is crap.  From the HuffPo article……

Only 4 percent of animals, and no plants, were likely to benefit from rising temperatures and gain at least 50 percent extra territory, the study said.

This is demonstrably untrue.  All one has to do is drive to our south east US to note that many, many plant species benefit from a warmer climate. 

Hardest hit would be species in sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, the Amazon and Central America.
“Climate change will greatly reduce biodiversity, even for many common animals and plants,” lead author Rachel Warren of the University of East Anglia in England said. The decline would damage natural services for humans such as water purification and pollination, she said.

Good heavens!!!  As Goddard would say, the nutters need a team huddle!  The nutters have been harping on climate change causing increased pollination for years now.  You can’t have simultaneously more and less pollination! 

Even if one accepts the massively stupid idea that our climate will change to unrecognizable states, it doesn’t follow that only 4% of the animals and no plants gain from this.  Let’s take the extreme north, for instance.  We’ve been hearing a constant drone about the permafrost melting.  That would be extremely advantageous for trees and grasses up there.  And, with that, the many sub-arctic species, like the grizzly and black bears, moose.  Don’t believe me?  Go to Alaska or north Canada.  Go to the tree line that separates the arctic climate from the sub arctic.  No one can say the sub-arctic is less bio-diverse than the arctic.  And, what if, as the authors imply, that our swamps dry up?  Sure, this wouldn’t be favorable for alligators,  but, it would work for cougars and deer.  Less swamps equal hardier trees.  This has been demonstrated throughout the south of the US.  Even our deserts favor some plants and animals.  Even the hyperbole driven nutters have documented the upward migration of plants and animals in our mountainous regions because it’s favorable for some lower laying species in some places which have warmed.  Some areas which have warmed have seen an increase in tropical fish.   4 percent of the animals and none for plants?  How stupid are they?  And how stupid do they believe we are?  Their own alarmist sophistry contradicts their alarmist sophistry! 

This sophist hyperbole is based on nothing but an ill-defined term climate change, which preys upon the simpleminded paranoid-delusional ideations of Malthusian misanthropists.  Plants and animals have been adapting to climate change since there were plants and animals. 

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Laughable Hyperbole And Stupidity From Alarmists, Again!

  1. DaveG says:

    Oh nos!

  2. philjourdan says:

    Tell that to the “trees” marching up the slopes of mountains.

  3. tckev says:

    To Quote a piece from Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species – Chapter III – THE STRUGGLE FOR EXISTENCE
    Page 82 Nature of the Checks to Increase.

    “…Climate plays an important part in determining the average numbers of a species, and periodical seasons of extreme cold or drought seem to be the most effective of all checks. I estimate (chiefly from the greatly reduced numbers of nests in the spring) that the winter of 1854-5 destroyed four-fifths of the birds in my own grounds; and this is a tremendous destruction, when we remember that ten per cent. is an extraordinarily sever mortality from epidemics with man. The action of the climate seems at first sight to be quite independent of the struggle for existence; but in so far as climate chiefly acts in reducing food, it brings on the most severe struggle between the individuals, whether of the same or of distinct species, which subsist on the same kind of food. Even climate , for instance extreme cold, acts directly, it will be the least vigorous individuals, or those which have got least food through the advancing winter, which suffer the most. When we travel from south to north, or from a damp region to a dry, we invariably see some species gradually getting rarer and rarer, and finally disappearing; and the change of climate being conspicuous, we are tempted to attribute the whole effect to direct action. But this is false view; we forget that each species, even where it most abounds, is constantly suffering enormous destruction at some period of its life, from enemies or from competitors for the same place and food; and if these enemies or competitors be in the least degree favoured by any slight change of climate, they will increase in numbers; and as each area is already fully stocked with inhabitants, the other species must decrease…”

    Climate stresses and the variations in species are inextricably linked – it is the way of nature. Stasis would mean stagnation of natures variations. These people obviously never read any Darwin.

    • suyts says:

      No they haven’t. They simply spew nonsense.

    • DirkH says:

      Well. Darwin was all conjecture. He plagiarized what he could glean from the evolutionists of his time, notably Wallace, delayed publication of his tome to the very last minute and published it right before Wallace published his book – Wallace gave him a gentlemanly advance notice – and knew absolutely nothing about genetics (That was Mendel, of whom Darwin knew nothing).

      • cdquarles says:

        It wouldn’t surprise me to find out that Darwin knew nothing when it comes to chemistry, too. No chemistry, no biology; at least in incarnate forms.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s