Move over climate change

We had population growth, fluoride in the drinking water, DDT, famine, global cooling, acid rain, ozone holes, and now global warming. The environmentalists have a history of trying to scare us to obtain power, and frankly, some attention. With the use-by date on the global warming scare approaching, maybe they’ve now decided to bring out the next one. Yes, if we selfish and parasitic humans do not renounce our industrialised lifestyles, we may see a loss of biodiversity. Oh no(!)

Look at the websites of major environmental organizations and you might be persuaded that climate change is the only real environmental issue we face. A majority of American environmentalists have adopted climate change as their main cause, and it’s easy to understand why: when scientists agree that our planet is likely to be 5° to 10° F hotter by year 2100, that’ll get your attention.

What could be worse than the IPCC’s worst case scenario?

Climate change is a serious issue, but a couple of recent studies remind us that it may not be the biggest threat to life on Earth as we know it. It may in fact be essentially a symptom of a broader problem, one which hasn’t gotten nearly as much attention from either green groups or the environmentally oriented press. What’s the issue? Loss of biodiversity, also known as extinction. And ignoring it to focus on climate change can have dire consequences, especially in the California desert.

Oh, that’s right. The climate doesn’t change without our input and species don’t go extinct if we don’t push them. It all makes perfect sense.

Over the last few years an increasing number of scientists have suggested that the planet’s collapsing biological diversity may well be the largest and most intractable environmental problem we face. As threatening as climate change may be, it could be mitigated substantially by making a few wrenching but nonetheless straightforward changes in the way we do our business. (The fact that we lack the political will to make even those changes says more about our collective shortsightedness than about the nature of the problem itself.)

Perhaps scaring them with dying desert animals will make those simpletons bend over and accept your green religion.

Even if we transform our society to a carbon-neutral one, as long as our numbers continue to swell and our demand for comforts continues, other species will pay the ultimate price.  As we convert more and more of the planet to resources for our own use, we deprive other species of the habitat they need to survive.

Right here is the admission that they place the needs of animals over people.

Something changed in the intervening 20 years, though. Check out this Google ‘Ngram”  charting the relative frequencies of the phrases “climate change” and “biodiversity” in English-language books from 1990 to 2008. Both phrases were mentioned with increasing frequency in the early 1990s, with “biodiversity” pulling ahead in the months after UNCED. Then, in 2005 — a few months before the release of An Inconvenient Truth — “climate change” started getting more attention, and mentions of biodiversity actually began to decrease for the first time since the 1980s.

Greenies are talking about it more? That means it must be a problem.

I’ve heard all this biodiversity propaganda before. The eco-loons will point out the potential ‘beneficial uses’ of each organism, to make us want to conserve every single species possible. Of course, they fail to realise that anything which make an organism valuable to humanity, makes it worth money. Therefore, those greedy corporations will try to make money off them. Greenies lament the destruction of the Amazon and point out that most of our medicines come from the rain forest. The solution to this problem is of course to ensure the protection of property rights, which will provide incentives to look after the land. But, this idea doesn’t appeal to environmentalists.

I’m all for preserving different species of organisms where practical, but the costs (if any)and benefits of economic growth have to be weighed up. With economic growth, comes technological advancement which also has ‘beneficial uses’. One such area is genetic modification, which has the potential to offset the loss in genetic diversity that comes with declining biodiversity. Oh, hang on. No, they don’t want us to go with that one either.

(Via: Climate Depot)


About Climate Nonconformist

Hi, I'm the climatenonconformist (not my real name), and I am a global warming skeptic, among the few in generation Y. With Australia facing the prospect of a carbon tax, we need to be asking the simple question; where is the evidence that our emissions are causing any dangerous warming?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Move over climate change

  1. cb says:

    I’ve mentioned this before, somewhere, sometime…

    You (and anyone who is reading this) would do well to archive this comment somewhere you can get at it again in the future, since it would (horse, water) serve as the basis for opposing the hippies in this particular regard.

    If you want to stop this kind of argument dead in its tracks, then force the ‘debate’ into the following:
    0) Bio-diversity is nothing more and nothing less that the counting of alleles, PER type. The why-for (and a bit of an explanation of what that means) is as follows.
    1) A gene is a molecular device with some or other FUNCTION (i.e. the generic group-name-idea ‘spade’): an allele is a sub-classification of a SPECIFIC gene, with a slightly different FUNCTION (ex. hard-ground digging spade of brandname S1, versus dirt-moving spade of brandname S2). Ex. eye-color alleles, height alleles (several genes work at this)… everything, and I mean everything, that makes one human different from another is ALL based on alleles. Same thing for animals, plants, bacteria, viruses, etc. etc. etc.
    The Chinese took wolves, and bred Pekinese!
    2) From this, Natural Selection is DEFINED. The ‘selection’ part of Natural Selection is between ALLELES.
    3) ‘Specie’ ‘extinction’ is a term without meaning: ‘allele-loss’ is NOT.
    4) So pretty please PROVE that alleles have been lost. In other words, COUNT THEM (a ‘gene’ is really the group-type, where the alleles are the actual specific physical OBJECT.)

    Thank you for playing. You lose.

    You may wonder why I said that this will kill the conversation: the Evolutionists (i.e. every hippie, every Atheist, every Humanist, every single politician in the western world) value the ‘mind picture of Evolution’ they have created in the common man more than ANYTHING. And that picture is that Natural Selection IS Evolution, dude. Having that ‘mind picture’ contaminated with an accurate conception is something they would never, ever, abide. Why, common people may just ask: “So, um, Evolution is all about NEW alleles coming into being, right?”
    Oh, dear Lord, if you’ve only ever lived through the shlt-storm this specific comment brings forth from the innermost being of the hippies… (Go try it on EvC: I dare you.)

    Trust me on this, they will back down. They will back down like the Lord Himself is coming down from Heaven clothed in burning Holy Flame, and they are running around looking for a rock to hide under.

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