The 6th Extinction and the Dog That Didn’t Bark

As the San Jose Mercury News reports, “In the most sobering study of extinction yet, a team of Bay Area scientists says that animal species are disappearing at an accelerating rate — portending the sixth mass extinction in the 4.5-billion-year history of the Earth.” Perhaps inspired by the recent book by Elizabeth Kolbert titled ‘The Sixth Extinction‘, the subject is now au courant. Personally I preferred The Fifth Element.

Fifth Element

Such a story would be incomplete without a mention of Paul Ehrlich, and he does indeed appear, saying “without any significant doubt that we are now entering the sixth great mass extinction event.”

The entire argument is not helped by the fuzzy nature of the mathematics used by those announcing the Sixth Extinction. We quite literally don’t know how many species exist on the planet. We do not know how many species are going extinct now. We don’t know how many species existed, nor how many went extinct in a specific time frame in the past. Those saying that X% of terrestrial or marine species have gone extinct in the past 50 years are just guessing. They don’t have many specific species to point to saying they are gone.

As is always the case in modern times, when talking about the modern causes of threats to biodiversity, they put the least important factor–climate change–at the front of the list, when in fact habitat reduction, conventional pollution, over hunting/fishing and the introduction of alien species have far greater impacts.

Indeed, while the warming we have experienced has caused a poleward shift in migration patterns and changes in the time of the year that species migrate, breed and give birth, those changes–those adaptations to climate change by species that don’t have global warming alarmists to tell them they’re doomed–seem to be effective. In other words, birds and insects are not going extinct because of climate change, they’re just changing their habits and habitats. As they have done countless times before, adapting to changes in the climate that were caused by Mother Nature rather than Man. Our responsibility, if responsibility we have, is to insure that as these species look for new and more congenial territory, there in fact is new territory available to them.

Back before we started hunting species to extinction, extinction happened in slow motion, taking hundreds or thousands of years. That’s one cogent argument against blaming climate change for current threats to biodiversity–it’s too recent to be the culprit. Anthropogenic climate change is the dog that hasn’t had time to bark.

If, as I suspect, the attribution of stress on species from climate change is around 1% of the total (when compared to habitat reduction, hunting/fishing, pollution and alien species), the best thing we can do is continue the good work started by real environmentalists (not the Konsensus Alarmists masquerading as such) in preserving or restoring natural environments, reducing pollution, managing the fisheries and being more attentive regarding the introduction of alien species.

This will do far more to preserve the biodiversity of this planet than any of our efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. And I say that as someone who firmly believes we need to reduce our contributions to greenhouse gases. Eventually, climate change will become a significant stressor for some, perhaps many species.

It just hasn’t happened yet.

9 responses to “The 6th Extinction and the Dog That Didn’t Bark

  1. Any article using Paul Ehrlich as a reference in support of the premise of the article is already a loser article. If I recall correctly, just a few years ago we were in the 5th extinction. I guess it went the way of the 1970’s ice age. The fear mongering of this pre-Paris push is only matched by the lack of facts offered in the push and is possibly surpassed by the lack of integrity demonstrated in those doing the fear mongering.

  2. Wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph, including the bit that eventually some species will be negatively impacted by climate change, because eventually a new Ice Age will arrive.

  3. Ron, it was my understanding that we’re already in an Ice Age, albeit in a comparatively mild, iceless phase thereof (called, confusingly, an interglacial). This may be little more than a terminological quibble—in any case the next glaciation is inductively inevitable, as you say, and is going to be bad news when it happens, as you say.

    • Ron and Brad, from what I’ve read, it seems that the next Ice Age is to be expected at some unguessable point between tomorrow and 10,000 years from now.

      • “Unguessable”? I thought clisci had all the major factors pretty firmly nailed down by now, what with today’s extra-fast computers. LOL in all seriousness though won’t we all feel a bit silly if we actually do something to cut CO2 emissions one day…and the reglaciation happens a week later. The public will want to blame somebody. But who?

      • In his book Storms of My Grandchildren, Hansen says we’ll never have another ice age and that the output from a single cloroflorocarbon plant could prevent one.

      • Hansen, not to put too fine a point on it, is delusional.

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