Someone sent me a video that was supposed to convince me of the truth of global warming. It didn’t. At The Daily Maverick: Global warmism needs a fisking.

Published yesterday on The Daily Maverick, my latest column: Pray Copenhagen fails. I really do hope the UN’s climate shindig fails. It will save millions of lives and trillions of dollars. If we’re serious about solving global problems like hunger, disease and poverty, we should not give corrupt politicians the power to loot taxpayers and line the pockets of special interests on the basis of a dubious premise.

On the advice of a regular reader, and because I’ve been delinquent in posting recently, I thought I’d post a snippet I sent to a mailing list in response to someone who declared: “We’ve caused thousands of species to go exctint!” or “We’re facing a mass extinction!” or some such hysterical catastrophist trope.

They asked, “Do scientists just make this stuff up, you think?”

The answer, of course, is: “Yes, they do.”

To illustrate, I put together this summary, extracted from Bjørn Lomborg’s classic 2001 book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, about whether species are going extinct hand-over-fist, and if not, why some people might think so.

First, the data (sources given at the end):

             #species  #ext*  % ext  #p/a    % p/a*

Vertebrates     47000   321   0.683   0.8  0.00171
Mollusks       100000   235   0.235   0.6  0.00059
Crustaceans      4000     9   0.225   0.0  0.00056
Insects      >1000000    98   0.010   0.2  0.00002
Vasc. plants   250000   396   0.158   1.0  0.00040

Total        ~1600000  1033   0.065   2.6  0.00016
Excl. insects  401000   961   0.240   2.4  0.00060

* Total documented extinctions since 1600AD

These are known species, and documented extinctions. The latter certainly under-report reality, though it isn’t possible to say by how much. That most obviously appears to be the case with insects, an outlier in the data above, so I built a second totals line excluding insects. To give some idea of scale, the 0.24% of all non-insect species to have gone extinct in the last 400 years doesn’t even compare with previous extinctions. The famous dinosaur extinction claimed over 40% of all species. In some 50 separately identified extinction periods, more than 10% of species were wiped out. So losing 1 in 400 is pretty mild, as extinctions go.

One might expect that with mammals, whose extinction rate is the highest by a large margin, the documented extinction rate is much closer to reality. Not many mammals escape our attention.

For mammals (a subcategory of vertebrates in the table above) we have 4500 species, 110 extinctions, which is 2.444% of the total, and 0.00611% per annum.

The total number of species, as well as the actual extinction rates among them, are pure speculation. Now it’s not exactly reasonable to extrapolate from mammals, but let’s do so, to develop a worst-case scenario for all species. Then we get an extinction rate of 0.006% per annum for all species. It is possible that some non-mammal species go extinct at a higher rate, but I don’t have any data either to confirm or deny this, so let’s work with 0.006% per annum.

This is high, but certainly not catastrophic. (Whether it is too high, getting worse, or what, if anything, we should do about it, is beyond the scope of this post.)

Al Gore, in his 1993 book Earth in the Balance, says “40,000 species go extinct per year”. Problem is, he is exaggerating by at least a factor of four. Even if he weren’t exaggerating, he performs a trick well known to those who lie with statistics: he fails to mention the denominator of that fraction. 40,000 of 100,000 is a lot. 40,000 of a million is not a lot. 40,000 of 10 million is negligible. So if our estimate of 1.6 million total known species is correct, even Al Gore’s exaggeration is somewhere between not a lot and negligible.

But if that number is wrong, where did he get it? The answer is that he got it from a British ecologist, Norman Myers. And where did Norman Myers get it? He made it up.

No, really, he made it up! Pulled it out of thin air.

Here’s how. As long ago as 1979, he wrote that until 1900, one species went extinct every four years; since 1900, one species per year went extinct. So far so good.

He then referenced a conference from five years earlier, which had “hazarded a guess” of an extinction rate of 100 per year at present, as the “overall extinction rate among all species, whether known to science or not”.

That hazardous guess seems way out of proportion to the rate Myers accepted for the period 1900-1974, being suddenly 100 times higher with only global cooling and the oil crisis to blame. Even if it includes species not known to science, that’s a rather dramatic jump.

But not to Myers. He is underwhelmed and undaunted, and goes on: “Yet even this figure seems low. Let us suppose that, as a consequence of this man-handling of natural environments, the final one-quarter of this century witnesses the elimination of 1 million species — a far from unlikely prospect. This would work out, during the course of 25 years, at an average extinction rate of 40,000 species per year, or rather over 100 species per day.”

That’s it. That’s the totality of his argument. The lot. There’s no data, no citations, no research, no extrapolation from known facts, nothing. Just an assumption, pulled out of thin air, of a million extinctions in 25 years, which he then in wonderful circular fashion divides up to get an extinction rate 40,000 times higher than he himself says occurred in the first three-quarters of our century.

See the problem? That 40,000 number, which almost thirty years later seems to be “common knowledge”, because scientists and activists have stated it as fact, is an invention. Complete fiction. No bearing on reality whatsoever. But it’s scary! Woooo!

If we know about 1.6 million species, don’t you think we’d have noticed a million extinctions by now? I’ll bet most people can’t even cite, off the top of their heads, just a few examples of actual extinctions; let alone dig up a list of the tens or hundreds of thousands that would be indisputably on record if Al Gore and Norman Myers hadn’t been dead wrong. The irony of the newspaper headline above, 25 years after Norman Myers made up his million-in-25-years number, is the stuff a sub-editor lives for.

So when someone raises extinctions as this major catastrophe, I say, “people make this stuff up”. Not because I’m being argumentative, or because I’m being controversial, but because they really do make this stuff up.

(Source: Lomborg 2001, p250ff, citing among others Bailie and Groombridge, 1997, Walter and Gillett 1998, May et al, 1995:11, Reid 1992:56 and, of course, Myers 1979:5.)

When I first heard that Cyclone Sidr was shaping up to be a category four or five monster, these lyrics came to mind:

“I don’t want to start any blasphemous rumours, but I think that God’s got a sick sense of humour; and when I die, I expect to find him laughing.” — Depeche Mode, Blasphemous Rumours (1984)

That night, I said to a friend: “I wonder if God sits there going, ‘Ooh, nastiness. Now where can I send this thing? Honduras? Madagascar? No wait, I know, Bangladesh! Muhahaha.’”

Having thought about it, I must admit I was wrong, on a number of grounds — not counting any metaphysical objections of blasphemy.

Read the rest of this entry »

Though the possible set of inconvenient puns has been utterly exhausted in the last few days, if you haven’t seen it yet, Bjørn Lomborg’s commentary on the subject of Al Gore’s Peace Prize is worth reading. Notably:

The number of hungry people depends much less on climate than on demographics and income. Extremely expensive cuts in carbon emissions could mean more malnourished people. If our goal is to fight malnutrition, policies like getting nutrients to those who need them are 5,000 times more effective at saving lives than spending billions of dollars cutting carbon emissions.

Likewise, global warming will probably slightly increase malaria, but CO2 reductions will be far less effective at fighting this disease than mosquito nets and medication, which can cheaply save 850,000 lives every year. By contrast, the expensive Kyoto Protocol will prevent just 1,400 deaths from malaria each year.

While we worry about the far-off effects of climate change, we do nothing to deal with issues facing the planet today. This year, malnutrition will kill almost 4 million people. About 3 million lives will be lost to HIV/AIDS, and 2 ½ million people will die because of indoor and outdoor air pollution. A lack of micronutrients and clean drinking water will claim 2 million lives each.

With attention and money in scarce supply, we should first tackle the problems with the best solutions, doing the most good throughout the century. If we focus on solving today’s problems, we will leave communities strengthened, economies more vibrant, and infrastructures more robust. This will enable these societies to deal much better with future problems - including global warming. Committing to massive cuts in carbon emissions will leave future generations poorer and less able to adapt to challenges.

In Michael Crichton’s memorable metaphor of environmentalism as religion, Gore is the high priest, preaching fire and brimstone unless we repent our sins. We are the chanting supplicants, and in our fear and panic we are regressing to human sacrifice to appease an angry Gaia.

So the European Science Foundation holds a conference on research integrity, to “foster responsible research”. And guess who’s not invited?

Granted, he’s Canadian, but since their research found he is British and his work to foster responsible research did get a mention, you’d have thought he’d crack an invite too. As a commenter at the ClimateAudit site writes: “How can you trust the integrity of a conference that lacks the integrity to include the person who discovered the very errors they are discussing?”

A statistical researcher who worked on the same issue, might have had some contribution to make on the subject of research disputes, and is really British, didn’t get a nod either. Neither did this Danish statistician, of whom the organisers of a conference on research integrity must at least have heard.

Omitting some of the most visible and public critics of research integrity — on whatever grounds — does nothing to allay suspicions that it was just a one-sided public relations exercise for the status quo, does it?