The Price of Biodiversity

There has been a resurgence of alarmist claims regarding the pending extinction of a majority of Earth's lifeforms due to human misdeeds—clearing rain forests, polluting the oceans and, of course, causing global warming. Perennial crank and misanthrope E. O. Wilson leads the parade of doomsayers, claiming that biodiversity is dropping and a sixth major extinction event is just around the corner. What evidence backs these claims? Why, computer model projections, naturally. The facts are researchers have identified 1.4 million animal species so far, and recently a pair of Brazilian researchers estimated that there are estimated 5.4 million yet-to-be-discovered animal species alone. The truth is, scientists have no idea how fast biodiversity is falling because they have no idea how many species there are on Earth. And the researchers put a price tag on finding out that is simply stunning.

But you can't quantify species extinction if you can't identify the species in the first place. Back in 2000, famed Harvard University ant biologist Edward O. Wilson estimated that it would cost $5 billion to identify every species on Earth, not just animals. Wilson admitted at the time that, even among the small minority of all species diagnosed and named, fewer than 1% have been subject to the kind of careful biological studies needed to undergird ecology and conservation biology. “The cost per species, using newly available informatics technology, might be $500, for a total of $5 billion spread over 10 to 20 years,” Wilson stated.

Antonio Marques and Fernando Carbayo, both at of the University of São Paulo in Brazil, have recalculated the cost of getting a real handle on biodiversity in a paper published online last month in Trends in Ecology and Evolution. Their new estimate: $263 billion (€189 billion). And at the current pace of 16,000 new animal species cataloged annually, Marques and Carbayo estimate it will take 360 years to complete the job. The paper summed things up this way:

A complete inventory of the animal diversity of the world might remain an elusive goal. Even this considerable achievement would provide only the ‘leftovers’ of biological diversity after the effects of evolution and human intervention on natural habitats have been considered. However, some crucial future actions should be considered for cataloguing biodiversity other than those related purely to funding for conservation and sustainable use of living organisms. The most essential action now would be a concerted effort to raise the image of taxonomy from being seen merely as an ‘old’ and ‘simple’ task of biologists that is unfashionable and horribly constricted to low-impact-factor journals to being viewed instead as a fundamental, indispensable, and vibrant branch of the life sciences.

Not knowing how many species are out there has not prevented Anthony D. Barnosky et al. from declaring the next mass extinction imminent. In “Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived?,” published in the journal Nature, studied the differences between fossil and modern data, coming to the conclusion that the end is nigh for most of the world's creatures. From that paper's abstract:

Palaeontologists characterize mass extinctions as times when the Earth loses more than three-quarters of its species in a geologically short interval, as has happened only five times in the past 540 million years or so. Biologists now suggest that a sixth mass extinction may be under way, given the known species losses over the past few centuries and millennia. Here we review how differences between fossil and modern data and the addition of recently available palaeontological information influence our understanding of the current extinction crisis. Our results confirm that current extinction rates are higher than would be expected from the fossil record, highlighting the need for effective conservation measures.

This new paper has brought scathing reviews from other researchers and even a few ecologists. Greenpeace Co-Founder and ecologist Dr. Patrick Moore, slammed the new study for claiming a dramatic and irreversible mass species extinction was underway. “This [journal Nature] article should never have made it through the peer-review process,” Moore told Climate Depot in an interview. “The fact that the study did make it through peer-review indicates that the peer review process has become corrupted,”

Moore has previously criticized others who have tried to declare a 6th extinction event, most notably Wilson, who has made a career out of prediction ecological doom. A decade ago, Wilson estimated that up to 50,000 species go extinct every year based on computer models of the number of potential but as yet undiscovered species in the world. Moore said in 2000: “There's no scientific basis for saying that 50,000 species are going extinct. The only place you can find them is in Edward O. Wilson's computer at Harvard University. They're actually electrons on a hard drive. I want a list of Latin names of actual species.”

And therein lies the central problem with all this decreasing biodiversity bombast: no one really knows how many species we are dealing with. It is simply impossible to say “50% of Earth's species are in danger of extinction by 2050” without knowing how many species exist and being able to identify the ones supposedly in danger. Yet, whether it is polar bears or coral reefs, eco-alarmists would have us believe they will be extinct by next Tuesday if we don't park our cars, close our factories and turn out the lights, right now! The tipping point is just ahead! Of course, the cost of getting a feel for Earth's actual biodiversity pales when compared to the cost of switching to renewable energy.

Ecologists and many scientists are quick to blame people for the demise of any species, but the simple truth is that species go extinct all the time—with or without human help. A prime example is the sudden decline in amphibian species around the world. Scientists now know the proximate cause is the chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (see “Tackling the Mystery of the Disappearing Frogs”). The results of new gene sequencing technologies suggest that in susceptible frogs, the immune system doesn't go on the defensive. The fungi somehow manages to evade the frogs immune system defenses and has wiped out amphibians around the globe.

Humans have no doubt contributed to extinctions of individual species in the past, as have other species through predation, competition and habitat destruction—survival in the natural world is a blood sport. But when green fanatics like Wilson and Barnosky et al. start shouting extinction in a crowded biosphere it serves no useful purpose. I have said it before, if you want to preserve nature you need to make nature more attractive or more useful to people. Running around screaming “extinction” only upsets the weak minded and annoys the rest of us.

It should come as no surprise that there are many trying to profit off of biodiversity. In 2010, the International Year of Biodiversity, business leaders from around the world converged on a conference in London to discuss the Business of Biodiversity. “To debate the issues, consider the risks and view the opportunities that are emerging, which are linked to declining biodiversity and ecosystem services,” proclaimed the online announcement.

Bottom line, papers announcing a 6th extinction event caused by H. sapiens are more about profit than science. It is the biodiversity lobby trying to do for their cause what the global warming scam has done for climate science. The formula is simple—scare the public with lurid predictions of an apocalypse, then wait for the research funding to pour in. But greens need to consider this: with the US House of Representatives voting to defund the IPCC, oil prices rising, the world economy reeling from the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, and governments around the world tightening their belts, the chance that the US or any other nation will pony up $263 billion to study biodiversity is precisely zero.

Be safe, enjoy the interglacial and stay skeptical.



Chill out dude. Nobody's going extinct around here.

Computer Predictions of Extinctions

So, they have a computer program that predicts extinctions because there is NO data of current extinctions.

Their predictions are based on the computer program estimating the number of species which have not yet been identified that will go extinct before we ever identify them. Such species would be exactly the same as having never existed, so the numbers are totally fantasy.

Basically, any numbers fed into this program are just as much fantasies as is the computer program itself, as it is dealing with totally fictitious input. This is not scientific in any way, shape, or form.

Species Extinction Rates Grossly Overestimated

Posted recently on FOX, with reference to a new study in Nature, published May 19. From the article:

    Researchers say they have discovered why current estimates are overblown, and they recommend a different way to calculate the rates...

    We don't even know how many species actually exist, though it is known that biodiversity is declining drastically. But previously estimated extinction rates — some experts thought half the world's plant and animal species would be gone by 2000 — haven't matched what's actually been observed.

See http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/05/19/species-extinction-rates-gross...

D'oh!!!

Once again the environazi community provides irrefutable proof that an allegory for any situation in life can be found in The Simpsons. To quote Mr Burns"Mother Nature began all this bloody in tooth and claw business. And now she needs a hand from us?!?!?!?"

As soon as I saw the words "computer models" I knew this was just more bullsh*t designed to advance their political agenda. Period. Full stop.

am i missing something?

Our results confirm that current extinction rates are higher than would be expected from the fossil record

while i know it is an amazing catalog of our past, last i had heard it was far from complete with many gaps.

so here they are comparing guesses with guesses?

while i do feel we should be doing better on our part on living with other species, the "crying wolf" mentality needs to stop. it didnt end well in the story, and nor will it here.

No, That's about right

Comparing guesses with guesses? I would say you've got it about right. Another thing not mentioned much is how spotty the fossil record really is. It takes an improbable chain of events to create fossils, which is why they are quite rare. This is also why new species are being discovered all the time. What we have gleaned from the fossil record is a random, sparse sample of life on Earth past. How diverse the world was in deep time is most definitely a matter of guess work. Comparing today's extinction rate, based on an unknown number of species, to the extinction rates many million years ago, based on sparse and incomplete sampling, is total quackery.

Cost more than Japan

The cost of damage caused by Japan's 11 March earthquake could reach $235bn, according to the World Bank. That means the price tag for cataloguing the earth's animals, estimated above at $263bn, is higher than the cost of one of the greatest natural disasters in the last century. You are right to say no one is going to pay for it, Japan certainly has nothing to spare right now.

I know how many (I think)

My personal opinion is that 4 million 3 thousand 2 hundred and twenty one species that I don't know about and have never seen have gone extinct over the last 50 years.

Or was that 3 million 4 thousand.....oh never mind.

Extinction estimates

So, it appears they have a computer program, which, of course, generates real scientific results. Not!

One estimate is 50,000 species extinct per year based on a wonderful prediction of the number of species that we have never identified that will go extinct before we ever identify them. For all intents and purposes these purported species never exist, but we made them go extinct? Oops, there goes another one we never knew we would never know!

What do they smoke at that place? It sure is not for medicinal purposes.

facts not hypothesis

Start with the big species like mammals and bird, not living on islands or Australia.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/where-are-the-corpses/
Here are the mammals that went extinct since 1500. Click on them, only a small percentage of them are found on the continents.
http://roboconsumer.wordpress.com/2007/09/23/extinct-mammals/
Bird extinction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_birds
Most them happened a very long time ago, before any possibility of AGW and before there was "climate change" (ha ha)

north america extinctions

then look at North America extinctions, esp since 1950. nothing here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_animals_of_North_America

When referring to species

When referring to species going extinct, it's natural to
think of fairly large populations of well known creatures, like koalas, emperor penguins, etc.

In fact, species of animals follow a roughly "Pareto" distribution- there are fairly large populations of
a relatively few species, and very small populations of a much vaster number of species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution

The moral of the story is that most species are near extinction from the moment of their birth.

Thanks!

Glad you posted that link, Several years ago while discussing this topic with my then pre-teenaged nieces and son I tried to get much the same idea across, and the girls, being products in production in the Takoma Park MD school system, looked at me like I was a lump of talking shower mold. Now that I have managed to crack the glazing of "allknowledge" they had poured over them in a major metropolitan public school system, mainly by introducing them surreptitiously to the economic writings of Milton Friedman and Walter E Williams, and the philosophy of the venerable Ms Rand and Mr Heinlein, I can use this to chip away at their envirodelusions with this from the oblique. You gots to be crafty to undo all that there wrong headed book learnin'!!!