Further to my series on the signposts of the unravelling of the great Green Myth, comes a new paper (peer-reviewed although that doesn't mean much these days) which shows that the rate of extinctions is slowing over the last 50 years.

It wasn't all that long ago we were being regaled with tales about how the current period is the 6th Great Extinction event (to go along with previous extinctions ie the Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, Triassic and Cretaceous extinctions), caused, of course, by Homo Sapiens and nicknamed the Anthropocene event. We were told that up to half of all "higher lifeforms could be extinct by 2100".

But alas, the new paper shows that extinction rates are in rapid decline having peaked many decades ago and that the claims about the 6th Great Extinction were based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the data.

http://tiny.cc/hjlz001

By itself, the paper is just another in a long line of climb downs. But its noteworthy because it can now be published. There was a time not so long ago when even looking in these types of things were career-ending. Now more and more scientists are emboldened to look at all things environmental with clear eyes. To be sure the authors of this paper remain cognoscent of the need to pay heed to the green gatekeepers so they almost seem apologetic for bringing forth such unwanted facts. I can't tell if that's funny or sad.

mhaze,

A slowdown in recorded extinction rates over 50 years doesn't invalidate the elevated risk relative to background rates.

The "Sixth Mass Extinction" framing has always been about long-term rate comparisons, not year-to-year monotonic increase.

If extinction rates have slowed, the more interesting question is whether conservation efforts are working. That would be evidence of effective intervention, not evidence the underlying pressures were imaginary.

One paper adjusting trend interpretation isn't a climb-down. It's how science refines models.

By the way, you can't get to "more" signposts when your first "signposts" were shown not to be signposts at all.

"It's how science refines models."

Yes. When the narrative is unchallenged we're told that the science is settled, all the major institutions in the known universe agree etc etc. So anyone who doesn't buy it are deniers and anti-science and just plain dumb.

Then the narrative gets torn down and suddenly we're told that this is how science works and isn't science wonderful etc etc.

T'was always thus. The science is settled until it isn't and the alarmists are able to hold both propositions as true simultaneously.

The whole Anthropocene fable is unravelling. Good. The truth always eventually prevails as much as the alarmists would wish otherwise.

And JD is right...."conservation efforts are working." But the funny thing is that the conservationists can't claim victory because their entire career model is based on perpetual crisis.

From the paper the numbers of extinctions is in the range of hundreds maybe a thousand or so... a far cry from the purported millions that the alarmists fretted over.

Another shibboleth of the great green hoax collapses.

When hasn't it been, mhaze?

//The science is settled until it isn't.//

"Settled" in climate science refers to core physical mechanisms, not to every projection or biodiversity metric. Refinement in peripheral domains does not overturn radiative forcing physics.

//The whole Anthropocene fable is unravelling.//

The Anthropocene is a proposed stratigraphic classification. Its formal adoption or rejection has no bearing on atmospheric CO2 concentrations or energy imbalance.

//Extinctions are in the hundreds… not millions.//

Confirmed extinctions are distinct from projected risk under conditional scenarios. The relevant metric in conservation biology is rate relative to background, not cumulative absolute count.

//Conservationists can't claim victory because their career model is based on perpetual crisis.//

That is a claim about motives, not evidence. If extinction rates decline in response to intervention, that suggests intervention works. Career speculation does not refute data.

//Another shibboleth of the great green hoax collapses.//

Apparently not. Back you go...

"Apparently not."

Well not in your fantasy world. But in the real world....

Then you need to show that, mhaze.

More on the unravelling of the climate myth from the inestimable VDH....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yFcMzlxEA8

mhaze,

That video isn't "the unravelling of the climate myth." It's an argument about energy demand and hypocrisy.

- AI requiring more electricity doesn't refute greenhouse physics.
- China building coal plants doesn't refute greenhouse physics.
- California's failed rail project doesn't refute greenhouse physics.
- Obama buying a coastal house doesn't refute greenhouse physics.

Those are policy, geopolitical and behavioural critiques. You can debate them. But they're not evidence that CO2 isn't a warming gas or that post-industrial warming isn't largely anthropogenic.

If the claim is "renewables alone can't meet projected AI demand fast enough," that's an energy systems discussion.
If the claim is "Europe hurt itself with poor energy policy," that's an economics discussion.
If the claim is "elites are hypocritical," that's a character discussion.

None of that equals "climate science has collapsed."

So, we still have no signs at all of this supposed "unravelling".