'The threat to biodiversity is not new, not necessarily accelerating, mostly not caused by economic growth or prosperity, nor by climate change, and won’t be reversed by retreating into organic self-sufficiency.'
'Much of the human destruction of biodiversity happened a long time ago.'
'Why the hell would anyone with a brain take U.N. reports as factual when so many have been spectacularly wrong by direction and amount? Why would politicians base any policies on these crackpot reports, especially since we know that scientists have manipulated the numbers when their previous predictions have been wrong?'
UK Spectator's Toby Young: So how exactly did the IPBES arrive at the magic one million number? It seems we’re just supposed to take it on faith, which the BBC duly did. What about the IPBES’s claim that ‘around 25% of species… are threatened’? That seems a little pessimistic, given that the number of mammals to have become extinct in the past 500 years or so is around 1.4% and only one bird has met the same fate in Europe since 1852. Not bad when you consider how much economic growth there’s been in the past 167 years.
...All I could find online was a press release put out by the IPBES and a ‘summary’ of the report ‘for policymakers’. The press release states: ‘The report finds that around one million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction, many within decades.’ It gives no source for this beyond the as-yet-unpublished report, but the summary makes it clear that it’s partly based on data from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species.
Marc Morano: "This is politics, not science. The UN is trying to expand its base to include climate and species. They're looking for more treaties, more regulation. They've identified a problem. They've juiced it up and they put themselves in charge of solving the problem. That's called a self-interested lobbying organization."
Jo Nova: "Wealthy countries are solving all of these problems faster than poor countries are. The best way to save wilderness is to increase the GDP of those in poverty. Free trade, fair agricultural markets. Less red tape. Less corruption.
We’ve tied up lots of land, so the last thing we want is to use wilderness for useless solar and wind farms, or palm oil plantations. Why keep coal and uranium underground when we can save forest instead?
Again, in nations where there are healthy economies, fish stocks are being protected and are recovering. Whales too. Even great white sharks."
Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore explains the species scare: “Since species extinction became a broad social concern, coinciding with the extinction of the passenger pigeon, we have done a pretty good job of preventing species extinctions."
Moore bluntly mocked species extinction claims made by biologist Edward O. Wilson from Harvard University. 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: “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.”
UK scientist Professor Philip Stott, emeritus professor of Biogeography at the University of London: “The earth has gone through many periods of major extinctions, some much bigger in size than even being contemplated today...Change is necessary to keep up with change in nature itself. In other words, change is the essence. And the idea that we can keep all species that now exist would be anti-evolutionary, anti-nature and anti the very nature of the earth in which we live."