We’ve been predicting it, and now it appears to have happened. After Cancún, Anthropogenic Global Warming is generally expected to have oulived (by far) its fifteen minutes of fame, and will be quietly dropped by Western governments; so quietly, in fact, that they’re hoping we won’t notice. So much for the “greatest moral challenge of our time”.
But nature abhors a vacuum, and those behind the AGW racket, politically and financially, have not gone away. Like the shape-shifters of Greek and Norse mythology, the same movement behind AGW is about to be re-branded—this time, as biodiversity.
I was fascinated to read a comment on the Delingpole blog from poster hro001, detailing the creation 0n 11th June this year by the UN of the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Their website is here. Following the link to hro001 (Hilary)’s blog, you can read chapter and verse on the creation of this new body and its aims. It makes eerily familiar reading.
Its various roles will include carrying out high quality peer reviews of the wealth of science on biodiversity and ecosystem services emerging from research institutes across the globe in order to provide gold standard reports to governments.
See what I mean? There’s plenty more, and I encourage you to pop over to Hilary’s place and read it for yourselves. All the familiar rubrics are there: a veneer of scientific respectability (indeed, if you’ll forgive two Latin phrases in one sentence, a modus operandi of argumentum ad vericundiam); a presupposition of a problem (diminishing biodiversity) and a guilty party (mankind); biodiversity “tipping points”; punitive economic measures aimed at reducing the damage, and even (how’s this for chutzpah) proposing biodiversity offsets.
I’ll predict that, as they are using life sciences as their vehicle (as opposed to physical sciences with AGW) their core scientific thesis will be much harder to disprove this time round. Maybe it’s a personal prejudice, as my own background is in physical science, but I’ve always found biological sciences a bit more nebulous, less rooted in mathematics (except at the molecular DNA level). After all, if they’re claiming it’s getting hotter, and everybody can see outside their windows it’s freezing, there’s only so long you can go on using excuses like weather versus climate, mitigating effects of the Gulf stream, La Niña, and so on and so on, before the theory crashes and burns. Try disproving the assertion there’s less biodiversity now than there was thirty years ago. No, in biodiversity I believe we will see post-normal science come to its fullest flower.