A new scientific report says humans are eliminating about 1 percent of all animal species each year. The census of wildlife says that more than one in four species have disappeared in the past 35 years. Pollution, the expansion of farming and cities, and over-hunting are said to have caused the most rapid decline since the extinction of the dinosaurs. WWF warns that climate change can add increasingly to the wildlife woes over the next three decades.

Extinction numbers are easy to find. Environmental organizations are more than eager to present them in order to train us into obedience. It is much more of a challenge to find how many formerly unknown species that have been discovered in the past decades. There are numerous reports on the Internet about new species being discovered all over the world, but so far I have not seen any compilation of the results.

The golden-mantled tree kangaroo was just one of dozens of species discovered in late 2005 by a team of Indonesian, Australian, and US scientists in New Guinea. In 2007, scientists find 24 new species in Surinam, including a fluorescent purple toad and 12 kinds of dung beetles. Dozens of fish, shrimp and coral species, including two new types of a shark that walks on its fins, have been discovered in waters off New Guinea in the South Pacific.

A chance discovery by a teenage spelunker has revealed the existence of eight new animal species in an underground cave in Israel, including the first terrestrial animal with no known relative found only in a cave. WWF scientists have announced the discovery of 11 new animal and plant species in a remote area in central Vietnam. More than 50 new species of animals and plants that have never been seen before have been discovered in a “Lost World” on the island of Borneo in just 18 months.

Species go extinct all the time. New species are constantly being discovered. How can we tell how many percent fall victim to human domination of the planet?

Also, in the discussion on loss of species, there is a general confusion on what happens locally and globally. If a specific species disappear on a local scene, it does not mean it is also extinct on a worldwide scale. In the Netherlands for example, many (local) species have disappeared, due to urbanization, industrialization and road building. But net, there is a gain. Due to the building of the Donau Rhine channel, over the last 10 years, some four hundred (foreign) species from the Balkan, have settled in the country (according to Dr Arthur Rorsch).

No doubt, habitats are changing under the influence of human activity. But extinction?

Our self-declared savior and climate oracle, Albert Gore, continues his quest for planetary salvation at the Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.

On Sunday, he told graduates of Carnegie Mellon University they could become part of the next “hero generation” in American history by solving environmental problems. There had already been two “special generations” of Americans, he said, the one that founded the country and the one that defeated fascism during World War II.

“You, I hope and expect, will be called upon to be part of the third hero generation in American history, by countering the threat of global warming.”

Americans have always loved their heroes, so I guess many attention seeking adolescents will buy into Gore’s arguments. But the truth is - there is no planetary emergency. We don’t need more heroes. At least not in the sense of self-sacrificing environmental defenders.

“Despite persistent efforts, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has never succeeded in the task set to it by the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), of supplying sound scientific evidence for the belief that human emissions of greenhouse gases are harming the climate. The evidence that has been supplied is based on unsound scientific methods and mathematics.”

This is the introduction to “Unsound Science by the IPCC”, a publication by Dr. Vincent Gray, which proves the main claims by the IPCC are scientifically unsound (the full report is available here). Dr. Gray is an expert reviewer for the IPCC and has submitted more than 1,800 comments on IPCC reports. I contacted Dr. Gray to get his view on global warming and here’s the exclusive interview.

Q: Dr Gray, you have stated that you consider IPCC as being corrupted. What is the basis for that criticism?

It is difficult to answer this in a few words. They were corrupt from the start, as they are a political organisation set up to provide evidence for “Climate Change”, defined by the Framework Convention on Climate Change as being exclusively caused by humans. The science is selected, distorted, and occasionally fabricated to support this view, and to downplay or marginalise any other climate influences. Their reports have to approved by the politicians who set them up and the Lead Authors are all chosen because they are willing to carry out their orders.

Q: I have read the comments to IPCC AR4. Your comments to the drafts have persistently been rejected. I imagine this is not the first time. Why do you continue to be Expert Reviewer? What is it that drives you?

It is immensely worthwhile. I consider that I have had a definite influence on them. For example, the first Report had a Chapter entitled “Validation of Climate Models”. When it appeared in the first draft of the next Report I commented that since no climate model has ever been validated the term was wrong. In the next draft they changed “validation” to “evaluation” no less than fifty times. They do not use the term or even discuss how it might be done.

The models are “evaluated” by seeking the opinions of those who are paid to produce the models. These are not “forecasts” but “projections” and they are no more than complete guesses from people with a conflict of interest, and thus worthless.

I have learned an unrivalled store of information about the climate while doing this and I know the attitude and activities of the IPCC scientists intimately. I am in a position to criticise them from the basis of this close knowledge.

It has been fascinating and immensely worthwhile.

Q: In your opinion, are we experiencing a global warming? What are your thoughts on the temperatures levelling off and even slightly falling since 1998? Has the warming trend stopped? Can we even anticipate a cooling?

The “climate” sometimes gets warmer and sometimes gets colder, and sometimes stays the same. I even believe it.

It is impossible to measure the average temperature of the Earth and even more difficult to find out whether it is increasing or decreasing. My studies, from all the data, indicate that the average temperature is passing through a cycle of about 65 years, and has reached the peak last seen in 1950. Since 1988 the average temperature has started to fall. 2007 was particularly cold and the IPCC people have even PREDICTED that 2008 will be cold. They are in deep trouble if it goes down much further for much longer. If the past trend continues it should continue to go down.

Q: Why do you believe that CO2 is not a major climate driver?

Because there is no evidence that it is. The models are worthless, as I have said. No model has successfully predicted any aspect of future climate. They completely failed to predict the measured temperature of the upper part of the atmosphere.

Q: Why don’t you believe in climate models?

The “weather” cannot be predicted more than a week or so ahead. If you call it “climate” the same applies; the system is too complex.

All the models are based on the “Flat Earth” theory of the climate where a quarter of the sunlight falls on all parts of the earth all the time and the temperature is constant. I regard this assumption as completely unrealistic. I might change my mind if they could show convincing predictions, but their “projections” are always so far ahead that they will have enjoyed their generous salaries and pensions before they are found out.

Q: What do you think is needed to turn the media and public opinion against climate alarmism?

A prolonged period of cold weather possibly combined with the economic downturn they have forced on the world.

Q: Some of the readers of my blog persist that there is no evidence that the current climate change is purely natural. Do you think that human activities affect the climate in any significant way?

I am a scientist and I like to be supplied with evidence. There is no question that humans influence the climate. Every city is warmer than the surrounding countryside. Shelter Belts modify the wind. Agriculture of all kinds has an influence. There is even such a thing as “pollution”. But I know of no evidence that it is, overall, harmful.

Q: In your opinion, what major environmental threats are we facing today?

The “Environment” has become a God who “threatens” us and demands constant sacrifice.

Humans, like other organisms have to work to set up surrounding circumstances, which are favourable to our prosperity, health and development. The greatest “threats” today are to the lives and existence of people in many countries, and response to these threats should have priority over the supposed threats to other creatures. Most of these are grossly exaggerated. Did you ever hear of an “Endangered Species” that actually became extinct?

I would like to thank Dr. Gray for answering my questions. It has been an honour.

Dr. Vincent Gray is a New Zealand-based climate scientist and an official expert reviewer of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientific reports.
Dr. Gray has a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from Cambridge University, England and has had a long career as a research scientist in Britain, France, Canada, New Zealand and China. Dr. Gray has published over 100 scientific papers on energy and materials, plus a dozen in climate science.

In today’s Standard Freeholder, a local Canadian publication, the editor blames the Modern Man for the cataclysm of Global Warming. His rhetoric brings to mind the famous quote of Albert Einstein about only two things being endless – the universe and human stupidity.

A small excerpt:

Global warming, if explained in laymen’s terms, is not all that difficult to understand. Geologists and their kin tell us that climate change in the distant past was brought about by natural events, volcanic eruptions on an unimaginable cataclysmic scale and/or similar explosions in outer space. Then came the Industrial Revolution. Not to be outdone by nature, modern man has been busy inventing a way to produce the same results, with less drama.

He has built billions upon billions of mini volcanoes around the world in the form of smoke stacks, chimneys and various other kinds of exhaust pipes, belching out much of the same pollutants as volcanoes into the earth’s atmosphere. He has even gone one step further by adding poisons and toxins previously unknown to nature and our environment. How difficult is that to understand? Some estimates tell us we have already wiped out close to half of all life forms on this planet in the process. That’s the legacy we are busy leaving our grandchildren.

I especially like the comparison between cars and volcanoes. Mr Editor seems to obtain his knowledge not from science, but rather science fiction. Calling carbon dioxide a pollutant does not exhibit much insight. And stating that we (the humans) have already wiped out close to half of all life forms on this planet is simply absurd.