Skip to content

The Sixth Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic

April 15, 2017

By Paul Homewood






In 1982, HH Lamb wrote about how the ranges of birds and fishes had moved poleward in the first half of the 20thC.

When the Earth started cooling around 1960, this movement was reversed. All that animal and plant species are doing is returning to where they were a half a century or so ago.



matt d licence front

HH Lamb: Climate, History and the Modern World – p264

There are many threats facing eco systems, but a barely noticeable increase in temperature is not one of them.

  1. John Palmer permalink
    April 15, 2017 6:49 pm

    Oh my, how we should mourn the passing of quiet, knowledgeable and thorough scientists like HHL.
    Our modern Uni’s are unlikely to produce more like him.

  2. Broadlands permalink
    April 15, 2017 6:50 pm

    A little deja vu perspective for all the National Geographic alarmists? Drinkwater, 2006 wrote: “Ecosystem changes associated with the warm period included a general northward movement of fish. Boreal species of fish such as cod, haddock and herring expanded farther north while colder-water species such as capelin and polar cod retreated northward. The warming in the 1920s and 1930s is considered to constitute the most significant regime shift experienced in the North Atlantic in the 20th century.”

    Click to access 55e4676208aecb1a7ccb48b9.pdf

  3. John F. Hultquist permalink
    April 15, 2017 8:03 pm

    News from Washington State:
    I haven’t seen a Sasquatch (aka Bigfoot) since the Pacific Ocean Shift of ’76-77.
    I think they have all gone to British Columbia.
    They don’t need passports.

  4. April 15, 2017 9:23 pm

    So, the little rodent survived 400 feet of SLR between 8-16K years ago (sometimes as much as 60 feet in one century – per an old Nat’l Geo article) but vanished because it’s perhaps one degree warming, and SLR has slowed to 7 in/100 years?

  5. Graeme No.3 permalink
    April 15, 2017 9:47 pm

    This was thoroughly debunked in 2016.

    The Cay is right in front of the Fly River estuary, so their habitat could conceivably have been affected

    Cays, or keys are not islands but shifting, ephemeral sand deposits and come and go with tides, cyclones and weather events. The species of rat sadly has not been recorded since 2007 – sightings since then are unconfirmed.. and sadly none in the latest 2 surveys. The upside is, this was a subspecies, most likely isolated from PNG

    I used to fish Bramble cay in the 80′s and 90′s….. The melomys most likely get there by floating on debris flushed from the Fly river. You always get large logs, whole trees and masses of Nipa palm roots and trunks floating past the cay… and I mean lots, and big rafts of the stuff.

  6. April 16, 2017 4:03 am

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  7. Athelstan permalink
    April 16, 2017 6:28 am

    Pelagic species tend to move where the food goes, it’s pretty simple stuff, Oceans are dynamic bodies and temperatures of the waters for all sorts of reasons do fluctuate, consequently, the fish respond. Benthic dwellers not so much but even these are susceptible, I don’t see how these fishing experts marine biologists who should think in terms of a much more gradual earthly time span, who can maintain a straight face when according cataclysmic conclusions to what are only natural movements of life in our Oceans, it’s just such utter [scientology] bollocks.

  8. tom0mason permalink
    April 16, 2017 6:39 am

    From Darwin’s The Origin of Species

    Page 82 Nature of the Checks to Increase.

    Climate plays an important part in determining the average numbers of a species, and periodical seasons of extreme cold or drought seem to be the most effective of all checks. I estimate (chiefly from the greatly reduced numbers of nests in the spring) that the winter of 1854-5 destroyed four-fifths of the birds in my own grounds; and this is a tremendous destruction, when we remember that ten per cent. is an extraordinarily sever mortality from epidemics with man. The action of the climate seems at first sight to be quite independent of the struggle for existence; but in so far as climate chiefly acts in reducing food, it brings on the most severe struggle between the individuals, whether of the same or of distinct species, which subsist on the same kind of food. Even climate , for instance extreme cold, acts directly, it will be the least vigorous individuals, or those which have got least food through the advancing winter, which suffer the most. When we travel from south to north, or from a damp region to a dry, we invariably see some species gradually getting rarer and rarer, and finally disappearing; and the change of climate being conspicuous, we are tempted to attribute the whole effect to direct action. But this is false view; we forget that each species, even where it most abounds, is constantly suffering enormous destruction at some period of its life, from enemies or from competitors for the same place and food; and if these enemies or competitors be in the least degree favoured by any slight change of climate, they will increase in numbers; and as each area is already fully stocked with inhabitants, the other species must decrease.

  9. quaesoveritas permalink
    April 16, 2017 9:57 am

    I thought I would try to check the veracity of the claim that the Bramble Cay melomy, is the first documented case of a mammal being driven to extinction by climate change.

    According to Wikipedia

    “Bramble Cay, also called Maizab Kaur,[1] Massaramcoer or Baramaki, and located at the northeastern edge of the Torres Strait Islands of Queensland and at the northern end of the Great Barrier Reef,[3] is the northernmost point of land of Australia. It is 55 kilometres (34 mi) southeast of the mouth of the Fly River of Papua New Guinea. ”

    The closest PSMSL tide gauge I can find is at Ince Point and I can detect no recent rise in sea level from that (albeit without detailed analysis).

    Other nearby gauges are similar and I can therefore only conclude that this is yet another example of confirmation bias.

    I have no doubt that the low lying nature of the location, and the sea, played a part in this creatures extinction, but can it be blamed on “climate change”?

    • Graeme No.3 permalink
      April 16, 2017 10:56 am

      See This was thoroughly debunked in 2016.
      and the comments esp. the ones above. There is no evidence that this was a distinct specie but rather a mainland type washed down the Fly river onto the cay.
      If it was so critical to populate the Cay why didn’t they do something in the 9 years from whence it disappeared?

      • quaesoveritas permalink
        April 16, 2017 11:11 am

        I am not so much concerned with whether the animal was unique or made extinct as whether there is any evidence whatsoever to support the “climate change” had any influence in the matter.

  10. Dung permalink
    April 16, 2017 11:10 am

    When an asteroid hits the Earth and wipes out 50% of all life on the surface, will any of the idiots be alive and wondering if they were right to try and save rats from extinction? Probably too stupid even with an asteroid sitting on their eco-homes.

  11. CheshireRed permalink
    April 16, 2017 11:57 am

    I suspected this link would provide a fertile hunting ground, Paul. Good work bringing it to a wider audience. 🙂

  12. April 16, 2017 4:11 pm

    This crock is one of the biggest deceptions in AR4 WG2. Despite deliberately false surface appearances in two separate tables, relies on exactly one deeply flawed study. Flawed three separate ways. Wrote it up in essay No Bodies.

  13. April 16, 2017 6:35 pm

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    PART 6 – “There are many threats facing eco systems, but a barely noticeable increase in temperature is not one of them.”

  14. permalink
    April 21, 2017 8:36 am

    Dear Mr Homewood

    Re the GWPF report no. 24 on Climate Science, there’s a paper by Michael Mann with a hockey stick and other purported evidence of rising world temperatures.

    As his reputation is that of a very enthusiastic supporter of AGW, and as it seems to be a restatement of his earlier opinions (called “paleo-temperature reconstructions (the so-called ‘Hockey Stick)…” by Professor Judith Curry in the same report), I wonder if you have you have commented on his recent testimony?

    Yours sincerely,

    Michael Woolgar

    P.S. Have you seen Professor Ratzer’s paper attached?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: