Edge of Extinction: WTF! WaPo Lies?

If you scroll down to the bottom of this post, you will find the email message I received from the Washington Post reporter. My response, sent via email, follows. The story was published the same day I responded. The reporter lied about me, as expected. Specifically, I have not “been predicting the demise of human civilization for decades.”

 

AVID Audio Course Description (Conservation Biology)

 

 

Latest Peer-Reviewed Journal Article:

McPherson, Guy R., Beril Sirmack, and Ricardo Vinuesa. March 2022. Environmental thresholds for mass-extinction events. Results in Engineering (2022), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2022.100342.

 

The Washington Post, 23 March 2023: Climate Coach: I agree, IPCC: We’re not doomed

 

The Washington Post, 24 March 2023:

Why climate ‘doomers’ are replacing climate ‘deniers’

 

Email message received from The Washington Post reporter on 23 March 2023:

Hi Guy,

My name is Shannon Osaka and I’m a climate reporter for the Washington Post. I just wanted to give you a heads up that I am writing a piece for the Washington Post about people who believe the climate crisis is past the point of no return and that human extinction is imminent. I will be mentioning some of your predictions for near-term human extinction as well as some of the scientists who have disagreed with such predictions.

If you would like to add any statements or comments, please feel free to respond to this email.

Thanks!

My response, sent early on 24 March 2023

:

Dear Ms. Osaka,

Thank you for the opportunity to respond, in advance, to your article. With this email message, I point out a few details in support of my prediction of near-term human extinction. There is much more evidence rooted in the peer-reviewed literature in this short essay intended for interviewers, should you be interested.

Earth is in the midst of abrupt, irreversible climate change, as indicated by the scientifically conservative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC’s 8 October 2018 report, Global Warming of 1.5 degrees, concluded that Earth is in the midst of the most rapid change in planetary history, citing the peer-reviewed literature in reaching this conclusion: “These global-level rates of human-driven change far exceed the rates of change driven by geophysical or biosphere forces that have altered the Earth System trajectory in the past; even abrupt geophysical events do not approach current rates of human-driven change.” The situation has not improved since 8 October 2018.

The IPCC admitted to the irreversibility of climate change due to an overheated ocean in its 24 September 2019, Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. Thus, the IPCC has correctly and finally concluded climate change is abrupt and also irreversible. Importantly, the IPCC concluded in its 8 October 2018 report that the ongoing rate of change underlain by anthropogenic climate change is by far the fastest in planetary history. The situation has not improved since 24 September 2019.

How scientifically conservative is the IPCC? Even the conservative and renowned peer-reviewed journal BioScience includes a paper in its March 2019 issue titled, “Statistical Language Backs Conservatism in Climate-Change Assessments.” This paper by Herrando-Pérez and colleagues includes the following information: “We found that the tone of the IPCC’s probabilistic language is remarkably conservative …, and emanates from the IPCC recommendations themselves, complexity of climate research, and exposure to politically motivated debates. Leveraging communication of uncertainty with overwhelming scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change should be one element of a wider reform, whereby the creation of an IPCC outreach working group could enhance the transmission of climate science to the panel’s audiences.”

Contrary to the conclusion from Herrando-Pérez and colleagues, I cannot imagine the IPCC is interested in transmitting climate science to the panel’s audiences. After all, as professor Michael Oppenheimer wrote via essay titled, “How the IPCC Got Started“ on the Environmental Defense Fund websiteon 1 November 2007, the United States government during the Ronald Reagan administration “saw the creation of the IPCC as a way to prevent the activism stimulated by my colleagues and me from controlling the policy agenda.” In other words, the IPCC was designed to fail with respect to significant societal changes that would produce positive results.

Civilization is a heat engine, regardless how it is powered, according to several peer-reviewed papers by professor Tim Garrett. In other words, so-called “green energy” based on PV solar panels and wind turbines offers no way out of the ongoing climate emergency. I concluded that the monetary system is driving us to extinction in the early 2000s. I opted out of the monetary system—i.e., I stopped accepting paychecks—and I lived off-grid for more than a decade in an attempt to demonstrate leadership with respect to one’s carbon footprint. I returned to a relatively conventional way of life when I learned about Garrett’s work and the aerosol masking effect.

Earth is in the midst of a Mass Extinction Event, as reported by E.O. Wilson, “the father of biodiversity,” in his 1992 book, The Diversity of Life. Specifically, he wrote on page 32 of the original edition: “Humanity has initiated the sixth great extinction spasm, rushing to eternity a large fraction of our fellow species in a single generation.” With respect to the ongoing Mass Extinction Event, professor Gerardo Ceballos said to the BBC on 20 June 2015: “If it is allowed to continue, life will take many millions of years to recover and our species itself would likely disappear early on.” Ceballos’ comment came upon the release of a paper for which he was the lead author in the renowned, peer-reviewed Science Advances. The peer-reviewed paper was published on 19 June 2015.

The projected rate of climate change based on the type of gradualism indicated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change outstrips the adaptive response of vertebrates by a factor of 10,000 times. In addition, mammals cannot evolve fast enough to escape the current extinction crisis. Humans are vertebrate mammals. To believe that our species can avoid extinction, even as non-human vertebrates and non-human mammals disappear, is a classic example of human hubris. Abundant evidence indicates humans will join the annihilation of “all life on earth,” as reported in the peer-reviewed Scientific Reports on November 13th, 2018. Why? Because we cannot keep up with the ongoing and predicted rates of environmental change. Even tardigrades, the go-to survivor for those who deny the impacts of abrupt climate change on life, are unlikely to survive, according to a paper in the 9 January 2020 issue of Scientific Reports. If the organisms on which we depend do not survive, if even tardigrades do not survive, then humans will not survive. We depend greatly upon invertebrates for our continued existence, yet an “insect apocalypse” is under way, as reported in a review paper in the April 2019 issue of Biological Conservation and subsequently confirmed in a 30 October 2019 paper in Nature. I continue to report from renowned, peer-reviewed journals.

 

To summarize from a comprehensive review paper written by 38 scholars and published on 25 February 2021 in the peer-reviewed Global Change Biology, “[t]he biosphere, upon which humanity depends, is being altered to an unparalleled degree across all spatial scales.ˮ The paper goes on to point out, quoting from abundant peer-reviewed evidence, that “humans have directly modified 77% of the land surface and 87% of oceans” (Watson et al., 2018) … and later, “Ecosystems are deteriorating globally, and species extinction rates are strongly correlated with both climate change and the human footprint” (Ceballos et al., 2020; Keith et al., 2013).

I have been collating and synthesizing the work of other scholars since I left active service from the University of Arizona on 1 May 2009. I retained emeritus status specifically to allow access to peer-reviewed papers. As a result, my conclusions are drawn from the work of others.

I am not a climate scientist. Rather, as a long-time ecologist and conservation biologist, I am familiar with information most climate scientists neglect in their work, including the exponential function and the concept and importance of habitat. In addition, I am no fan of human extinction because I realize we are almost certain to take all life on Earth with us when we go extinct because of the rapid rate of environmental change in our wake and also because of the uncontrolled meltdown of nuclear facilities, the latter of which will cause stratospheric ozone to be stripped away. This will lead to exceptionally rapid planetary warming, as illustrated—with a bit of artistic license regarding rapidity—in the 2021 film, Finch.

I probably need not point out that I erred previously with respect to human extinction, as you will undoubtedly indicate in your forthcoming article. I quoted from the scientifically conservative 2012 issue of Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences in concluding that the loss of Arctic sea ice will lead to loss of habitat and therefore extinction of our species. The paper was titled, “The Future of Arctic Sea Ice.” It projected an ice-free Arctic Ocean in 2016+3 years. I believe my prediction referred to 2018 as the final year for Homo sapiens.

Two additional essays at my blog might be worth your time. Both are rooted in peer-reviewed literature. The relatively short version is here. The much older and more comprehensive essay is here.

Perhaps the fastest means to our own extinction, and that of many other species, will be the forthcoming ice-free Arctic Ocean. Predicted to occur in September 2023 by professor James Anderson at Harvard University (in Forbes on 15 January 2018) and professor Jennifer MacKinnon at the University of California-San Diego (CBS News on 23 April 2021), the extremely rapid rate of environmental change will undoubtedly cause loss of habitat for most species on Earth. As professor Mark C. Urban at the University of Connecticut points out with a piece in the 14 February 2020 issue of Science, the replacement of white ice and snow with dark water will produce the “equivalent to the warming triggered by the additional release of a trillion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.” Full effects will be realized the year after the first ice-free Arctic Ocean. This will be the first ice-free Arctic Ocean since the Eemian (130,000-115,000 years ago), according to a paper by James Hansen and colleagues published on 18 July 2017. If Anderson and MacKinnon are correct, we can expect a stunningly rapid rate of environmental change leading to the loss of habitat for our species in 2024.

No species survives long without habitat. One example, from among many, refers to the San Benedicto Rock Wren, a relatively small bird that occupied San Benedicto Island off the Pacific coast of Mexico. On 1 August 1952, the San Benedicto Island became volcanic. The San Benedicto Rock Wren was never seen again. Individuals undoubtedly flew to adjacent islands and the mainland, to no avail. The San Benedicto Rock Wren could fly, obviously, yet it became extinct very rapidly. Will Homo sapiens join the San Benedicto Rock Wren and at least eight species in the genus Homo that have already gone extinct as a result of loss of habitat? Sadly, the evidence suggests as much.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please let me know if I can provide clarification or additional information. Contrary to what you might have read or heard, I am no fan of extinction, including human extinction. I will not benefit in any way from our extinction. In addition, I am relatively young and I look forward to many more years in good health.

Sincerely,
Guy R. McPherson
Professor Emeritus, University of Arizona