Panic and complacency would be equally inappropriate responses.

Phil Stoat (Mr Clarke, I assume?), you seem to have that piece in Nature about species loss rather back to front:

"Up to one million plant and animal species face extinction, many within decades, because of human activities, says the most comprehensive report yet on the state of global ecosystems.

Without drastic action to conserve habitats, the rate of species extinction — already tens to hundreds of times higher than the average across the past ten million years — will only increase, says the analysis. The findings come from a United Nations-backed panel called the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

According to the report, agricultural activities have had the largest impact on ecosystems that people depend on for food, clean water and a stable climate. The loss of species and habitats poses as much a danger to life on Earth as climate change does, says a summary of the work, released on 6 May."

I quite agree that the explosion of the human population, increasing agriculture, and other human activities are having a devastating effect on the planet, and I abhor all that. It's nothing to do with climate change, however. I am concerned that climate change hysteria takes attention away from real and present problems.

I did not explicitly link extinctions to climate change; I was responding to the astonishingly ignorant and complacent claim that

more species are being discovered in a day than are lost in a year

However the Nature article does inform us that

The report draws inextricable links between biodiversity loss and climate change. An estimated 5% of all species would be threatened with extinction by 2 °C of warming above pre-industrial levels — a threshold that the world could breach in the next few decades, unless greenhouse-gas emissions are drastically reduced. Earth could lose 16% of its species if the average global temperature rise exceeds 4.3 °C. Such damage to ecosystems would undermine global efforts to reduce poverty and hunger and promote more-sustainable development, the IPBES report says.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01448-4

Mar 6, 2020 at 10:13 PM Phil Stoat

Is their any evidence for any of it?

It is a news article and so not peer-reviewed, however Nature has a hard-won reputation to maintain and so the chances of them printing something without a solid evidence base seems to me remote.

BTW, have you managed to dig up any evidence to support your oft-repeated accusations of fraud against the entire climate science discipline?

Oh, and it is 'there', not 'their'.

You need to get your timelines in order Radical R.

Also, you need to stop citing liars

Prediction 1. That global warming (caused by the Sun) would end within three to fourteen years of 2007.
This has since been validated by the SSRC and numerous others. Even the UK Met Office last year acknowledged that 17 years had gone by without global warming. September marks year 18. There is no longer any global warming. Mr. Casey’s calculations showed the average temperature curve associated with the 206 year solar cycle determined that 2007 or between 3 and 14 years (RC Theory paper) of that date would be the peak of the modern warm period. In a July 1, 2008 TV news conference held by Mr. Casey, he announced that there was sufficient data to declare that global warming had in fact already ended.

Posted 2014. Unfortunately for Dr. Swier, the globe experienced its hottest year on record just 2 years later.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201613

I mean, really, what is the point of posting this easily-debunked, alternative-reality garbage?

"It is a news article and so not peer-reviewed, however Nature has a hard-won reputation to maintain and so the chances of them printing something without a solid evidence base seems to me remote.
Mar 6, 2020 at 11:53 PM Phil Stoat"

It seems to me that your judgement remains flawed.

Citing opinion pieces and articles by journalists, to fake them into "Science" has proved damaging for Climate Science as Pachauri and the IPCC demonstrated.

Climate Science relies on 97% consensus con tricks, as you keep proving.

If you want to establish credibility, use your resources to dispose of the fake science generated by dedicated Hockey Teamsters, rather than promoting further swathes of non recyclable disposable rubbish.

Is it because Vivienne Westwood made her career out of pushing rubbish, that you consider she produces good quality Climate Science?

Radical Rodent, I think it is very sweet of Phil Clarke to promote Vivienne Westwood's post-punk disposable Climate Science. She may even have some of those unripped 1970s black polythene bin liners for filing Climate Science's best records.

I mean, really, what is the point of posting this easily-debunked, alternative-reality garbage?
Mar 7, 2020 at 1:17 AM Phil Stoat

Are you happy with the way Mann erased the LIA and MWP? Wikipedia still gives him credit, though no one knows why

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann
"He has pioneered techniques to find patterns in past climate change, and to isolate climate signals from noisy data"

If the LIA and MWP were erased because they were both hundreds of years of noisy data, why should anyone place any significance to amplified noise generated by Climate Scientists now?

In a July 1, 2008 TV news conference held by Mr. Casey, he announced that there was sufficient data to declare that global warming had in fact already ended.

Prediction 3. That the Earth’s oceans would begin to cool soon after 2007.

A new analysis shows the world's oceans were the warmest in 2019 than any other time in recorded human history, especially between the surface and a depth of 2,000 meters. The study, conducted by an international team of 14 scientists from 11 institutes across the world, also concludes that the past ten years have been the warmest on record for global ocean temperatures, with the past five years holding the highest record.

Source

Prediction 4. That the Earth’s atmospheres would begin to cool soon after 2007.

Not even close

Prediction 7. That 2012 would be colder than 2008 in terms of global atmospheric temperatures.

2008: 0.54C
2012: 0.64C

(NASA)

Prediction 9. That the decline in Arctic sea ice had ended and was now a new long term growth trend.

Nope, still disappearing.

Prediction 11. That the world’s sea levels would soon begin to decline (between 2014 and 2020) and reach the level they were in the early 1800’s predicted by the late 2020’s and 2030’s.

Wrong again

I am struggling to see any climate predictions that Casey got right. Do you actually read (never mind check) articles before you link to them?

Just for GC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Description_of_the_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_in_IPCC_reports

Oops, the site mangled the URL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Description_of_the_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_in_IPCC_reports

Mar 7, 2020 at 1:18 PM Phil Stoat

Has that been corrupted by William M Connolley, Mann's fellow Hockey Teamster, and serial abuser of Wikipedia notoriety?

"A new analysis shows the world's oceans were the warmest in 2019 than any other time in recorded human history..."
Mar 7, 2020 at 1:53 PM Radical Rodent

With Computer Adjusted Tree Ring Thermometry, Mann's Hockey Stick passed Peer Review having erased the LIA and MWP, that were recorded in history.

You gorra larf, when there was no known means of measuring temperature records over most of the past 1,000 years.

Ah, so no MWP or LIA then.

Ah, so no MWP or LIA then.

Mar 7, 2020 at 4:04 PM Phil Stoat

Is that Michael Mann's technique of complete denial? As endorsed by Hockey Teamsters and the 97% consensus.

If Climate Science intends to continue lying about the MWP and LIA, it just makes it easier for Trump to Defund.

Mar 7, 2020 at 4:04 PM Phil Stoat

How many lies, mistruths and science corruptions did William M Connolley achieve per malicious edit of Wikipedia, on behalf of Mann, Real Climate, Hockey Teamsters, Skeptical Science and other professional denialists?

If you could get rid of the rubbish, it would be easier to judge whether there is anything honest, that should be taken seriously.

So there's two Phils then?

So there's two Phils then?

Mar 7, 2020 at 10:10 PM fred

100% of the 97% consensus can call themselves Phil. They all swear allegiance to Mann's Holy Hockey Stick. There is no reason for Taxpayers to fund any of them.

When we get to four Phils a climate prophecy will be four Philled.