The Next Thing After Climate Change

Van Helsing, over at Moonbattery has an interesting post up entitled Biodiversity, the Left's Next Big Hoax. A hat tip to Bubba of the blog What Bubba Knows for pointing to this site.

According to Van Helsing, Climate Change has now been so debunked, that it is likely to die, though like a snake, whose head remains lethal for several minutes after being lopped off, it still retains the power to kill. The next big thing? Biodiversity.

Climate change had the advantage that the climate never stops changing. Similarly, species never stop going extinct. Only a tiny percentage of the species that have existed are still around today. Meanwhile,

Despite the U.N.'s fear that biodiversity may be at risk, scientists over the past decade have identified new species at an unprecedented rate. The 2008 World Wildlife Fund (WWF) study First Contact in the Greater Mekong reported that 1,068 species were discovered or newly identified by science between 1997 and 2007 — averaging two new species a week. And the Census of Marine Life — an ambitious, 10-year project to catalog the diversity of the world's oceans — recently concluded, having identified more than 6,000 potentially new ocean-going species.

Information like this will soon become scarce, as biologists, like climate scientists, are compelled to become political hacks in exchange for lucrative government grants.

On thing not mentioned about biodiversity in the article is that, as with Climate Change, you must take it on faith that we are destroying species.  Nobody really knows how many species go extinct in a given year, or always what causes it.  They estimate the numbers based on people going out and seeing if they see them.  If they don't, they are assumed extinct, but nobody knows.  Even if the did, as the above indicates, nobody knows how many were here on any given date.  If evolution truly is working, one would have to postulate that some new species also show up to replace those that go extinct.  This is never done.  Finally, both concepts depend on the "fragile environment" theory, the notion that extremely small changes to the environment create a tipping point that will destroy all life.

Faith only works way.  Faith that God created the world for man to live in, with all his foibles, does not enter the picture.

The safety bicycle of the 1890s was a great invention, allowing the common man to travel extended distances to find work, rather than live in squalid ghettos close to his factory. He could shop, work, and enjoy leisure time in the countryside rather than staying within walking distance of home.  Progressives have been railing against this freedom ever since.  The elites naturally feel that letting us unwashed masses out is casting pearls before swine.  What the biodiversity movement will allow them to do is claim ever greater lands as protected habitat for "endangered species."  Once a parcel is named as officially protected habitat, your ability to use your land, land that you paid good money for, becomes very limited, yet you will retain the responsibility of paying taxes.  Of course, like everything else, the rules won't apply to them.  They can have their luxury estates wherever they want, and the price of land will be much cheaper when you can't make any money off of it.