Biodiversity !

Defense

No impact to species loss
Even conservation biologists agree that species loss is slow and there's no impact
Julian Simon (world-renowned economist) 1998 The Ultimate Resource II,
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR31.txt)
Starting in the early 1980s I published the above critical analysis of the standard extinction estimates. For several years these
criticisms produced no response at all. But then in response to questions that I and others raised, the "official" IUCN (the World
Conservation Union) commissioned a book edited by Whitmore and Sayer to inquire into the extent of extinctions.
The results of that project must be considered amazing. All the authors - the very conservation biologists who have
been most alarmed by the threat of species die-offs - continue to be concerned about the rate of extinction. Nevertheless,
they confirm the central assertion; all agree that the rate of known extinctions has been and continues to be very
low. I will tax your patience with lengthy quotations (with emphasis supplied) documenting the consensus that there is no
evidence of massive or increasing rates of species extinction, because this testimony from the conservation biologists
themselves is especially convincing; furthermore, if only shorter quotes were presented, the skeptical reader might worry that the
quotes were taken out of context. (Even so, the skeptic may want to check the original texts to see that the quotations fairly represent
the gist of the authors' arguments.)

Species loss doesnt snowball
Thomas Gale Moore 98 (Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford) 1998 Climate of Fear, 98-99
Nevertheless, the loss of a class of living beings does not typically threaten other species. Most
animals and plants can derive their nutrients or receive the other benefits provided by a
particular species from more than a single source . If it were true that the extinction of a
single species would produce a cascade of losses, then the massive extinctions of the past
should have wiped out all life. Evolution forces various life forms to adjust to change. A few may not make the
adaptation but others will mutate to meet the new conditions. Although a particular chain of DNA may be
eliminated through the loss of a species, other animals or plants adapting to the same environment often
produce similar genetic solutions with like proteins. It is almost impossible to imagine a single species that, if
eliminated, would threaten us humans. Perhaps if the E. coli that are necessary for digestion became extinct, we could no longer exist.
But those bacteria live in a symbiotic relationship with man and, as long as humans survive, so will they. Thus any animal that
hosts a symbiotic species need not fear the loss of its partner. As long as the host remains, so will
parasites and symbiotic species.


We can recover

No impactmass extinctions will be followed by recovery, not collapse
Michael Ruse (Philosopher and Author) August 24 2002 The Globe and Mail
Let me say straight out that this is the most egregiously mislabelled book I have ever encountered. The author follows in the footsteps
of the late Jack Sepkoski, a Chicago paleontologist (and incidentally a sometime student of Gould's), who performed brilliant mega-
analyses of the fossil record, gathering together huge amounts of data about past species (and
higher taxa) and using computers to extract hitherto-unseen trends and salient features of life's
history. Specifically, Sepkoski found that there are times of evolutionary breakthrough, rises in
numbers of certain forms of life, followed by cooling-off periods and then rapid decline.
Together with his colleague David Raup, Sepkoski also investigated the massive extinction episodes that we find in the fossil record -
one of the most recent and famous being the time 65 million years ago, when a comet hit the earth and finished off the dinosaurs. Yet
fascinatingly, although Sepkoski argued that extinction is incredibly important in life's history - the
mammals would hardly have taken over the world if the dinos were still around - he
concluded that in the long run, the overall patterns seem impervious to the extinctions. Life
has a tempo of its own, apparently, and can continue despite disruptions..


Humans can survive

We dont need animals to keep us alivehuman evolution guarantees that we will
never wipe ourselves out by destroying the environment
Julian Simon (Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland) 1996 The Ultimate
Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment,
http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/faculty/jsimon/Ultimate_Resource/
Let us begin by going beyond the trends in particular resources. The greatest and most important trend, of which these
particular trends are a part, is the trend of this earth becoming ever more livable for human beings. We see
the signs of this in our longer life expectancy, improved knowledge of nature, and greater ability to protect ourselves from the
elements, living with ever more safety and comfort. But though this larger trend buttresses the particular resource trends, it still
provides no causal explanation of the phenomenon we seek to understand. Evolutionary thinking, however, and (more specifically in
economics) the sort of analysis suggested by Friedrich Hayek, offers an explanation of the observed long-term trend. Hayek (following
upon Hume) urges upon us that humankind has evolved sets of rules and patterns of living which are
consistent with survival and growth rather than with decline and extinction, an aspect of
the evolutionary selection for survival among past societies. He assumes that the particular rules and
living patterns have had something to do with chances for survival--for example, he reasons that patterns leading to
higher fertility and more healthful and productive living have led to groups' natural
increase and hence survival-- and therefore the patterns we have inherited constitute a machinery for continued survival
and growth where conditions are not too different from the past. (This is consistent with a biological view of humankind as
having evolved genes that point toward survival. But no such genetic evolution is presupposed by Hayek, in part
because its time span is too great for us to understand it as well as we can understand the evolution of cultural rules. It may be
illuminating, however, to view mankind's biological nature as part of the long evolutionary chain
dating from the simplest plants and animals, a history of increasing complexity of
construction and greater capacity to deal actively with the environment.) Let us apply Hayek's
general analysis to natural resources. Such resources of all sorts have been a part of human history ever since the beginning. If
humankind had not evolved patterns of behavior that increased rather than decreased the amounts of resources available to us, we
would not still be here. If, as our numbers increased (or even as our numbers remained nearly
stationary), our patterns had led to diminished supplies of plants and animals, less flint for
tools, and disappearing wood for fires and construction, I would not be here to be writing
these pages, and you would not be here to be reading them.

Deadzones/kill off
Forests check ocean damage
Swanson 9 (Kent, Masters in Community @ Regional Planning, http://www.practicalenvironmentalist.com/gardening/10-steps-to-a-
healthy-ocean-protecting-our-oceans-from-pollution.htm, )
Biosystems are natures utilities they desalinate water, absorb carbon, liberate nutrients from the ground, and
provide other services free of charge. The plants and animals that make up these systems are often treated as commodities, but killing the
goose that lays golden eggs will only put food on the table for a day. Protecting biosystems can pay dividends for years to come.
Forests are an essential buffer for the oceans. Old growth trees neutralize the pH of rain and absorb harmful
chemicals before they reach the ocean. Trees that grow in estuaries and along riverways are especially important, but those areas also
face increased development pressure and they are easy for loggers to access. Shoreline habitat is being destroyed to build giant shrimp
farms and resort hotels. Luckily, there are now sustainable forestry and aquaculture options available. Sustainable
logging allows limited harvesting of resources without destroying the natural processes that we benefit from. The
next time you buy lumber or land, do some research and check for certifications of sustainability.

Marine life is resilient rapid reproduction
ITOPF 10 (The International Tanker Owners Federation Limited, February 10, http://www.itopf.com/marine-spills/effects/recovery/,)
Marine organisms have varying degrees of natural resilience to changes in their habitats. The natural adaptations of
populations of animals and plants to cope with environmental stress, combined with their breeding strategies, provide important
mechanisms for coping with the daily and seasonal fluctuations in their habitats and for recovering from predation
and other stochastic events. Some natural phenomena can be highly destructive. The short-term power of hurricanes and tsunamis can
easily be appreciated, as can the damage they cause. The cyclical El Nio phenomenon has major long-term consequences for marine
organisms, seabirds and marine mammals throughout the entire Pacific Ocean. Organisms suffer under such onslaughts, but after what is
often severe disruption and widespread mortality, the marine populations re-establish themselves over a period of
time and this process constitutes natural recovery. An important reproductive strategy for many marine organisms
is the production of vast numbers of eggs and larvae which are released into the plankton and are widely
distributed by currents. This mechanism has evolved to take maximum advantage of available space and resources
in marine habitats and to deal with e.g. predation. In some cases, only one or two individuals in a million actually survive through to adulthood.
A less common reproductive strategy that is generally restricted to long-lived species that do not reach sexual maturity for many years is to
produce relatively few, well-developed, offspring. These species are better adapted to stable habitats and environments and as a result, their
populations are likely to take much longer to recover from the pressures of localised mortality e.g. the effects of an oil spill. Whilst there may
be considerable debate over what constitutes recovery, there is a widespread acceptance that natural variability in systems makes getting back
to the exact pre-spill condition unlikely, and most current definitions of recovery focus on the re-establishment of a community of plants and
animals which are characteristic of the habitat and are functioning normally in terms of biodiversity and productivity.
The ocean is resilient absorbs changes
RedOrbit 8 (Staff, November 24, http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1602528/southern_ocean_resilient_against_global_warming/,)
A recent study has found that the Southern Ocean has proved more resilient to global warming than previously thought and
remains a major store of mankind's planet-warming carbon dioxide. Oceans act as a brake on climate change by absorbing large
portions of the extra CO2 released by mankind through burning fossil fuels or deforestation and experts say the
Southern Ocean is the largest of these "carbon sinks." Researchers in the past have suggested the vast ocean between Australia
and Antarctica was losing its potency because climate change had affected its currents and increased powerful westerly winds. The analysis
between ship-based measurements of the ocean since the 1960s and more recent data from hundreds of robotic floats shows the Southern
Ocean has maintained its ability to soak up excess carbon despite changes to currents and wind speeds. "It's a
positive thing. It's one thing it looks like we don't have to worry about as much as we thought," said Steve Rintoul of the
Center for Australian Weather and Climate Research, part of a team researchers that also included scientists from the Institute for Marine
Research at the University of Kiel in Germany. The new data as well as previous studies showed the Southern Ocean was becoming warmer,
and also fresher, Rintoul said. The study was published this week in Nature Geoscience. The data on salinity and temperature allowed the team
to measure the density of seawater and how that density changed from one place to another in relation to how fast water was moving between
two places. "By looking at the density we could say something about the way the major currents were or were not changing. "And this was
the surprise. We found that the currents had not changed. They had shifted their position, they'd shifted closer to
Antarctica but not become stronger or weaker."

Oceans can easily survive acidification
Ridley 10 (Matt, Doctor of Philosophy in Zoology, June 15, http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/1106-matt-ridley-threat-from-ocean-
acidification-greatly-exaggerated.html,)
Lest my critics still accuse me of cherry-picking studies, let me refer them also to the results of Hendrikset al. (2010, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf
Science 86:157). Far from being a cherry-picked study, this is a massive meta-analysis. The authors observed that `warnings that
ocean acidification is a major threat to marine biodiversity are largely based on the analysis of predicted changes
in ocean chemical fields rather than empirical data. So they constructed a database of 372 studies in which the responses of 44
different marine species to ocean acidification induced by equilibrating seawater with CO2-enriched air had been actually measured. They
found that only a minority of studies demonstrated `significant responses to acidification and there was no
significant mean effect even in these studies. They concluded that the world's marine biota are `more resistant to
ocean acidification than suggested by pessimistic predictions identifying ocean acidification as a major threat to
marine biodiversity and that ocean acidification `may not be the widespread problem conjured into the 21st
centuryBiological processes can provide homeostasis against changes in pH in bulk waters of the range predicted during the 21st century.
This important paper alone contradicts Hoegh-Gudlbergs assertion that `the vast bulk of scientific evidence shows that calcifiers are being
heavily impacted already. In conclusion, I rest my case. My five critics have not only failed to contradict, but have explicitly confirmed the truth
of every single one of my factual statements. We differ only in how we interpret the facts. It is hardly surprising that my opinion is not shared
by five scientists whose research grants depend on funding agencies being persuaded that there will be a severe and rapid impact of carbon
dioxide emissions on coral reefs in coming decades. I merely report accurately that the latest empirical and theoretical
research suggests that the likely impact has been exaggerated.

Amazon-Specific
No Amazon impact
BBC 12http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16295830

In the decade between 1996 and 2005, 19,500 sq km (7,530 sq miles) of jungle was lost on average
every single year. The comparison is overused, but that really is an area about the size of
Wales or New Jersey each year. It reached a peak in 2004 when more than 27,000 sq km was lost. Then, in
2004 Brazil declared war - it said it would cut deforestation by 80% by 2020. Why are ecologists
setting fire to the Amazon? Seven years later and it has almost reached its goal. The latest figures,
released just weeks ago, show that 2011 had the lowest rates of deforestation since records
began three decades ago - just over 6,200 sq km was cut. That's 78% down on 2004, still a lot of trees - an area the
about the size of Devon, or Delaware - but a huge improvement.
No impacta) the Amazon is recovering and b) even if it was totally destroyed
theres no impact
NEW YORK POST 6-9-2005 (Posted at Cheat Seeking Missiles, date is date of post,
http://cheatseekingmissiles.blogspot.com/2005/06/stop-global-whining-2.html)
"One of the simple, but very important, facts is that the rainforests have only been around for
between 12,000 and 16,000 years. That sounds like a very long time but, in terms of the history of
the earth, it's hardly a pinprick. "Before then, there were hardly any rainforests. They are very
young. It is just a big mistake that people are making. "The simple point is that there are now still -
despite what humans have done - more rainforests today than there were 12,000 years ago." "This
lungs of the earth business is nonsense; the daftest of all theories," Stott adds. "If you want to put
forward something which, in a simple sense, shows you what's wrong with all the science they
espouse, it's that image of the lungs of the world. "In fact, because the trees fall down and decay,
rainforests actually take in slightly more oxygen than they give out. "The idea of them soaking up
carbon dioxide and giving out oxygen is a myth. It's only fast-growing young trees that actually take
up carbon dioxide," Stott says. "In terms of world systems, the rainforests are basically irrelevant.
World weather is governed by the oceans - that great system of ocean atmospherics. "Most things
that happen on land are mere blips to the system, basically insignificant," he says. Both scientists
say the argument that the cure for cancer could be hidden in a rainforest plant or animal - while
plausible - is also based on false science because the sea holds more mysteries of life than the
rainforests. And both say fears that man is destroying this raw source of medicine are unfounded
because the rainforests are remarkably healthy. "They are just about the healthiest forests in the
world. This stuff about them vanishing at an alarming rate is a con based on bad science," Moore
says.
Amazon does not regulate oxygentheir argument doesnt factor
decomposition which consumes all the oxygen rainforests create
NEW WORLD ENCYCLOPEDIA 2009 (Rainforest, date is last mod, March 27,
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Rainforest)
It is commonly believed, erroneously, that one of the key values of rainforests is that they provide
much of the oxygen for the planet. However, most rainforests do not in fact provide much net oxygen for
the rest of the world. Through factors such as the decomposition of dead plant matter, rainforests
consume as much oxygen as they produce, except in certain conditions (primarily swamp forests) where the dead plant
matter does not decay, but is preserved underground instead (ultimately to form new coal deposits over enough time).
Amazon is not key to oxygendecomposition makes it net neutral
LOMBORG 2001 (Bjorn, adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, director of the
Copenhagen Consensus Centre and a former director of the Environmental Assessment Institute in
Copenhagen, The Skeptical Environmentalist, p. 115)
There are two primary reasons for viewing the tropical forests as a vital resource. In the 1970s we
were told that rainforests were the lungs of the Earth. Even in July 2000, WWF argued for saving
the Brazilian Amazon since the Amazon region has been called the lungs of the world. But this is a
myth. True enough, plants produce oxygen by means of photosynthesis, but when they die and
decompose, precisely the same amount of oxygen is consumed. Therefore, forests in equilibrium
(where trees grow but old trees fall over, keeping the total biomass approximately constant)
neither produce nor consume oxygen in net terms. Even if all plants, on land as well as at sea, were
killed off and then decomposed, the process would consume less than 1 percent of the atmospheres
oxygen
Generic Hype
Environmental threats exaggerated
Gordon 95 (Richard, Professor of mineral economics at Pennsylvania State University,
Ecorealism Exposed, Regulation, 1995)

Easterbrook's argument is that although environmental problems deserve attention, the
environmental movement has exaggerated the threats and ignored evidence of improvement. His
discontent causes him to adopt and incessantly employ the pejoratively intended (and irritating)
shorthand "enviros" to describe the leading environmental organizations and their admirers. He
proposes-and overuses-an equally infelicitous alternative phrase, "ecorealism," that seems to mean
that most environmental initiatives can be justifited by more moderate arguments. Given the mass,
range, and defects of the book, any review of reasonable length must be selective. Easterbrook's
critique begins with an overview of environmentalism from a global perspective. He then turns to a
much longer (almost 500- page) survey of many specific environmental issues. The overview
section is a shorter, more devastating criticism, but it is also more speculative than the survey of
specific issues. In essence, the overview argument is that human impacts on the environment are
minor, easily correctable influences on a world affected by far more powerful forces. That is a more
penetrating criticism than typically appears in works expressing skepticism about
environmentalism. Easterbrook notes that mankind's effects on nature long predate
industrialization or the white colonization of America, but still have had only minor impacts. We are
then reminded of the vast, often highly destructive changes that occur naturally and the
recuperative power of natural systems.

Predictions are impossible and mathematically skewed
Jarvis 7 (Orrin H. Pilkey, Linda Pilkey-Jarvis, Useless arithmetic: why environmental scientists
can't predict the future, 2007)

Noted coastal geologist Orrin Pilkey and environmental scientist Linda Pilkey-Jarvis show that the
quantitative mathematical models policy makers and government administrators use to form
environmental policies are seriously flawed. Based on unrealistic and sometimes false
assumptions, these models often yield answers that support unwise policies. Writing for the
general, nonmathematician reader and using examples from throughout the environmental
sciences, Pilkey and Pilkey-Jarvis show how unquestioned faith in mathematical models can blind
us to the hard data and sound judgment of experienced scientific fieldwork. They begin with a
riveting account of the extinction of the North Atlantic cod on the Grand Banks of Canada. Next they
engage in a general discussion of the limitations of many models across a broad array of crucial
environmental subjects. The book offers fascinating case studies depicting how the seductiveness of
quantitative models has led to unmanageable nuclear waste disposal practices, poisoned mining
sites, unjustifiable faith in predicted sea level rise rates, bad predictions of future shoreline erosion
rates, overoptimistic cost estimates of artificial beaches, and a host of other thorny problems. The
authors demonstrate how many modelers have been reckless, employing fudge factors to assure
"correct" answers and caring little if their models actually worked. A timely and urgent book
written in an engaging style, Useless Arithmetic evaluates the assumptions behind models, the
nature of the field data, and the dialogue between modelers and their" customers." *Fudge Factors-
Fudge factors are invented variables whose purpose is to force a calculated result to give a better
match to what happens in the real world.