# Change in Biodiversity Not in Danger

Citation: SONI-NETO, J. Change in biodiversity not in danger. Biodiversity Blog, Dec. 2021. Available at: <https://biodiversidade.github.io/>.

Free and independent research. Brasil, 2021.
Open Access Scientific Research (CC BY 4.0).

jamilbio20 [at] gmail [dot] com

## ABSTRACT

Since European colonisation begun, exotic species have caused problems and concerns on biodiversity loss are currently on the table. We review scientific literature to better understand the role biodiversity plays on global, regional and local scales and
whether changes in biodiversity composition affect ecosystem function. We also analyse various Red Lists and reports from world and Brazillian entities. Species of interest can recover if active predation is thwarted and conservation efforts undertaken.
We conclude that reports based on Red Lists are exaggerated and there is no threat of biodiversity loss at sight.
Keywords: biodiversity change, anthropic pressure, community ecology


---

## Introduction

Threats from environmentalist groups about the effects of climate change are not restricted to the supposed global warming but also include a pleiad of other misfortunes and extreme events that develop simultaneously such as sea level rise, ocean water
acidification and, in the tropical and temperate forests, a large loss of biodiversity with drastic extinction of animal and plant species in an uncontrolled manner, even menacing survival of the human species. In this chapter we propose to debate this
prediction under the light of science, detached from emotional tension and apocalyptic debate that is propelled by peers from scientific papers and books. Source and complete research of this present paper can be found at the website <https://
biodiversidade.github.io/>.

Lamarck, Darwin and Wallace are gradualists in their evolution theories. The geologist Niels Eldredge with his observations of fossils in 1972, noticed long and monotonous periods without morphological body modif

castAway <[email protected]> wrote:

# Change in Biodiversity Not in Danger
Citation: SONI-NETO, J. Change in biodiversity not in danger. Biodiversity Blog, Dec. 2021. Available at: <https://biodiversidade.github.io/>.
Free and independent research. Brasil, 2021.
Open Access Scientific Research (CC BY 4.0).
jamilbio20 [at] gmail [dot] com
## ABSTRACT

...

A self-published paper that has a self-contradiction
in the title (i.e. "change" and "not a danger").
promoted by an anonumous poster, Wow.

From more conventional sources:

Even though permanent global species loss is a more dramatic and tragic phenomenon than regional changes in species composition, even minor
changes from a healthy stable state can have dramatic influence on the
food web and the food chain insofar as reductions in only one species
can adversely affect the entire chain (coextinction), leading to an
overall reduction in biodiversity, possible alternative stable states
of an ecosystem notwithstanding.
-- wikipedia

We can quickly check to see whether there is any known
predator/prey relationship that may fall inder this papergraph.
It doesn't take an AI program to find Polar Bears vs Seals.

It's been well-known for 50 years to population of seals in
the Arctic region has declined precipitously. With our pals
the icebjorn depending on this food source we would therefore
expect this decline to "adversely affect the enture chain" as above.

The data from Canada and Norway seal catches since the 1950s
are as follows:

Year Norway Canada
(annual seal catch in 1000s)
1955 295 81
1960 216 121
1965 140 51
1970 188 40
1975 112 33
1980 60 37
1985 19 5
1990 15 25
1992 14 24
1993 12 10
1994 18 36
1995 15 31
1996 16 58
1997 10 43
1998 9 31
1999 6 6
2000 20 6
2001 n/a 11
2002 10 14
2003 12 9
2004 14 12
2005 21 11
2006 17 .8
2007 8 3
2008 1 .3


So we kinda suspect the article is of the Willie Soon
"deliverables" variety than actual science.
Another tip-off is that science generally talks about
what has been measured and what is possible.
Not what is impossible or supposedly can not exist.
That kinda stuff comes from dishonest people.


'Liars say "I am not a crook" rather than "I am honest" '
Liars use short sentences, the past tense and negative statements
Bella DePaula, professor of psychology at the University of Virginia,
has found, in a study of 3,000 people, that the following clues are
the most useful indicators of whether somebody is lying:
# Lack of specific detail - not volunteering names of people and places
# Short answers
# Using the past tense
# Using negative statements ("not a crook" rather than "honest")
-- http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/bank/idea.php?ideaId=1907



--
[Actual science -- not an anonymous self-publication:]

Assessing species vulnerability to climate change

Michela Pacifici, Wendy B. Foden, Piero Visconti, James E. M. Watson,
Stuart H.M. Butchart, Kit M. Kovacs, Brett R. Scheffers, David G. Hole,
Tara G. Martin, H. Resit Ak?akaya, Richard T. Corlett, Brian Huntley,
David Bickford, Jamie A. Carr, Ary A. Hoffmann, Guy F. Midgley, Paul Pearce-Kelly, Richard G. Pearson, Stephen E. Williams, Stephen G.
Willis, Bruce Young and Carlo Rondinini

Nature Climate change 5,215-224(2015). doi:10.1038/nclimate2448


Abstract:
The effects of climate change on biodiversity are increasingly well
documented, and many methods have been developed to assess species' vulnerability to climatic changes, both ongoing and projected in the
coming decades. To minimize global biodiversity losses,
conservationists need to identify those species that are likely to be
most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. In this Review, we
summarize different currencies used for assessing species' climate
change vulnerability. We describe three main approaches used to derive
these currencies (correlative, mechanistic and trait-based), and their associated data requirements, spatial and temporal scales of
application and modelling methods. We identify strengths and weaknesses
of the approaches and highlight the sources of uncertainty inherent in
each method that limit projection reliability. Finally, we provide
guidance for conservation practitioners in selecting the most
appropriate approach(es) for their planning needs and highlight
priority areas for further assessments.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

castAway <[email protected]> wrote:

Em 31/12/2022 23:32, R Kym Horsell escreveu:

castAway <[email protected]> wrote:

# Change in Biodiversity Not in Danger
Citation: SONI-NETO, J. Change in biodiversity not in danger. Biodiversity Blog, Dec. 2021. Available at: <https://biodiversidade.github.io/>.

Comments very weak. I will deal with your questions later

LOL. You are the guy too scared to put your name on anything
and posting some unpublished stuff that is contradicted by 6500
publications in science journals around the world every year since 2000.
(See Google scholar).

That is a real example of "very weak comments".

Did you know that was how many scientitific papers -- published in
journals, not on the web -- that research "declining biodiversity"?

This will probably be a surpise to you. I'm a world ranked data scientist
with an actual name: <kaggle.com/kymhorsell1>.

One dataset I worked on 10 y ago tracked the decline in seabird populations around Canada. This itself is a "loss of biodiversity" according to several measures.

The data is this:

#canada seabird population millions
#from
#Changes in Canadian seabird populations and
#ecology since 1970 in relation to changes in
#oceanography and food webs
#Anthony J. Gaston, et al
#Environ. Rev. 17: 267?286 (2009)
#doi:10.1139/A09-013
#Published by NRC Research Press
1950 340
1951 335
1952 331
1953 326
1954 322
1955 317
1956 313
1957 308
1958 304
1959 299
1960 295
1961 288
1962 281
1963 274
1964 267
1965 260
1966 253
1967 246
1968 239
1969 232
1970 225
1971 220
1972 215
1973 210
1974 205
1975 200
1976 195
1977 190
1978 185
1979 180
1980 175
1981 172
1982 170
1983 167
1984 165
1985 162
1986 160
1987 157
1988 155
1989 152
1990 150
1991 146
1992 142
1993 138
1994 134
1995 130
1996 126
1997 122
1998 118
1999 114
2000 110
2001 108
2002 107
2003 105
2004 104
2005 102
2006 101
2007 99
2008 98
2009 96
2010 95


10 years ago we could do little but see the data pointed to
a statistically significant trend that was likely to continue
into the future.

But nowadays we can use AI programs to try to figure out what
is the "cause" if the above numbers.

The AI has no problems to figure out the data is for the Arctic region
because many things there are changing in exactly the same way.

No real surprise the program figures out the top 10 things
it can determine from the 10s of 1000s of datasets it has to
play with are:

Dataset Lag Transf R2 Beta stderr
co2 1 loglog 0.91077523 -4.07198 0.279736
arc70 7 0.50969493 -699.343 159.294
arc10 0 0.48133090 -179.408 40.5172
arc100 1 0.42920707 -169.333 42.8601 sstband80 0 0.30213612 -641.046 211.957 minaravgArc 0 0.29682239 -27.9665 9.36477 aravgArcland 0 0.29500044 -33.898 11.4007
arc-10 0 0.29480603 -200.737 67.5443
arc170 0 loglog 0.29162221 -0.882855 0.299354
arc0 0 0.27826122 -120.966 42.3839


So it seems the decline in seabirds is 91% explained by the rise
in atm CO2. I.e. climate change.
For each 1 ppmv of atm CO2 pumped into the atm -- and these
days it increases 3ppmv each year -- about 4 million seabirds
around Canada disappear.

The number 2 and number 3 start to point to specific parts of
the Arctic that seem to explain about 1/2 the decline in Canada
seabirds -- places in the N of Russia and Greenland.
For each 1C NW Russia warms, according to the program,
about 700 million birds around Canda are likely to disappear.

The data shows that about 250 mn Canadian seabirds have already
disappeared. So we might estimate that points to the area
in N Ruaai having warmed around .37C between 1950 and 2010.
If you look it up, that is about the published number.

As I said, between 2000 and 2022 about 3.24 million
papers on biodiversity were published with 150,000 specificially
outlining biodiversity loss in some species in some part of the world.

--
'Liars say "I am not a crook" rather than "I am honest" '
Liars use short sentences, the past tense and negative statements
Bella DePaula, professor of psychology at the University of Virginia,
has found, in a study of 3,000 people, that the following clues are
the most useful indicators of whether somebody is lying:
# Lack of specific detail - not volunteering names of people and places
# Short answers
# Using the past tense
# Using negative statements ("not a crook" rather than "honest")
-- http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/bank/idea.php?ideaId=1907

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Em 31/12/2022 23:32, R Kym Horsell escreveu:

castAway <[email protected]> wrote:

# Change in Biodiversity Not in Danger
Citation: SONI-NETO, J. Change in biodiversity not in danger. Biodiversity Blog, Dec. 2021. Available at: <https://biodiversidade.github.io/>.

Comments very weak. I will deal with your questions later

.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

castAway <[email protected]> wrote:

Em 01/01/2023 09:42, R Kym Horsell escreveu:

castAway <[email protected]> wrote:

Em 31/12/2022 23:32, R Kym Horsell escreveu:

castAway <[email protected]> wrote:

# Change in Biodiversity Not in Danger
Citation: SONI-NETO, J. Change in biodiversity not in danger. Biodiversity Blog, Dec. 2021. Available at: <https://biodiversidade.github.io/>.

Comments very weak. I will deal with your questions later

A self-published paper that has a self-contradiction
in the title (i.e. "change" and "not a danger").
promoted by an anonumous poster, Wow.
LOL. You are the guy too scared to put your name on anything

Dear Mr Kym,
Thanks for trying to comment on my scientific research paper.
Did you read it past the title?

I am blind. I listen to the text with text-to-voice software.
I listened to the first 20 seconds and could not determine where it
was going so gave up. The title is rather opaque and I presumed it
was some industry-sponsored polemic that we see from time to time on
this group.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Em 01/01/2023 09:42, R Kym Horsell escreveu:

castAway <[email protected]> wrote:

Em 31/12/2022 23:32, R Kym Horsell escreveu:

castAway <[email protected]> wrote:

# Change in Biodiversity Not in Danger
Citation: SONI-NETO, J. Change in biodiversity not in danger. Biodiversity Blog, Dec. 2021. Available at: <https://biodiversidade.github.io/>.

Comments very weak. I will deal with your questions later

A self-published paper that has a self-contradiction
in the title (i.e. "change" and "not a danger").
promoted by an anonumous poster, Wow.
LOL. You are the guy too scared to put your name on anything

Dear Mr Kym,

Thanks for trying to comment on my scientific research paper.
Did you read it past the title? I fear the paper is not anonymous,
author name is in the second line. In the website link provided,
there is the curriculum from the author and also the source
of all the research hosted at GitHub under directory scr/ of the
same website... There, you can find all the data used, all the
paper versions and even the raw notes.

You seem to think that Change is Bad. So 'change' and 'not in danger'
are not self-contradiction. Are you the same as a baby you were born?
No you changed and it is OK you are not a baby anymore, so I don't
see your point.

Other than attacking the research title, I could not see any other
questions from you. You are just attacking me because I am just
a speckle of dust in the big beach that is the Universe and you seem
to think you are very important and famous.

A scientific research is already scientific before peer-review,
peer-reviewing does not make something a science. I do this
in my free time and cannot afford paying R$ 1000 bucks to
have this peer-reviewed. Peer-review is rather new in science
and if you get your friends to peer-review you research, does it
really makes the work any worthier? I mean, the true peer review
starts when the work becomes public and everyone has got access to it.

Good luck with your research. Obviously my research go against your
narrative, but that is a difference POV about nature. Mine is
happier.

Cheers,
JSN

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

R Kym Horsell <[email protected]> wrote:

castAway <[email protected]> wrote:

Em 01/01/2023 09:42, R Kym Horsell escreveu:

castAway <[email protected]> wrote:

Em 31/12/2022 23:32, R Kym Horsell escreveu:

castAway <[email protected]> wrote:

# Change in Biodiversity Not in Danger
Citation: SONI-NETO, J. Change in biodiversity not in danger. Biodiversity Blog, Dec. 2021. Available at: <https://biodiversidade.github.io/>.

Comments very weak. I will deal with your questions later

A self-published paper that has a self-contradiction
in the title (i.e. "change" and "not a danger").
promoted by an anonumous poster, Wow.
LOL. You are the guy too scared to put your name on anything

Dear Mr Kym,
Thanks for trying to comment on my scientific research paper.
Did you read it past the title?

I am blind. I listen to the text with text-to-voice software.
I listened to the first 20 seconds and could not determine where it
was going so gave up. The title is rather opaque and I presumed it
was some industry-sponsored polemic that we see from time to time on
this group.

As a data scientist I make and use AI software a lot.
I'm afraid one program has marked your abstract as a polemic.
While I agree about the Brazil red lists being unreliable
and the 2 or 3 I've seen differing in significant ways and
species being added then removed within a few years, the
key points the s/w pointed at where the several different
email addresses attached to the work, the starting paragraph
that started complaining about "environmentalists",
the list of topics that have nothing to do with biodiversity
being complained of seem a template it has seen in other
industry-sponsered material it has read in the past
(Brazilian beef industry), the the repeated unscientific
negative claims.

Personally I found it a stretch that on the basis of one or other
Red List then there is "nothing to worry about".

Several decades ago I began a small program to create some AI
programs to do "unmanned science". I wont go into the details.
But one of the projects I gave the first software was to see
whether any forested region on earth had flipped from a carbon
sequestering mode to a carbon emitting mode.

The mathematics of this is also beyond the scope of this discussion,
but basically the program treats area region as a process with
inputs and outputs -- the key input being heat as measured by local temperatures, and the key output being CO2. There are of course other
inputs and outputs but the sofrare uses a Kalman model that
can deal with partial inputs and outputs.

The program quickly found 2 regions in the world that had flipped
sometime between the 1970 and 1980s according to its analysis --
one was the Congo and the other was Brazil.

I posted this research to some people and was gratified a couple
years ago to see an article in Nature confirming that some big
group had found the Congo had become a net emitter of carbon.
I.e. the biodiversity of the plantlife was likely decreasing.

And in the past year I noticed that another group published
in Nature another article finding Amazonia had flipped to
net emitting in (they said) 2016.

These are the kind of evidences I like to follow. I hope anyone
of a supposedly scientific mindset would do the same.
But I find this is not always the case.

As I said -- according to Google Scholar there have been an avg ~6700 peer-revied papers published each year since 2000 on biodiversity decline. ABout 1/2 of them are about Brazil.

--
Amazonia as a carbon source linked to deforestation and climate ...
Nature, 14 July 2021
The Amazon forest contains about 123 +- 23 petagrams carbon (Pg C) of
above- and belowground biomass, which can be released rapidly and may thus ...

The Brazilian Amazon has been a net carbon emitter since 2016
The Economist, 21 May 2022
Over the past 20 years, the Brazilian Amazon has lost 350,000 square km and emitted 13% more CO2 than it absorbed. The trend shows little sign of
reversing soon.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Em 03/01/2023 08:28, R Kym Horsell escreveu:

R Kym Horsell <[email protected]> wrote:

castAway <[email protected]> wrote:

Em 01/01/2023 09:42, R Kym Horsell escreveu:

castAway <[email protected]> wrote:

Em 31/12/2022 23:32, R Kym Horsell escreveu:

castAway <[email protected]> wrote:

# Change in Biodiversity Not in Danger
Citation: SONI-NETO, J. Change in biodiversity not in danger. Biodiversity Blog, Dec. 2021. Available at: <https://biodiversidade.github.io/>.

The title is rather opaque [...]

Thanks for your very pertinent comments. That is the first
worthwhile critique that has come so far.

I'm afraid one program has marked your abstract as a polemic.

Perhaps that one programme which marked the abstract as polemic
cannot really understand it well. All these logarithms are
pre-written to follow a set of rules, for example, if we
write "change" and then "not in danger" in the same phrase,
perhaps the algorithm thinks that is a semantics contradiction.
However that must be the case the rules are just incomplete.

While I agree about the Brazil red lists being unreliable
and the 2 or 3 I've seen differing in significant ways and
species being added then removed within a few years

Indeed, that is a little worrying the methodologies used
in these lists change too frequently. That does not only
happen with the Brazilian lists, it should be noted.

the starting paragraph
that started complaining about "environmentalists",
the list of topics that have nothing to do with biodiversity
being complained of seem a template

That is very pleasing to know the first paragraph from the
intro differs in style from all others. You are right in most
of your observations. Let me explain briefly why that is:
indeed the book editor the research was originally
made to be published in asked whether he could write the first
paragraph from the introduction section of the research for his
book, and he did only mention of a lot of subjects that are not
directly linked to biodiversity subject.

In retrospective, I agree that paragraph fits the research
better only in the book context, which do talk about those
other subjects, but that paragraph may be unnecessary
in a stand-alone paper as published here on USENET.
Specially because I know many people would not take those
facts for granted because, for e.g. environmentalists
are generally believed to make more good than bad. I would
make the distinction here between the bad environmentalists
and the more correct ecologist people..

it has seen in other
industry-sponsered material it has read in the past
(Brazilian beef industry), the the repeated unscientific
negative claims.

I believe the negative facts you are referring here are
the ones described in the first paragraph from the
introduction. It should be noted that it is claimed that
environmentalists are the ones who make terrible forecasts,
and unscientific negative claims.

Personally I found it a stretch that on the basis of one or other
Red List then there is "nothing to worry about".

Certainly nobody is for species extinctions, however the
research merely says extinctions are almost out of control
of humans. But surely, humans can try and save human-interest
animals. That is a *human condition* we should eat other
animals and use them as resources. I have seen a research
some time ago saying humans have hunted the bigger preys
to the brink of extinction from the very start in human history
and our preys have gotten smaller over time.

I am blind. I listen to the text with text-to-voice software.
I listened to the first 20 seconds and could not determine where it
was going so gave up.

Hey, sorry to hear you are blind.. That is good to know you can
deal with most your software needs, if not all, through the aid
of technology. That really shows a lot of effort and courage
from yourself. Very much admirable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

castAway <[email protected]> wrote:

Em 03/01/2023 08:28, R Kym Horsell escreveu:

,,,

That is very pleasing to know the first paragraph from the
intro differs in style from all others. You are right in most
of your observations. Let me explain briefly why that is:
indeed the book editor the research was originally
made to be published in asked whether he could write the first
paragraph from the introduction section of the research for his
book, and he did only mention of a lot of subjects that are not
directly linked to biodiversity subject.

...

I'm still not taking this piece too seriously.
There are too many indicators it is "motivated research"
aka engineering rather than pure science.

But time is pressing us all. Whoever better get that book
published before the NY Times starts writing too many articles like:

Has the Amazon Reached Its `Tipping Point'?
The New York Times, 04 Jan 2023 10:08Z
Some Brazilian scientists fear that the Amazon may become a grassy
savanna -- with profound effects on the climate worldwide.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)