Class Dissection: Lord Christopher Monckton lies exposed.

As we have previously outlined, Lord Christopher Monckton has lied about his membership of Parliament, and his role in winning the Falklands War for Margaret Thatcher. Here, Professor John Abraham from the School of Engineering (University of St Thomas, Minnesota) does an excellent job of dissecting Lord Christopher Monckton’s deceit on climate change. What is pretty amazing is that not a single one of Monckton’s claims stand up to scrutiny. If you have 60 minutes, sit down and listen to this revealing talk.

Underwater lab the first to plot impact of climate change on reefs

JO CHANDLER, The Age

May 24, 2010

Scientists from the University of Queensland set up equipment in the first experiement of its type in the world.ON AN idyllic coral atoll just a two-hour boat ride from Queensland’s Gladstone Harbour, out past the endless line of tankers queued to load coal for export, a half-dozen scientists work frantically against the tide.

Their objective? To explore the consequences of rising atmospheric carbon – which evidence overwhelmingly attributes to the burning of coal and other fossil fuels – on the delicate chemistry of the reef and the creatures living there.

The project team, led by David Kline, a young scientist from the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute, is completing tests on a new underwater laboratory that will expose living corals on the Great Barrier Reef to the more acidic conditions forecast for oceans by the end of the century.

A Queensland University researcher tests the Barrier Reef laboratory that will expose corals to the more acidic conditions forcase for oceans by the end of the century.A Queensland University researcher tests the Barrier Reef laboratory that will expose corals to the more acidic conditions forcase for oceans by the end of the century.

The team has spent weeks working around the ebb and flow of tides, connecting four narrow, two-metre transparent chambers pegged over the reef shelf to the complex technology required to manage and monitor them. Small fish and currents move naturally through the porous structures, two of which will be constantly dosed with seawater flushed with carbon dioxide to lower the pH.

”This system here is the heart of the experiment,” Dr Kline explains to a film crew from the BBC natural history unit as he stands in the shallows, patting his hand on a floating platform loaded with pumps, cables and 50 instruments, all in constant conversation with ”the brains” – a computer program running in a laboratory a few metres away on shore.

International interest is high because this is the first in situinvestigation of its type. Findings from the Free Ocean Carbon Enrichment (FOCE) project will be keenly studied by scientists around the world.

Fathoming the effects of ocean acidification – the ”other” carbon problem, one that emerged in scientific literature only a decade ago – has become one of the most urgent issues on the science agenda. The potentially diabolical consequences were highlighted in major briefing papers presented last week by the United States National Research Council to the US Congress and by the European Science Foundation to national leaders. The papers appealed to governments to give the issue priority for investigation and action.

”The chemistry of the ocean is changing at an unprecedented rate and magnitude due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions,” the NRC has said. ”The rate of change exceeds any known to have occurred for at least the past hundreds of thousands of years.”

Ocean acidification occurs when carbon dioxide (CO2) dissolves in naturally alkaline seawater, forming weak carbonic acid. Studies show the world’s oceans have a huge appetite for carbon, and have insulated humanity from greenhouse warming by gulping in about one-third of the emissions pumped into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution.

But the process lowers the overall pH of seawater – by about 30 per cent over the past 200 years. It also soaks up carbonate ions, which are crucial to marine organisms making their calcium carbonate shells and skeletons.

The Heron Island experiment assumes a future with seawater twice as acidic as today, a more conservative take than published business-as-usual scenarios, which put the increase at 150 per cent by 2100. The question scientists are racing to answer is what a more acidic environment will mean for the tiny shelled zooplankton on which the marine food chain depends, and for the skeletons corals build into reefs.

The fear, explains the director of the Global Change Institute and head of the Australian Research Council-funded research team, Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, is that the change hits these creatures on two fronts – creating a more corrosive environment, and depleting stocks of building materials. ”If these organisms can’t compensate for that … reef growth will slow until the reef superstructure begins to crumble. If coral populations disappear you put at risk about a million or so species, and all of the beautiful benefits to humans such as fisheries, coastal protection, tourist industries and so on.”

Meanwhile, he says, reefs are struggling with the effects of rising temperatures, which can trigger bleaching – when the stressed coral hosts expel the microscopic algae on which they rely for survival. He likens simultaneous bleaching and acidification to ”having two rhinos run at you from different directions”. Maybe by some miracle you will escape, but the odds are not good.

”Ocean acidification is already occurring and will get worse,” said Professor Jelle Bijma, lead author of the European Science Foundation document, when it was presented last week. Combined with warming, ”we are in double trouble. The combination of the two may be the most critical environmental and economic challenge of the century”.

Dr Kline says some of his corals will be airbrushed to mimic bleaching, to see how damaged structures respond to the more acid environment. This will provide clues on whether reef atolls will continue to provide a platform for new communities to grow – ”or is the balance going to shift … are these massive reef structures going to end up dissolving?”

To date, exploration of these questions has been limited to laboratory aquaria. ”But seeing how they behave in the natural world is vital to gaining a reliable sense of where the future lies,” says Dr Kline. Ecosystems may turn out to be more resilient – or less – than the models show. ”Here in the world, the corals are surrounded by their natural community – you have natural water, natural light,” he explains, making final adjustments to the chambers.

They rest on layers of sands that have their own complex chemistry of carbonates and biota, which may help corals cope with a more acidic future.

”I’m hoping that these environments have some ability to buffer the impact of ocean acidification, and thereby part of the biodiversity of islands and coral reefs would be preserved,” says Dr Hoegh-Guldberg. ”But its 50:50. I actually think that what we are seeing in the laboratory is repeated in nature.”

The Queensland coalmines may be just over the horizon, but ”this is a big fat canary”, he says of the reef.

”Something as complex and broad a feature as coral reefs is now sickening and dying … This is really giving us a warning sign that maybe the whole basis of our dependence on this planet, the biological and ecological services, will change.”

Steve McIntyre at the Heartland Institute’s “conference”

Here’s a pretty interesting and honest spin by the BBC on the Heartland Institute4th International Conference on Climate Change” (read: a bunch of industry funded anti-science shills gathering to obfuscate climate science and hide the decline):

“At the world’s biggest gathering of climate change sceptics, organised by the right-wing Heartland Institute, vegetarians were an endangered species. Wine flowed and blood coursed during a rousing address from Heartland’s libertarian president Joseph Bast. Climate change is being used by governments to oppress the people, he believes. After years of opposing government rules on smoking and the environment, Mr Bast now aims to forge a global movement of climate sceptics to end the “myth” that humans are endangering the atmosphere.”

Skeptics, denialists, either way, it’s pretty depressing reading. The interesting bit comes at the end of the article, describing the ‘anti-climax’ that was Steve McIntyre,

“.. the fervour reached a peak when the reluctant hero, Steve McIntyre, shambled on to the stage.

There was a moment of anticipation as Mr McIntyre stood nervously before the podium.
“I’m not used to speaking in front of such big crowds,” he mumbled. And he winced a little when one emotional admirer blurted that he had travelled 10,000 miles from South Africa for the thrill of hearing him speak.

But then came a sudden and unexpected anti-climax. Mr McIntyre urged the audience to support the battle for open source data on climate change – but then he counselled them to stop clamouring for the blood of the e-mailers. McIntyre does not want them jailed, or even punished. He just wants them to say they are sorry.

The audience disappointment was tangible – like a houndpack denied the kill.

This was clearly not the sort of emollient message the sceptics expected from one of their heavy hitters. And the speech slipped further into climate pacifism when Mr McIntyre confessed that he did not share the libertarian tendencies of many in the ballroom.

Click here to read the full article. You can find the videos of MacIntyre on Youtube (first of three below). It’s a little bizarre really, but well worth watching (if you can make it past the first 2-3 minutes, it’s pretty awkward to sit through).
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aa_3Zca1lTI&hl=en_US&fs=1&&w=560&h=340]

Starck raving Reefgate?

Just when you thought that all the ‘gates’ had rusted off their hinges, another one has blown open!

Welcome to “Reef Gate” as created by diving enthusiast Walter A Starck who has taken issue with GBRMPA scientist, Lawrence McCook, and 20 other leading marine scientists.  Dr. McCook and his colleagues published a scientific review of the impact of marine protected areas within the Great Barrier Reef which shows “major, rapid benefits of no-take areas for targeted fish and sharks, in both reef and non-reef habitats, with potential benefits for fisheries as well as biodiversity conservation.”

As background, Dr Walter Starck has spent a good deal of time diving on the Great Barrier Reef and regularly contributes to the highly compromised Institute of Public Affairs claiming that the Great Barrier Reef is in good shape and that concerns of scientists and reef managers otherwise are sensationalised and overblown.  While he has not published in a peer-reviewed scientific paper for over 30 years, Dr. Starck is a regular contributor to popular magazines including one, the Golden Dolphin,  which he edits and funds himself.

Starck also does not believe in anthropogenic climate change (see under his signature under “Science and Technology Experts Well Qualified in Climate Science” on an open letter UN Secretary General His Excellency Ban Ki Moon BUT DOES BELIEVE in ‘crop circles’ which many enthusiasts of his ilk believe are caused by extraterrestrials.

Walter Starck began the exchange on April 16 by addressing an open letter to Prof Russell Reichelt, Chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.  In his letter, Starck complained to Prof Reichelt that McCook et al. 2010 had not declared serious conflicts of interest arising from their employment and funding by GBRMPA. He also suggested that McCook et al. paper was slim on evidence and deliberately missed key evidence that would otherwise have told a different story about marine protected areas. Curiously, he did not reveal these other papers and data sets.

Not giving Prof Reichelt much time to reply, Dr Starck wrote two weeks later to Hon Min Peter Garrett to complain about GBRMPA’s failure to deal with the allegations.   This prompted a careful response in the form of a GBRMPA press release and letter of reply from Prof Russell Reichelt.

In his letter, Prof Reichelt carefully addresses each of Dr. Stark’s claims and makes a number of important points which lead to quite different conclusions to those of Dr Starck:

For example, Prof Reichelt points out that the paper by McCook et al has been reviewed and accepted by a prestigious international scientific journal. As with any publication in a leading journal, the McCook et al. paper would have had to go through rigorous and independent review. As part of this process, the paper’s data sources, methodologies and conclusions would have been scrutinized by 2-4 independent and anonymous expert reviewers. Given that GBRMPA had no control over the journal’s quality assurance process (the journal being no less than the Proceedings of the US Academy of Sciences!), the idea that GBRMPA would have been able to influence the paper such that  it would erroneously support GBRMPA’s desired position without the burden of evidence is, simply, far-fetched.

The second major point is that, contrary to Starck’s claims, McCook et al. 2010 did list their sources of support for the study. Among those listed were GBRMPA and the Pew Foundation.   Given that all authors had also clearly indicated their address and association with their employers, it doesn’t look like much of a cover-up! At this point, the claim of ‘serious misconduct’ seems a bit of a stretch at best!

The third major point that Prof Reichelt makes is that McCook et al is actually a review paper not a research report and hence builds on the results, methodologies and conclusions of many other papers (all listed at the back of the paper). That is, the claim by Dr Starck that McCook et al precariously rests on the conclusions of a single figure or data set is at odds with the actual contents of the paper.

In a reply to Prof Reichelt’s letter, Walter Starck tries unsuccessfully to keep the issue alive.   Further unsubstantiated accusations of cherry-picking and of misconduct follow – as well as claims that there was he was being prevented from accessing the data.  Again this is curious given that Dr. Starck makes this claim without having ever asked anyone for access to the data. As far as I understand, no one has any problem with him accessing the data.

Perhaps the greatest irony here is that Dr. Starck is well known for making claims about how great the health of the Great Barrier Reef is without a single shred of scientifically published evidence.  It seems that he has one standard for reef science and another one for the basis of his own conclusions about the Reef and, dare I say it, crop circles.  Perhaps if Dr Starck wishes his concerns to be taken seriously, he should publish his ideas through the peer-reviewed scientific literature rather than proffer unsubstantiated opinions and allegations that do little to further the otherwise careful science that has and is being done to understand and preserve our Great Barrier Reef.

Lost Generation

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42E2fAWM6rA&w=425&h=344]
Here is a truely inspirational Palindrome: not only does this video read the opposite in reverse, the meaning is the exact opposite too (credit to Jonathan Reed):

I am part of a lost generation

and I refuse to believe that

I can change the world

I realize this may be a shock but

“Happiness comes from within.”

is a lie, and

“Money will make me happy.”

So in 30 years I will tell my children

they are not the most important thing in my life

My employer will know that

I have my priorities straight because

work

is more important than

family

I tell you this

Once upon a time

Families stayed together

but this will not be true in my era

This is a quick fix society

Experts tell me

30 years from now, I will be celebrating the 10th anniversary of my divorce

I do not concede that

I will live in a country of my own making

In the future

Environmental destruction will be the norm

No longer can it be said that

My peers and I care about this earth

It will be evident that

My generation is apathetic and lethargic

It is foolish to presume that

There is hope.

And who is this “Lord” Monckton you ask?

The Republican party of the United States of American, in just a few hours, will put forth a single witness to rebut the testimony of widely respected scientists on the science supporting anthropogenic climate change.  This is beyond bizare.  I only heard of him less than a year ago and now he is one of the biggest names in the media’s phony climate change “debate”.  He has said so many nutty things and has been refuted so thoroughly by so many people, it is really hard to know where to begin. So here is a small sampling of the lies of Lord (he really isn’t one) Monckton.

You can see some of our posts on his lies about ocean warming in the waters off Australia and on a range of other topics here.

Take a look at Tim Lambert’s coverage of Monckton here.

And by all means, watch these two riveting videos by Peter Sinclair (and note Peter has his own web site now where he releases and hosts his videos here):

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfA1LpiYk2o&w=640&h=385]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjhTrCgVb5U&w=640&h=385]

Peter also has a list of Monckton-revealing links with his videos, that I will borrow and share with full attribution him:

Debate: Monckton and Tim Lambert
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB5N8E…
http://media.smh.com.au/news-video/na…

Dr. Pinker’s explanation
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/uploa…

Snowball Earth animation created by Eurisko Studios
http://www.euriskostudios.co.uk/es/

National Academy of Science-
“Origin and Evolution of Earth: Chapter 3, A Habitable Planet”
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?recor…

Monckton’s artful graphs
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/…

Fabricated Quote
http://www.independent.co.uk/environm…

Detailed Account of Monckton’ s errors
http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckt…
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/…
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/…
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/…

Claims to be member of Parlaiment
http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod…
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/re…

Claims to have won the Falkland’s war, by
giving the Argentinians diarrhea
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment…

Cure for Aids/Nasa crashed its own satellite
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/…
http://www.facebook.com/notes/the-cli…

Politifact finds Monckton “not only be unsupported but preposterous” on
the Copenhagen treaty
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-met…

Open letter to Rockefeller and Snowe
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061…

US house to hold climate change hearing today, Christopher Monkton will appear as a witness for the defense (really)

Ed Markey (D-CT), chairman of the US House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming will be holding a hearing today (Thursday AM in the US) on the evidence supporting climate change.

The Foundation of Climate Science

IPCC Report Chairs, Member of Exculpatory Panel on Email Scandal Re-establish Climate Science’s Broad Knowledge, Urgency to Act

Even after months of personal attacks against climate scientists stemming from a manufactured scandal over stolen emails, the underlying science behind the need to stem the tide of heat-trapping emissions remains solid. To explain what we know about climate change, and why and how we know it, Chairman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming will host top-level American climate scientists at a congressional hearing this Thursday, May 6, 2010.

The scientists will address the claims of deniers head-on. Thursday’s panel features a member of the investigative panel convened by the University of East Anglia and led by Lord Ron Oxburgh to review the stolen emails from that school’s Climactic Research Unit. The “Oxburgh Inquiry” exonerated the scientists who were attacked following the emails, saying they “saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work.”

The hearing also includes three scientists involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, which have also been attacked by climate science deniers.

The Republican witness on the panel will be Lord Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.

WHAT: Select Committee hearing, “The Foundation of Climate Science”

WHEN: Thursday, May 6, 2010, 9:30 AM

WHERE: 2237 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC, and on the web at globalwarming.house.gov

WHO:
Dr. Lisa Graumlich, Director, School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, and member of the “Oxburgh Inquiry” panel
Dr. Chris Field, Director, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, and co-chair of “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” portion of new IPCC report due in 2014
Dr. James McCarthy, Professor of Biological Oceanography, Harvard University, past President and Chair of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, co-chair of “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” portion of IPCC report published in 2001
Dr. James Hurrell, Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research, contributor to IPCC reports
Lord Christopher Monckton, Chief Policy Adviser, Science and Public Policy Institute

And guess who is showing up as a witness for the denier defense?  Our old friend Christopher Walter Monckton. Read this nice piece on the hearing and Monkton by Brendan DeMelle on the Huff Post:

House Republicans have chosen Lord Christopher Monckton, a non-scientist with a penchant for outrageous remarks, as their sole witness at tomorrow’s hearing in front of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the Ranking Minority Member of the committee, chose Monckton as the Republican’s sole witness at the hearing.

Of all the people in the world the GOP could call to testify, they chose Christopher (not-really-a-Lord) Monckton, a non-scientist with a diploma in journalism studies and a knack for trampling Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies.

If I can stay awake, and if it is interesting, I’ll live blog the hearings in a few hours when they start.  In theory, the hearings will be broadcasted here

Jeremy Jackson: “How We Wrecked the Ocean”

Here’s a sobering presentation from the Jeremy Jackson (“Dr Doom”) titled “How We Wrecked the Ocean”. Like him or not, Jackson is a compelling speaker with a powerful message:

In this bracing talk, coral reef ecologist Jeremy Jackson lays out the shocking state of the ocean today: overfished, overheated, polluted, with indicators that things will get much worse. Astonishing photos and stats make the case.

Jeremy Jackson is the Ritter Professor of Oceanography and Director of the Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Painting pictures of changing marine environments, particularly coral reefs and the Isthmus of Panama, Jackson’s research captures the extreme environmental decline of the oceans that has accelerated in the past 200 years.

Jackson’s current work focuses on the future of the world’s oceans, given overfishing, habitat destruction and ocean warming, which have fundamentally changed marine ecosystems and led to “the rise of slime.” Although Jackson’s work describes grim circumstances, even garnering him the nickname Dr. Doom, he believes that successful management and conservation strategies can renew the ocean’s health.

http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf

16% of worlds mangrove species at elevated risk of extinction: No Mangrove – No Fish

Mangroves provide enormously important and economically valuable ecosystem services to coastal communities throughout the tropics. They provide at least US $1.6 billion each year in ecosystem services worldwide, but a startling statistic from a recent study is that eleven of the worlds 70 mangrove species (16%) are at elevated threat of extinction. The IUCN Mangrove Red List Assessment Team have recently published a peer reviewed assessment of the vulnerability to extinction risk to the worlds mangrove species. The teams assessment provides evidence that there are particular areas of geographical concern, such as the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of Central America, where as many as 40% of mangroves species present are threatened with extinction. In the Indo-Pacific region up to 14% of species are at risk. The article led by Beth Polidoro of the IUCN and published in the open access PLoS One finds that mangroves in the upper inter-tidal and estuarine environment are those species most at risk. This is principally because they are the first to be cleared from activities such as aquaculture and agriculture.

Not all areas show extinction risks, and noticeably only a small area of the Northern Territory in Australia shows any level of mangrove species extinction risk. These risks of extinction although important don’t however show the full problem, as the world is losing mangrove at an unprecedented rate. And this loss is not isolated to developing nations; mangroves are being routinely cleared for developments throughout Australia. This global loss should ring alarm bells. A well cited research article published in Nature in 2003 found that reefs in the Caribbean where mangrove had been removed contained 50% less fish biomass, and many studies have argued the value of mangrove in providing critical coastal protection.

A glimmer of hope comes from the passions of communities willing to get involved and support their own natural habitats. In the Burnett-Mary region of Queensland, communities are developing a ‘Mangrove-watch’ scheme to monitor their own mangroves and help protect the important ecosystem values of these habitats.

Biodiversity loss continues unabated despite international efforts

Note an extended version of this article was originally published on the Huffington Post here.  Also read about the study here on Futurity and here on the BBC.

Betting on biodiversity loss is a pretty sure thing.  The earth’s plant and animal species are disappearing at a sobering rate due to pressures including habitat loss, climate change, pollution and over-harvesting.  Despite a few success stories and steps in the right direction, we are falling far short of stemming these losses.

Biodiversity is the entire range of biological variety in the world, including the diversity of genotypes, species and ecosystems.  It can be measured on levels from DNA molecules all the way up to broad taxonomic categories such as families and phyla.  Monitoring the fate of any of these aspects of biodiversity at a global scale is a daunting task.  Thus, we know little about the rates and patterns of biodiversity loss or the effectiveness of global mitigation plans such as the 2002 Convention on Biological Diversity.

Dr. Stuart Butchart of the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre and BirdLife International tackled the problem by assembling an international team of conservation scientists (that I was part of) to calculate trends in global biodiversity.  The idea was to assemble several dozen indices that we had sound, long term data for including population trends for birds and other vertebrates and the loss of habitats such as forests, seagrass beds and coral reefs.

As we recently reported in Science magazine (Butchart et al 2010), our analysis indicates that biodiversity has continued to decline over the past four decades with no detectable abatement for most indices.  This is largely due to increased pressures resulting from human population growth, economic development and globalization but it also seems clear that our international response to the biodiversity crisis has been inadequate.

Aggregated indices of (A) the state of biodiversity based on 9 indicators of species’ population trends, habitat extent/condition and community composition; (B) pressures on biodiversity based on 5 indicators of Ecological Footprint, nitrogen deposition, numbers of alien species, over-exploitation, and climatic impacts; and (C) responses for biodiversity based on 6 indicators of protected area extent and biodiversity coverage, policy responses to invasive alien species, sustainable forest management and biodiversity-related aid. Values in 1970 set to 1. Shading shows 95% confidence intervals derived from 1,000 bootstraps. Significant positive/upward (○) and negative/downward (●) inflections are indicated.

“Although nations have put in place some significant policies to slow biodiversity declines, these have been woefully inadequate, and the gap between the pressures on biodiversity and the responses is getting ever wider” – lead author Dr Stuart Butchart.

“Since 1970, we have reduced animal populations by 30%, the area of mangroves and sea grasses by 20% and the coverage of living corals by 40%”, said the United Nations Environment Programme’s Chief Scientist Prof Joseph Alcamo. “These losses are clearly unsustainable”

“While many responses have been in the right direction, the relevant policies have been inadequately targeted, implemented and funded. Above all, biodiversity concerns must be integrated across all parts of government and business, and the economic value of biodiversity needs to be accounted for adequately in decision making. Only then will we be able to address the problem,” says Ahmed Djoghlaf, Executive Secretary to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Reference: Butchart, S. H. M., M. Walpole, B. Collen, A. van Strien, J. P. W. Scharlemann, R. E. A. Almond, J. E. M. Baillie, B. Bomhard, C. Brown, J. Bruno, K. E. Carpenter, G. M. Carr, J. Chanson, A. M. Chenery, J. Csirke, N. C. Davidson, F. Dentener, M. Foster, A. Galli, J. N. Galloway, P. Genovesi, R. D. Gregory, M. Hockings, V. Kapos, J.-F. Lamarque, F. Leverington, J. Loh, M. A. McGeoch, L. McRae, A. Minasyan, M. H. Morcillo, T. E. E. Oldfield, D. Pauly, S. Quader, C. Revenga, J. R. Sauer, B. Skolnik, D. Spear, D. Stanwell-Smith, S. N. Stuart, A. Symes, M. Tierney, T. D. Tyrrell, J.-C. Vie, and R. Watson. 2010. Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines. Science: 1187512

Indicator trends for (A) the state of biodiversity, (B) pressures upon it, (C) responses to address its loss, and (D) the benefits humans derive from it. Data scaled to 1 in 1970 (or for first year of data if >1970), modeled (if >13 data points; see Table 1) and plotted on a logarithmic ordinate axis. Shading shows 95% confidence intervals except where unavailable.