Seychelles snail, thought to be extinct, found alive

dog-ate-my-homeworkBy: Associated Press NAIROBI, Kenya: A snail once thought to have been among the first species to go extinct because of climate change has reappeared in the wild. 

The Aldabra banded snail, declared extinct seven years ago, was rediscovered on August 23 in the Indian Ocean island nation of Seychelles. The mollusk, which is endemic to the Aldabra coral atoll — a Unesco World Heritage Site — had not been seen on the islands since 1997, said the Seychelles Islands Foundation. 

Conservationists are celebrating the banded snail’s reemergence.

“Could we live without this little snail? Almost certainly,” said Stuart Pimm, a conservation ecology professor at Duke University. “But we simply do not know what species are going to do for us in an economic sense. Probably from the time that somebody baked the first loaf of bread, a housewife said, ‘I hate bread mold and I wish it would disappear forever.’ And of course we know the scientific name of bread mold is penicillin.”
Read the rest at: Economic Times

 

  • Yeah, see? Global warming made these snails go extinct and it’s your fault! And you are horrible people, you, you deniers! You deniers are responsible because you, you keep blocking progress and, and, you, you won’t let the vast majority of scientists…….!?
    Huh?, I’m sorry, what? The snails are back? Um….ummmmm…. What?

    • Randall Richnow

      Well said.

  • What, no comment from the Left? No excuses, rationalizations, equivocations, nothing?

    • Sorry, that’s not fair. I’m sure there is a reasonable explanation as to why a critter that global warming killed off, isn’t killed off. Perhaps it’s an extinction pause? Perhaps the poor snails got caught in an undertow and got pulled down to the depths of the ocean with all that heat, and it took them a few years to, you know, swim back? They are snails after all, and can’t be expected to move very fast. It just couldn’t be that whoever was responsible for making the call that they were indeed extinct is either an idiot, or a liar, could it? And that they may have jumped the gun a teeny tiny winey little bit saying global warming did it was perhaps a teeny tiny winey little bit OUTRAGEOUSLY WRONG, could it, possibly? Just a smidge?

    • Randall Richnow

      Silence is golden.

  • Fietser
    • Um… I guess you don’t get the significance of the “the snail thing”. Or you do, and are desperately trying to change the subject. Your links above are more of the same crap we’ve been getting for 20 years! Monsoons in India and Pakistan. From the story you posted.

      “Part of the reason for the increase in destructive flooding is due to poor flood control infrastructure, combined with a rising population and ineffective government policies.”

      I would venture to say that is probably the reason.

      But, I just want to point out that the story about the snail becoming extinct would have fit right in there with the stories you posted, and global warming was blamed for their demise as well. And that one turned out to be as wrong as wrong can be. So why should I believe anything said about global warming by anyone?

      • Fietser

        So basically what you’re saying is, because of the snail story all other stories are bogus as well.

        You’re logic never ceases to amaze me.

        • No what I’m saying is there is a snail, a snail that was believed to be extinct, and it was believed that extinction was caused by global warming. The snail is not extinct. It is extant, and doing fine. So obviously global warming did not cause the extinction of this particular mollusk. What is worse, is that the snail was said to be extinct in PEER-REVIEWED STUDIES!!!!! http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/5/581.full.pdf
          They were all wrong, wrong, wrong. So it is a definite possibility that those other stories are all wrong as well. But I’ve been an AGW denier going on 20 years so that’s what I thought anyway.

          • Fietser

            Yes, you did say that. I’ll quote:

            “But, I just want to point out that the story about the snail becoming extinct would have fit right in there with the stories you posted . . . So why should I believe anything said about global warming by anyone?”

            You’re even denying what you said in a previous post, sad.

            And plz stop the boyish attacks on the peer reviewed process. If there’s no data to suggest that these snails are not extinct, they made the right conclusion at the time.

          • Are you serious? You’re going to split hairs on that? It is true that I don’t believe in AGW. So by default I think any story blaming anything on AGW is bullsh*t. So, ok whatever. You asked me if that’s what I was saying, and if that’s what you want to take away from it, fine. I don’t really care. It was not the main thrust of my point. The point is the snail is not extinct and that AGW could not possibly have had anything to do with it!
            And as far as the peer review process goes I think it is an entirely valid reason to criticize it. You seem to think that peer reviewed papers are the ultimate final word on any subject. I’m just pointing out that it’s not.

            “If there’s no data to suggest that these snails are not extinct, they made the right conclusion at the time.”-Feister

            How did they make the right conclusion if the snail is not extinct? It was obviously not the right conclusion, and it was as wrong then as it is now! And if they didn’t even get the fact right that the snails are not extinct, how can they have possibly linked their demise to AGW? So they were either incompetent, or they were lying. There are no alternatives! Incompetence, or deceit. Well, I suppose the third option is a mix of the two.

          • Randall Richnow

            For someone to criticize your logic Neilio is based in pure prejudice. The arrogant restating with a spin by Fiester is what is amazing.

  • Fietser

    Explain to me what they did wrong in the peer review process at the time, you still haven’t made clear.

    And by now I hope you know that in science it’s impossible to be 100% certain. Science is 99% certain at best. When is a species extinct? When they haven’t spotted them in 10, 20, 30, 50 or a thousand years? Even bigfoot seems to be alive.

    • Make all the excuses you want. And what did they do wrong? What did they do wrong!?!? It!!! That’s what they did wrong. The whole thing! Wrong! They said this snail was extinct; (Biology) (of an animal or plant species) having no living representative; having died out. So they got that wrong and then they blame it on climate change. And that is the kicker. If they had not blamed it on climate change I wouldn’t be talking about it. It doesn’t matter that there is a certain amount of uncertainty in everything. The fact is they said this snail is extinct; (Biology) (of an animal or plant species) having no living representative; having died out, which turns out not to be true and they blamed it on climate change! What part of that do you not get? I don’t have to explain what they did wrong in the peer review process, just that it was wrong! Maybe, since you really want to know, you should read those papers, and look at their notes, and you can tell me what they did wrong in the peer review process. Maybe you can write a peer reviewed study on it, and then you can shove it up your…………….

      • Fietser

        You obviously can’t tell how they can improve the process, because you can’t tell what’s wrong with it. Do you know what the error margin is for such a study?

        You do realise they have one? Or let me guess, you really didn’t.

        • It seems that we have talked about margins of error before. Only that time you didn’t seem to care too much about it. Oh well. Typical reaction from a Leftist. If something is in your favor it’s irrefutable. If something is not you get hemming and hawing like you’re doing now. It’s;

          “Well, there’s a margin of error on things like this. We should take a look at the process and see what we can do to improve it. Oh, they had data that was right at the time, so it doesn’t mean that they were wrong, it just means their data said the snail was extinct so they had to rely on the data.”

          Those are some crappy excuses especially since things like this are used all of the time to browbeat skeptics. I’m sure, at the time, this was held up as incontrovertible evidence that humans are destroying the planet. I’m sure it was rolled up and used to whack us disobedient dogs that we are on the snout.

          “Bad dog! See what you’ve done to this poor snail? It’s dead and gone, and it’s all your fault because you won’t reduce your carbon footprint!”

          So save your pitiful excuses for someone who gives a crap, cause I don’t want to hear it. AGW is bullcrap, and the snail is fine!

          • Fietser

            You can’t say how they should improve things, because you honestly don’t know do you?

            And I never compare apples with pears. Each subject has different parameters. So go and confuse someone else.

      • Randall Richnow

        Exactly! The fact that they said it was extinct due to global warming was the incredibly unscientific process of it all. To assign a reason to something with certainty, when it is not, in order to support your position is the worst practice in science one can do.

    • What they did wrong is they made an assumption and then passed it off as fact. They supported this with poor science and because they blamed the whole fact on manmade global warming, they were able to convince very intelligent scientist that their assumption was correct even with their suspect facts and the assumption became a peer reviewed fact with no facts to support it except poor science and blaming it on man created global warming. If they had stated the exact same assumption with the exact same poor science and blamed it on global cooling it would never have been excepted and would never have earned the title of peer reviewed science. Can you see why we skeptics scoff at your peer review claims? If the people, who are supposed to be vetting the science and determining if the science passes muster, are blinded by their organism from the endorphins released when they hear the cause is man induced global warming, than peer review becomes nothing more than a 5th grade click of friends sitting around a lunch room table complaining about everyone who isn’t as great as they are. When discussing global warming and the effect that man has had on it, there is no such thing as peer review, not anymore.

      • Fietser

        Where does it say they passed it off as fact?

        • You are kidding, aren’t you?

          • Fietser

            Can’t answer the question?

          • When anyone “declares” something, one is inclined to believe they are making a statement of fact. When scientists make a declaration, they are saying this is a fact. You know this but want to keep asking dumb questions to redirect the focus. I will no longer respond to such attempts. If your going to act like your an uneducated idiot, I will be happy to let you remain as one.

          • Hey, I like what you say. You say it way better than I do. Leftists will never admit they’re wrong, they try to redirect the focus, as you say, away from any point that is counter to their view.

          • Fietser

            They just considered them to be extinct, nothing more. You’re making up the fact thing here on the spot.

            Aren’t you happy that the snails are not extinct?

          • Ok, considered to be extinct. So what? The extinction in and of itself is not the issue. The issue is that the extinction was blamed on global warming. Doy. What the focus here at globalclimatescam.com is that it was blamed on global warming, so if the snail is not extinct then global warming has taken a huge hit. It calls into question anything that is being blamed on man-made global warming including extinctions and changes in the climate. Of course, I have been questioning those things for 20 years now, but it’s nice to be the hammer instead of the nail every once in a while.
            As far as the snail goes? I can’t say one way or the other how I feel about them. Do they taste good?

      • Randall Richnow

        This is how brainwashing occurs – selling an ounce of truth with a pound of lies.

      • Randall Richnow

        So much science is disregarded by many in order to manipulate their findings with their personal preferences or assumptions which are often elevated to the status of fact, much like macroevolution’s and Darwinian Theorist’s circuitous arguments.

  • Rease

    “If there’s no data to suggest that these snails are not extinct, they made the right conclusion at the time.” – Fiester

    Absence of data shouldn’t be acceptable proof of a theory or suspicion. It is the presence of imperical data that proves theory and validates suspicion. They obviously jumped to the wrong conclusion.

    • Fietser

      Sure it can be, if it’s within the margins of error they supplied with it. I haven’t read anywhere the conclusion was 100%. Did you?

  • Fietser

    In fact, the article says very little about to what extend they concluded the species had gone extinct. What the article is about is that they’re happy it’s not yet extinct. And to be honest, so am I! But I guess I’m the only one here that feels that way.

    • No. Sorry. Nice little spin you’re trying to put on it there, but I’m not going to allow it. In 2007 they said this snail was extinct. They didn’t say might be, or seems to be, or probably, or could be, no they said IS gone, no more, no longer of this Earth, kaput!!! This article is trying to spin it in a positive light, downplaying the major screw up in 07′.
      To what extent they concluded the species had gone extinct?!?!?! There are no degrees to existence! A thing is or is not! Look up the word in a dictionary, extinct definitely means is not!!!

      • Fietser

        How do you know what they exactly said? Do you have the source of that statement? No, you’re just drawing conclusions and rambling on one line that isn’t even a quote.

    • Randall Richnow

      That’s great! Terrific! Just terrific. Meanwhile, let’s change the subject so the real problem of creating an economy that is going to suffer unimaginably from governmental controls on energy in America because we are so cocksure of global warming because we have succeeded brainwashing enough people with bad science and propaganda that it is probably now inevitable.

      • Fietser

        If the main motive for you being a climate denier is the economy. Then you really want to prevent global warming as it will wreck havoc on the economy.

        • Huh? How do you wreck havoc? Do you mean wreak havoc? I suppose you do. Uh, My main motive behind being a skeptic is not the economy. I don’t know where you get that from. It is because I don’t like being lied to, and manipulated.

  • Fietser

    Are we talking about one snail so that we don’t have to discuss other minute things like 314 North American species on the brink including the bald eagle?

    “Shrinking and shifting ranges could imperil nearly half of U.S. birds within this century.”

    http://climate.audubon.org/

    • No, we are talking about a certain species of snail that science said without a doubt was no longer here on the planet we all live on. An extinction that was said to be caused without a doubt by global warming.
      This extinction was accepted science for seven years.
      If and when any of those other species you mention are declared extinct, and the extinction is blamed on global warming, I won’t worry too much about them because they’ll be back in, oh, about seven years or so.

      • Fietser

        Science said without a doubt. Where do you read that stuff?

        • 95% +/- 0.05? That’s about as certain as certain can be. Just let this one go Fiester, you lose.

          • Fietser

            There’s no 95% in the article. So I guess you just sucked that out of your thumb.

          • http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/5/581.full.html#ref-list-1
            Recent shells of live snails were recorded on the main islands of Picard, Malabar and Grande Terre during 1907–1976; after that only two isolated fresh specimens have been found (1989 and 1997), both on Picard. In 1907, the species was noted as being particularly abundant in the ‘Coroupa’ area of Grande Terre (Fryer 1911). This locality was visited in 2000 and no evidence of any recent survival of the species was found. Probability of population survival is shown in table 1, indicating that there would be no significant probability of survival (p<0.05) by 2012.

              These calculations indicate that the species is probably already extinct as a 95% probability of extinction is attained when the critical value of the last sighting (Solon 1993) is exceeded;

            this is calculated in 2006 (critical value of 102 years from the first record). This analysis assumes that all surveys are comparable; however, the pre-1997 collections are incidental and probably indicate high levels of abundance of the species. Post-1997 surveys have been more systematic and in 2005 and 2006 comprised exhaustive surveys focused specifically on locating R. aldabrae. The absence of any recent shells or live specimens in those surveys further supports the view that this species is extinct.

  • Zman

    Wow…………the Left raises Quibbling to an art-form. But what does one expect from the same ideology that argued “it depends on what the definition of IS is.”

    Just remember the Lefty creeds: If facts get in the way of an agenda, make up new ones.

    and

    It you can’t make sense, make a difference.

    And my personal favorite of theirs to spread ignorance:

    If you see something, Tweet ANYTHING.

    • So what does “is” mean? Was that ever established? It is what it is?

    • Fietser

      What are you doing?

  • Fietser

    Neillio, thanks for highlighting that the snails were “probably already extinct”. I said that all along that it never was certain they had gone extinct. Nor did the scientists say that. We finally agree. Took you a long time and some extra research to come to that conclusion.

    So tell me again, what did the scientists do wrong?

    • What did they do wrong? Are you serious, are you really that obtuse? They said the snail was extinct, and it’s not. That’s about as wrong as wrong can be. And they blamed it on global warming. That is the issue. It’s not about the extinction. If you want to split hairs about that that’s your folly.

      • Fietser

        You say this with hindsight. But you haven’t explained what they did wrong at the time with the knowledge they had then. In any, you can’t explain how they should improve their methods. I presume that after all this talk you simply can’t.

        • Ok, I’ll explain what they did wrong. Are you ready? Do you really want to know? This is what they did wrong. THEIR JOB!!!!!

  • Fietser

    And another thing you’re getting wrong. They didn’t say they we’re certain the snail was extinct. They just considered it with the proof they had at hand. At some point you have to declare a specie extinct if it hasn’t been spotted for a period of time. But it’s never full-proof as even some people claim bigfoot is alive today.

    • Let it go. Nobody cares. What part of “they blamed it on global warming” do you not understand? Your point is idiotic! If they weren’t certain the snail was extinct, why even say it? Why would they publish it? And even if it were the case it puts blaming it on global warming on even shakier ground. Just let it go.

      • Fietser

        Again you can’t give me an answer. I’ve lost count how many time you’ve done this now.

    • My job is an engineer. My job as an engineer is to build a bridge over a 1000 foot high gorge. I design the bridge. I am an environmentalist and I design the bridge using nothing but bamboo. I assure everyone including the government agencies involved that I have doubled checked all design calculations and the bridge has a safety factor of 2. The bridge lasts a year and collapses killing many. I would not get the same pass as you are giving these professional scientist who declared unequivocally that thei damn thing is extinct. They used this statement to further their agenda and you are not upset!! If this is the degree of certainty or accuracy that you hold scientist; I can certainly understand how you have been duped concerning AGW. I and most learned people do not accept their excuse. They were trying to use the extinction as proof that man is causing the earth to warm. I take great exception to anyone using half truths and outright lies to further an agenda. If we were to be given all the facts I would venture to guess that the same folks were rewarded with grants and other goodies for their help in furthering the cause.

  • Fietser

    So on what parameters would you declare a specie extinct?

    And sorry to say, but you don’t sound that happy that the snail is alive if I might say so.

    • What parameters? How about this parameter? None of the species is alive anymore! And you keep forgetting that this not about the extinction of the snail. It is about the extinction of the snail being blamed on global warming. As far as caring about the snail, I never heard of it before this story came out. Why should I care about the snail? I am ambivalent to the plight of this particular snail. As far as I know a good percentage of species that have been written off as extinct could very well possibly be alive and well if the declaration of extinction for this snail is indicative of their accuracy in determining species existence. I’m more worried about the state of scientific credibility than I am about a snail that nobody missed when they said they were no more.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.