Report that climate change threatens birds seems like a publicity stunt (1 Viewer)

[MarkGelbart]

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en....1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..13.17.3172.Oj60GtLgtBM

The Audubon Society has supposedly released an alarmist report that climate change will be a threat to many bird species in North America.

However, I am trying to find the actual scientific study.

Instead, it seems as if this is just a publicity stunt to entice people to give money to the Audubon society.

All I can find on the web is information that resembles a press release. I can't find the actual study.

I heard the president of the Audubon Society talk about this on NPR this morning. He sounded like he did not know what he was talking about. He made several ridiculous claims that are absolutely not true.

1. He said climate is changing at an unprecedented rate. This is absolutely false. Ice Core climate records show that past fluctuations in climate have been much more drastic than those of today.

2. He claimed that 99% of raptors failed to produce young this year due to drought. I think he pulled that number from his tukus. Moreover, drought is weather, not climate.

3. He claimed that warming climate will lead to bird extinctions. Yet, during the Sangamonian Interglacial, the climate was much warmer than that of today and there were few, if any, bird extinctions.

I wish there were real scientists out there who would call BS on this publicity stunt.

 

[DMW]

So is your point that you don't accept that anthropogenic climate change is well-supported by empirical evidence; or that you do accept this, but don't believe it will cause bird extinctions?

 

[grobble]

Always look for an egenda with these type of claims.

There's usually a bit of truth but it's also usually outweighed by manipulated figures.

 

[chris butterworth]

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en....1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..13.17.3172.Oj60GtLgtBM

The Audubon Society has supposedly released an alarmist report that climate change will be a threat to many bird species in North America.

Nothing 'alarmist' about the fact that a change in climatic conditions will affect habitat, and therefore the species that are reliant on that habitat will also be affected.

I heard the president of the Audubon Society t alk about this on NPR this morning. He sounded like he did not know what he was talking about. He made several ridiculous claims that are absolutely not true.

"absolutely not true"? As the vast majority of studies indicate the global climate is changing at a rate that exceeds what would be considered 'normal' at this stage in the long term climatological cycle then to use "absolutely", instead of "possibly" indicates either you have a definitive, 100% correct answer to climate change, or you are as guilty of the very same 'ridiculousness' you claim the President of the Audubon Society is.

1. He said climate is changing at an unprecedented rate. This is absolutely false. Ice Core climate records show that past fluctuations in climate have been much more drastic than those of today.

Did those greater fluctuations in climate result in species becoming extinct? I would suspect the fossil record shows they did.

3. He claimed that warming climate will lead to bird extinctions. Yet, during the Sangamonian Interglacial, the climate was much warmer than that of today and there were few, if any, bird extinctions.

"few, if any, bird extinctions"? Either bird species did be come extinct, or they didn't, you can't have it both ways. If species did go extinct then the President of the Audubon Society is correct, there is a possibility that the present, recorded change in global climate could result in the extinction of species. If you are claiming no bird species became extinct through the effects of climatological change then you are also claiming we possess a full and comprehensive, worldwide fossil / sub-fossil record covering those periods.

I wish there were real scientists out there who would call BS on this publicity stunt.

There have been many "real" scientists ( by which I presume you mean those whose findings conform to your ideas ) "calling BS" on the debate - and each and every one has been shot down. Mainly for being far, far more 'selective' in the data sets used to generate their 'proof' than the few, well known cases of fraud in the pro camp.

 

[Andy Hurley]

Mark, are a christian scientist?
If yes, the Sangamonian Interglacial didn't happen as the Earth was created 6000 years ago.
If no, was the rate of change of water temperature in the Arctic higher, the same as, or lower than the current rate of change due to anthropogenic effects?

 

[fugl]

I heard the president of the Audu...ve but is completely legitimate fair comment.

 

[fugl]

A more detailed summary--

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/u...=Full&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article

 

[Stevie babe]

Slightly off topic but I would say that Earth's population growth, the need to feed it and supply them with essential living conditions is a far greater threat than climate change leading to bird extinctions through loss of habitat, destruction of ecosystems etc etc.

 

[Andy Hurley]

Slightly off topic but I would say that Earth's population growth, the need to feed it and supply them with essential living conditions is a far greater threat than climate change leading to bird extinctions through loss of habitat, destruction of ecosystems etc etc.

But for North America with stable or shrinking populations, it is a major concern.

 

[MarkGelbart]

So is your point that you don't accept that anthropogenic climate change is well-supported by empirical evidence; or that you do accept this, but don't believe it will cause bird extinctions?

Anthropogenic climate change is not well-supported by empirical evidence. Scientists have no way of determining the difference between natural and anthropogenic caused climate change, and any scientist who claims that they can is a liar.

To determine the difference would require the existence of a control earth where humans never evolved. Scientists could then compare the climate of the control earth with the earth we live upon. Instead, they rely on mathmatical models...in other words wild guesses.

BTW, scientists do agree that increases in earth's average global temperatures are due to both natural and anthropogenic change--that is the official consensus but the former influence is often overlooked by propagandists.

 

[Andy Hurley]

Anthropogenic climate change is not well-supported by empirical evidence. Scientists have no way of determining the difference between natural and anthropogenic caused climate change, and any scientist who claims that they can is a liar.

To determine the difference would require the existence of a control earth where humans never evolved. Scientists could then compare the climate of the control earth with the earth we live upon. Instead, they rely on mathmatical models...in other words wild guesses.

BTW, scientists do agree that increases in earth's average global temperatures are due to both natural and anthropogenic change--that is the official consensus but the former influence is often overlooked by propagandists.

Just as you are overlooking the latter, or playing it down for whatever reason.

Early computer modelling was far less accurate than what is presently being used. Also far more research is being done now and other well respected scientists are agreeing with what is being said. Also, climatic researchers are deliberately being misquoted by politicians and industry because the truth doesn't fit their policies, backers/lobbyists or profit margins.

 

[MarkGelbart]

Nothing 'alarmist' about the fact that a change in climatic conditions will affect habitat, and therefore the species that are reliant on that habitat will also be affected.



"absolutely not true"? As the vast majority of studies indicate the global climate is changing at a rate that exceeds what would be considered 'normal' at this stage in the long term climatological cycle then to use "absolutely", instead of "possibly" indicates either you have a definitive, 100% correct answer to climate change, or you are as guilty of the very same 'ridiculousness' you claim the President of the Audubon Society is.



Did those greater fluctuations in climate result in species becoming extinct? I would suspect the fossil record shows they did.



"few, if any, bird extinctions"? Either bird species did be come extinct, or they didn't, you can't have it both ways. If species did go extinct then the President of the Audubon Society is correct, there is a possibility that the present, recorded change in global climate could result in the extinction of species. If you are claiming no bird species became extinct through the effects of climatological change then you are also claiming we possess a full and comprehensive, worldwide fossil / sub-fossil record covering those periods.


There have been many "real" scientists ( by which I presume you mean those whose findings conform to your ideas ) "calling BS" on the debate - and each and every one has been shot down. Mainly for being far, far more 'selective' in the data sets used to generate their 'proof' than the few, well known cases of fraud in the pro camp.

The vast majority of studies do not indicate that the earth's global climate is changing at a rate exceeding what is considered normal. They don't even know what "normal" is. You obviously are ignorant of the Dansgaard-Oesgner events. These were sudden warming events that occurred during the Pleistocene when average annual temperatures increased by as much as 14 degrees F within a decade. The present day rate of warming is nowhere near this scale.

These were not associated with any major extinction events.

The Audubon Society report claims that something like 50% of bird species will become extinct in a few decades. That means hundreds of species of birds...not a few.

You do know the difference between a few and hundreds, do you?

If a few species became extinct in the past, that does not prove the Audubons society's report that hundreds will become extinct is correct and you are an obnoxious idiot for making this bogus false equivalency.

As far as I know, not a single scientist has called BS on the Audubon Society's report, so your claim that they have been shot down can't be true.

 

[DMW]

you are an obnoxious idiot for making this bogus point

Seriously?

 

[MarkGelbart]

I too heard the newscast and found nothing objectionable in it at all. With regard to one of your points not already dealt with by others, the 99% remark didn't refer to the country as a whole as you imply but specifically to the drought-stricken areas of Southern California. The drought there (and elsewhere in the West) is a severe one of several years standing and bringing it up in illustration of the potential effects of increasing aridity on local bird populations is not some sort of fast one as you appear to believe but is completely legitimate fair comment.

It proves he is ignorant of the difference between weather and climate.

A drought is weather, not climate.

 

[Andy Hurley]

The vast majority of studies do not indicate that the earth's global climate is changing at a rate exceeding what is considered normal. You obviously are ignorant of the Dansgaard-Oesgner events. These were sudden warming events that occurred during the Pleistocene when average annual temperatures increased by as much as 14 degrees F within a decade. The present day rate of warming is nowhere near this scale.

These were not associated with any major extinction events.

The Audubon Society report claims that something like 50% of bird species will become extinct in a few decades. That means hundreds of species of birds...not a few.

You do know the difference between a few and hundreds, do you?

If a few species became extinct in the past, that does not prove the Audubons society's report that hundreds will become extinct is correct and you are an obnoxious idiot for making this bogus point.

As far as I know, not a single scientist has called BS on the Audubon Society's report, so your claim that they have been shot down can't be true.

from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data3.html

"What caused Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events?

The cause of these glacial events is still under debate"

There are several theories including changes in salinity that caused these events.
By picking up something that is a best tenuous, is not bringing good argument to the debate.
You've found something that might or might not have anything to do with what the Audobon Chair is stating and until it is accepted by the scientific community as anything more than a series of events with to date no definite cause. Using it as a counterargument sounds like you are desperately clutching at straws in an attempt to win an unwinnable argument.

 

[MarkGelbart]

Mark, are a christian scientist?
If yes, the Sangamonian Interglacial didn't happen as the Earth was created 6000 years ago.
If no, was the rate of change of water temperature in the Arctic higher, the same as, or lower than the current rate of change due to anthropogenic effects?

I'm not a Christian, I am an agnostic.

That is a deliberately obnoxious and insulting question you asked..

During the Sangamonian Interglacial, the north polar ice cap completely melted due to increasing average annual temperatures. Scientists probably don't know the rate of change during this time period in the northern hemisphere because the Greenland Glacier melted and thus ice core records don't exist here.

There were no known arctic marine mammal extinctions during this time period.

 

[MarkGelbart]

Just as you are overlooking the latter, or playing it down for whatever reason.

Early computer modelling was far less accurate than what is presently being used. Also far more research is being done now and other well respected scientists are agreeing with what is being said. Also, climatic researchers are deliberately being misquoted by politicians and industry because the truth doesn't fit their policies, backers/lobbyists or profit margins.

Your response has nothing to do with my point.

It's still modeling...wild guesses.

 

[Andy Hurley]

It proves he is ignorant of the difference between weather and climate.

A drought is weather, not climate.

You are not properly informed

http://www.answers.com/Q/What_causes_drought

anyone can look up an answer online and cherrypick the bits that suit their arguments.
Read the last line of the link!

 

[Andy Hurley]

The vast majority of studies do not indicate that the earth's global climate is changing at a rate exceeding what is considered normal. They don't even know what "normal" is. You obviously are ignorant of the Dansgaard-Oesgner events. These were sudden warming events that occurred during the Pleistocene when average annual temperatures increased by as much as 14 degrees F within a decade. The present day rate of warming is nowhere near this scale.

These were not associated with any major extinction events.

The Audubon Society report claims that something like 50% of bird species will become extinct in a few decades. That means hundreds of species of birds...not a few.

You do know the difference between a few and hundreds, do you?

If a few species became extinct in the past, that does not prove the Audubons society's report that hundreds will become extinct is correct and you are an obnoxious idiot for making this bogus false equivalency.

As far as I know, not a single scientist has called BS on the Audubon Society's report, so your claim that they have been shot down can't be true.

I'm not a Christian, I am an agnostic.

That is a deliberately obnoxious and insulting question you asked..

During the Sangamonian Interglacial, the north polar ice cap completely melted due to increasing average annual temperatures. Scientists probably don't know the rate of change during this time period in the northern hemisphere because the Greenland Glacier melted and thus ice core records don't exist here.

There were no known arctic marine mammal extinctions during this time period.

Oh and your replies are not?

 

[Andy Hurley]

During the Sangamonian Interglacial, the north polar ice cap completely melted due to increasing average annual temperatures. Scientists probably don't know the rate of change during this time period in the northern hemisphere because the Greenland Glacier melted and thus ice core records don't exist here.

There were no known arctic marine mammal extinctions during this time period.

So therefore you can't use that argument

As for your last sentence, it doesn't mean they did not occur.