[Newsbot]

Title: Global warming causing birds to shift north
Category: Environmental
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2009-02-10 14:30:59
Canadian

[mtbr]

a 40 year study is proof of this?

[PluggyRug]

If the following quote is true, then the article does not make any sense....

$1:

Milder winters mean the birds don't need to expend as much energy shivering, and can get by eating less food in the day.

[sandorski]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

If the following quote is true, then the article does not make any sense....

$1:

Milder winters mean the birds don't need to expend as much energy shivering, and can get by eating less food in the day.

Why? Makes sense to me.

[Schnek]

Hittin the critics from all angles! now they're using Birds to prove global warming! haha

[stemmer]

Global warming is a myth being propagated by socialists and globalists to help push forward their goal of wealth redistribution and a single world government...

I will never surrender my Canadian sovereignty to the UN... Brusells will not be my new Ottawa...!!!

[sandorski]

Schnek Schnek:

Hittin the critics from all angles! now they're using Birds to prove global warming! haha

GW is already Proven. The effects of it are what this is about and not an attempt to prove anything.

[stemmer]

Then prove GW OR prove I'm a holocaust denier.... Go ahead punk, make my day....

[mtbr]

sandorski sandorski:

Schnek Schnek:

Hittin the critics from all angles! now they're using Birds to prove global warming! haha

GW is already Proven. The effects of it are what this is about and not an attempt to prove anything.

that it is....it warms then cools then warms again right now it's cooling again.

we shouldn't mess with mother nature.

[sandorski]

stemmer stemmer:

Then prove GW OR prove I'm a holocaust denier.... Go ahead punk, make my day....

already proven. read a science website, not a Nutter Blog.

[N_Fiddledog]

sandorski sandorski:

stemmer stemmer:

Then prove GW OR prove I'm a holocaust denier.... Go ahead punk, make my day....

already proven. read a science website, not a Nutter Blog.

I don't know, ya know. If you're attaching automatic credibility to a website with the word "science" in the title without checking out alternative information, I think you're kind of naive. It you're attaching automatic credibility to studies from hidden agenda organizations like the Audubon Society in that article, or the WWF, or Green Peace elsewhere you're triply naive.

BTW I've been noticing more than a few stories lately about arctic birds being noticed farther south than they've ever been before which is the exact opposite of what that quote/unquote study implies should happen.

Here's a story from a nutter blog you should check out...

There is an Eskimo word for Robin

Also GW may be pretty much accepted from say 1700 to 2000 at least, but AGW significant enough to be noticed has never been proven anywhere by anybody. Not on a website with "science" in the title, or anywhere else.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I don't know, ya know. If you're attaching automatic credibility to a website with the word "science" in the title without checking out alternative information, I think you're kind of naive. It you're attaching automatic credibility to studies from hidden agenda organizations like the Audubon Society in that article, or the WWF, or Green Peace elsewhere you're triply naive.

Hopefully the same would apply to sites like junkscience.com

[PluggyRug]

sandorski sandorski:

$1:

Milder winters mean the birds don't need to expend as much energy shivering, and can get by eating less food in the day.

Why? Makes sense to me.[/quote]


If they can do better in warmer climates, why move north.

Birds will move to find an area which provides ample food and safety to raise their young.

Many of their traditional breeding area's are now sub-divisions.

Like I said, the article does not provide the real underlying reason(s) why bird migration patterns shift and therefore is just another straw grasping exercise from the AGW crowd.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I don't know, ya know. If you're attaching automatic credibility to a website with the word "science" in the title without checking out alternative information, I think you're kind of naive. It you're attaching automatic credibility to studies from hidden agenda organizations like the Audubon Society in that article, or the WWF, or Green Peace elsewhere you're triply naive.

Hopefully the same would apply to sites like junkscience.com

Well, if you're just asking for my personal opinion, then sure, absolutely. You should always check out the info from all sides, then decide for yourself, or at least whenever possible. I even go to RealClimate sometimes.

[stemmer]

Then do your civic duty and purchase some carbon credits from the snake oil man of your choose...

Al Gore seems to be the most popular...

The problem is there are too smart mouthed punks around here....