![]() Global warming causing birds to shift northEnvironmental | 206761 hits | Feb 10 2:30 pm | Posted by: Hyack Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 2 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Who voted on this?
|
If the following quote is true, then the article does not make any sense....
Why? Makes sense to me.
I will never surrender my Canadian sovereignty to the UN... Brusells will not be my new Ottawa...!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Why? Makes sense to me.
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.
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.
Al Gore seems to be the most popular...
The problem is there are too smart mouthed punks around here....