Well, Spring may have long since sprung but cuckoos can always be heard on the BBC. This morning we are serenaded by the news that a number of UK bird species are laying eggs significantly earlier than they were 40 years ago, and this can be put down to..what else? – climate change! I think the BBC will use any story that suggesrs AGW even if, as in this case, there is no causal connection between that which is observed and the alleged climate change. Since the climate is always changing, why does the BBC not provide a platform for those voices which challenge the AGW hysteria? I’ll tell you why – because the BBC seeks to cultivate and instil the environmentalist agenda at every turn and as this report demonstrates they will use every cheep trick in the book to do so.
BIRD BRAINS.
Bookmark the permalink.
Ah well, I suppose that as a scientist you can provide data to show that birds are laying eggs earlier because this is linked to the number of visitors to Biased BBC, or some equally wacky hypothesis of your own devising, right?
Actually, what I’d love to see is some comparisons with all those ornithologists of the 18th and 19th centuries, who recorded their sightings of birds and nests for posterity. We never get such information, yet those men were far more enthusiastic and informed naturalists than the absolute (generally urbanite) beginners at the RSPB. The contempt for history of the climate brigade is one reason you can take everything they and their mouth pieces say with a pinch of salt.
Absolute beginners … urbanites … yeeees … the RSPB runs a huge annual survey, with well-documented results.
NO,
OK – if we accept the climate change theory – and we accept the climate always changes – what is the story here, precisely? AGW hysteria, in an eggshell.
Birds are laying eggs earlier are they? Is this like the Harrabin story that “claimed” that Daffodils were flowering earlier at Kew gardens because of the mild winter, just a few days before we had snow storms across the Country?
There is NO evidence that CO2 put into the air is the main cause of climate change. Climate change is natural and EVEN if that is the case, what exactly is the harm that birds lay their eggs earlier? Is that going to make oil more expensive?
Missing the big picture lads.
You’ve hear ‘a bird in th hand is better than a bird in the bush’? So it’s all that evil Bush’s fault – innit.
Next up Eastenders…why Patsy can’t get a flat cos’ that evil Bush has pus the rent up – innit.
Beeboids- dontch luv’ em…no actually.
Anyone see the man o war story yesterday morning?
Reporter asks expert what the cause of all these jellyfish turning up on our shores was and he said “prevailing south west winds” (or what ever direction it was), which the reporter then quickly intergected “and climate change” 🙂
Mailman
The report on breeding times was indeed scandalously selective. As someone has already pointed out, we have excellent and detailed information on bird breeding times since the early days of recording. It would have been much more informative (and honest) to have included information from the 1930/40s and the 1890s, which are acknowledged by everyone to be the warmest periods. Of course, this doubtless will have shown mere fluctuations in the average dates of laying, which would not have suited the great AGW narrative (lie).
Sadly, with almost universal acceptance of the AGW lie among less informed naturalists, and the desire of the BBC to promulgate it, the true picture will not be broadcast.
“what exactly is the harm that birds lay their eggs earlier?”
Exactly the sort of statement one would expect from a scientific ignoramus, who has no clue about the complexity of the environment and the tendency of systems to become unstable if they are perturbed in certain ways.
There are always lots of potentially interesting stories relating to the numbers and habits of our natural bird population (round here – rural East Anglia – the last ten years has seen, by my observations, wild pigeon numbers up tremendously, and house sparrow numbers down tremendously – and I’ve never seen a convincing explanation for either of these phenomena), but the ludicrous bias of the BBC is shown by the fact that they only rush to report something when they can somehow link it to a “man-made” effect, generally, these days, “MMGW”.
Many years ago, I used to be a member of the RSPB, but I got fed up of their constant “doom and gloom” approach to almost every subject, and their constant demands for more money to fund their latest “must-have” fashionable scheme. The RSPB is a typical overgrown bureaucratic organization, like the BBC.
Nearly Oxfordian:
“what exactly is the harm that birds lay their eggs earlier?”
Exactly the sort of statement one would expect from a scientific ignoramus…
__________
Excuse me for pointing it out, but your response is exactly the sort of statement one would expect from a smug, half-educated dick-head. The fully educated man delights in sharing his knowledge; the half-educated uses his knowledge to abuse and ridicule others, and puff himself up.
the report is by Beeboid Propaganda Drone Dick Black
the Dick has a degree in English, so he isnt qualified to discuss the subject he reports on
keep up the bad work dick
Nearly Oxfordian. Where is the research that this is caused my man made Carobn Dioxide emissions?
Can you please link to the research papers that back this claim up?
You of all people should know that science is based on proving a theory.
There is no conclusive proof that human activity is having an effect on the planet.
Some scientists say that THEIR interpretation of the evidence says there is whilst pleny of others say there is not.
There was a report a while back that said the number of garden birds had declined (another climate change scare)
This of course ignored the fact that many houses how have gravel or concrete gardens (so there is less food for birds to thrive) many areas of grassland have been built on, more people own cats that hunt birds and so on.
So the point is, it’s very easy to make a claim, but not to easy to provide clear proof.
The real debate about the environment (which is being missed) is we should be looking to reduce pollution. People or companies that pollute more should be taxed more, those who pollute less, should be taxed less.
If a new Kingsnorth coal power station can be built that produces less pollution than the existing one then that is GOOD.
The left lost the green argument as soon as the fat corrupt lying politicians jumped on the bandwagon seeing ‘climate change’ as another source of high taxation.
how can the birdies be affected by climate change when theres been no global warming since the last millenium?
As farmers, I can tell you that this year our oil seed rape crop was only ready to cut some two week’s later than is usual – could this be due to climate change?
If I contact the Toady programme do you think they may do an item on it?
Oh well – I will save the time and energy necessary – an not bother
“Exactly the sort of statement one would expect from a scientific ignoramus, who has no clue about the complexity of the environment and the tendency of systems to become unstable if they are perturbed in certain ways.”
I can see you become unstable when perturbed in certain ways, especially when people have the audacity to question AGM. Besides climate change, no alternate explanations were given by the BBC.
What exactly is the harm then?
Why not answer his question rather than throwing around insults and implying knowledge of non-linear systems? I can easily surmise that your scientific career, if you ever had one, was unremarkable.
Oxford, anyone can talk the talk.
Since you have a scientific background, have YOU ever sat down and RUN any of these climate models?
There are several global climate models, half dozen from the USA, some from the UK Met Office, one from Australia, etc. Much is made of the fact that these models tend to “agree” with each other.
Right now, all models are predicting warmer temperatures than are actually happening. That means the models are wrong, or biased, or both, meaning that we should take the agreement of climate change models far less seriously than is often supposed.
Martin
Oxfordian, with his limited imagination, cannot conceive that anybody could possibly disagree with him, nor look at the same data and come to a different conclusion.
People that disagree with him are not just wrong, but “ignoramuses”.
From the Belfast telegraph:
“Our own observatory at Armagh is one of the oldest in the world and has been observing solar cycles for more than 200 years.
What this work has shown is that, over all of this time, short and intense cycles coincide with global warmth and long and weak cycles coincide with cooling.
Most recently, this pattern continued in the 1980s and 1990s when cycles 21 and 22 were short (less than 10 years) and intense and it was notably hot. But all this now looks set to change. …”
The article goes on to reveal the following gem of knowledge:
“However, temperatures have already fallen by about 0.5 degrees C over the past 12 months and, if this is only the start of it, it would be a serious concern”
Here’s the link:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/letters/is-there-a-cold-future-just-lying-in-wait-for-us-13938036.html
Presumably the astronomers at the observatory are the usual ‘scientific ignoramuses’? Or are they among those ‘in the pay of big oil’?
Either way, the growing army of solar astronomers who dispute James Hansen’s activist fairy tales are not getting a voice on the BBC.
Nearly Oxfordian,
You were bang out of order calling a poster “a scientific ignoramus” wthout even trying to refute his facts or even supply your own information.
The RSPB wants to access ‘AGW/MMCC research funds’ so it must apply the dogma to get the money!
A look at the records will show a cyclic variation in nesting times, there was never a set date for nesting birds and it has varied much more than 7 days over the last 2 centuries of historical records. The ‘other organisations’ were not named, and the phsycists were not named and no counter view was offered!
The AGW/MMCC alarmists are doing their cause no good whatsoever and the hard won public trust of essential groups like the RSPB and others is being destroyed in ‘peter and the wolf’ type scare mongering! The eco activists are doing immense and lasting damage in their bullying desperation to push their cause, which I might add has more to do with Marxist ideology than conservation.
If TOADY wanted to know the truth, the real truth mind, they should have invited someone like David Bellamy but because he didnt ‘toe the party line’ he was smeared,insulted,frozen out and sent to coventry! Doesnt that alone tell you something about the nasty and spiteful tactics of the AGW/MMCC lobby?
Science is supposed to be the highest and most noble pursuit a human could pursue but the political agitators are turning it into a grubby and dishonest political tool, look back a few decades N/O and remember the last time science was perverted to fit a political cause.
Our climate is very complicated and it’s known that many of the climate models used are not accurate (none of them predicted the drop in global temperatures) or give results that differ greatly from current experience.
It’s crazy to draw conclusions from data drawn over a short period of time (say 30 or 40 years).
We do know the planet does have cycles that go over periods of hundreds and thousands of years (even the orbit of the Earth changes as does the inclination of the planet) yet no one has ever really been able to confirm the degre to which they influence climate change and do all these climate change models allow for variations in the output of the Sun?
For example if we accept that the output from the Sun varies how can any model be considered reliable if there is still an argument as to HOW it effects or by how much?
It should be noted that the politicians (especially the scum in Nu Liebour) now talk about ‘dangerous climate change’ as opposed to ‘man made climate change’
I suspect this is a re-positioning so that if the next few years do show continued cooling they will be able to argue that ‘dangerous climate change’ includes the natural changes (such as an ice age) that our climate goes through.
What the left and politicians won’t address is the need to reduce the human population on the planet.
The greens don’t want that as young people tend to be more left meaning than older people (they’d lose a lot of their fan base) but every baby born today will generate a huge amount of pollution and a demand on resources through it’s life (and also remember any child born today stands a better than 50/50 chance of living to over 100).
WE need to agree population targets that are sustainable. The UK population is predicted to grow by anywhere between 10-20 million over the next 50 years.
Is that sustainable? Where are all the new houses going to be built? That fat twat Prescott thought that just like Russia millions of people could be shoved into tiny flats (although the fat wankers like Prescott will continue to own several large houses) like Sardines in a tin. Those flats now in many places stand empty.
All those extra millions will want cars, need electricity & gas, need schools, hospitals and so on.
That is unsustainable. Yet the politicians stick their heads in the sand and hum loudly, but spout on about wind turbines instead. These people are morons.
I thoroughly recommend Nigel Lawson’s book “A Cool Look at Global Warming”…Excellent stuff
Bishop Hill has written an excellent layman’s summary of recent goings-on at Climate Audit here.
It details the way in which a cabal of climatologists colluded to keep the Hockey Stick in the IPCC’s latest report even after McIntyre and McKitrick showed it to be a fraud.
Cassandra, I’m glad you mentioned David Bellamy. The BBC used to love him because of his “bashed-up” face and humorous way of talking (that sums up fairly accurately how superficial their views are on anything!); unfortunately for this love-in, Bellamy proved to have the true bent of a scientist: i.e, he liked examining the evidence for anything, and he pursued the truth above all else. This led him to make disparaging remarks about the EU and its whole project, which got him cast out on his ear by the BBC. Since then, he has also made disparaging remarks about the whole MMGW thing, which means he has moved to the tenth circle of Hell in the eyes of the Beeboids. This story tells you something about both Bellamy and the BBC, I think. What a great bloke Bellamy is!
I think you will find Johnny Ball is also a sceptic. He’s gone from the BBC as well.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2007/10/24/241007_johnny_ball_feature.shtml
Allow me!
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
DOS,
Yeah, David is one of my all time heroes and not just a tv face either, this guy is a pukka scientist/naturalist! The spiteful ecomentalists have been agitating(with some success)to have him stripped of his posts with nature groups.
It tells you much about the mans integrity and sense of honour that he has not buckled to the McCarthyist withhunt and character assassination and sticks to his principles and it tells you much about the BBC and its efforts to rid itself of any real scientists, relying instead on its fellow ideological travellers, the watermellons.
I hope he is proven correct and I hope very much that he will still around and able to fully enjoy the downfall of the dishonest bigots who did so much to hurt,smear and attack him!
This bird evidence fits in perfectly with the AGW fan’s theory. But then everything does. Unusually hot weather, unusually cold weather, less ice cover at the poles, more ice cover at the poles, fewer hurricanes than usual, more hurricanes than usual, anything you care to mention, it’s all because of AGW. As one of AGW’s biggest fans it’d be amazing if they didn’t report this birdy balderdash.
I’m not sure that global warming sceptics will find what they want in records from the 1930s. Birds probably lay earlier both because it’s warmer, and because there’s more food earlier. If plants start a bit earlier and so things that eat plants, like insects, start a bit earlier, then there’s more food for birds earlier. And although a warmer climate will accelerate spring, so will more CO2 whether it causes global warming or not – because CO2 is what growing plants eat. So you may find that even if the 1930s were hotter than now, lower CO2 concentrations would mean that spring came later than now.
Absolutely typical of the Beeb.
I also blogged on it earlier today (forgive the plug)…
I haven’t done precise scientific measurements, but I have a random hunch that the runner beans in the garden are 3mm shorter than they were at the same time every previous year that we have been in our house (4 years).
So, with our runner beans now growing at the slowest rate on record, this must be a sign of the effects of global warming. We are all going to die. Get out now while you can and think of the children.
i just wonder where the hell all the house sparrows have gone to.
People that disagree with him are not just wrong, but “ignoramuses”.
Anon | 15.08.08 – 11:43 am
indeed – thats a classic trait of the left and their friends the ecofascists.
scratch a green and you’ll find totalitarian red underneath.
Oh God – Dreary Oxfordian is back. I had hoped he’d vanished up his own bottom.
scratch a green and you’ll find totalitarian red underneath.
archduke | 15.08.08 – 7:52 pm | #
Green Shirts.
martin, i have never read so much twaddle.
The whole green movement is about population. The Al Gore Sustev crap, you think he really cares about your tv standby redlight or your car journeys.
He wont even take his own global ethical leaders pledge.
Its just a build up to population control.
Like you these people are scientific luddites, they have no conception of the power and speed of technology.
Western society is stable in population.
what we fcukin dont fcukin need in our lives is some soviet peoples planning board at the UNDP, where fat All Bore, fat Livingslime and a fat bogey picking Scotch Bastard sit around in their own muck, setting arbitrary stalinist ‘population limits’
and enforcing accordingly.
give the people of earth a break.
Some species of birds are laying eggs earlier then yesteryears. Wow! They must be reading Al Gore’s book, and watching BBC.
But what about the other species of birds – they dont seem to be following the AGW hypothesis. I suppose they are the sceptics – probably watched Ch 4 – the Global Warming Swindle.
From the BBC artcle: However, seabirds around the UK’s northern shores have not been coping with drastic declines in prey such as sandeels in recent years, a consequence of industrial fishing and climate change.
That is diplo-speak EU subservient way of describing the disastrous EU “Common Fisheries Policy”.