More Junk Science From the AAAS of A: Bird Apocalypse Edition

Guest Science! (as in “she blinded me with”) critique by David Middleton

One of the best things about my morning emails from the American Association for the Advancement of Science of America (Google “Dodgeball” if you don’t get the joke), is that there’s almost always at least one article deserving of ridicule…

Many state birds may flee their home states as planet warms
By Eva Frederick Oct. 10, 2019

State birds can be a source of tremendous local pride—but as the climate warms, at least eight state birds may no longer call their native state homeThe New York Times reports. In a new study, National Audubon Society scientists…


[I]f temperatures rise 3 °C above preindustrial levels—a plausible outcome, according to scientists…


Unfortunately, moving north might not be enough for many species—out of all types of bird studied, two-thirds face increasing risk of extinction as temperatures rise.

Science! As in, “she blinded me with”. (Google Thomas Dolby, if you don’t get the joke)

The New York Times reports…

State Birds

  1. None of the birds in question call any state “home.” It’s safe bet that none of those birds even know what a state is.
  2. It’s also a safe bet that climate change created the favorable habitats in those particular states, causing them to frequent those particular geographic locations.
  3. Some states have both state birds and state dinosaurs… It’s doubtful that state officials realize their error.

[I]f temperatures rise 3°C above preindustrial levels…

Figure 1. Not in the atmosphere.
Figure 2. Or even at airports.
Figure 3. Ms. Frederick, Data is laughing at you.

[T]wo-thirds face increasing risk of extinction as temperatures rise.

This ludicrous claim is based on… drum roll please… models.

Decline of the North American avifauna

Species extinctions have defined the global biodiversity crisis, but extinction begins with loss in abundance of individuals that can result in compositional and functional changes of ecosystems. Using multiple and independent monitoring networks, we report population losses across much of the North American avifauna over 48 years, including once-common species and from most biomes. Integration of range-wide population trajectories and size estimates indicates a net loss approaching 3 billion birds, or 29% of 1970 abundance. A continent-wide weather radar network also reveals a similarly steep decline in biomass passage of migrating birds over a recent 10-year period. This loss of bird abundance signals an urgent need to address threats to avert future avifaunal collapse and associated loss of ecosystem integrity, function, and services.

Rosenberg et al., 2019 Science! (as in “she blinded me with).

Robert Walker, a mathematician and computer programmer, thoroughly destroyed this paper in this Science 2.0 blog post…

No We Do Not Risk Birds Vanishing From The US Skies – And Have We Really Lost 3 Billion Birds Since 1970?
By Robert Walker | September 21st 2019

This is another study that has hit the news, this time scaring people with the idea that the whole of the US may lose all its birds rapidly in the near future.

Short summary – studies like this are hard to do and the 3 billion figure should be treated cautiously – there can be observer effects. If accurate, the reductions are mainly in the most common birds, and some of them nuisance species such as the starlings. There is no possibility of the most common birds in the US going extinct.

We have had several reports published recently that got lots of media attention that were low quality such as that insects study: New research does NOT mean a world without insects. Or the research may later turn out to be flawed, such as the case of the Costa Rica insects study which didn’t take account of the effect of a hurricane. See OOPS – Purto Rican insects in the forest canopy increase with warmth – not decline – and frogs like the warmth too. The journalists also often misunderstand or exaggerate, see: Great tits do NOT risk extinction from climate change – are of least concern and increasing – what did the paper really say?

This shows that all the media attention does not mean it is definitive or correct.

So what are we to make of this paper? Has it been reported correctly, and how much weight should we put on the conclusions?

It is a study of North American birds, based on a review of published bird counts going back to 1970, together with an interesting attempt to use radar data to count populations of nocturnal migrating birds over the last decade. Apart from the radar studies they did not do any direct data collection or data reduction themselves. These are amongst the best ways to count populations of birds we have but there are still many many known issues with bird counts.

Then, of the 3 billion reduction, 1.6 billion are from the ten most common species. 0.4 billion are from the nuisance invasive species, the house sparrow (0.33 billion) and European Starling (0.083 billion).. There are programs to reduce their numbers.

Others are birds that expanded over the US before the 1970s, as humans spread across the Americas cutting down forests and natural habitats. Some of the decline, if it is a real decline, may be due to species that had an artificial increase, and are now returning to earlier levels as habitats are restored.


Then, much of the attention has been on their extinction argument – which hardly really counts as an argument at all. It was just an argument by pathos based on the vivid image of the extinction of the passenger pigeon, not based on any actual risk of extinction of the most populous species of birds in the US.

The paper is here:
Decline of the North American avifauna

This is another article I’m writing to support people we help in the Facebook Doomsday Debunked group, that find us because they get scared, sometimes to the point of feeling suicidal about it, by such stories. Do share this with your friends if you find it useful, as they may be panicking too.


Science 2.0

This is from Mr. Walker’s article:

Figure 4. Birds are one of the least threatened lifeforms on Earth. Surviving that Chicxulub thingy should have been a clue.

This is the IUCN caption to the chart above:

The proportion of extant (i.e., excluding Extinct) species in The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2019-2 assessed in each category for the more comprehensively assessed (i.e., at least 80% of the group has been assessed) groups containing ≥150 species. Species are grouped into classes (with the exception of reef-forming corals, which includes species from classes Hydrozoa and Anthozoa), and are ordered according to the vertical red lines, which indicate the best estimate for proportion of extant species considered threatened (CR, EN, or VU). Best estimates of percentage threatened species (with lower and upper estimates) for each group are: cycads 63% (63-64%); amphibians 40% (32-53%); selected dicots (magnolias, birches, cacti, southern beeches and teas) 36% (30-46%); selected reptiles (marine turtles, seasnakes, chameleons, crocodiles and alligators) 34% (29-44%); conifers 34% (34-35%); reef-forming corals 33% (27-44%); sharks, rays & chimeras 30% (18-58%); selected crustaceans (lobsters, freshwater crabs, freshwater crayfishes and freshwater shrimps) 27% (17-56%); mammals 25% (21-36%); birds 14% (13.6-14.1%)selected gastropods (cone snails) 7.5% (6-20%); selected bony fishes (anchovies, angelfishes, billfishes, blennies, bonefishes, butterflyfishes, cornetfishes, groupers, parrotfishes, pufferfishes, sardines, sturgeons, surgeonfishes, tarpons, tunas, picarels, porgies, seahorses, seabreams, syngnathid fishes) 8% (6-22%); cephalopods (nautiluses, octopuses, squids) 1.5% (1-57%). The numbers to the right of each bar represent the total number of extant species assessed for each group. EW – Extinct in the Wild, CR – Critically Endangered, EN – Endangered, VU – Vulnerable, NT – Near Threatened, DD – Data Deficient, LC – Least Concern.


The only thing truly threatening birds are climate models and RCP8.5. Fortunately, there’s a cure for this.

Shooting down the climate models like clay pigeons, ducks on a pond, raptors near a wind farm… I got nuthin’ that doesn’t kill birds.

Putting Climate Change Claims to the Test
Date: 18/06/19

Dr John Christy
This is a full transcript of a talk given by Dr John Christy to the GWPF on Wednesday 8th May.

When I grew up in the world of science, science was understood as a method of finding information. You would make a claim or a hypothesis, and then test that claim against independent data. If it failed, you rejected your claim and you went back and started over again. What I’ve found today is that if someone makes a claim about the climate, and someone like me falsifies that claim, rather than rejecting it, that person tends to just yell louder that their claim is right. They don’t look at what the contrary information might say.

OK, so what are we talking about? We’re talking about how the climate responds to the emission of additional greenhouse gases caused by our combustion of fossil fuels.


So here’s the deal. We have a change in temperature from the deep atmosphere over 37.5 years, we know how much forcing there was upon the atmosphere, so we can relate these two with this little ratio, and multiply it by the ratio of the 2x CO2 forcing. So the transient climate response is to say, what will the temperature be like if you double CO2– if you increase at 1% per year, which is roughly what the whole greenhouse effect is, and which is achieved in about 70 years. Our result is that the transient climate response in the troposphere is 1.1 °C. Not a very alarming number at all for a doubling of CO2. When we performed the same calculation using the climate models, the number was 2.31°C. Clearly, and significantly different. The models’ response to the forcing – their ∆t here, was over 2 times greater than what has happened in the real world.


There is one model that’s not too bad, it’s the Russian model. You don’t go to the White House today and say, “the Russian model works best”. You don’t say that at all! But the fact is they have a very low sensitivity to their climate model. When you look at the Russian model integrated out to 2100, you don’t see anything to get worried about. When you look at 120 years out from 1980, we already have 1/3 of the period done – if you’re looking out to 2100. These models are already falsified, you can’t trust them out to 2100, no way in the world would a legitimate scientist do that. If an engineer built an aeroplane and said it could fly 600 miles and the thing ran out of fuel at 200 and crashed, he might say: “I was only off by a factor of three”. No, we don’t do that in engineering and real science! A factor of three is huge in the energy balance system. Yet that’s what we see in the climate models. 


I have three conclusions for my talk:

Theoretical climate modelling is deficient for describing past variations. Climate models fail for past variations, where we already know the answer. They’ve failed hypothesis tests and that means they’re highly questionable for giving us accurate information about how the relatively tiny forcing, and that’s that little guy right there, will affect the climate of the future.

The weather we really care about isn’t changing, and Mother Nature has many ways on her own to cause her climate to experience considerable variations in cycles. If you think about how many degrees of freedom are in the climate system, what a chaotic nonlinear, dynamical system can do with all those degrees of freedom, you will always have record highs, record lows, tremendous storms and so on. That’s the way that system is.

And lastly, carbon is the world’s dominant source of energy today, because it is affordable and directly leads to poverty eradication as well as the lengthening and quality enhancement of human life. Because of these massive benefits, usage is rising around the world, despite calls for its limitation. 

And with that I thank you very much for having me. 


Dr. Christy’s presentation is well-worth reading in its entirety. Hat tip to Neville for citing it in this comment.

This is from Dr. Christy’s presentation:

Figure 5. Climate sensitivity = Yawn.

Christy and McNider’s TCR is inline with almost every other recent estimate based on modern instrumental observations and fits right in with the past 540 million years.

Figure 6. Phanerozoic CO2 vs temperature. Unlabeled x-axis is in millions of years before present. (The DIY Climate Sensitivity Toolkit)

Also from

Figure 7. “There is one model that’s not too bad, it’s the Russian model.” 

The “Russian model” doesn’t even melt Greenland under RCP8.5…

Figure 8. Greenland INM-CM4 model, RCP8.5. Greenland still frozen in 2100 AD, barely warmer than the coldest part of the Holocene, the Little Ice Age. (U.S. Climate Resilience Tool Kit: Greenland Stays Frozen in 2100… Even Under RCP8.5)

What’s that? You don’t like the satellite data?

Apart from the 2016 monster El Niño, HadCRUT4 is closer to Dr. Christy’s “actual experiment” than it is the “model experiment.”

Figure 9. HadCRUT4 = Yawn.

The least bastardized surface temperature data set is tracking RCP4.5 (figure 2). UAH v6.0 (figure 1) is tracking the high end of RCP2.6.

Bird Apocalypse Cancelled

RCP2.6 and RCP4.5 are strong mitigation scenarios, in which governments do really stupid things to “save the planet“.

Figure 10. IPCC AR-5 “future changes” under various scenarios.

Our government (USA) has managed to avoid implementing most of the really stupid things called for by RCP2.6 and RCP4.5, while the temperaures are acting like we did…

Image result for donald trump you're welcome

Something cool!

I believe Dr. Christy featured a graph from one of my WUWT posts in his presentation.

Figure 11. Slide 35 from Dr. Christy’s presentation.

The graph is drawn from the 2018 BP Statistical Review of World Energy. I prepared this graph for this September 2018 WUWT post. Since I posted it here, the exact image has appeared quite a few places on the Internet. So, it might not have been directly copied from the WUWT post.

Here’s the 2018 WUWT image:

Figure 12. Can you see solar power on the graph? (Highlights From the 2018 BP Statistical Review of World Energy)

I think he should have used this image instead:

Figure 13. Fossil fuels accounted for 85% of global primary energy consumption in 2017. Million tonnes oil equivalent (MTOE) (Highlights From the 2018 BP Statistical Review of World Energy)

While it would have been really cool if Dr. Christy had credited WUWT… It’s still very cool that one of the top skeptical climate scientists in the world might just have used WUWT as a reference for his presentation.

112 thoughts on “More Junk Science From the AAAS of A: Bird Apocalypse Edition

  1. I wish we could get together and sue the u.n. and ipcc for mass lying!!!! I just watched a bbc program on the California fires of 2018, they blamed pg&e through the whole program, stating poor management etc etc.. Then at the end they dropped that climate change can drop a wire carrying pole which can cause fires, and as the earth warms, mid century the fires will be even worse 😐 I am absolutely sick and tired of these lies! How did the earths mass forests survive when it got hot hundreds of years ago? How has the worlds rainforests survived? Has the earth never got hotter then it is now? Were the summer months always the same for billions of year?

    • CO2 is an amazing molecule according to climate crybabies. But only if you want it to do something “bad”. Never in their eyes can it ever do good.

      • When I was younger I went out on a date with a CO2 molecule.
        The evening went well, she was a rare specimen, not volatile, interesting in many ways but then she started getting too big for her boots. making outrageous claims about how she could do this, how she could do that.
        I started to get fed up, specially when she started boasting about her modelling career and how a bit of massaging could hide her declining fortunes. Saw her flirting with the professional greeter but before I could call her on it….she ducked out and left me with the bill

    • This weekend I was watching a documentary about the evolution of the solar system.
      I gave up when they tried to claim that there is a risk of Earth turning into Venus if we don’t get CO2 emissions under control.

      I hope the guys making these doctored-mentaries live long enough to be embarrassed by their willful stupidity.

    • Because as fire officials acknowledged, Californian fire risk has increased because of climate change.

      This is plain fact and if you deny it, it will likely lead to loss of life.

      You cannot blame fires in California only on forest management and/or electricity company.

      If you look at Sweden where forest management does involve yearly brush cutting, you can clearly see severe fires have increased, for example

      • Whenever a politician says something that griff likes, it instantly becomes gospel.

        Is there a drought, it’s caused by CO2. Doesn’t matter if the area has been known for droughts going back tens of thousands of years, the current one is caused by CO2 because some of the models say that CO2 will cause more droughts.

        By the way, just to throw griff’s own hypocrisy back at him.
        None of those “fire officials” have published papers in major science journals, therefore nothing they say should be listened to.

      • griff, as long as you live in denial of basic science you can believe just about anything.

        The claimed future warming is mainly due to increases in water vapor. Do you know what that means? Do you have any idea how that relates to wildfires? No?

  2. I like the “Some states have both state birds and state dinosaurs”. Don’t all states that have a state bird also have a state dinosaur as birds are the direct descendants of dinosaurs?

    p.s. this also answers the question “which came first the chicken or the egg?”

  3. “State birds can be a source of tremendous local pride—but as the climate warms, at least eight state birds may no longer call their native state home,”

    Still waiting for the temperature to rise any meaningful amount. As a matter of fact, this summer was noticeably cooler this year. I won’t mind if this winter is warmer, but I don’t think it will be.

    • “Still waiting for the temperature to rise any meaningful amount.”

      Yeah, the alarmists keep talking about climbing temperatures as if that is what we are actually experiencing, when the fact is the Earth has been cooling since 2016, according to UAH.

      It may be a while before the Earth revisits the highs of 2016/1998/1934. Hansen said 1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1998, and that makes 1934, 0.4C warmer than 2016 (going by UAH). Our climate hits a high point on the temperature scale periodically, and then the temperatures cool off for a few decades. Alarmists think this pattern has changed and that temperatures will continue climbing because of added CO2, yet the temperatures are not climbing, they are falling. So how long will it be before global temperatures reach the level of the highpoint of 2016 again? It might be decades, going by history.

    • So now they care about birds.

      300,000 birds killed every year by windmills: not important.

      Theoretical climate model projections of birds dying: important.

      Reality: unimportant. Theory, now that’s what counts!

  4. OK – if great tits are increasing, it’s probably due to an increase in good the number of good surgeons, not the weather.
    Somebody had to say it.

    • Also brown boobies now sighted more than ever even in the UK where they are described as “tantalizing”.

      • During the Ipswichian interglacial Cory’s Shearwater and Spotless Starling apparently bred in Britain.

        And even the moderate warmth of the early-mid Holocene was enough for bustards, storks, pelicans and gadfly petrels.

    • I’d always heard the in OZ great whites are known as ‘white pointers’ as are also the maidens on the topless beaches of Bondi.

      • What makes you think Australians would be so unrefined and indelicate as to say that sort of thing? We are all sensitive souls, with the hearts of poets.

    • An ABC documentary many years ago, pointed out the enormous effect of poverty in the beachside communities of Brisbane. Some girls were only able to afford the bottom half of a bikini, not the top half.

      Of course, these days it would all be blamed on global warming.

  5. A person we know was presenting a public show and tell regarding small stream restoration.
    At the local Audubon meeting.
    The presentation was interesting.
    Unfortunately we had to listen to a person expound on the “Bird Apocalypse” report for 25 minutes.
    These folks would not know a RCP from the AKC.

  6. This is truly an important issue. The real question is, how many State Birds have already fled their home states because of global warming? If Global Warming really began around 1950, then there has been 70 years for State Birds to have departed their states.

    What evidence is there for any state birds having fled their home states? Can the climate alarmists name any?

    If in fact none of the State Birds have fled their home states over the past 70 years, then isn’t this significant evidence that Global Warming has not been a significant influence on nature over the past 70 years?

    • It may not be actually getting warmer. WUWT It appears that US high temperatures aren’t increasing. Night time temperatures are increasing as are winter temperatures.

      So, it’s getting warmer on average because it isn’t getting as cool. So, species won’t be stressed by getting too warm.

      • The more I look at the temperature data (I get mine from the NOAA servers), the more I wonder how any of it passes muster for the use to which it is put.

        FOR EXAMPLE! I have the GHCN Daily dataset and pick a random UK station — which also happens to be a GSN station, so maybe a little less random than it might be. It’s at the Anglesey Airport and has data back to 1930.

        I picked a month at random — Aug. 2010 — and crunched the numbers: 31 TMAX and 31 TMIN values, averaged to get the arithmetic mean, and the uncertainty in that mean comes out to +/-0.42C. — a pretty large uncertainty.

        If we want to get the 1951-1980 baseline for Aug, 1860 daily TMAX and TMIN measurements are used, and the uncertainty in the mean is +/-0.09C.

        Next is the part I’m uncertain of: the 30-year baseline is subtracted from the monthly value to get the monthly anomaly, and so the uncertainties are added in quadrature to get the final values: sqrt(0.09^2+ 0.42^2) = +/-0.43C.

        That’s one month from one year of a 1000-station recording system. How can these numbers be saved!?

        • The calculation of uncertainty is based on an assumption about how the data is distributed. link That’s pretty dodgy.

          You have to ask what you’re trying to find and why you’re trying to find it. If you’re trying to find something that actually has no physical reality, your calculated values will, at best, be meaningless. At worst they will be highly misleading.

  7. 2-3°C temperature rise above preindustrial levels …
    More blather, hype, and alarmism!
    It’s not like the Earth hasn’t been there before and yep, some creatures went extinct while others flourished.
    Funny how the most diverse species variations are, for some reason, collected themselves around the HOT and HUMID areas of the world — I wonder why that is. Apparently some guy called Darwin thought he understood it, however he’s out of date with his old fashioned ideas as he came after the Great Leaders Marx, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceaușescu, etc who know more. All these Great Leaders understood that all dumb plants, birds, animals, and fish species stay put where the Great Leader say they are to live, and none will survive migration over assigned boarders. By the order of the Great Leader no more uncontrolled migration by non-humans.

    • Bingo Alan. You’d think all this hysterical speculation about aviary decline was intended to find an alternate cause to distract from the windmill lethality upon birds that encounter them. Be on the lookout too for a study about why bats are also heading away from their home turf to likewise account for their declining numbers. And meanwhile all those carcasses on the ground at the foot of the swirling blades can be spirited away with nobody the wiser.

      • The hysterical speculation about aviary decline is designed to induce little old ladies to write out fat checks to birdy NGO’s. Full Stop.

        No impending extinction events, no guilt, checkbook stays closed. See how that works?

  8. The previous (Eemian/Sangamonian) interglacial was considerably warmer than the present one. Not a single bird extinction is known from this time interval.

    There was a number of continental bird extinction at the end of the Pleistocene, but they were almost all either large scavengers or other “big game followers” and probably caused by the extinction of the megafauna (which was almost certainly due to overhunting). The few exceptions were large, flightless birds which were also almost certainly hunted to extinction.

    Remember that almost every existing animal or plant species have survived several to many glacial cycles which included intervals that were both very much colder and drier and moderately warmer and wetter than at present (and “moderate” in this context means a lot more than the 0.5-1 degrees that is supposed to cause universal catastrophe).

    Once again, note that during the last interglacial 125 000 years ago (Eemian/Sangamonian) there were Hippopotami in Yorkshire, Water Buffaloes on the Rhine, Monkeys in Bavaria, Lions in Alaska, Capybaras in Florida, Jaguars in Indiana and Tapirs in Pennsylvania, and nothing terrible happened.

  9. When will the criminal abuse of models finally be swamped by observations and realities about our current climate optimum?

    Models are just equations to represent a speculative theory………..projecting into the distant future.

    We know with some confidence what happened in the past(when this type of climate was called an optimum-before climate science was hijacked):

    We know with absolute confidence from accurate measurements that the earth is greening up(strange how that can being twisted into a dying planet):

    We know with absolute certainty that the same sources have been alarming and warning us about this fake climate crisis for over 30 years:

    We all know the story about “The boy that cried wolf”.

    In this current day version, featuring the crying of a climate crisis/emergency, the boy had grown into a middle aged man and the village people kept believing his stories about the non existent climate wolf.

    But he just lost his job……………..been replaced by somebody with much more clout:
    Sorry middle aged man crying climate crisis, you’re out of a job. You’ve been replaced by a 16 year old girl crying:

    “How dare you?” “You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words, and yet, I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing.”

    Even Al Gore couldn’t match that with his fake polar bear crisis(-:

  10. I agree with Sunny. It seems like a citizens group should be able to take an entity to court in a lawsuit that alleges irresponsible use of authority, massive fraud, willful malfeasance or something. Various media, universities and non-profits are causing actual harm with their promoting the whole climate catastrophe line. People are making wildly damaging decisions based on BS. What happens if you sell oceanfront property based on the guidelines and projections of some city about sea level rise, lose money or do not realize what would otherwise have been an increase in value, and then the sea level doesn’t change. You took an action based on presumed expert advice and lost 100s of thousands of dollars.

    These are just examples pulled out of thin air but if a lawsuit could be successfully prosecuted, it might give these fools pause.

  11. Dave,
    If you use the entire trend since 1850 for the linear projection of the HadCRUT4 global temperatures it actually falls below RCP 2.6. The IPCC has conveniently starting using 1950 as their new starting date.

    • I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt that something changed in the late ’70’s… (Pacific Climate Shift of 1976).

  12. Good posting, David. If the Alaska state bird, the mosquito, leaves I might go back to Alaska for a visit. OK, since I am basically clueless, I googled “dodgeball” and the only interesting thing I found is a study that shows dodgeball is actually a tool of oppression, so I have no idea what your AAASA reference is, but I am concerned you have been playing dodgeball with the neighborhood kids again and took one upside the melon.

  13. If corrupt politicians and their crony capitalist friends continue to install windfarms across the Northern Hemisphere we could the see near extinction of numerous raptor and bat species. I hope somebody will someday come up with a class-action suit against the Audubon Society and any other “nature” group that pushed for this slaughter to continue. Don’t get me started on the sub-sonic pollution and its affects on humans and other living things.
    Let’s hope that global temps continue to fall long enough for the Green Blob to be thoroughly discredited for its anti-science and anti-human religious beliefs. CO2 to 800ppm! Make Canada warm again!
    GAS, MAGIC GAS! TOO MUCH MAGIC GAS! Apologies to Pete Townsend.

  14. I did an essay on ‘climate extinctions’ in essay No Bodies in ebook Blowing Smoke back in late 2014. The essay had three parts: extinction misdefinitions, bad science papers concerning same, and a deconstruction of IPCCAR2 falsehoods. The center piece was extinction of endemic birds, starting in Australia. Proven junk science, all.

  15. In the Real World, there REALLY IS a Mass Extinction EVENT or “Bird Apocalypse” occurring all across the World that affects both Bird Populations and Bat Populations — IT’S CALLED GREEN ENERGY PRODUCTION BY WINDMILLS AND SOLAR FURNACES! Estimates of the Death Toll probably range in the Tens of Millions up to that Billion or so claimed by “climate change” in this ridiculous Bird Apocalypse article. Counting the loss by Windmills and Solar Furnaces should be EASY and No Models are needed! How about Counting the REAL CAUSE of Bird Population Reductions! One might even find out if those 8 State Birds are actually NOT MOVING, but rather are being Sliced, Diced, or Flamed out of the Sky

  16. A quick Google search also shows that if you want to ‘save the birds’, get rid of (house & feral) cats–which are (rightly or wrongly) credited with killing over 3B birds annually–and I believe that is just in the US (or possibly North America).

  17. What gets me is the number of people here who have tried to claim that the number of birds lost was 3 billion a year. Instead it’s 3 billion over 50 years. And even that number is highly exagerated.

  18. I did not read this “study” but the National Audubon Society came up with a “Report” a few year ago and may have updated or re-issued it recently.
    What they did is use the ASSUMPTIONS of the IPCC forecast of the temperature increasing several degrees by the end of the century.
    Then what they did is assume the birds will move north following the temperature increases and re homestead in the new locations further north with the same temperatures that they lived in. That means some birds will be in the Arctic in a totally different landscape. Audubon did NOT account for the change in habitat, food, landscape changes.
    This is actually laughable if it was not so STUPID and TOTALLY UNSCIENTIFIC. How “scientists” can call one factor “science” is unbelievable.
    I wrote to the Audubon chair to discuss this. He would not respond directly. The secretary sent a motherhood letter defending their “science”.
    I have done one presentation on this and will do more.

  19. The two graphs in Figure 2 say they’re of surface temperature change relative to 1986-2005, and they name global temperature datasets. However, in only one of those graphs is the named dataset a surface one.

  20. The Colorado state bird is the Lark Bunting, a rather small and ordinary little bird. I can live without the bird but I definitely would miss the natural gas powering my boiler as it is presently snowing. That’s the problem everyone wants to do something to stop the alleged climate change but nobody wants to die doing it.

  21. I saw an article that I passed by (ignored) on Penn this last Sunday saying the grouse (PA state bird) was going to migrate out of the state d/t AGW and fewer can be found d/t that. I just chalked it up to more BS and went on.

    Then in an email exchange with my brother he told me he was taking his dog out hunting on his land and he didn’t expect to see any grouse because the population was being decimated by…. avian flu.

    So let’s ignore real reasons and drop back to our good old standby, blame it on man.

  22. A link title from the Robert Walker article:

    Great tits do NOT risk extinction from climate change […]

    Y’all have no idea how relieved I am to read that.

  23. “selected bony fishes (anchovies, angelfishes, billfishes, blennies, bonefishes, butterflyfishes, cornetfishes, groupers, parrotfishes, pufferfishes, sardines, sturgeons, surgeonfishes, tarpons, tunas, picarels, porgies, seahorses, seabreams, syngnathid fishes) 8% (6-22%); cephalopods (nautiluses, octopuses, squids) 1.5% (1-57%)”

    Interesting complication of fishes, except for sturgeons, don’t see any freshwater types, except a few have species that sneak in. The range of estimates would have been laughed out of class in my day, especially for cephalopods and sharks. Cyprinids (minnows [of a sort] and carps) are the most common freshwater family, pushing 3000 species, gobies catching up on numbers as the most common marine and also with the most freshwater species on oceanic islands, who will probably survive sinking.

    Birds are the most protected of species in the industrial world, somebody not doing a very good job of preservation. Actually a lot of the ones that are major fish predators are doing fine, even increasing. Picerals are probably extinct, nobody ever heard of them.

    Simulations are difficult, especially about the future.

  24. Oh you insensitive deniers! Do you really suggest, these caring, planet saving green warmists are lying about birds dying because of Climate Change? Just look under the wind turbines!!

  25. “Some states have both state birds and state dinosaurs… It’s doubtful that state officials realize their error.”

    You’re not one of those who call birds dinosaurs and laugh at people who call whales ‘fish’? Might have been a terrestrial ancestor in between but descended from a fish so, apparently, still a fish.

  26. Birds have short life spans. They grow to full maturity in a couple of months. If they migrate, they have to be ready to make those long flights before the cold winds and autumn snows – er, rain- rain, that’s it, yeah! set in. Migration is a way to sort out which feather flockers will survive and which ones won’t, especially if they’re game birds like geese or ducks. Pheasants and turkeys tend to winter over, and just because you don’t see them, doesn’t mean they aren’t around. If there’s food to be had and a warm pond, geese will drop in and stay for the winter and some of those critters don’t go anywhere as long as they have food and open water. Why would they? It’s even better if Stupid Hoomans are dumb enough to feed them in the winter.

    This is getting to be ridiculous. The people who come up with this stuff, writing up panic-attack articles with unsupported numbers are more at fault than anyone else for writing up a boatload of hogwash rhetoric.

    So if the alleged numbers of three billion birds have died has any meaning at all, it’s natural attrition, something with doesn’t EVER occur to the hyperventilating essayists who crank out this nonsense.

  27. “Shooting down the climate models like clay pigeons, ducks on a pond, raptors near a wind farm… I got nuthin’ that doesn’t kill birds.”

    Uh, fish in a barrel?

    • Why would anyone expend ammunition on fish in a barrel? Just add Zatarain’s crab boil to the water and build a fire under the barrel… 😎

      • Philistine. One doesn’t boil crabs, one steams them.

        And one steams them with Old Bay seasoning from McCormick’s in Baltimore, not some Johnny-come-lately spice.

  28. “studies like this are hard to do and the 3 billion figure should be treated cautiously”

    Perhaps the authors counted dead birds under a few wind turbines, multiplied by the number of machines in the US, and then multiplied by the number of years covered by the study.

    • Dead birds don’t last long underneath the wind turbines. Most are eaten by rats, but there are also wild cats, foxes, etc.

  29. “The “Russian model” doesn’t even melt Greenland under RCP8.5…”

    Not much use, is it, then. Typically Russian. Just trying to subvert the honest, decent, models.

  30. Can I get a grant to study the correlation between sea-level rise in the Indian Ocean and the raphus cucullatus population? Or global temperature and ectopistes migratorius?

  31. Well I can tell you with assurance that the bird populations of the UK are changing and that the change is certainly down to climate change in many cases.

    Just in the last week a species turned up locally which is increasing its range in to the UK due to warming climate. Many UK species have changed their breeding season because of earlier springs or have moved their range north.

    We have half a dozen species which like a warmer climate which have colonised… same also with dragonflies and insects.

    (The UK has regular and detailed surveys going back decades of its birdlife)

    • And you think this has never happened before? Maybe before the LIA, those birds were plentiful in the UK.

      You have such myopic view of “climate”.

    • If anything has changed, CO2 whut don it.
      Even if you can’t find any evidence of actual climate change, or if the amount of climate change is so small that only sensitive instruments can measure it, then climate change is still the cause.

      PS: griff since you haven’t published any papers in major journals, why should we care what you think?

  32. “Shooting down the climate models like clay pigeons, ducks on a pond, raptors near a wind farm… I got nuthin’ that doesn’t kill birds.”

    How about this: … like a becalmed wind turbine running a supercomputer ?

  33. ‘And Have We Really Lost 3 Billion Birds Since 1970?’

    Absolutely! Probably way more!

    Birds don’t live very long. We have been through many generations since 1970.

  34. I’m assuming that birds like any other species learn over time what places they like best..Take Canadian geese for example, a protected migratory bird that now makes its year-round home here in Florida. They have no natural predators here and are on the verge of, if not already becoming a nuisance species..No need for them to migrate back home the rest of the “snowbirds” coming down from up north they have everything they want here..

  35. My thanks to Dave Middleton for a most interesting post. Regarding the extinction of birds, almost all of the extinctions have occurred when alien species (rats, snakes, mongoose, man) invaded the previously isolated islands and Australia.

    On the continents (excluding Australia), we have had only six bird and three mammal extinctions in the last 500 years.

    Not only that, but no forest obligate bird or mammal species has gone extinct due to people cutting down the forest. Hasn’t happened. Which means that the “Species-Area” relationship does not work to predict extinctions.

    See my post “Where Are The Corpses?” for a detailed discussion of these issues. Or if you prefer, the same ideas in different clothing as a journal article entitled “Historical Bird and Mammal Extinctions”.


  36. Hi,
    It’s simple; build a wall(s very high wall) around your State to keep your State bird from leaving.
    The solution is very simple.

  37. “State Birds

    None of the birds in question call any state “home.” It’s safe bet that none of those birds even know what a state is.

    It’s also a safe bet that climate change created the favorable habitats in those particular states, causing them to frequent those particular geographic locations.

    Some states have both state birds and state dinosaurs… It’s doubtful that state officials realize their error.

    [I]f ”

Comments are closed.