Conservative media outlets found guilty of biased global warming coverage

49

New studies show conservative and politically neutral media outlets are creating false balance in climate change reporting.

There's a 97 percent consensus on human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed climate science literature and among climate experts. There's a 96 percent consensus in the climate research that humans are responsible for most of the current global warming. The 2013 IPCC report agrees with this position with 95 percent confidence, and states that humans are most likely responsible for 100 percent of the global warming since 1951.

Yet a new study conducted by Media Matters for America shows that in stories about the 2013 IPCC report, rather than accurately reflect this expert consensus, certain media outlets have created a false perception of discord amongst climate scientists.

Specifically, politically conservative news outlets like Rupert Murdoch'sFox News and the Wall Street Journal were responsible for the lion's share of the false balance, disproportionately representing climate contrarians in their stories about the IPCC report.

Written By: Dana Nuccitelli
continue to source article at theguardian.com

49 COMMENTS

    • In reply to #2 by jjbircham:

      Surely the sun is partly to blame. As much as I would like to take all the credit, we should also doff our cap to the big fellow in the sky who does the bulk of the work.

      Then we would expect to see the other planets in the Solar System warming in the same way.
      They aren’t.

    • In reply to #2 by jjbircham:

      Surely the sun is partly to blame. As much as I would like to take all the credit, we should also doff our cap to the big fellow in the sky who does the bulk of the work.

      Well yes in part by studying Black body radiation of asteroids, the Moon, Mars and Venus we know how much light comes from the Sun how much is actually absorbed due to its albedo (how dark or white it is) and therefore what temperature it would be without an atmosphere. Fortunately The Moon happens to be the same average distance from the Sun (because it orbits Earth) and has an average temp of -30 degrees C. Earth because it has oceans which are darker give it a slightly higher balmy -15 degrees. These formula predict the temps of Venus, Mars and other bodies with high precision with the actual temperatures we measure so why do we have a much higher average temp? And why does Venus which Black Body should be about 15 degrees C actually have temperatures high enough to melt the sinkers in your tackle box? A: Greenhouse effect no mystery.

    • In reply to #2 by jjbircham:

      Surely the sun is partly to blame. As much as I would like to take all the credit, we should also doff our cap to the big fellow in the sky who does the bulk of the work.

      WTF?? Is this your idea of critical thinking?

    • In reply to #2 by jjbircham:

      Surely the sun is partly to blame. As much as I would like to take all the credit, we should also doff our cap to the big fellow in the sky who does the bulk of the work.

      While Faux News may have only just discovered the Sun, Astronomers and climate scientists have studied its history over hundreds of years!

      Due to muppet politics, NASA’s site explaining 11year and 22year Solar Cycles is down at present!

      Solar cycle – From Wikipedia

      For those who want to see satellite views of Solar cycles over the last 15 years, there is Helioviewer.

      http://www.youtube.com/user/HelioviewerScience

      .. But the download software and current live satellite images are not available because of US muppet politics!

      (To quote an RAF officer – We also have equipment marked U/S .)

      • In reply to #15 by Alan4discussion:

        (To quote an RAF officer – We also have equipment marked U/S .)

        When I was in the army we had a lot of kit marked “U/S”….we also had a lot of kit marked “Obsolete” as well mind you. }80)~

    • In reply to #2 by jjbircham:

      Surely the sun is partly to blame. As much as I would like to take all the credit, we should also doff our cap to the big fellow in the sky who does the bulk of the work.

      Great sarcasm!

  1. The question is, why is FOX doing this? Is it on behalf of advertisers who want to sell fossil fuels even if they destroy the planet?

    Is it because the are simply following the lead of the Republicans who take money from the oil lobby?

    Is it because those that control FOX are Christians, and simply addled by those beliefs?

  2. Claims that human activity has zero impact on the greenhouse effect and global warming are as daft as blaming humans for 100% of the rising global temperatures. There are graphs on the internet which show the long, medium, and short term fluctuations in mean global temperatures; one of which shows that the m.g.t. started rising (again) from a low of 12 deg. C at the end of the Tertiary Period where there were no smoke-belching factories or 4x4s. On the other hand, there are graphs which show an unnatural increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and rising mean temperatures since the industrial revolution. What we need are scientists doing the difficult task of determining the facts and advising on how humans can lessen their negative impact on the planet, not politicians and billionaire media owners whose main interest is self, with little interest in the rest of humanity.

    • In reply to #6 by ZedBee:

      Claims that human activity has zero impact on the greenhouse effect and global warming are as daft as blaming humans for 100% of the rising global temperatures.

      Humans are responsible for at least 100% of the present and recent CO2 driven warming, and responsible for part of the temporary slow-down of the warming. http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/642270-noaa-study-suggests-aerosols-might-be-inhibiting-global-warming

      There are graphs on the internet which show the long, medium, and short term fluctuations in mean global temperatures; one of which shows that the m.g.t. started rising (again) from a low of 12 deg. C at the end of the Tertiary Period where there were no smoke-belching factories or 4x4s.

      Volcanic CO2 works just as well as human liberated carbon, and as the planet dries and heats, so does CO2 from forest, bush, and peat fires.

      On the other hand, there are graphs which show an unnatural increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and rising mean temperatures since the industrial revolution. What we need are scientists doing the difficult task of determining the facts and advising on how humans can lessen their negative impact on the planet,

      We are indeed fortunate in having scientific expertise available.

      not politicians and billionaire media owners whose main interest is self, with little interest in the rest of humanity.

      Unfortunately we also have greedy idiots in positions of power.

      A lot of the basic information on cyclical temperature variations has been around a long time, and is easy to find.

      Milankovitch cycles

      We discussed many details in earlier discussions on RDFRS: http://old.richarddawkins.net/discussions/642733-why-the-laws-of-physics-make-anthropogenic-climate-change-undeniable

    • In reply to #2 & #9 by jjbircham:

      Surely the sun is partly to blame. As much as I would like to take all the credit, we should also doff our cap to the big fellow in the sky who does the bulk of the work.

      -

      So the sun isn’t warming the earth?

      So your plan of action is to do nothing, and just let the Earth burn?

  3. What exactly is everyone doing personaly to stop it. My guess is nothing. I possess a driving license but don’t own a car and either cycle or go by public transport. Admitting we have a problem doesn’t solve it. The world is doomed because we will never give up on our luxuries untill we are forced to and that includes sanctimonious pricks.

    • In reply to #14 by jjbircham:

      What exactly is everyone doing personaly to stop it. My guess is nothing. I possess a driving license but don’t own a car and either cycle or go by public transport. Admitting we have a problem doesn’t solve it. The world is doomed because we will never give up on our luxuries untill we are forced to and that includes sanctimonious pricks.

      I’m genuinely glad you’re doing your bit. Don’t assume us sanctimonious pricks aren’t don’t our bit also, in addition to that this sanctimonious prick isn’t making light of a serious issue. Why are you using sarcasm as a method of making a case instead of just making it. You have evidence AGW isn’t real let’s hear it. Or if as you seem to be saying now you do think it is real why are you suggesting the Sun is mostly responsible?

  4. I’m currently reading “Cosmos” and I’m startled to find out that Carl Sagan was discussing all this over 34 years ago. If we’ve left it too late, we deserve it.

    I was intrigued to read recently that the new updated series of “Cosmos” …

    Episodes will premiere on Fox and also air on National Geographic Channel on the same night.

    Is that a money thing or are there some sensible people at Fox…or am I missing something?

  5. In the UK there is whistle-blowing on similar deceptive campaigns by vested interests and their media stooges!

    Lord Stern says energy and media firms ‘mislead’ – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24494893

    Climate-sceptic newspapers are conspiring with energy firms in a campaign of misinformation on bills, says the former head of the government economic service, Lord Stern.

    Misleading campaign

    Lord Stern, who wrote an influential global review of climate change economics, said the UK’s dependence on fossil fuels had generated three-quarters of the increase in costs for households.

    Less than a fifth of the £70 rise was forced by green taxes, he said, and most of that goes to help poor families insulate their homes.

    Lord Stern told BBC News: “There is currently a concerted campaign to mislead the British public about the factors that are driving up consumers’ electricity and gas bills.”

    He warned that if the campaign succeeded in getting cuts in support for renewables, consumers would face even higher bills in the future as the cost of fossil fuels continued to rise.

    It is also note-worthy that the wholesale prices ” beyond the control of suppliers”, are decided in markets dominated by the big oil and gas companies and oil producing states!

    While the Scottish government is supporting wind-farm development and an under-sea tidal turbine farm near Orkney, muppet Cameron is subsidising BP drilling for oil in dangerous waters off Shetland! – Not to mention promoting the polluting and dangerous gas-fracking!

    Lord Stern said that with fossil fuel prices likely to continue to rise, support for renewables would actually make bills cheaper in the long run.

    He also had a warning for people hopeful that shale gas would bring down bills.

    “Domestic supplies of shale gas are unlikely to make much difference to fuel bills, because the UK is unlikely to have big enough reserves to reduce European gas prices, which determine wholesale prices. The gas may also take many years to exploit,” he said.

    Supporters of shale gas argue that exploiting the UK’s resources will generate revenue for the government and therefore has the potential to reduce taxes on individuals.

    You don’t have to be very clever to work out whose tax Tory Cameron is planning to reduce!

  6. Today, ignoring or denying climate change is like sitting in a crowded room where there’s a man who has a large bomb but assures us that it has only a 95 % chance of going off if he throws the switch. And most of the people in the room are shouting “throw the switch!”

    It’s insane. It’s irrational. No one in their right minds would stake their lives against such odds. But then, the theists are not rational, are they? David Attenborough put it best when he said that future generations, if given the chance to speak to those two or three generations past (us), will accuse us thus: “You knew all this and yet did nothing!!?” I agree with Roedy, the decisions made now (or rather not made) are going to kill many more than Hitler did.

  7. jjbircham – Eath is warming but the Sun is cooling, so is technically responsible for a negative fraction of the current climate change. As for what if anything will be done about climate change, changing how we generate electricity is an alternative to giving up on gadgets.

    ZedBee – warming due to natural factors in another period say nothing about what percentage of current warming is anthropogenic; in fact, the latter is over 100 %, as natural factors are currently in the cooling direction. In fact, even some anthropogenic effects are cooling Earth, so the anthropogenic effects which warm Earth are responsible for way more than 100 % of the current trend.

  8. jjbircham — yes, the sun is responsible. Sunlight interacts with carbon in the atmosphere. The more carbon in the atmosphere, the hotter earth becomes; the less carbon in the atmosphere, the coolor earth becomes. In earth’s early days, it was so hot it couldn’t sustain life. Carbon became sequestered in the oceans, and being a heavy molecule, the carbon sank to the bottom, creating the pools of oil that we’re now bringing up to use for fuel. We’re sending the earth back to where it was uninhabitable.

    The cycle will come full circle. We (homosapiens) will die off as well as most animals. The oceans will then be able to cleanse themselves and the earth will begin to cool again. Evolution will again happen and animals will begin to inhabit the earth again. In a few million years.

  9. Joe Gibbons – I have before me published graphs showing fluctuating mean global temperatures over 700-0, 542-0, 50-0, 5.5-0 million years, and 800,000-0, 400,000-0, 11,000-0, 2,000-0 years. All show wild fluctuations, impossible to extrapolate over short periods of time. It hardly needs saying that human activity had nothing whatsoever to do with global temperature fluctuations over millions or even tens of thousands of years ago. They were all – obviously – caused by a number of natural factors without any “anthropogenic effects”.

    I also have before me a recent (very short term) graph of the lower atmosphere between the years 1950 and 2000. This graph shows that the m.g.t. has been fluctuating between a maximum deviation of –0.31 to +0.26 deg. C relative to the present. It is impossible to tell from this graph, with any certainty, at any time, whether the next point would go up, come down, or stay at the same level. Nevertheless, the trend is rising, and without re-plotting the graph myself to determine a trendline, I would say at a rough guess that it has risen by about +0.1 deg. C over the 50 years.

    There is a raging argument between environmentalists and deniers; however, in my opinion, it is foolish to assert that human activity is not responsible for any global warming, or that it is responsible for “more than 100% of it because the sun is cooling down”. This statement is very misleading because solar temperature fluctuates, and it is unwise to hang an assertion on a short term trend since 1978 (https://www.skepticalscience.com/acrim-pmod-sun-getting-hotter.htm) while ignoring the long term fluctuations, the sink effect of the oceans, and whatever other factors that influence global temperatures. Nothing personal, but I would rather look at published graphs and listen to experts in the field to reach my own conclusions, than entertain verbal assertions from others.

    In making up my mind I have also looked at the variation in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 500 million years and over 1,100 years, and at solar wind fluctuation against global temperature deviation between the years 1865 and 1985, and at sea level fluctuation over the last 16,000 years, and sunspot numbers over the last 400 years.

    Finally, I heard a greenhouse enthusiast on TV suggesting that we should remove all atmospheric carbon dioxide and store it in the ocean to halt global warming. I hope no one will be stupid enough to do that, for soon without it there would not be any vegetation or animal life on the earth’s surface.

    • In reply to #24 by ZedBee:

      Joe Gibbons – I have before me published graphs showing fluctuating mean global temperatures over 700-0, 542-0, 50-0, 5.5-0 million years, and 800,000-0, 400,000-0, 11,000-0, 2,000-0 years. All show wild fluctuations, impossible to extrapolate over short periods of time. It hardly needs saying that…

      The ICC show graphs indicating 0.85 degrees rise over the last hundred years. That’s hundreds of professional scientists throughout the world peer reviewing each others work and looking at I would guess more data than you have.
      You have come up with 0.1 degrees over the last fifty years. That’s quite a disparity.
      Rather than post your results on this forum I suggest you publish them for peer review and claim your Nobel prize and all the wealth and fame that will come with it.

      Also, you will need to back up your historical analysis with evidence that the climate has warmed up by nearly a degree in a hundred years. I thought that in the past such a rise would take tens of thousands of years but you have evidence to the contrary?

    • In reply to #24 by ZedBee:

      Finally, I heard a greenhouse enthusiast on TV suggesting that we should remove all atmospheric carbon dioxide and store it in the ocean to halt global warming. I hope no one will be stupid enough to do that, for soon without it there would not be any vegetation or animal life on the earth’s surface.

      These are like the Faux News pundits who have just discovered Solar radiation (or clouds, albedo etc.) and have decided to point them out to climatologists.

      As you point out, not only is this extremely stupid in terms of plant growth on land, but it is just as stupid in regard to oceans! – see the second and third photos on this link.

      http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/04/ocean-acidification/liittschwager-photography

      BTW: Jos gives a lot of detailed physics on the link I provided @23.

      Nothing personal, but I would rather look at published graphs and listen to experts in the field to reach my own conclusions, than entertain verbal assertions from others.

      This is fine if you can be sure who is honest and expert. The other catch is that it is possible to miss key factors altogether, unless you are very familiar with all the subject areas.

      Have you looked a the record of volcanism?

      • In reply to #27 by Alan4discussion:

        Your links are always interesting to follow, thanks Alan. I read the NOAA article and noted their proper headline caution that aerosols “might” be inhibiting global warming, and that it is variable rather than constant. I also noted (but will not paste any part of the article. Others may read it for themselves) that the implication since 2000 is –0.1 W/m2. To put this in perspective, the heat input from the sun fluctuated, over the period 1978-2007, between 1362 W/m2 minimum and 1368 W/m2 maximum. Putting all available data together, there is little, if any doubt, that human activity is responsible for topping up global warming above its natural (human-free) level, but certainly not on the basis of the NOAA findings alone, although that may be another small piece of the jigsaw

        All this micro-filleting of very short term data are diverting us from the inevitability of the mean global temperature rising again, if the previous long term cycles are repeated, within a short geological period of time of a couple of million years, with or without humans, to about 23 deg. C from its current 13 deg. C (or there about), hot as hell, with lots of lovely dinosaurs but no ice-caps, arctic foxes or polar bears, and sea levels higher by some 130 meters above the present level. All we can do with our chimneys and 4x4s is speed up the process while we still enjoy being the earth’s custodians.

        • In reply to #30 by ZedBee:

          In reply to #27 by Alan4discussion:

          Your links are always interesting to follow, thanks Alan. I read the NOAA article and noted their proper headline caution that aerosols “might” be inhibiting global warming, and that it is variable rather than constant.

          There is satellite evidence of the reduction in surface sunlight over the pacific as a result of Chinese and Indian industrial pollution with smoke and sulphur pollution. There was also measured increases of surface insolation when aircraft were grounded after 9/11, removing their contrails from the sky.

          The reason I asked about volcanism, was because this type of pollution from volcanic eruptions, naturally reduces temperature temporarily, before the ash and sulphur is washed out of the air, and erupted CO2 then causes longer term warming effects.
          That is why the geological record matches the climate/temperature record, with dust/ash, sulphur and CO2 superimposing effects, over and above the Milankovitch cycles of axial and orbital variations, interacting with the 11 and 22 year solar cycles.

          The astronomical cycles are highly predictable.

          • In reply to #36 by ZedBee:

            In reply to #33 by Alan4discussion:

            I haven’t and wouldn’t argue against any of that.

            I was trying to expand the details in the discussion rather than picking an argument!

            I see there is another report from Nature warning of increased intensity of floods and droughts – which I linked over on this discussion:- http://www.richarddawkins.net/news-articles/2013/10/10/mumbai-chennai-may-reach-climate-tipping-point-by-2034-study#comment-box-20

            @37 – then we can expect not just one but several ice-ages

            Yep!

          • In reply to #39 by Alan4discussion:

            Widening the discussion is always welcome, which is more the pity that there is so much fruitless side-snapping going on which kills a reasoned discussion. Your link is as interesting as it is alarming. Leaving aside ice ages and melting icecaps over thousands or millions of years hence, I wonder how present and future generations will be accommodated on a shrinking land area, while the world population keeps increasing exponentially. I don’t think I have heard any town-planners or “social engineers” coming up with any easy solutions, if there are any.

          • In reply to #45 by ZedBee:

            I wonder how present and future generations will be accommodated on a shrinking land area, while the world population keeps increasing exponentially. I don’t think I have heard any town-planners or “social engineers” coming up with any easy solutions, if there are any.

            I would suspect that the plan is for oil and gas executives, to buy up choice areas of land and make bigger bonuses by moving over to land speculation! (Supply and demand!)

        • In reply to #30 by ZedBee:

          All this micro-filleting of very short term data are diverting us from the inevitability of the mean global temperature rising again, if the previous long term cycles are repeated, within a short geological period of time of a couple of million years, with or without humans, to about 23 deg. C from its current 13 deg. C (or there about), hot as hell, with lots of lovely dinosaurs but no ice-caps, arctic foxes or polar bears, and sea levels higher by some 130 meters above the present level. All we can do with our chimneys and 4x4s is speed up the process while we still enjoy being the earth’s custodians.

          We will have to get through an ice-age in the next 50,000 years first! – But meanwhile we need to address keeping large areas of the planet habitable for the next few hundred years!

          • In reply to #34 by Alan4discussion:

            If the medium and short term cycles repeat themselves, and I have not seen or heard any argument to suggest otherwise, then we can expect not just one but several ice-ages as the long term mean global temperature continues to climb up.

    • In reply to #24 by ZedBee:

      Joe Gibbons – I have before me published graphs showing fluctuating mean global temperatures over 700-0, 542-0, 50-0, 5.5-0 million years, and 800,000-0, 400,000-0, 11,000-0, 2,000-0 years. All show wild fluctuations, impossible to extrapolate over short periods of time. It hardly needs saying that…

      ZedBee,

      You seem genuinely interested in figuring this out so I hope this doesn’t come across wrong. I fear you are in danger of trying to re-interpret the data on your own based on limited information. Having done a little (one subject) on climate change at uni and being forced to consume enormous amounts of data (a tiny sample) from peer reviewed literature since about 150 years ago but much more in the last 50 years I can tell you that yes they are well aware of all history of climate change over geological time-scales and in most cases they know what caused them. I’d also point out they know how many species became extinct as a result of them. They are also aware particularly in the over the last 200 000 years or so (about this I haven’t looked this figure up it in a while might be out by 50 000) of pretty much a year by year temperatures from both ice core data and data in the sediments and coral reefs. This uses heavy isotopes of oxygen which when attached in water molecules makes the water heavier in hot years more evaporates (because it takes more energy to evaporate than lighter water) as a proportion of the total water content. This means ice in Antarctica stores more or less of this depending on temp, and the opposite is true in sedimentary layers and in corals on years when more or less evaporates. So when they say they know that temperatures have not risen this fast since X date, they know. And when X resulted in massive sea level rises, mass extinctions you should be worried unless you have done an awful lot more than looking a a few graphs on the net.

      You also mis-characterise this as a debate between environmentalists and deniers. This is an argument between many factions the ones you should be paying attention to are the climate scientists and those that are denying the science. I am perfectly open to the climate scientists being wrong.

      You seem genuinely interested in getting to the bottom of this and Alan4Discussion knows heaps more than I do about this so can I add to this by suggesting you get onto google scholar and start looking at what the climate scientists have to say before you start re-inventing the wheel.

      Regards

      • In reply to #31 by Reckless Monkey:

        Calm down Reckless Monkey. I agree with you, Alan4Discussion does know heaps more than you. That doesn’t puzzle me, the puzzle is why you should think that looking up all the available evidence from climate scientists and sharing their summary is re-inventing the wheel.

        • In reply to #38 by ZedBee:

          In reply to #31 by Reckless Monkey:

          Calm down Reckless Monkey. I agree with you, Alan4Discussion does know heaps more than you. That doesn’t puzzle me, the puzzle is why you should think that looking up all the available evidence from climate scientists and sharing their summary is re-inventing the wheel.

          I was and am perfectly calm,

          What I’m suggesting is you have not been looking at all the data far from it, you are looking up some data sets and making up your own interpretation. In my comparative ignorance instead of thinking I have the all the information at hand to make a judgement (which you seem to have done) I’m suggesting you by-pass the politics and and blogs and go straight to the science and if you disagree with that then start telling us how the data is in disagreement with the historical record. You seem to imply climate scientist have not done so, if you had read any of the peer reviewed data on this you would see all these graphs you are spruking analysed in terms of multiple fields geology, palaeontology etc. you would already have your answers. Anyone who in their relative ignorance have taken enough care and time to do so is going to find you position makes you look arrogant and dismissive of the mountains of work carried out by specialists over a lifetime of gathering data often in dangerous and uncomfortable conditions. Now I’m not suggesting you are, you have at least gone to the bother of looking up some graphs which is more than I can say for most skeptics out there, you have the ability to add that is clear but your posts indicate that you are possibly making assertions on a very limited data set. It is my humble position that you would benefit by doing some further reading of the literature. If that makes me hysterical then paint me hysterical.

          • In reply to #41 by Reckless Monkey:

            I am at a loss to fathom what is sticking in your gullet, Reckless Monkey.

            I looked at the available data and numerous articles provided by various environmental establishments, spanning the period from 700 million years ago to 2000 AD. I have 24 graphs right here before me on the screen, and 28 scientific articles which I have read and kept on file for reference, from volcanoes to ice cores to greenhouse gases to the earth’s elliptical orbit to sunspots to the precession of the equinoxes to solar ageing and many more besides. Which part of the wheel have I re-invented?

            How the hell can you justify your sweeping statement that I “have not been looking at all the data far from it”? How could you possibly know what I have or have not looked at? Why don’t you pinpoint the missing bit in any of my postings, instead of making worthless throw-away comments?

            I said in #30 “There is little, if any doubt, that human activity is responsible for topping up global warming above its natural (human-free) level, but not on the basis of the NOAA findings alone, although they may well be a small piece of the jigsaw”. Is that what is sticking in your gullet?

            Where have I ever “disagreed with the science”. On the very contrary, I went out of my way saying in #24 that “I would rather look at published graphs and listen to experts in the field to reach my own conclusions, than entertain verbal assertions from others”, for which Alan in #27 questioned the honesty of perhaps some experts. Is that me “disagreeing with science”? If it is, and as the whole of my adult life has been involved with science and engineering, point me without hiding behind indolent generalities, to any heresy of mine against science, so I can give my wrist a good slap.

            What is really sticking in your gullet?

          • In reply to #44 by ZedBee:

            In reply to #41 by Reckless Monkey:

            I am at a loss to fathom what is sticking in your gullet, Reckless Monkey.

            I looked at the available data and numerous articles provided by various environmental establishments, spanning the period from 700 million years ago to 2000 AD. I have 24 graphs right he…

            You’re right I’ve re-read all your posts I over reacted. I apologise.

  10. Biased reporting – “smells like a freak show

    Greater prairie chicken numbers are way down due to (purportedly) recent mid-west drought – most attribute this to climate change. Also, Lesser and Greater PCs are “canaries in a coal mine” for the plains; habitat loss (huge culprit), roads, towers, affect populations.

    Such cool birds – during mating season the males puff up, “boom”, and dance.

  11. Since before I sent a pledge to the Rio Earth summit in 1992 enough was known about the impact of climate change ..predications then were estimates of what was likely to happen – Governments were actively hiding their heads in the sand for decades…the USA were one of those who didn’t want to know about renewable energies and denied climate change, but fought to get to the Iraq Oil…consumerism at any cost eh!….of course the media were covering up…but technically the yes men media didn’t know who to believe because governments even had fake science reports created to refute global warming findings….and government were of course controlling conservative media….however proper science journals and scientific documentaries exposed the true reports on climate change. The climate change sceptics are deniers and time wasters very much like religious people….. they don’t want to stop mining coal, oil and gas or cutting down old growth forests etc….anything to make money eh! Traditionalists will do anything to hang on to their own selfish beliefs in spite of the true bigger picture…

  12. Reckless monkey, making light of the situation is just gallows humour, we can shuffle deck chairs on the Titanic with a grimmace or we can amuse ourselves. The choice is yours, either way you are going down with the ship.

Leave a Reply