Skip to content

Fake Claims About Bird Extinctions

December 5, 2017
tags: ,

By Paul Homewood

 

This is another perennial scare:

 

image

Rare breeding birds are becoming increasingly vulnerable to extinction in the UK due to climate change, a new report reveals.

Species such as dotterel, whimbrel, common scoter and Slavonian grebe are all said to be in danger, based on projections around the impact of global warming.

The findings come from a new report compiled by the RSPB, the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) and the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT), along with various statutory nature conservation bodies.

Experts fear that the Scottish crossbill, which is found only in Scotland, is at risk of becoming extinct altogether.

<strong>The Scottish crossbill, which is found only in Scotland, could become extinct</strong> (PA Archive/PA Images) 

The Scottish crossbill, which is found only in Scotland, could become extinct (PA Archive/PA Images)

 

By contrast, however, some other birds were found to have thrived in the warmer, wetter climate, which has enabled them to expand their range further north.

The study found climate change is already affecting bird life in the four countries of the UK, which is responding to a 1C (1.8F) increase in average summer temperatures since the 1980s.

“Birds in the UK are showing changes in abundance and distribution, predominantly moving northwards, in a way that is consistent with a changing climate,” the report said.

“Migratory birds are arriving earlier and egg-laying dates have advanced such that swallows, for example, are arriving in the UK 15 days earlier, and breeding 11 days earlier, than they did in the 1960s.”

For species such as the dotterel, whimbrel, common scoter and snow bunting – whose UK breeding populations are found almost entirely in Scotland – population declines are said to have been considerable already.

Breeding success of the Slavonian grebe has also been impacted, with Scotland on average 11% wetter between 2007-2016 than it was in 1961-1990

 

<strong>The UK’s kittiwake population has declined by 70% since 1986</strong> (PA Archive/PA Images)

The UK’s kittiwake population has declined by 70% since 1986 (PA Archive/PA Images)

The report went on: “The UK’s kittiwake population has declined by 70% since 1986 because of falling breeding success and adult survival.

“Climate change has reduced the availability of the sandeels they rely upon in the breeding season.

“Other species that feed largely on sandeels, such as Arctic skua, Arctic tern and puffin, are at high risk of climate-related decline.”

On a more positive note, the report also found that warmer temperatures during the breeding season have had a positive effect on breeding success for a range of species.

Birds that feed insects to their young, such as great tits and chaffinches, have improved their productivity in warm, dry springs, while nuthatch, goldfinch and chiffchaff have been expanding their range into Scotland over the last 30 years with large increases in numbers north of the border.

Dr David Douglas, principal conservation scientist at RSPB Scotland, said: “The recent research compiled in this year’s The State of the UK’s Birds report shows that many birds in Scotland are being affected by a changing climate.

“For some birds this means they are becoming increasingly vulnerable to UK extinction, including many species where most, if not all, of the breeding population is found in Scotland.

“Other birds appear to have thrived in this warmer, wetter climate, which has allowed them to expand their range further north.”

Colette Hall, of WWT, said: “Each winter, tens of thousands of waterbirds migrate to the UK and our long-running network of volunteer waterbird counters has tracked their changes over decades.

“Warmer winters on the continent have meant more birds of certain species wintering further east, such as the European white-fronted goose.

“However, that trend can mask real declines in some species, such as the Bewick’s swan and the common pochard.

“For this reason, amongst many others, it is vital we continue to monitor our bird populations so we can pinpoint where, and subsequently try to work out why, these changes are happening.”

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/climate-change-making-rare-breeding-114035984.html

 

I’ll look at some of this in another post, but let’s first consider the Scottish Crossbill.

This bird was only officially recognised as separate species in 2006, as it is so similar to other native crossbills. Apparently it is only recognised by its song.

Very little is known about it even now, as Wild Scotland state:

The next steps in the Scottish crossbill study are to find out its population size and habitat requirements. With the current estimate of 1,500 birds for its global population, being little better than a guess, a detailed survey is crucially important to put together the right conservation and management measures to protect and conserve it.

In other words, we have absolutely no idea what population trends have been in recent decades, never mind the impact of climate change.

 

But here is the key statement, which comes from Trees for Life:

The Scottish crossbill is confined to the Highlands of Scotland, where it occurs in the pinewood remnants of the Caledonian Forest, and in conifer plantations which are 100 years or older in age. The population has been estimated at 1,500 adult birds, but because of the difficulties in distinguishing it from the common and parrot crossbill, the actual numbers of Scottish crossbills are unknown. Work is currently underway on differentiating between the 3 species by analysing recordings of their calls, and if this is successful it should lead to a more accurate population estimate.

Before the native pinewoods were reduced to their present figure of just 1% of their original extent, the Scottish crossbill must have been much more numerous and widespread, with a population between 10 and 100 times that of today.

 If the population really is at such low levels, the obvious major reason is deforestation, even where it may have been replaced with new conifer plantations.

 

 

Let’s also take a quick look at the Dotterel:

 Dotterel - adult female

This bird spends its summers on the high plateaus of the Scottish Highlands:

 

image

http://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/bird-and-wildlife-guides/bird-a-z/d/dotterel/index.aspx

 

It nests in tundra and in mountains across Eurasia to western Alaska and as far south as Britain and the Balkans. While it is possible that it may eventually vanish from Scotland, it certainly won’t die out, as there are many other suitable sites in Europe and elsewhere where it is abundant. In other words, the headline claim about extinction is simply a lie.

The UK population is in any event insignificant in overall terms, with about 510 to 750 breeding couples.

Advertisements
39 Comments
  1. December 5, 2017 7:10 pm

    Reblogged this on Wolsten and commented:
    No mention of bird choppers – aka wind turbines, covering an increasingly large amount of Scottish countryside. The silence of national bird protection bodies both north and south of the border is a disgrace.

    • Ross King permalink
      December 5, 2017 8:45 pm

      I would guess they are being paid..off massively by Big Wind to shut..up and stay..clear.
      Might be worth looking in the Charities’ books (if possible …. maybe following..up on Charitable Donations???) to check this hypothesis.
      I have long argued for independently conducted counts of avian kills within bird..kill areas surrounding wind turbines. Silence again from those Greenist Hystericals who would be blocking roads and lying..down in front of bulldozers if it were a pipeline project crossing Threatened Square..Toed..Toad habitat.
      Follow the money, eh??!!
      P.S. For speaking two sides out of their face at the same time, G’gl WWF President’s presentation to a Senate Hearing ..? Sorry, don’t have link to hand …. stay..tuned

      [Note – Ross has withdrawn the last sentence -I have left it in for completeness]

      • Ross King permalink
        December 5, 2017 9:06 pm

        Sorry ….. not WWF President …. misquoted source.

    • Ross King permalink
      December 5, 2017 9:04 pm

      I SEEM TO HAVE MISREPORTED, AND I UNEQUIVOCALLY WITHDRAW MY LAST COMMENT ABOUT WWF …. with wholehearted apologies to anyone offended. (Mod. … any chance of pulling this back?? I had in mind the other major Green Fund)

    • Adrian permalink
      December 6, 2017 7:52 am

      RSPB are becoming a disgrace. Hard to be sure if it’s just bandwagon jumping, lack of scientific credibility, or the millions they, like many other once proud conservation organisations who have replaced genuine informed concern with greed for their own growth as their raison d’etre, take from EU awards and grants for public ‘education’. I simply have no idea whether these come with some sort of limits to topics they present or not. Would be interesting to know.

      • December 6, 2017 7:55 am

        Our personal experience here is that bird populations on our moors have plummeted with the introduction of multiple wind farms. If the RSPB had any credibility they should have been up in arms.

  2. Joe Public permalink
    December 5, 2017 7:14 pm

    Aunty (Motto: “Never let a good scare story to which we can implicate climate, go to waste”) jumped the bandwagon too:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42225917

  3. December 5, 2017 7:27 pm

    The BBC also gives an unbiased opinion of the report! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42225917

    “climate change appears to be having an impact on their delicate seasonal clocks”. It;’s the same for me too. I have problems with my delicate seasonal clock, but thank goodness I now know it’s due to climate change. I thought it was due to those long, cold, dark nights.

  4. Europeanonion permalink
    December 5, 2017 7:35 pm

    The penchant for public walkways, cliff top walks, is an intrusion. The loss of wild space, That evil trap developers build leaving there estate un-used and left to nature to populate only then to bulldoze them. The general trend to build virtually anywhere aided and abetted by central government and the stern levies it places on non-compliant councils. The favouritism of species that unbalances nature and which are particularly harming to ground habitation..

    • December 6, 2017 7:13 am

      Badgers are a prime example of a favoured species. Badgers are responsible for the decline of hedgehogs and are destructive of any bird nests they can get to. It’s not obvious to me why badgers are so popular.

      • December 6, 2017 3:44 pm

        My theory, Phillip,is that our activists were brought up on Wind in the Willows rather than The Tale of Mrs Tiggywinkle!

        Both Mrs J and I have a soft spot for the water vole (aka Ratty) which comes from years of canalling. His decline was traced directly to the increased popularity of the canals which led to the increase in the use of metal campshedding to combat erosion of the banks.

        Somehow neither he nor Mole attracted quite the same level of misplaced affection as Badger did. Dunno why not.

      • dennisambler permalink
        December 6, 2017 5:16 pm

        For once I have to disagree with Phillip and I am hardly an activist. The main cause of hedgehog decline is loss of habitat, concrete gardens etc. The badger claim is unsupportable, as both have been around for thousands of years. I know that Booker, who again I normalIy agree with, has said the same, but it is used as another validation for the expensive and futile shooting of badgers in an attempt to control bovine TB.

        Badgers are a native species and part of the natural flora and fauna of the UK.

      • catweazle666 permalink
        December 6, 2017 7:32 pm

        ” The main cause of hedgehog decline is loss of habitat, concrete gardens etc.”

        Not up here in the Yorkshire Dales it isn’t!

  5. L. Douglas permalink
    December 5, 2017 8:12 pm

    “This bird was only officially recognised as separate species in 2006, as it is so similar to other native crossbills.”

    Standard trick. Invent “species.” Each one becomes a new franchise for the eco-crisis industry and racks up the supposed numbers of ‘endangered species.’ They also inflate numbers by including subspecies and even ‘geographically distinct populations.’

    Also worth noting how quickly new ‘species’ can emerge, particularly in the finch family (including crossbills):

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5111895/New-species-develop-little-two-generations.html

    “it certainly won’t die out, as there are many other suitable sites in Europe and elsewhere where it is abundant”

    Standard trick. This is why they are so keen to create national or provincial or anything smaller ‘species at risk’ lists. If you keep shrinking the area the more likely you can narrow it down to one with low enough numbers to justify ‘alarm’, official listing, a stream of money for research and another excuse to block whatever.

    Canada is a classic example of the latter trick. If you look at the so called ‘endangered’ or ‘threatened’ bird species there you will discover that the range (and required habitat) of the vast majority of them barely extends into Canada from the south. Thus their populations will always be small enough to justify ‘saving’ them even though they are limited by their available habitat and thus can never grow large enough to be ‘secure.’

    Then if you take that down to the provincial level – and consider only provincial populations – they can find new ‘small’ populations to save.

    The Sage Thrasher is a perfect example of this. Its range only barely extends into Canada and it is only there because its habitat – sage brush areas – started to greatly increase 150 years ago due to fire suppression before starting to decline again due to agriculture. Now there are about 20 birds (max) breeding in Canada, which is as many as there have ever been… and an estimated EIGHT MILLION in the USA.

    This ‘Mass Extinction’ business is as bogus as the ‘CAGW business,’ maybe worse.

  6. Ross King permalink
    December 5, 2017 8:23 pm

    Very well argued, you guys, (though I do not understand what Euro..onion is trying to say).
    And birds do not sit there awaiting a census!!

  7. TFMcCoy permalink
    December 5, 2017 10:00 pm

    Sandeel decline – was this due to overfishing by Danish vessels to meet demand for fish meal to use in foodstuffs for chicken and pig rearing in the 1980’s ?

    • catweazle666 permalink
      December 6, 2017 4:27 pm

      “Sandeel decline – was this due to overfishing by Danish vessels to meet demand for fish meal to use in foodstuffs for chicken and pig rearing in the 1980’s ?”

      Even better than that, the Danes were plough trawling – dragging a heavy chain over the seabed, causing destruction that lasts decades – to catch sand eels to burn in their power stations.

      A Danish fleet of 250 boats takes a million tonnes a year of the tiny fish in an “industrial” catch – they are not sold for human consumption but processed into fishmeal, oil and margarine, and at one time were burnt in power stations.

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sand-eel-fishing-ban-proposed-1201494.html

      And then the sanctimonious so-and-sos have the damn gall to lecture others on environmentalism…

      • dennisambler permalink
        December 6, 2017 5:21 pm

        Agree. Similar to the Norwegians harvesting krill in the Southern Ocean for vitamin pills.

  8. MrGrimNasty permalink
    December 5, 2017 10:00 pm

    Last Sunday’s country file on BBC1 was a classic climate change propaganda episode covering this topic. I was almost moved to complain but given our host’s stories about complaints to the BBC, I’m afraid I lack the stamina to pursue it to the bitter end.

    It was full of unchallenged assertions and factoids and ‘an all change is bad even if it seems good’ mantra.

    The ‘expert’ asserted that birds (or food sources etc.) lacked the capacity to adapt because of the speed of the change, as the presenter looked gloomy and nodded sagely.

    But of course the supposed warming is a fraction of natural inter-annual variation.

    It was almost funny as they said what happens if the birds get driven too far north, there’s nothing after Scotland they said, almost at the same time as discussing birds migrating from the Arctic circle. And of course many of our species are found in vastly hotter and colder countries.

    And we don’t get winters like 1963 anymore one bloke said [as an example of climate change] yet we didn’t have any like it in the 50 years before either! This linked to the trials and tribulations of the Dartford Warbler – killed by cold winters – so his point was rather confused. Loss of habitat is the biggest threat here & in Spain.

    • Adrian permalink
      December 5, 2017 11:12 pm

      Just stop paying them for goodness sake.

    • December 6, 2017 7:15 am

      The interviewer/presenter was Tom Heap, so you would only expect alarmism and you wouldn’t expect any logic.

    • realist10 permalink
      December 6, 2017 10:47 am

      MrGrimNasty PERMALINK
      December 5, 2017 10:00 pm
      “Last Sunday’s country file on BBC1 was a classic climate change propaganda episode covering this topic. I was almost moved to complain but given our host’s stories about complaints to the BBC, I’m afraid I lack the stamina to pursue it to the bitter end”.

      Yes I switched off last Sunday’s Country file for this very reason and YES we do need to complain Paul Homewood will you do so please?

      This is also why I refuse to watch Blue planet programme..

      • mikewaite permalink
        December 6, 2017 12:32 pm

        I seem to remember that in the first year that Chris Packham replaced Bill Oddie on the BBC Springwatch programme he replied to a question about the effect of global warming on Britain’s wildlife by listing some of the species at risk of disappearing , but , to my surprise, quoting an even larger list of species that would benefit , including some that are normally resident further South .
        I think that after that programme the BBC big chiefs reminded Packham of the BBC official policy on global warming and warned him about his future conduct : ” nice little earner you have here , Packham, and a good contribution to pension . Be a shame if something happened to that wouldn’t it?”
        No further comments from Packham about the benefits of a warmer climate , a milder winter in particular , and increased vegetation .

  9. December 5, 2017 10:49 pm

    Somebody somewhere is banging their head against a table re: caption of gannet colony labelled as kittiwakes.

    • mothcatcher permalink
      December 6, 2017 10:47 am

      Really? And I thought they were Scottish Giant Kittiwakes – you know, those ones only found on that one rock near Shetland, , and that is the only known photograph, before they were all submerged by rising sea levels

  10. Geoff Sherrington permalink
    December 5, 2017 11:14 pm

    For years I have campaigned against those who want more land for parks and reserves and those using loss of species and diversity to argue. I lost a few friends who believed implicitly in concepts like world heritage and national parks.
    For me, they are devices to place control of land into the hands of a few in the elite. Such people sometimes seem to have a true love of Nature, as do I, but when it comes to the crunch you see the control motivation emerge. What, for example, is the fundamental gain to society in making the whole of Antarctica virtually inaccessible to many of Mankind’s common functions and industries? The concept has been sold so well that most people do not even consider the cost:benefit of this type of alienation. So, alienation of land becomes a natural to be included in global warming scares.
    Same with bird reserves and the convenient definitional changes to “species”.
    The more you look, the more you see follow the money. Geoff

  11. martinbrumby permalink
    December 6, 2017 12:06 am

    As an old retired Civil Engineer, one of my pet hates are Great Crested Newts.
    At least the little feathered friends discussed in this post would very likely be tasty, if cooked properly.
    Not sure even the Chinese eat many newts.

    But the little buggers are “Endangered”.

    Allegedly.
    You need a special licence to even touch one.

    As every year there are dozens of development sites where Great Crested Newts are ‘thought’ to be present (and it costs tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds to shift them), the cost of these useless amphibians runs into many Millions every year. And delays development by a minimum of two years. Providing the developer doesn’t decide to invest his money and create jobs in a less barmy country somewhere.
    Now, if they were genuinely rare, there might be a case for protecting the newts. Lets face it, there is a very long list of even dafter things on which HMG wastes our money, every day.

    But, if they are so rare, how come there are so many of the wretched things running around?

    If you talk nicely to one of the bunny huggers who study such things, they will admit, if pressed, that there are over a thousand recorded colonies of the little perishers and some colonies are thought to have populations over a thousand.
    Do the maths. They are about as rare as bluebottles.

    Interestingly, I am not aware that any have been found on Subsidy Farm sites.

    When the bunny huggers are pressed further, they are forced to confess that the controls stem from our dear friends and trusted chums the EU.
    Apparrently they must have had the sense to bump off all theirs, so they have declared ours to be ” endangered”.
    I did suggest that few seagulls are to be found in Hungary, Slovakia, Austria or Czech Republic.
    So why not designate shite hawks as endangered?
    They were not amused.

    • December 6, 2017 11:59 am

      My understanding is that the great crested newt is not endangered in the UK. It is in mainland Europe which was why the EU Directive gave it protection.

      I am told by those who know about these things that under “subsidiarity” rules the UK would have been perfectly entitled to say that particular section didn’t apply but of course the green blob insisted and Sir Humphrey has always has a penchant for gold-plating EU rules, so we are where we are!

      • martinbrumby permalink
        December 6, 2017 2:00 pm

        I fear that either you are misinformed, or Natural England, the CBI Minerals Group, senior bureaurocrats in the DoE & DECC, the EA, Planning and Environmental Protection officers, the Planning Inspectorate and many, many others (not even mentioning NGOs) are all suffering under a cruel missapprehension.

        It may well be that at some time the UK missed an opportunity to avoid the imposition of EU regulation on the UK.

        Plenty of precedence for that.

        Alternatively, we could have signed up for EU regulation and then ignored it, just like many of our EU ‘partners’ routinely do.

        But what I described is exactly what happens very regularly on development sites or potential minerals sites in the UK.

        And when you complain, presenting detailed facts, you get met with shrug and told, ‘can’t help you. EU endangered species.’

      • December 6, 2017 3:56 pm

        The point is, Martin, that once the Directive was agreed by parliament these bodies had no choice.
        The principle of subsidiarity is that decisions should be taken at the lowest practicable level (as close to “the people” as possible).The other “leg” is proportionality which means Directives are supposed to be implemented only to the extent necessary to achieve their aim.
        So the UK government could easily have refused to implement any part of the Directive which it deemed irrelevant to the UK situation. Which is what other countries (rightly) do and we call it ignoring the rules. They aren’t; they are simply interpreting them to take account of local conditions.
        The EU is not the monolith that we believe it to be; we just never bothered to learn how it works!

  12. HotScot permalink
    December 6, 2017 12:58 am

    Aye, Mr. Angry William here (AKA Mr. Cross Bill – The original Sweaty Sock variety)

    Ahm gettin a wee bit pissed aff wi yous lot stikin yer nose intae oor business.

    If ye want tae listen oot fer our song, ye’ll hear it guid and fine when ye run from the sound of the pipes as we come ower the hill.

    If ye think your havin’ trouble findin us pal, dinna worry, when we want ta find you’s, we’ll find ye, then you’ll know whit trouble is, pal!

    And by ra way, keep yer f’kin haunds aff oor haggis. The wee b’stards are hard enough to find withoot you’s interferin cnuts chasin’ them roon the hills and wrappin them in plastic fer yer tea.

    Sincerely,

    Cross!

  13. December 6, 2017 4:33 am

    MartinBrumby….. Me too as to Profession and retirement therefrom!
    I rail against these morons who want to turn the clocks back on the HUGE ADVANCES we, as Engineers, jave brought to Humanity around the Globe.
    Starting with Public Health (now called Municipal) Engineering which was a major advance for the poor and ailing. Accompanied by the harnessing of Power to improve everyone’s lot ….. domestic job..saving appliances, residential heating, employment mobility beyond the village boundaries, mobility in general, and …. and ….
    And these f’ing morons want to return us to The Dark Ages??? On thoro’ly unproven grounds of Catastrophic Global Warming Alarmism, promoted by a bevy of sinecure..retentive so..called Scientists, and a coterie of Hollwoodesque supremacists … with the backing of uber..rich supremacicists intent on a new feudalism.

  14. Paddy permalink
    December 6, 2017 7:20 am

    What exactly is a “rare breeding bird”?

  15. mothcatcher permalink
    December 6, 2017 9:44 am

    I don’t know what the particular susceptibilities of Whimbrel, Scoter or Dotterel are to climate change but Scottish Crossbill would certainly come into the endangered category.

    The wilder parts of the highlands are home to quite a large number of insects and plants which we should call relict populations. They have indeed retreated north with the ice sheets following the last deglaciation, are no longer found further south (where they are out-competed by less cold-tolerant species), are now separated from similar populations in Scandinavia or alpine parts of Europe, are not now much dispersive, and have a static gene pool. Their decline has been going on for 7 -10000 years and they are, in Scotland at least, ‘on notice’. This certainly has nothing to do with human influence.

    Scottish Crossbill has a much-disputed specific status and, as it is the UK’s ONLY ENDEMIC BIRD SPECIES (we have very, very few endemics of any creature), we probably should be sceptical of that. Likely it should be treated as a local subtype, attached to the old Caledonian pine forest which was once very extensive but now limited to just a few areas, it is indeed endangered and, if the climate does continue to warm, will probably fade away. However, preservation of its specialist habitat will give it a fighting chance.

  16. Ben Vorlich permalink
    December 6, 2017 9:47 am

    I put a lot of the decline in populations of smaller birds down to several things, Climate Change isn’t amongst them. Increasing population of Magpies, Grey Squirrels and inland gulls; change in agricultural methods larger fields and combine harvesters; changes to and increases in urbanization – paved drives to name a few.

  17. Ben Vorlich permalink
    December 6, 2017 9:52 am

    Should also have said efforts to increase the populations of predators doesn’t help either

    Pine Marten habitats are usually well wooded areas, but also rocky hillsides, crags and scrub. Pine Martens usually make their own dens in hollow trees or scrub-covered fields, or obscured within fallen trees and roots. Sometimes in cliffs, rock crevices or cairns.
    Pine martens have a varied diet with voles and mice forming the greater part. They also consume birds, eggs, beetles and other insects frogs, honey, fungi, carrion (dead animal carcasses) and berries (especially in the autumn).

    I think the name is a bit of a hint about this member of the weasel family.

    • mothcatcher permalink
      December 6, 2017 10:21 am

      Good point. One of the issues that I have with RSPB (the other, of course, is its addiction to climate change propaganda) is the special favouritism that it affords to birds of prey. The cruel havoc that raptors wreak amongst the smaller creatures may not always be the population-limiting factor, but RSPB seems determined to avoid talking about it.

  18. December 6, 2017 11:48 am

    I made my own contribution to debunking much of this stuff (none of which, incidentally, is new) in The Times yesterday, armed only with a copy of Collins Birds of Britain and Europe — 1993 edition.

    Even then blackcap and chiffchaff are listed as breeding throughout the whole of Britain at least as far north as the Great Glen while it nearly needs a microscope to identify the UK breeding range of the common scoter and the whimbrel. Any bird adversely affected by any change in the average UK temperature of the last 25 years deserves to go extinct!

    The Dartford Warbler was in danger of going extinct in my youth (which wasn’t yesterday) so I’ll give the RSPB a very small pass on that since the better weather conditions post 1963. They were reduced to only around a dozen breeding pairs in that winter and took another hammering in the 1975 and 1976 drought years. Recovery is also in great part due to more friendly land management on Dorset heathland.

    For every claim the RSPB make about global warming threatening bird species there is at least one example of species extending their range (to be fair the article does admit that) and for every problem/benefit which the RSPB attribute to climate there is a better than even chance that habitat change is playing a big part.

    Or in a nutshell — basically there ain’t no story here. Just propaganda.

  19. Phoenix44 permalink
    December 6, 2017 12:13 pm

    I’m struggling to understand how these birds “go extinct” based on very slight changes in long term averages?

    Temperatures in the UK are not higher than they were in any meaningful way whatsoever. We have however had more “warmer” years in the period being measured than the years with which they are compared. I cannot even begin to imagine how a bird with a pretty short life can find that so different from something it never experienced that it goes extinct?

    I don’t see why birds should prefer to have a few cold years every now and again?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: