I thought lots of critters had been migrating for hundreds of centuries....

so nothing new there...

"Evolution" has a strange consequence, through survival of the fitest, species perish and are replaced by more robust and fitter species, better adapted to the environment changed environment.

So this load of drivel is just another scare campaign, from the masters of spin and bulldust .....

and more "socialism by stealth"...

“The entire global warming fret-fest, and this biological sub-set of it, is nothing but neo-religious drivel”

Jefferson

If one wants to see raw, unfiltered data on climate change, one does not consult snake-oil salesmen or money brokers, or God botherers for that matter, who also like to confuse the issue by threatening infidels with the Apocalypse then in typical ambiguous fashion bleat on about God’s “chosen” people being the "stewards" of all living things on the planet whilst they trash the earth's biodiversity.

When one wants to see raw data on global warming temperatures, one does not consult Curmudgeon either, whose deliberate intent to deceive, epitomises the lowly state to which the economic spin masters have degenerated:

“Temperatures reached a peak around 1998-2000 and have been generally declining, as shown by all the centres that track temperature changes........(check the Hadley site). ”

Done Curmudgeon (once again!) and how many times would you like us to check that Hadley site and "all the centres that track temperature changes?" For as long as you continue to lie?:

“The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2008. The year 2008 was tenth warmest on record, exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2001, 2007 and 1997. This time series is being compiled jointly by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Met. Office Hadley Centre.”

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Continued

Continued:

Whilst Curmudgeon has been previously enlightened about the impacts which the cold La Nina had on mitigating 2008’s temperature, he appears incapable of digesting the facts. What rubbish can we now expect from him when La Nina’s little brother, El Nino arrives to breathe more fire on an already heated planet?

1. A large-scale aerial survey of eastern Australia by researchers from the University of New South Wales (UNSW) shows migratory shorebird populations were once much larger and have plunged by 73 per cent between 1983 and 2006.

During that same period, the populations of Australia's 15 resident shorebird species have dropped by 81 per cent, according to the study, published in the scientific journal Biological Conservation.

2. More than 80 species of woodland birds in the Cowra region, NSW are in a steady decline, due to extensive agricultural land clearing and decreased rainfall.

3. Experts have determined that 16 out of the 21 oceanic shark and ray species that are caught in high seas fisheries are at heightened risk of extinction due primarily to targeted fishing for valuable fins and meat as well as indirect.

Sharks and rays are particularly vulnerable to overfishing due to their tendency to take many years to become sexually mature and have relatively few offspring.

4. A huge flock of various native bird species have dropped dead in temperatures topping 45C after swamping an outback roadhouse in the southern Gascoyne. Kangaroos, emus and goats had also died in the heat.

Thousands of birds have since died after invading sheds, basements and even a hotel bedroom.

And while the fossil record tells us that biodiversity has always recovered, it also tells us that the recovery of the Anthropocene extinctions will be unbearably slow in human terms – perhaps 5 to 10 million years, as seen in the mass extinctions of the past.

That's more than 200,000 generations of humankind before levels of biodiversity comparable to those we inherited might be restored if the money-making Dracula monsters continue on their rampage, sucking the life-blood from Planet Earth.

Protagoras's arguments amount to:

1) The last few years have been hotter than the long-term average.
2) Hot conditions kill animals and birds.

But neither of these is in dispute. What IS in dispute is a) whether the temperature increase is due to greenhouse gases and b) whether it is likely to continue. And the data are clear: there has been no net rise in global temperature since 1998, although CO2 levels have risen steadily over that period. On the negative side, Arctic ice is nearly back to long-term average levels after an unprecedentedly fast regrowth, and we are approaching the longest period without sunspots in nearly 100 years: conditions usually associated with a prolonged cold spell.

In Death of a Lake, written in 1954, Arthur Upfield describes movingly how an extended heatwave kills rabbits, birds, marsupials and even a human being. The phenomenon was not new then and it is not new now. And since that is the case, we are not going to stop it by crippling our capacity to keep ourselves alive, healthy and prosperous.

How old is that list your quoting from, & just who wrote it Protagoras?

It has been accepted for about 6 years, that 1932 was the hotest year in recent times, plus a couple of others aronnd there. If your source is not acknowledging this fact, I suggest you try somewhere more honest, for your facts.

It is rather annoying to see, detailed, all the tax payer money being spent, so these people can play god. I don't mind them playing their useless little games, I just hate paying for them to do so.

Oh for christ's sake...

guys, GUYS!

This isn't about whether people are causing global warming or not.

Comprendez? They used the phrase 'climate change.'

Whether you believe in man-made global warming or not, nobody is dumb enough to claim that the climate doesn't change at all.

Nor, is anyone dumb enough to claim that people don't cause the extinctions of many animals - perhaps not through climate change, but matters such as logging, pollution and so forth.

One can argue the morality, significance, cause and effect of these things, but you can't argue their existence.

That's just dumb.

So for the critics who are lining up to hammer the piece, I say three things:

The piece isn't for or against relocating animals, it just states the arguments.
The piece isn't arguing for man made global warming or against it.
The piece is just outlining some ideas and theories.

So for crying out loud, stop frothing at the mouth. Some people go bonkers the moment climate change is mentioned.

Cont'd.