Climate Crisis (scam) Today: Colorful Birds, Rising CO2

This is all your fault, you know

Birds Losing Feather Colors: Another Effect of Climate Change, Study Reveals

A 15-year study on the common bird known as the blue tit found that as a result of climate change, birds were far less vibrant as their feathers lost their usual bright color.

Because our feathered friends rely on their plumage to attract mates, it is dulling flashy colorful feathers and endangering their ability to survive.

The occurrence raises concerns as it may result in fewer new chicks.

According to Dr. David Lopez-Idiaquez of the University of the Basque Country in Spain, characteristics like coloring serve as signals to let other people know how good a specimen is. For instance, when it comes to breeding, they are decisive. Lopez-Idiaquez is the lead author of the study. (snip)

The conclusions are based on observations of the iconic blue tit, which is distinguished by a bright blue crest and a yellow breast.

Two populations of the bird species in southern France were monitored for 15 years; one was in Corsica and the other was near Montpellier.

According to their study’s findings, both groups’ average levels of color decreased from 2005 to 2019.

So, let me get this straight: they studied two small populations of one type of bird in two small areas, and we’re supposed to devine that the colors of bird feathers is bad everywhere, and that birds are in trouble? Really? Now compare this to a previous Holocene warm period: did the same happen? Or, could it be other conditions, like air, water, and land pollution? Pesticides? Something else? In climate cult world, everything is doom and everything is caused by it.

Earth’s CO2 Level Rose Every Year Since Climate Change Became a National Issue

On June 3 of this year, NOAA scientists announced a weather station at Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory had recorded carbon dioxide levels at 421 parts per million (ppm) in May.

The last time the earth experienced similar levels of this greenhouse gas was during the Pliocene Epoch millions of years ago, a period when global temperatures increased and sea levels may have reached as high as 20 meters (65 feet) above present-day levels.

Both CO2 and sea level subsequently fell precipitously, and over the past 6,000 years, levels remained around 280 parts per million. No longer. The global average grew from 350.9 ppm to 418.39 ppm between 1988 and 2022, an alarming 19% increase. Today the amount of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere is more than 50% higher than it was prior to the Industrial Revolution.

Which is weird, because there was a pause, roughly between 1998 and 2012, in which the rising temps were considered “statistically insignificant.” And there’s currently a smaller pause. So, perhaps CO2 is not the big deal the climate cultists think.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

27 Responses to “Climate Crisis (scam) Today: Colorful Birds, Rising CO2”

  1. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Teach the Willfully Ignorant typed: …there was a pause, roughly between 1998 and 2012, in which the rising temps were considered “statistically insignificant.” And there’s currently a smaller pause. So, perhaps CO2 is not the big deal the climate cultists think.

    What is most shocking is that Chris Monckton is still peddling shit.

    Looking at the databases since 1998 through today where there were massive “pauses” 1998-2012 and 2014-now (therefore only 2 years of warming out of 22 years!) the mean global surface temperature must have stayed flat or even cooled!!

    Let’s check what the temp databases say:

    0.18C/decade (HadCrut)
    0.19C/decade (HadCrut2)
    0.21C/decade (Gistemp)
    0.20C/decade (Berkeley)
    0.21C/decade (RSS satellite)
    0.12C/decade (Dr Spencer’s UAH satellite data)

    They all, even Roy Spencer’s Alabama-Birmingham calculations shown significant warming, with a median of 0.2C/decade. How can that be? So the mean global surface temperature continues to increase like stairsteps. How can THAT be? It’s almost as if, besides the steady increase in CO2, there exist other short term phenomena like El Ninos and volcanoes that temporarily affect the temperature readings! Yet, measured over the longer term, say, 30 years, the temperature continues to rise.

    You should look into the ocean Heat Content which has been increasing quite steadily since measurements were started in 1955. This makes some sense since the oceans are such a massive and effective heat sink.

    • James Lewis says:

      Dear Elwood:

      “Which is weird, because there was a pause, roughly between 1998 and 2012, in which the rising temps were considered “statistically insignificant.” And there’s currently a smaller pause. So, perhaps CO2 is not the big deal the climate cultists think.”

      Here is what a real sure ’nuff scientist though.

      …..the final straw was the infamous Dr Phil Jones email.

      And it is helpful to understand who Jones is. He is the head of the prestigious Climate Research Unit – CRU – at England’s East Anglia University. And he has been a vocal proponent of manmade global warming. But from time to time he has let his guard down. This is from what Jones thought was a PRIVATE email that became public when the email system was hacked in what became known as climate gate.

      “….The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

    • Jl says:

      He’s “still peddling this shit” because it’s real-last 6 years and no temp change

    • Bill589 says:

      Groomer Elwood Willfully repeats his masters’ lies. I checked CNN, and this groomer got the lie exactly right.

  2. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    BTW, the last blue tit I saw was in the movie Avatar.

    Mx Teach complains about the quality and quantity of the research. He needs to understand how research is conducted. These scientists and students don’t have the resources to monitor dozens or even hundreds of bird populations. They investigate what they can. Other groups may conduct related similar work. They all publish their data and conclusions. The discuss it at national and international meetings. Almost always in the discussion sessions and discussion sections of papers they speculate about the potential broader consequences. Do not rely on a single scientific paper or set of experiments to generalize to a broader conclusion. We understand that Teach and his acolytes do not “believe” scientific consensus, but that’s the way of science.

    • James Lewis says:

      Dear Elwood:

      So two groups do wrong and other groups discuss it.

      That doesn’t make it right.

      “We understand that Teach and his acolytes do not “believe” scientific consensus, but that’s the way of science.”

      No, consensus is not the way of science.

      “A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]”

      Now let that last sentence roll off your tongue. Note the “…for PREDICTIVE…” Yet none of the predictions have been met. And nothing has been “…confirmed…” much less “repeatedly so.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Yes, Rimjob tell us rubes about how successful the quality and quantity of your scientific concensus research was at Galera.

      Bwaha! Lolgfy

    • alanstorm says:

      IOW, they all study very tiny populations, talk to others who do the same (MAYBE by the same metrics, maybe not), and they link all their guesswork and observations with tenuous logic and tortured theories, from which come predictions that don’t bear out.

      Yep, kids, this is Jeffty’s version of the scientific method.

      It explains a lot.

    • Jl says:

      “Teach and his acolytes do not believe scientific consensus”. Science is about inquiry, not “consensus”. By the way, if one has evidence of their theory, “consensus” isn’t needed. You just present your evidence.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        You’re wrong, as has been pointed out to you many times.

        Hypotheses are assumptions made to explain observations before experiments are conducted. Background research is conducted to learn what is already known about the phenomenon. A hypothesis is formed, and are tested by experimentation to determine if it may be true. Based on the results, the hypothesis is either accepted or rejected.

        It’s been proved (over a century ago, see Fourier, Arrhenius) that water vapor and CO2 absorb infrared radiation and release it in all directions. Do you consider that hypothesis true? (Note that in a vacuum electromagnetic radiation travels in a straight line, so infrared from Earth should head out to space.)

        A theory is a principle formed to explain a phenomenon based on a compilation of available data/evidence. A scientific theory can be falsified/invalidated by credible evidence. Science is all about consensus, but the consensus is not always correct.

        The theory of CO2-dependent global warming claims that the current century of warming results from the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

        The Earth is warming. CO2 is increasing. CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation. The Earth would be ice-covered except for the atmosphere. There have been no supported alternative theories at this time.

        • Jl says:

          “A theory is formed based on data and evidence..”. In the case of agw, there still is no verifiable cause-effect evidence. If there was you’d probably be able to show it, but of course you can’t. And no, science isn’t about consensus. That’s just a group of people agreeing on something. “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts”. Feynman. Or, Einstein-“genius abhors consensus because when consensus is reached, thinking stops. Arrhenius and Fourier came up a hypothesis, but never an experiment to demonstrate it. In fact, Arrhenius is quoted as saying an experiment is needed. Fourier actually used someone else’s experiment, but it there was no CO2 involved in the experiment. Go down to the greenhouse section …..

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            After Fourier but before Arrhenius, read John Tyndall who demonstrated experimentally that water vapor and CO2 absorb infrared radiation, and that water vapor is the strongest absorber of infrared (he called it radiant heat) in the atmosphere.

            You are not denying that gaseous molecules can absorb infrared radiation are you? It’s been known for over a century and never refuted. If you deny that simple physical fact we have nothing else to discuss.

            You are not denying that the atmosphere keeps the Earth warmer than without it, are you? Say it ain’t so.

          • david7134 says:

            This absorption of radiation really confuses you. If you had more than remedial chemistry, you would understand that absorption of various waves of light is common in materials and is used in quantitative analysis. SO WHAT. That does not link anything to global warming.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            You are right! And CO2 and water vapor absorb in the infrared spectrum and instead of re-emitting the energy into space its re-emitted randomly – up, down, sideways – warming the atmosphere. That’s why the Earth is habitable.

            Water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas but is naturally self correcting. It falls to Earth as rain and snow, evaporates and falls again. On the other hand, CO2 has been steadily increasing for over a century; methane too. A wrinkle is that a warming atmosphere can hold more water vapor!

            It’s instructive that the denier’s repertoire requires a massive conspiracy between scientists, major religions, corporations, governments, every scientific body, universities and communists.

            It’s easier to recognize basic physics.

          • david7134 says:

            Wrong jeff.

  3. alanstorm says:

    So, perhaps CO2 is not the big deal the climate cultists think.

    It’s not.

  4. Jl says:

    Hmm…90 or so papers on the hiatus that became inconvenient for the bed-wetters, so Mears at RSS simply changed the data. *Science*

  5. davis7134 says:

    Scientific consensus is used on occasion. For instance, we have been misled about cholesterol causing heart disease since the 50s because of consensus. Then there is the issue of swamp gas causing malaria, when it was proven to be mosquitoes using the scientific methods, same for leeches curing disease and scientist advocating burning witches. The list is long in respect to consensus. Jeff is not a very smart person and has a big issue with moral narcissism.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Teach, who sometimes goes by david or davis, eats shit.

      • CarolAnn says:

        He seems to have a big issue with all morality in general. He always opts for the immoral or perverted side of every argument. There’s something wrong with that old man. Deeply wrong.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:


          Your religious beliefs are not the same as morality. Calling other humans “filthy animals” is not moral and is perverted. There is something wrong with you. Deeply wrong.

          • david7134 says:

            They are filthy, fat animals. There fixed it. And you are the only mental case here.

  6. James Lewis says:

    Dear Elwood:

    You write: ” Science is all about consensus, but the consensus is not always correct.”

    No. The definition of consensus is: “a general agreement.”

    The definition of a scientific theory is: “A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]”

    If not proven it isn’t a scientific theory, it is just a “theory” If proven wrong there is no agreement.

    Consensus is always trotted out whenever a favorite belief of the Left is challenged.

  7. Jl says:

    Too bad for J and his cult there are alternate theories with, surprise, actual evidence.

  8. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Jill, this is huuuge! Phin “proved”, with “evidence” that global warming is caused by more sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface, and the conspiratorial cultist scientists have kept this hidden for decades!

    This is Nature journal cover level science!

    You should urge Phin to send this to Nature as a letter. It would be interesting to see all the climate scientists trying to tap dance around this new “evidence”.

    Phin has also exposed the massive conspiracy “they” (“the cult”, IPCC, scientists, National Academies of Science, the commenters, governments, universities, media, communists) have to establish a New World Order!!

    All of Phin’s article seem to reflect right wing positions on other topics too, e.g., ivermectin. “They” have deep tentacles in all our issues!

  9. Jl says:

    So in other words you can’t refute her findings, hence your jumbled word salad? I mean, I’m really shocked…
    You somehow think her “peers” can’t review what she’s put down on paper? I’m not shocked at that one-that’s just plain stupid

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Rinse repeat… same ol’ same ol’. She should publish her findings so serious scientists can judge.

      She needs to prove her point. Did you read the comments there? One commenter took her to task and she called him a fool, retard and with Asperger’s. Imagine how she would fare with peer review!

      Phin appears to be a right-winger with a better sciencey schtick than others.

      Why are the “best” right-wing climate “scientists” bloggers? (Please save yourself the embarrassment of claiming they can’t get jobs doing real research)

Pirate's Cove