• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

In Perspective, Planet: Loss of Billions of Birds in North America!

James Lemon

James Lemon

Well-known member
DSC_0585_00001.jpg


The Great Gray Owl’s far northern range and elusive habits make it difficult to monitor population trends with surveys like the North American Breeding Bird Survey. Partners in Flight estimates the global breeding population at 190,000, with 7% living in the U.S. and 43% in Canada (with the remainder occurring in Eurasia). The State of North America’s Birds 2016 report rates the species an 11 out of 20 on the Continental Concern Score and it is not on the 2016 State of North America's Birds Watch List. In the United States, Great Gray Owls are at the southern limits of their range and are uncommon, but they are fairly common throughout their
Holarctic range.

https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide...ada (with the remainder occurring in Eurasia).
​
 
daran0815

daran0815

New member
James Lemon said:
More than one thousand scientists disagree that human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change. In 2010 Climate Depot released a report featuring more than 1,000 scientists, several of them former UN IPCC scientists, who disagreed that humans are primarily responsible for global climate change. [55] The Cook review [1] of 11,944 peer-reviewed studies found 66.4% of the studies had no stated position on anthropogenic global warming, and while 32.6% of the studies implied or stated that humans are contributing to climate change, only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly stated "that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming." [54] A 2012 Purdue University survey found that 47% of climatologists challenge the idea that humans are primarily responsible for climate change and instead believe that climate change is caused by an equal combination of humans and the environment (37%), mostly by the environment (5%), or that there’s not enough information to say (5%). [173] In 2014 a group of 15 scientists dismissed the US National Climate Assessment as a "masterpiece of marketing," that was "grossly flawed," and called the NCA’s assertion of human-caused climate change "NOT true." [56]
Click to expand...
Now this is obviously copied verbatim from some <insert ad hominem>. Given your other posts I really can't tell whether you actually believe this to be sound points. They are not. Three of the four are cherry picked *and* outdated *and* irrelevant for additional reasons. The only source I would call scientific and relevant is Cook. However the excerpt is a (apparently deliberate) misrepresentation of their findings. The actual paper can be found here: Cook_2013_Environ._Res._Lett._8_024024.pdf and contains among other insights the following conclusion: "Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW." As for your "66.4% of the studies had no stated position on anthropogenic global warming", well, doh, not all research still centers on an already settled question. Besides Cook 2013 also is outdated. E.g. Cook 2016 "Conclusion: We have shown that the scientific consensus on AGW is robust, with a range of 90%–100% depending on the exact question, timing and sampling methodology." Obviously that is also somewhat dated, but you seemed to accept Cook.
 
Last edited:
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Daran0815,

Welcome again to OPF!

I appreciate so much you bringing up the important “Birds Vanishing” topic of James Lemon. I was not equipped with knowledge of the referenced author.

James is a fine person, an oil engineer dealing with pipelines. So in a way he is like a part of thr Catholic Church when we are discussing theology, LOL. He is a good person and a street photographer worth knowing. He came to Los Angeles years back and we had a good time shooting together.

However, global warming is not part of the Catechism of the oil industry!

Asher
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top