

  (Source: The Northern Myth)
Though they do not have enough evidence to back it up















Comments     Threshold


RE: Seems Premature
By ltgrunt on 8/11/2010 1:18:38 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not seeing anything in this article to suggest that these researchers are specifically focusing on AGW climate change. It's widely understood at this point that climate change is happening; it's a real thing. The biggest point of contention is the cause, which is where the AGW vs. natural processes argument comes in. But this article doesn't really indicate that their research is going one way or the other on the causes, rather that they're just looking at the effects.

And while it could be argued that they're making their conclusions first, keep in mind that it's also part of the scientific method to make a hypothesis and then do your research and testing to support or falsify that hypothesis. They need to start their research with a bit more focus than something general like "what's happening with birds?" So they take the theory "global warming can cause bird die-offs" and they run with it to see what happens. They seem to be explicitly stating that they haven't finished (or started) research, to say nothing of testing.

RE: Seems Premature
By JediJeb on 8/11/2010 4:56:14 PM , Rating: 2
To better understand the future of these bird populations, Wolf and McKechnie have devised a mathematical model based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's predictions that Earth's temperature will rise 3.5 to 6.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the course of the next one hundred years

They are basing their model off of what is probably the most pro AGW work out there, so I assumed they are also thinking along the same lines with their work. Maybe I guessed wrong.

