Animals "on the run" from climate change

At least he'll be OK…

The UK Telegraph used to be a serious newspaper, but, as I have mentioned before, it’s now more like a broadsheet version of Hello. In fact, Private Eye always refers to it as the Daily Hellograph. Despite Climategate, they still parrot any old press release that lands on the “climate change desk” and this story is no exception. From our old friend, Chris Field (see here, and here), we have a lovely alarmist Christmas present:

Plants and animals will need to move at an average rate of a quarter of a mile a year to escape climate change over the course of this century, according to scientists.

For species in flatter, low-lying regions such as deserts, grasslands, and coastal areas, the pace of the retreat could exceed more than half a mile a year, it is claimed.

Creatures and plants only able to tolerate a narrow range of temperatures will be most vulnerable, said the researchers.

Those unable to match the migration speeds needed to escape the effects of global warming could vanish into extinction.

Plants in almost a third of the habitats studied were thought to fall into this category, the scientists reported in the journal Nature.

Author Dr Chris Field, director of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology in Stanford, California, said animals will be forced to migrate while many plants will die out.

“Expressed as velocities, climate-change projections connect directly to survival prospects for plants and animals. These are the conditions that will set the stage, whether species move or cope in place,” he said. (source)

Yawn. We’ve had enough of alarmism. We’re not listening any more. Climate change scientists need to rebuild their shattered credibility before we will take anything they say seriously again.


  1. Considering that the UK is on its way to a third cold winter in a row and has had at lest two recent wet and mild summers, are the flora and fauna headed uphil or downhill in England?

  2. I’m not sure there have been any walking plants since Middle Earth and the One Ring to bind them all.

  3. Owen Morgan says:

    The gullibility of the Telegraph’s editorial approach to “climate change” knows no bounds. As you say, it seems entirely driven by press release, with no analysis whatever in evidence on the part of the “journalists”. This particular article claims that the increasing numbers of the Red Kite (Milvus milvus) are evidence of “global warming”. Actually, they are evidence of a programme of introduction of Kites to rural Oxfordshire and the introduced birds came, in many cases, from Sweden, a country not famous for being especially hot.

    Two of the other birds whose British populations have supposedly suffered severely as a result of global warming are the Golden Oriole (Oriolus oriolus) and the (European) Turtle Dove (Streptopelia turtur). The Golden Oriole has never been well established as a breeding bird in Britain. It’s found in warmer countries, such as Portugal. Its failure to maintain a significant foothold in Britain is, if anything, an argument against global warming. Similarly, the Turtle Dove is unique among the British doves in being a summer migrant, not a resident. If the climate were getting warmer, shouldn’t we be seeing more of these birds in Britain, rather than fewer?

  4. EVEN IF temperatures were going up, animals and plants have survived millions of years with constantly changing weather conditions. A one or two degree change in weather is not going to effect any truly viable species at all.

%d bloggers like this: