Hopes of proving global warming killing penguins?

Hopes of proving global warming killing penguins?How about this for irony. The very tags that French scientists hoped would answer the intriguing yet puzzling questions of climate change on animals like penguins was actually the detrimental cause of impaired survival and reproduction skills in the penguins paired with scientist-applied metal bands and data chips.

In an effort to track the effect of climate change on penguins’ health living in the Crozet Islands, a sub-Antarctic archipelago of small islands, scientists placed metal bands on 50 penguins and data chips on 50 other penguins. The goal was to track the overall health of the colony by monitoring those with the bands and chips. Ironically, those with the metal bands and chips became more the handicapped runts than the glorified test subjects set to prove global warning that the scientists hoped they would be.

According to the data, which has been tracked for more than a decade, those with the metal bands produced 39% fewer chicks and survived at a rate 16% lower than those without the bands. Additionally, the birds with bands showed up an average of 16 days later to the breeding grounds.

Ultimately, the artificial selection (of scientists tagging penguins) created an exemplary model of Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection. Those with the bands became the inferior species dying off and showing up late for the breeding fest.

After more than 10 years of studying the birds, the researchers arrived at the conclusion that although the tags may have been detrimental to the health of the penguins, they still believe climate change is very real. They simply think “[they] need a better method to study it.”


Sometimes it becomes apparent that the hope of proving a point gets in the way of sound judgment. Over a period of ten years, scientists observed changed behavior, but the changed behavior was not a result of global warming. It was because the experiment created the variables and the results. The results, essentially, were constructed rather than observed.

It will be imperative in the future that global warming studies take into account all the external variables over a long period of time. For global warming to be a proven reality, it must be observed.  



As a former climate change believer, may I personally apologize for condemning billions of children to death by CO2 for 25 years, just to get them to turn the lights out more often. I had become the fear mongering neocon of CO2 environMENTALism as I issued CO2 death warrants to YOUR family and mine. I apologize for calling: cold -warm, warm -hot and for calling all bad weather -Humanity’s fault. I apologize for splitting responsible environmentalism and dragging progressivism down with it. I apologize for not endorsing population control instead of impossible climate control. I apologize for scaring children with: “unstoppable warming” and “out of control warming and “runaway warming“ and not having the honesty to call it THE END OF THE WORLD.

I’m sorry I forgot this MOST important fact:

-that it was the trusted scientists we bowed to and their evil chemicals that made environmentalism necessary in the first place.

We former believers admit to being pretend rebels as we were spoon-fed by corporations and politicians promising to lower the seas. The neocons have never admitted their Iraq War WMD’s and the scientists have never admitted responsibility for their chemicals that are causing cancer. I admit my ideology’s WMD’s that led us to another Bush-like false war against a false enemy. Please forgive me?

" The neocons have never admitted their Iraq War WMD’s " 

Maybe they don't feel they have to since there were WMD's.  Just because the lamestream media doesn't report it doesn't mean it didn't happen.



You're an idiot.

"I’m sorry I forgot this MOST important fact: that it was the trusted scientists we bowed to and their evil chemicals that made environmentalism necessary in the first place."

You're an idiot. This is the most retarded argument I have ever seen in favour of denialism.

I do believe that this is full of sarcasm and wit. As a pretty sarcastic bastrd myself, I find it sometimes is difficult for people to "get it". The way I explain it to my long suffering family is this - "if it sounds completely preposterous, I am being sarcastic". 

this has the double benefit, of explaining away any really stupid things I might say. At the risk of course, of my not being taken seriously. but, since I figure serious is a bad state to be in, I'm OK with that.