Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change Prompts Emperor Penguins To Find New Breeding Grounds
An anonymous reader writes Researchers have discovered that emperor penguins may not be faithful to their previous nesting locations, as previously thought. Scientists have long thought that emperor penguins were philopatric, returning to the same location to nest each year. However, a new research study showed that the penguins may be behaving in ways that allow them to adapt to their changing environment. Lead author Michelle LaRue said,"Our research showing that colonies seem to appear and disappear throughout the years challenges behaviors we thought we understood about emperor penguins. If we assume that these birds come back to the same locations every year, without fail, these new colonies we see on satellite images wouldn't make any sense. These birds didn't just appear out of thin air—they had to have come from somewhere else. This suggests that emperor penguins move among colonies. That means we need to revisit how we interpret population changes and the causes of those changes."
What? You're suggesting that partisan scientists are involved in bias? Unpossible. As we all know there is no bias in climate change science, especially since they all agree. And as such, breaking from doctrine is heresy.
Om, nomnomnom...
You don't get it. Climate change is so powerful now, it can move emperor penguins great distances!
Because colony sites never changed before humanity existed? :)
This is obviously once again an example of the misleading shorthand of "climate change".
"climate change" always happens. Always will.
"anthropogenic climate change" is a peculiar proposition in general, and even more suspect when people are trying to make a specific attribution to a region the size of a penguin breeding ground :)
Isn't it disingenuous to imply that climate change never happened before?
Put another way, isn't it true that climate change has *always* been a factor that can affect the location of penguin colonies, even before humans were ever around?
You're here because a lot of environmental changes that a lot of species couldn't adapt to happened - without the extinction of those species, your species never would have arisen. You can argue that it was bad for them, but you can't argue that it was bad for you.
After all, wouldn't it be better if we got rid of all those damn spotted owls and desert tortoises and tit-mice that prevent us from expanding our habitat? Isn't the misguided attempt to preserve other species that are being selected against through pressures simply *forcing* us to fight for all our daily resources?