As this discussion was taking place, a friend of mine was birding in
Hawaii. He had me look up some of the native birds he was lucky enough to
see. One of them was the 'I'iwi, a.k.a. the scarlet Hawaiian
honeycreeper. According to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%BBI%CA%BBiwi

One of the threats to its continued existence is mosquito borne diseases.
"Thus the 'I'iwi generally survives at higher elevations where
temperatures are too cool for mosquitoes, and like many
disease-susceptible endemic birds is rare to absent at lower elevations,
even in relatively intact native forest. "

So although the warming trend could "actually benefit some of the more
widespread species", the potential impacts to other species who live
within a vary narrow range of climate/habitat conditions could be quite
severe. Many of these habitat specialists are already rare, threatened,
or endangered and may not benefit from further modifications to their
habitat through climate change.

Janet Millard
Leavenworth, WA

> Ed, Tweeters:
>
> I think Ed hit this right on the money related to opinions expressed
> on Tweeters.
>
> Global warming does seem to exist, and analyses of average mean
> temperatures over the last few decades supports the case that we are
> amidst a general warming trend. And our CBCs show a tendency
> toward a northward movement in wintering ranges for some of our
> birds.
>
> But the cause thereto seems much less clear. There seems to be an
> overwhelmingly oppressive ideological dogmatism out there that
> holds fast to the notion that Homo sapiens is the sole cause. Imagine
> going into a convention of proponents of global warming-being-human-
> caused and daring to suggest that other factors might also be involved.
> You would surely be shouted down, at least. So much for
> a diversity of opinions and scientific investigation of all views.
>
> Sadly, a hysterical, emotional approach seems to take the place of a
> scientific method in so much of the public discourse on the matter.
>
> Apart from the cause, within the birding world, one would think there
> would be at least one person daring enough to ask the unthinkable:
> could the warming trend actually benefit some of the more widespread
> species? Personally, I feel Snohomish County is a better place because
> three W. Scrub-Jays managed to move north into the Everett count circle
> this December (for the first time according to modern CBC data; this is
> not to say I managed to see any of 'em yet). No, wrong, the heavy
> orthodoxy dictates a black-and-white, one-size-fits-all official line--
> it's all bad.
>
> And even if one accepts at face value the contention that the warming
> trend is solely Homo sapiens' doing, what then? Other than shutting
> down or restricting our own manufacturers (which we have in fact been
> doing for some time now), are we ready to launch missile strikes
> against China's? We've regulated our own industry increasingly over
> the decades, and now much of what we once had is located overseas,
> outsourced, etc. In May 2009, an amazing story came out as many
> Americans were feeling the pain of a harsh economic recession. China
> had reportedly begun leading the world out of the economic recession.
> This was a first in modern history of which I'm aware. Could there
> just be a correlation, that China, now in many ways the world's
> manufacturing center, was leading the world out of recession, while
> at the same time owning a record level of the U.S. debt?
>
> We have a lot less jobs and wealth from the manufacturing sector than
> we once had--and a whole lot less wealth to spend on long-cherished
> goals than we once had, like preservation of criticial and diminishing
> habitat for endangered bird species, efforts to promote biodiversity in
> remote 3rd World areas, environmental research, and others.
>
> Scott Atkinson
> Lake Stevens
> mail to: scottratkinson at hotmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>