 |
|
|
|
|
ARBIRD-L for Saturday, June 7, 2008
[ Prev Day
| Next Day
| Calendar Month
| ARBIRD-L Info
]
|
|
To use email addresses replace '(AT)' with '@'.
This is done to confuse the spam 'bots.
|
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: The Climate Security Act is vitally important to all of
us! one way or another
From: Jamie Gwin <aarongwin(AT)COMCAST.NET>
Date: 7 Jun 2008 1:05am
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
I am interested in this too.
All four major Global Temperature Tracking Outlets, Hadley, NASA GLASS, UAH, and
RSS show updated data that the temperature has dropped. Janine what does the
IPCC say about the temperature in 2008?
Must be hundreds of the smart Climate Scientist working for these four
agencies plus a couple of dumb ones who knew somebody who got them the job.
Janine, beside Climate Scientist Al Gore, name a few hundred scientist who will
state that we are not in a cooling phase right now 2008.
I didn't see the IPCC listed as one of the major Global TemperatureTracking
Outlets. What is the source of IPCC information? Does their information come
from a few tracking points or global? How old is the information when IPCC
receives it. How long does it take IPCC to process this information? Is it
outdated by the time it is published? And last, how bad is it twisted?
I sure wish the wind would stop blowing for awhile. I hate birding when it is
windy. Hate means I don't like.
Aaron Gwin
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Janine Perlman <jpandjf(AT)SWBELL.NET>
Cheryle,
I'm interested in this:
>There are many scientists who disagree with much of this "hysteria"...
Could you be more specific? I don't know what you mean by "many" scientists, or
what kind of scientists they are, or what their names are and who pays their
salaries, or what you mean by "hysteria".
Just yesterday I heard someone from the Wall Street Journal say authoritatively
that "thousands of scientists" disagree that humans are causing climate change,
and/or that the planet is warming at all. I was quite astonished. Who are
these "many" (your word) or "thousands of" (WSJ) scientists? Are they climate
scientists? Not that I can find.
In contrast, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) really does
consist of hundreds of climate scientists/experts whose names and reports are
public, and who use nothing but peer-reviewed science to create those
reports---and the reports themselves undergo exhaustive peer review before
they're released.
Since you don't object to the word "politics", I have to say that as far as I
can tell, virtually the only people who disagree that a) the planet is warming
significantly faster than even the "most likely" scenarios presented by the IPCC
last year; and b) humans are contributing greatly to that warming, are those
who are politically, rather than scientifically, motivated.
The scientific consensus is clear, and the proportion of climate experts who
agree, based on peer-reviewed data and analyses, is overwhelmingly large.
Then we go to part c), the likely results of climate change. Those are being
studied by a wide array of scientists---thousands of them---geologists,
chemists, ecologists, ornithologists, marine biologists, and dozens more -ists.
Most of the studies show dramatic and accelerating changes. The extrapolated
effects on countless species, including ourselves and "our" birds here in
central Arkansas (e.g., emerging tropical diseases and epidemics; exotics
affecting the entire food chain) are gut-wrenching.
So one considers what is incontrovertibly happening now, and what the likely
effects will be as it continues/accelerates; and then one asks what, if
anything, we ought to do to change the situation. In risk analysis, the greater
the risk, the less certain an outcome needs to be in order for preventing it to
be worthwhile. But in this situation, both factors are large. The
risk---e.g., enormous suffering and widespread extinctions---is surely huge.
And the probability of major disruptions to the ecosystem are very high;
alarming and accelerating effects are already being observed on many fronts.
Thus, one might well argue that the need for strong action is urgent and
compelling.
Weighing what to do and how to do it is, of course, in the purview of politics.
I did read your post, and I assure you that there are other organizations with
excellent reputations for objectivity (which the Heritage Foundation doesn't
even pretend to possess) that bring much more evidence to bear, and reach vastly
different conclusions, than those found in the report you posted.
But before going to policy-making, one has to assess the evidence. If one is
really interested in, as you say, "accuracy", science is the singular human
pursuit in which objective truth, verifiable by anyone else who performs the
same experiment, is paramount. Science is surely the place to start, and the
basis on which policy should be made.
Sincerely,
Janine
Janine Perlman, Ph.D.
Alexander Mt., Saline Co.
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Climate Security Act of vital importance to birds and
people
From: "George R. Hoelzeman" <uiogd(AT)ARKANSAS.NET>
Date: 7 Jun 2008 1:13am
Thanks for saying what I was thinking.
Frankly, as soon as I see the name of an organization like the Heritage
Foundation on something, I immediately dismiss the information as distortions or
half-
truths. Its simply not reliable. Its like asking the (fill in the blank)
dealership what he thinks of (fill in the name of a competitor).
Also, when a books title declares the bias of its author like "Europe's Dirty
Secret" I have a hard time taking its data seriously. Its like picking up a
book
entitled "The Ivory Billed Woodpecker is Extinct You Morons" and expecting
scientific balance.
That having been said, I've never fully understood the cap-n-trade approach.
I'm still a little fuzzy on how that actually helps although a lot of people
seem
to think it does. And to me, the real ongoing problem is that Green is so
accursedly expensive that you practically have to be a Rockefellar to afford it.
I
looked into wind, solar, and a host of other options when we built the house.
We used a few green technologies (including building a log home, which was
a catastrophic mistake) but the majority were prohibitively expensive. I'm
still trying to figure out how to make biodiesel without potentially destroying
my
truck's engine.
In the mean time, when the local logger's busted a hydraulic cylinder on their
skidder, they simply dumped the 15 - 20 gallons of oil onto the ground during
the repair process. As long as we continue to treat the planet as our personal
waste bin, things are not going to get any better.
George (n. Conway Co rambling and ranting but without the cash to do more than
be careful)
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 17:58:49 -0700, Jack and Pam wrote:
>Cheryle and ARbirders.
>On a day when the stock market plunged 400 points, unemployment hit a more than
twenty year high, oil prices hit another all time record, and extreme
climate conditions continued around the World it is hard to take the "let's not
do anything" crowd seriously. This should not be a political discussion. The
Heritage Foundation takes hundreds of thousands of dollars from foreign entities
every year (such as Taiwan and South Korea) and has a strong neo-
conservative bias.
>It is unfortunate that the Climate Security Act failed because it contained
good provisions for wildlife, especially birds. WHAT THIS COUNTRY DECIDES
TO DO ABOUT ITS ENERGY PROBLEM, AND MAKE NO MISTAKE IT WILL HAVE TO DO SOMETHING
SOON, WILL HAVE ENORMOUS IMPACT
ON HABITAT FOR WILDLIFE. This should not be made into a left vs right issue.
Remember both John McCain and Barak Obama supported the Climate
Security ACT.
>Jack Stewart
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Bachman's Sparrow and fire
From: Helen Parker <max.parker(AT)EARTHLINK.NET>
Date: 7 Jun 2008 6:15am
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Joe, Bill, et al,
I believe I am correct in saying that IPCo has sold all its timberland in south
AR; perhaps all in the State. I'm pretty sure that TNC bought some of it; have
no idea whether they retained it, or how they manage it. I no longer have
contacts who could tell me about ownership or management policies. But I do
think that technology has meant that there are no longer many actual humans out
there among the ticks and chiggers, and those who are there would probably not
recognize the lovely song of a Bachman's Sparrow. I'm referring to aerial
photos; couldn't we then zero in on a tract and see what was growing there? ;-)
Helen PArker
Little Rock
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Shepherd
To:
Sent: 5/29/2008 5:19:33 PM
Subject: Re: Bachman's Sparrow and fire
Thank you, Joe. As far as I know, IP still owns most of the timber land in
southern Arkansas that they owned 25 years ago (unlike Ga. Pacific). I don't
know whether IP still uses fire in site preparation or not.
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: The Climate Security Act is vitally important to all of
us! one way or another
From: Leslie Keith Koller <les_koller(AT)SBCGLOBAL.NET>
Date: 7 Jun 2008 9:09am
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
My only problem with scientists claiming WE are the cause of global =
warming is that the earth is generally accepted to be 4.5 billion years =
old. Man has been here perhaps 7 million years, or .16% (16 =
one-hundredths of 1 percent) of that time. But then, we have been =
keeping records of the climate now for what? 200 years? 300 years?Call =
it 1000 years to be safe. That's .00002 (two one-hundred-thousandths of =
1 percent) of that time. I won't say we are NOT causing global warming =
(not yet)...I'm just saying there is not enough data.
I believe we pollute too much, and should stop now. Post haste. It =
can't be GOOD for the environment that we do that. But I think we give =
our selves too much credit when it comes to global climate change.
Leslie Koller
Benton, Saline Co, Arkansas
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Janine Perlman=20
To: ARBIRD-L(AT)LISTSERV.UARK.EDU=20
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: The Climate Security Act is vitally important to all of =
us! one way or another
Cheryle,
I'm interested in this:
>There are many scientists who disagree with much of this =
"hysteria"...
Could you be more specific? I don't know what you mean by "many" =
scientists, or what kind of scientists they are, or what their names are =
and who pays their salaries, or what you mean by "hysteria".
Just yesterday I heard someone from the Wall Street Journal say =
authoritatively that "thousands of scientists" disagree that humans are =
causing climate change, and/or that the planet is warming at all. I was =
quite astonished. Who are these "many" (your word) or "thousands of" =
(WSJ) scientists? Are they climate scientists? Not that I can find. =20
In contrast, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) =
really does consist of hundreds of climate scientists/experts whose =
names and reports are public, and who use nothing but peer-reviewed =
science to create those reports---and the reports themselves undergo =
exhaustive peer review before they're released. =20
Since you don't object to the word "politics", I have to say that as =
far as I can tell, virtually the only people who disagree that a) the =
planet is warming significantly faster than even the "most likely" =
scenarios presented by the IPCC last year; and b) humans are =
contributing greatly to that warming, are those who are politically, =
rather than scientifically, motivated.=20
The scientific consensus is clear, and the proportion of climate =
experts who agree, based on peer-reviewed data and analyses, is =
overwhelmingly large.
Then we go to part c), the likely results of climate change. Those =
are being studied by a wide array of scientists---thousands of =
them---geologists, chemists, ecologists, ornithologists, marine =
biologists, and dozens more -ists. Most of the studies show dramatic =
and accelerating changes. The extrapolated effects on countless =
species, including ourselves and "our" birds here in central Arkansas =
(e.g., emerging tropical diseases and epidemics; exotics affecting the =
entire food chain) are gut-wrenching.
So one considers what is incontrovertibly happening now, and what =
the likely effects will be as it continues/accelerates; and then one =
asks what, if anything, we ought to do to change the situation. In risk =
analysis, the greater the risk, the less certain an outcome needs to be =
in order for preventing it to be worthwhile. But in this situation, =
both factors are large. The risk---e.g., enormous suffering and =
widespread extinctions---is surely huge. And the probability of major =
disruptions to the ecosystem are very high; alarming and accelerating =
effects are already being observed on many fronts. =20
Thus, one might well argue that the need for strong action is urgent =
and compelling. =20
Weighing what to do and how to do it is, of course, in the purview =
of politics. I did read your post, and I assure you that there are =
other organizations with excellent reputations for objectivity (which =
the Heritage Foundation doesn't even pretend to possess) that bring much =
more evidence to bear, and reach vastly different conclusions, than =
those found in the report you posted.
But before going to policy-making, one has to assess the evidence. =
If one is really interested in, as you say, "accuracy", science is the =
singular human pursuit in which objective truth, verifiable by anyone =
else who performs the same experiment, is paramount. Science is surely =
the place to start, and the basis on which policy should be made.
Sincerely,
Janine
Janine Perlman, Ph.D.
Alexander Mt., Saline Co.
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: The Climate Security Act is vitally important to all of
us! one way or another
From: Janine Perlman <jpandjf(AT)SWBELL.NET>
Date: 7 Jun 2008 9:25am
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Here's the link to the IPCC
http://www.ipcc.ch/
I don't know what you mean by "temperatures have dropped", but a =
transient near-term cooling is predicted by many scientists, in the =
context of continued global warming. That's described here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/science/earth/01climate.html?_r=3D1=
&scp=3D1&sq=3Dclimate+cooling&st=3Dnyt&oref=3Dslogin
Best,
Janine
----- Original Message -----=20
From: aarongwin(AT)comcast.net=20
To: Janine Perlman ; ARBIRD-L(AT)LISTSERV.UARK.EDU=20
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 1:05 AM
Subject: Re: The Climate Security Act is vitally important to all of =
us! one way or another
I am interested in this too.
All four major Global Temperature Tracking Outlets, Hadley, NASA =
GLASS, UAH, and RSS show updated data that the temperature has dropped. =
Janine what does the IPCC say about the temperature in 2008? =20
Must be hundreds of the smart Climate Scientist working for these =
four agencies plus a couple of dumb ones who knew somebody who got them =
the job. Janine, beside Climate Scientist Al Gore, name a few hundred =
scientist who will state that we are not in a cooling phase right now =
2008. =20
I didn't see the IPCC listed as one of the major Global =
TemperatureTracking Outlets. What is the source of IPCC information? =
Does their information come from a few tracking points or global? How =
old is the information when IPCC receives it. How long does it take =
IPCC to process this information? Is it outdated by the time it is =
published? And last, how bad is it twisted?
I sure wish the wind would stop blowing for awhile. I hate birding =
when it is windy. Hate means I don't like.
Aaron Gwin
-------------- Original message --------------=20
From: Janine Perlman <jpandjf(AT)SWBELL.NET>=20
Cheryle,
I'm interested in this:
>There are many scientists who disagree with much of this =
"hysteria"...
Could you be more specific? I don't know what you mean by "many" =
scientists, or what kind of scientists they are, or what their names are =
and who pays their salaries, or what you mean by "hysteria".
Just yesterday I heard someone from the Wall Street Journal say =
authoritatively that "thousands of scientists" disagree that humans are =
causing climate change, and/or that the planet is warming at all. I was =
quite astonished. Who are these "many" (your word) or "thousands of" =
(WSJ) scientists? Are they climate scientists? Not that I can find. =20
In contrast, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) =
really does consist of hundreds of climate scientists/experts whose =
names and reports are public, and who use nothing but peer-reviewed =
science to create those reports---and the reports themselves undergo =
exhaustive peer review before they're released. =20
Since you don't object to the word "politics", I have to say that =
as far as I can tell, virtually the only people who disagree that a) the =
planet is warming significantly faster than even the "most likely" =
scenarios presented by the IPCC last year; and b) humans are =
contributing greatly to that warming, are those who are politically, =
rather than scientifically, motivated.=20
The scientific consensus is clear, and the proportion of climate =
experts who agree, based on peer-reviewed data and analyses, is =
overwhelmingly large.
Then we go to part c), the likely results of climate change. =
Those are being studied by a wide array of scientists---thousands of =
them---geologists, chemists, ecologists, ornithologists, marine =
biologists, and dozens more -ists. Most of the studies show dramatic =
and accelerating changes. The extrapolated effects on countless =
species, including ourselves and "our" birds here in central Arkansas =
(e.g., emerging tropical diseases and epidemics; exotics affecting the =
entire food chain) are gut-wrenching.
So one considers what is incontrovertibly happening now, and what =
the likely effects will be as it continues/accelerates; and then one =
asks what, if anything, we ought to do to change the situation. In risk =
analysis, the greater the risk, the less certain an outcome needs to be =
in order for preventing it to be worthwhile. But in this situation, =
both factors are large. The risk---e.g., enormous suffering and =
widespread extinctions---is surely huge. And the probability of major =
disruptions to the ecosystem are very high; alarming and accelerating =
effects are already being observed on many fronts. =20
Thus, one might well argue that the need for strong action is =
urgent and compelling. =20
Weighing what to do and how to do it is, of course, in the purview =
of politics. I did read your post, and I assure you that there are =
other organizations with excellent reputations for objectivity (which =
the Heritage Foundation doesn't even pretend to possess) that bring much =
more evidence to bear, and reach vastly different conclusions, than =
those found in the report you posted.
But before going to policy-making, one has to assess the evidence. =
If one is really interested in, as you say, "accuracy", science is the =
singular human pursuit in which objective truth, verifiable by anyone =
else who performs the same experiment, is paramount. Science is surely =
the place to start, and the basis on which policy should be made.
Sincerely,
Janine
Janine Perlman, Ph.D.
Alexander Mt., Saline Co.
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: The Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Act: A Solution
Worse Than the Problem
From: Jeffrey Short <bashman(AT)EARTHLINK.NET>
Date: 7 Jun 2008 10:13am
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Perhaps our discussions on the ARBIRD-listserv about Global Warming, =
Climate Change should relate directly to information of ecological =
interest to birds: species changes, habitat change, climate change, =
food/prey change, etc.=20
Whether the L-W CSA approach to GW becomes the one that is adopted is =
certainly debatable. However, a direct carbon "tax" would certainly be =
more repressive for the poor of the state. =20
To do-nothing about our impact on the environment--whether =
climate-related or otherwise--is not an option for my family. =
Personally, I am taking a positive steps in preparation for GW: I =
planted drought-tolerant, native grass species and, for the long-term, =
I have purchased several saguaro cactus and will plant them so they will =
be ready when the elf owls arrive. =20
I tend to believe that here in the Natural State we will benefit far =
more from the L-W CSA than the Heritage Foundation study shows. If =
nothing else, we will remain "Natural" which in this day-and-age is =
quite unique. That naturalness, in itself, may be the factor that brings =
more people--with their money and its attendant greenhouse gas =
problems--to the region.
Jeff Short
At the bottom loop of the backwards "S" on the continuation of the =
Ouachita River
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Bachman's Sparrow and fire
From: Bill Shepherd <stoneax63(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 7 Jun 2008 12:40pm
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Thank you, Helen. I remember a few years ago when IP put most of their des=
ignated "unique areas" up for sale and TNC bought some of them. But I don'=
t recall hearing that they had sold all their timber land in southern Arkan=
sas.
=20
If that's indeed the case, we certainly need to find out who owns the land =
now.
=20
BillBill Shepherd2805 Linden, Apt. 3 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205-5964 Stone=
ax63(AT)hotmail.com (501) 375-3918
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 06:15:07 -0500From: max.parker(AT)EARTHLINK.NETSubject: =
Re: Bachman's Sparrow and fireTo: ARBIRD-L(AT)LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Joe, Bill, et al,
=20
I believe I am correct in saying that IPCo has sold all its timberland in s=
outh AR; perhaps all in the State. I'm pretty sure that TNC bought some of=
it; have no idea whether they retained it, or how they manage it. I no l=
onger have contacts who could tell me about ownership or management policie=
s. But I do think that technology has meant that there are no longer many =
actual humans out there among the ticks and chiggers, and those who are the=
re would probably not recognize the lovely song of a Bachman's Sparrow. I'=
m referring to aerial photos; couldn't we then zero in on a tract and see w=
hat was growing there? ;-)
=20
Helen PArker
Little Rock
=20
=20
=20
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Bill Shepherd=20
To:=20
Sent: 5/29/2008 5:19:33 PM=20
Subject: Re: Bachman's Sparrow and fire
Thank you, Joe. As far as I know, IP still owns most of the timber land in=
southern Arkansas that they owned 25 years ago (unlike Ga. Pacific). I do=
n't know whether IP still uses fire in site preparation or not.=
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: IP land
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Joe_Mosby?= <jhmosby(AT)CYBERBACK.COM>
Date: 7 Jun 2008 1:01pm
Much of IP's land in south Arkansas was bought by a company named Plum
Creek, headquartered in Seattle. Its web site says "Plum Creek is the
largest and most geographically diverse private landowner in the nation."
IP at one time had several wildlife biologists stationed in Arkansas, and
they declined in number through the years. I don't know anything about
Plum Creek's personnel in our state.
Somebody told me that IP had sold all its Arkansas land, but I don't know
if that's accurate or not.
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: IP land
From: Jeffrey Short <bashman(AT)EARTHLINK.NET>
Date: 7 Jun 2008 1:46pm
Over a year ago, Plum Creek was advertising for planners. I assumed they
were wanting to subdivide some of their AR holdings for the marketplace. St
Joe Paper Co has been doing the same thing in FL. (Maybe they are getting
ready for 'boomer' retirements?)
Jeff Short
At the bottom loop of the backwards "S" on the continuation of the Ouachita
River
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: IP land
From: Bill Shepherd <stoneax63(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 7 Jun 2008 2:17pm
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Thank you, Joe. I remember that Georgia-Pacific split into two companies a=
nd Plum Creek became the half that held and managed its real estate (while =
G-P proper manufactures paper & plywood). But I hadn't heard anything abou=
t Plum Creek's buying all of IP's lands. If so, that makes for an awful lo=
t of Arkansas land in a single ownership.
=20
BillBill Shepherd2805 Linden, Apt. 3 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205-5964 Stone=
ax63(AT)hotmail.com (501) 375-3918> Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 13:01:19 -0500> From=
: jhmosby(AT)CYBERBACK.COM> Subject: IP land> To: ARBIRD-L(AT)LISTSERV.UARK.EDU> =
> Much of IP's land in south Arkansas was bought by a company named Plum =
=3D> > Creek, headquartered in Seattle. Its web site says "Plum Creek is th=
e > largest and most geographically diverse private landowner in the nation=
."=3D> > > IP at one time had several wildlife biologists stationed in Arka=
nsas, and=3D> > they declined in number through the years. I don't know any=
thing about =3D> > Plum Creek's personnel in our state.> > Somebody told me=
that IP had sold all its Arkansas land, but I don't know=3D> > if that's a=
ccurate or not.=
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Migration count data
From: Leif E Anderson <leanderson(AT)FS.FED.US>
Date: 7 Jun 2008 4:24pm
Greetings all,
I've gotten most of the data from the migration counts held on 5/10 or
5/11. I'd like to start the article for the AAS newsletter and the entry
into ebird. If you counted but haven't turned it in, then please send me
your information. No count is to small, as long as you include your hours/
miles.
Counties I've heard from: Benton, Boone, Carroll, Cleburne, Craighead,
Faulkner, Garland, Jefferson, Logan, Lonoke, Marion, Ouachita, Pope,
Phillip, Pulaski, Stone and Washington.
You can send it in any format to me by email at - Leanderson(AT)fs.fed.us or
by mail at - PO Box 195 Hector, AR. 72843
Thanks, Leif @ Hector
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Swainson's Warbler- Wedington
From: Abigail Jeneane Darrah <adarrah(AT)UARK.EDU>
Date: 7 Jun 2008 4:59pm
This morning well before dawn I rode my bike out to Lake Wedington in hopes of
nightjars. No luck there, perhaps because of the wind, but I enjoyed being out
in the woods to hear the very beginnings of the dawn chorus. SUMMER TANAGERS
were the first to chime in, and sang alone in the semi-darkness for a time. A
NORTHERN PARULA had me confused for a moment with an unusual song that had
almost the cadence of a Cerulean's, and gave an almost continuous round of chip
notes between songs. That was the only warbler species I found in the deciduous
woods along the trail, I had never been on it outside of fall/winter and
noticed how open the woods are, with little understory. Closer to the
trailhead, though, was a shaded ravine with much more undergrowth that harbored
a singing WOOD THRUSH and SCARLET TANAGER. In the pines at the trailhead were
PINE WARBLERS, YELLOW-THROATED WARBLER, and CHIPPING SPARROWS. At the lake
itself there were 2 GREEN HERONS, and a KENTUCKY WARBLER i
n the woods nearby.
I slowly started to ride back up the road, listening as I went. I was startled
to hear a SWAINSON'S WARBLER singing, and wouldn't have believed my ears if it
hadn't been so close by and unmistakable. I stood at the side of the road and
scanned for it. There was a steep drop-off next to the road, and my attempt to
descend into the woods quietly was not so successful. The bird flushed deeper
into the forest, and I decided not to chase after it. The area was thick and
shaded and also held a singing WOOD THRUSH and OVENBIRD.
Abby Darrah
Fayetteville, AR
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Garvan Woodland Gardens Field Trip LRRAS
From: Joyce Hartmann <hart(AT)ARTELCO.COM>
Date: 7 Jun 2008 5:29pm
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Little Red River Audubon Society Field Trip
On Friday afternoon, June 6th, six members of the Little Red River Audubon
Society birded at Garvan Woodland Gardens in Hot Springs from about 12:30
p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Jerry Butler of the Garland County Audubon Chapter met us
and gave us a great tour. Jerry is directing the project to re-do the
outdated bird list for the Gardens. Together we saw the following birds:
Pileated Woodpecker
Indigo Bunting
Northern Cardinal
Summer Tanager
Chipping Sparrow
Carolina Wren
Great Crested Flycatcher
Blue Jay
Tufted Titmouse
American Robin
Red-bellied Woodpecker
Carolina Chickadee
Mourning Dove
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Common Crow
Mallard
Red-headed Woodpecker
Red-eyed Vireo
Little Green Heron
White-breasted Nuthatch
Kentucky Warbler
We also saw cinnabar and other mushroons, dragons and butterflies. Weather
was cloudy with occasional showers and wind. I heard my first cicada of the
season singing there. We "almost" saw a Wood Duck.oops, turned out to be a
Dr. Pepper bottle floating in the lake.
Many many thanks to Jerry! He was a great tour guide, as he knew where many
birds hung out.my highlight was seeing the Red-headed Woodpecker, which we
might easily have missed. He said all three kinds of nut hatches are seen
there, and we really wanted to see the Brown-headed Nuthatch, but oh well,
maybe next time. We enjoyed our whole tour and the beauty of the gardens.
Most of our birding took place in the natural woodlands (the "antlers of the
moose", if you look at a map of the trail) but we also quickly toured the
formal gardens, especially enjoying the deep blue of the hydrangeas and the
bright red-violet colors of the phlox.
Later in the evening we visited about 10 galleries on the monthly Art
Gallery Walk downtown. Where were the bird paintings?! In one gallery there
were quite a few Bald Eagles in the Native American motif. In all the other
galleries we only saw one egret, one Ivory-billed Woodpecker, one chicken,
and one parrot painting. Hmm. Does this mean that birders do not buy
paintings in Hot Springs?
Joyce Hartmann, Field Trip Coordinator for the Little Red River Audubon
Society
Birders Bob Hartmann, Sid and Mickey Roberts, and Jerry and Valerie Goodman
Tour Guide: Jerry Butler
Joyce Hartmann
Clinton AR
hart(AT)artelco.com
www.joycehartmann.com
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Baker Prairie/Boone County field trip list
From: "J. O. and Sally Jo Gibson" <sjogibson(AT)ALLTEL.NET>
Date: 7 Jun 2008 5:46pm
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Ten members of the Disorganized Bird Club (DOBC - Originally dis-organized
by JoAnne Rife of Harrison, Arkansas) spent this morning on Baker Prairie
and the Lone Oak Dairy/Wolfe Springs Road loop in Boone County, Arkansas.
At least four Willow Flycatchers were seen and heard. Also, at least two,
possibly three Grasshopper Sparrows were documented on Baker Prairie, which
is the first recorded there in several years.
It was a beautiful day, but quite windy. Birders taking part were: Tim
Barr, Sally Jo Gibson, Alan Gregory, Vern Human, Ed and Greta Pinkston,
JoAnne Rife, Sheree Rogers, Eva Sabat, Jack Stewart (leader).
1. Acadian Flycatcher
2. American Crow
3. American Goldfinch
4. Barn Swallow
5. Bell's vireo
6. Black & White Warbler
7. Blue Grosbeak
8. Blue Jay
9. Blue-Gray Gnatcatcher
10. Bobwhite
11. Broad-Winged Hawk
12. Brown Thrasher
13. Brown-headed Cowbird
14. Cardinal
15. Carolina Chickadee
16. Carolina Wren
17. Yellow Breasted Chat
18. Chimney Swift
19. Chipping Sparrow
20. Common Grackle
21. Common Yellowthroat
22. Dickcissel
23. Downy Woodpecker
24. Eastern Bluebird
25. Eastern Kingbird
26. Eastern Meadowlark
27. Eastern Phoebe
28. Eastern Towhee
29. Eastern Wood Pewee
30. Eurasian Collared Dove
31. Field Sparrow
32. Flicker
33. GRASSHOPPER SPARROW
34. Great Blue Heron
35. Great Crested Flycatcher
36. Hairy Woodpecker
37. House Finch
38. House Sparrow
39. House Wren
40. Indigo Bunting
41. Kentucky Warbler
42. Killdeer
43. Lark Sparrow
44. Mockingbird
45. Mourning Dove
46. Northern Parula
47. Orchard Oriole
48. Painted Bunting
49. Purple Martin
50. Red Bellied Woodpecker
51. Red-Tailed Hawk
52. Red-Winged Blackbird
53. Robin
54. Rock Pigeon
55. Rough-Winged Swallow
56. Ruby-Throated Hummingbird
57. Scissor-tailed Flycatcher
58. Starling
59. Summer Tanager
60. Tufted Titmouse
61. Turkey Vulture
62. White-Eyed Vireo
63. WILLOW FLYCATCHER
64. Yellow-Billed Cuckoo
65. Yellow-Throated Vireo
Sally Jo Gibson
512 Yorkshire Cove
Harrison, AR 72601
"Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time."
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: The Climate Security Act is vitally important to all of
us! one way or another
From: Ed Laster <elaster523(AT)SBCGLOBAL.NET>
Date: 7 Jun 2008 10:05pm
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
There are scientists who have presented other explanations for global
warming/climate change. The following link will direct you to some of them.
They are from U.K., Australia and the U.S. Fundamentally they disagree with Al
Gore's premise that CO2 is the cause, and believe that the increase in CO2
follows the increase in temperature, not precedes it, and therefore we are not
causing the increase.
This issue certainly evokes strong emotion from both sides and the consequences
of how we try to deal with it will have an impact on all of us. Here is a look
at the "other side" of the discussion.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=great+global+warming+swindle#
Ed Laster
Little Rock
----- Original Message ----
From: Janine Perlman <jpandjf(AT)SWBELL.NET>
To: ARBIRD-L(AT)LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2008 10:50:34 PM
Subject: Re: The Climate Security Act is vitally important to all of us! one
way or another
Cheryle,
I'm interested in this:
>There are many scientists who disagree with much of this "hysteria"...
Could you be more specific? I don't know what you mean by "many" scientists,
or what kind of scientists they are, or what their names are and who pays
their salaries, or what you mean by "hysteria".
Just yesterday I heard someone from the Wall Street Journal say
authoritatively that "thousands of scientists" disagree that humans are
causing climate change, and/or that the planet is warming at all. I was
quite astonished. Who are these "many" (your word) or "thousands of" (WSJ)
scientists? Are they climate scientists? Not that I can find.
In contrast, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) really does
consist of hundreds of climate scientists/experts whose names and reports
are public, and who use nothing but peer-reviewed science to create those
reports---and the reports themselves undergo exhaustive peer review before
they're released.
Since you don't object to the word "politics", I have to say that as far as I
can tell, virtually the only people who disagree that a) the planet is
warming significantly faster than even the "most likely" scenarios presented
by the IPCC last year; and b) humans are contributing greatly to that
warming, are those who are politically, rather than scientifically,
motivated.
The scientific consensus is clear, and the proportion of climate experts who
agree, based on peer-reviewed data and analyses, is overwhelmingly large.
Then we go to part c), the likely results of climate change. Those are being
studied by a wide array of scientists---thousands of them---geologists,
chemists, ecologists, ornithologists, marine biologists, and dozens more
-ists. Most of the studies show dramatic and accelerating changes. The
extrapolated effects on countless species, including ourselves and "our"
birds here in central Arkansas (e.g., emerging tropical diseases and
epidemics; exotics affecting the entire food chain) are gut-wrenching.
So one considers what is incontrovertibly happening now, and what the likely
effects will be as it continues/accelerates; and then one asks what, if
anything, we ought to do to change the situation. In risk analysis, the
greater the risk, the less certain an outcome needs to be in order for
preventing it to be worthwhile. But in this situation, both factors are
large. The risk---e.g., enormous suffering and widespread extinctions---is
surely huge. And the probability of major disruptions to the ecosystem are
very high; alarming and accelerating effects are already being observed on
many fronts.
Thus, one might well argue that the need for strong action is urgent and
compelling.
Weighing what to do and how to do it is, of course, in the purview of
politics. I did read your post, and I assure you that there are other
organizations with excellent reputations for objectivity (which the Heritage
Foundation doesn't even pretend to possess) that bring much more evidence to
bear, and reach vastly different conclusions, than those found in the report
you posted.
But before going to policy-making, one has to assess the evidence. If one is
really interested in, as you say, "accuracy", science is the singular human
pursuit in which objective truth, verifiable by anyone else who performs the
same experiment, is paramount. Science is surely the place to start, and the
basis on which policy should be made.
Sincerely,
Janine
Janine Perlman, Ph.D.
Alexander Mt., Saline Co.
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
|
|
|
|
BIRDxxxx
US:South
ARBIRD-L
CarolinaBirds