John Ridgway’s article Is 3.0 Really Greater than 0.85 is, of course, worth reading in its own right. As was merited by the subject raised therein, an interesting discussion followed. In one comment, John pointed out the specific absurdity of climate change being shoehorned into a BBC article about the threat of flooding to New York, given that the city is sinking three times faster than the sea level is rising, and he made the point thus:
This narrative that the global warming impact was to blame for the exceptional New York flooding completely fails to mention that the greater problem has been the sinking of the city and the extent to which that has made it more vulnerable to flooding.
This is a common aspect of the narrative these days. It doesn’t seem to matter what the cause of a particular problem, an article appearing on the BBC or Guardian websites will usually add “and climate change”, whilst failing to make explicit the extent to which climate change is having an impact on the problem, and without even attempting to identify the relative impact of other factors compared to climate change. If there’s a problem, then climate change must be part of the mix, and that’s all there is to it.
In another comment, I drew attention to a study reported in Nature last month, which I thought was rather more promising. My take on it was as follows:
It analysed previous papers to ascertain the impact of humanity on nature, and not surprisingly it found that humanity is having a considerable negative impact. However, what interested me is that it sought to analyse the issue by reference to five separate factors, and included a table under the heading “Impacts of human pressures on homogeneity and shifts in composition of biological communities”. OK, so this is only one area, but the key results support the sceptical view that when it comes to humanity’s impact on nature, climate change is probably bottom of the list. In order it found the following numbers of cases under the following headings:
Habitat change: 1,198.
Pollution: 1,197.
Resource exploitation: 521.
Invasive species: 418.
Climate change: 333.
All of which is a rather long-winded introduction to the point I want to make. In essence, this is that the BBC (and others, most obviously the Guardian) publish article after article bemoaning the role of climate change in the decline of nature, and in the decline of bird and insect species in particular, yet once articles address the specifics of the issue, it becomes apparent in almost every case that climate change either isn’t a factor or plays only a very minor part, with the main culprit being habitat loss (or one of the other issues identified in the study published in Nature – pollution; resource exploitation; and invasive species – in that order).
Thus in 2019 the BBC offered us this heading: “Climate change ‘has affected a third of UK bird species’”. In fairness, the report mentioned that there were winners as well as losers, and it did indicate that other factors might be at work, but the headline and the bulk of the story was aimed at bigging-up the climate change factor. For instance we were told:
Dr Bond said caution should be paid between correlation and causation – the bird populations may correlate with climate changes but that does not mean they are solely caused by them.
Changing land use and habitat fragmentation were also mentioned as factors, but no attempt was made to weigh their relative importance, and the message about climate change had to be rammed home:
But he said climate change is “the big one” that needed addressing, although he added we could be in a “palliative care” state now as the “stopping climate change ship has more or less sailed”.
In the following year the BBC treated us to an article explaining how re-wilding “could help protect species in Britain”, but the emphasis remained on climate change:
This is all in an effort to help slow down the effects that it says climate change has had on Britain’s wildlife.
By the way, the words “climate change” contained an embedded link to another BBC article headed “Climate change: What is it and why is everyone talking about it?” [er, maybe because the BBC never stops going on about it?]. The main article carried on in determined fashion:
The study warned that the wildlife in Britain is already at risk and is not ready to try and fight the effects of climate change.
Climate change brings, floods, fires, rising temperatures and droughts, all things that massively impact on wildlife.
So there you have it. Habitat loss is an issue, re-wilding might help, but climate change is the threat. But is it? I idly googled for more recent BBC articles about habitat restoration and its impact on wildlife, and the following is an entirely random selection of what I found.
In August 2021 there was an article headed “Light pollution from street lamps linked to insect loss”. The article did the usual from the BBC, listing different factors (climate change, habitat loss and pesticides) and mentioning climate change first, but crucially, it said this:
Modern LED streetlights appeared to have the biggest impact.
That is the biggest impact in terms of artificial lights, not of the different factors mentioned. But still, it constitutes recognition that other factors are at play:
The researchers say their study, published in Science Advances, is the strongest evidence yet that light pollution can have detrimental impacts on local insect populations, with consequences for the birds and other wildlife that rely on caterpillars for food.
Then, in March 2022 an article about bitterns appeared: “RSPB: Bitterns make booming recovery in UK wetlands”.
Britain’s loudest bird, the “booming” bittern, is making a recovery after almost disappearing from the UK twice.
The RSPB reported the birds had had a “record-breaking year” in 2021, with 228 males counted, up from 209 in 2019.
Ornithologist Dr Alex Lees described it as a “spectacular conservation success story” thanks to the restoration of wetland habitats.
“It shows that conservation does work,” the Manchester Metropolitan scientist told BBC News…
…systematic restoration and re-creation of wetlands over recent decades has allowed their numbers to more than double in the past 10 years…
It’s evident from the article that climate change is irrelevant to the story of the bittern, but the BBC still had to find an angle:
Wetlands also play a role in flood protection and combatting climate change, by locking away carbon-rich plant matter in their mud.
In February 2023 there was another success story, titled “Cranes: Survey reveals UK’s tallest bird is making wetland comeback”.
The birds are making a comeback thanks to restoration and protection of their wetland habitats.
Neither their initial demise nor their subsequent recovery appears to have anything to do with climate change, yet the obligatory obeisance before climate change still makes an appearance:
Wetlands help lock carbon away, reducing green house gas emissions, and can also help to reduce flood risk to homes and communities as well as being wonderful areas for wildlife.
September 2023 saw an article appear about seven bird species:
A rewilding project has led to the return of a number of bird species that are in critical decline…
…Nightingale, greenfinch, grey partridge, marsh tit, skylark, nightjar and tree pipit – all Red List species – have been recorded.
A major part of the scheme has been to “re-naturalise” the River Sherford, creating a wetland which now hosts lapwing, golden plover and common snipe.
Future plans include the introduction of grazing animals to create a mosaic of habitats that will improve biodiversity.
Good news, and nothing to do with climate change. Even the BBC failed to mention it.
In September 2023 we learned that butterfly numbers were up, ironically because of a wetter summer. Climate change wasn’t mentioned, and the key quote was this:
Dr Richard Fox, head of science at Butterfly Conservation, said one of the biggest threats facing butterflies was “habitat loss”.
“Butterflies need a place to live,” he said. “If they can feed, breed and shelter, they can thrive.”
Perhaps not surprisingly, the same month brought an article about moth recovery. The cause? Re-wilding:
A critically-endangered moth indigenous to the east Kent countryside has had a bumper year after its habitat was restored by farmers.
In 1995, the black-veined moth was close to extinction due to the loss of their chalk grassland habitat in the Wye National Nature Reserve…
…This year, surveys counted a peak of 255 moths, the highest number recorded since the project began.
Dan Turson, Natural England’s farm adviser, said: “Farmers are leading nature recovery through long-term one-to-one advice and close working to create new wildflower grasslands at scale.”
He said they were now seeing the results of the farmers’ hard work.
The butterfly recovery continued, as we were told in June 2024, with record numbers of the heath fritillary butterfly – once close to extinction – being counted at a special reserve. They are found only in specialised habitats:
“Colonies of this delicate butterfly occupy sheltered and coppiced woodland in the south-east of England where their larval food plant, common cow-wheat is present,” she said.
“The trust, alongside dedicated volunteers, have been carefully managing ancient woodland to maintain this specialised habitat for over a decade.”
Once more, habitat is key; climate change has nothing to do with it.
July 2024 brought encouraging news about bees: “Rare bumblebee numbers rise after meadows restored”:
Rare bumblebee numbers are rising in Shropshire following a successful project to restore old hay meadows.
The National Trust is leading Stepping Stones, an initiative which aims to reconnect isolated patches of wildlife habitat across the Long Mynd and Stiperstones.
Jinlye Meadows, on the Long Mynd, is now thriving with wildflowers and insects and as a result, the population of bilberry bumblebees has increased.
Restore vital habitat, it seems, and recovery follows. Again, climate change has nothing to do with the issue.
The following month it was the turn of black grouse to bring us some good news. This time the story was in the National:
REWILDING efforts in part of the Scottish Highlands have resulted in local populations of an “amazing species” of endangered bird reaching their highest level for 17 years, conservationists have announced.
Black grouse, which are seen as an important indicator species for ecosystem health, have suffered UK-wide decline over recent decades due to threats such as habitat loss and intensive land management.
Yet again, nothing to do with climate change.
In September of that year the good news was once more about moths, specifically the endangered black-vein moth:
In 1995, the black-veined moth was close to extinction due to the loss of their chalk grassland habitat in the Wye National Nature Reserve….
…Dan Turson, Natural England’s farm adviser, said: “Farmers are leading nature recovery through long-term one-to-one advice and close working to create new wildflower grasslands at scale.”
He said they were now seeing the results of the farmers’ hard work.
In December 2024 it was the turn of reptiles and ground-nesting birds: “Rare heathland species to benefit from restoration”:
Dorset Council is removing hundreds of invasive pine trees from Avon Heath Country Park to help rejuvenate the heathland.
The 210-hectare site is home to all of Britain’s native reptile species, including the elusive smooth snake, along with birds including nightjar and woodlark.
Trees, scrub and other invasive species such as Rhododendron will be removed to help reverse the habitat loss.
After a few reports when climate change didn’t get a mention (because it wasn’t relevant), this time it does – even though it still isn’t relevant to the story:
“…while removing trees during a climate emergency may seem counter-intuitive, heathlands play an important role in tackling climate change too.
“Their soils are excellent at absorbing carbon from our atmosphere and locking it away permanently.”
Finally with regard to this whistle-stop tour, an article appeared on the BBC website last month suggesting that the introduction of ponies to a site will facilitate flower growth, which will in turn help birds. My scepticism about this one is because:
The scheme is being run by Environment Bank, a company which sells parcels of land to developers to offset the environmental impact of their construction projects…
…It is hoped the ponies, which belong to local breeder and vet Michael Dewhurst, will create space for wildflowers and other plant species by grazing and trampling over the land.
It strikes me as rather tenuous and possibly nothing more than green-washing, but if it works, the idea is that the ponies will eat pervasive soft rush which has taken over much of the site, with the result that plant life valued by lapwing, curlew and redshank will return. Whatever the merits of the project, it’s another story about bird populations being linked to habitat loss and/or restoration.
Search the internet and you will find many such stories. Habitat loss is a massive issue, climate change less so. Perhaps, then, it would be a good idea to stop destroying the habitat of birds, insects, reptiles and plants by imposing tens of thousands of acres of solar panels and wind turbines on them. It’s regularly claimed that the climate crisis and the nature crisis go hand in hand, as though they are both caused by the same thing. The reality, I suspect, is that the nature crisis is being – at least in part – caused, and certainly exacerbated, by our crass attempts to deal with a non-existent climate crisis.
Climate Scepticism 
And now here’s an article about ospreys – another species driven to the brink in the UK, not because of climate change, but “due to persecution and habitat loss,” (per the article), and now recovering, because they are protected:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj0zvpn2pvjo
LikeLike
On topic is this statement by Texas Commissioner Sid Miller:
“The Endangered Species Act—once a vital tool for genuine conservation—was twisted into a weapon against rural America by the Biden Administration and their radical 30×30 land grab agenda. Time and again, I’ve fought back against their reckless misuse of this law—whether it was the listing of the Lesser Prairie Chicken, the proposed expansion of the Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge, or the current proposed listing of the Monarch Butterfly. These heavy-handed decisions blatantly disregarded the successful, voluntary conservation efforts led by Texas landowners, ranchers, and energy producers. Instead of supporting these initiatives, the federal government chose to punish them, strangling rural economies, overburdening agricultural producers, and sidelining crucial land needed for energy development, all while achieving little to improve outcomes for the species in question.
Now, under the leadership of the Trump Administration, we have a genuine opportunity to set things right. I proudly stand with U.S. Representative August Pfluger in urging Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum to promptly remove the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard and Lesser Prairie Chicken from the endangered species list. I also strongly advocate for the removal of the Eastern Monarch Butterfly from consideration under the Endangered Species Act. This fight is about more than reversing federal overreach—it’s about restoring common sense, revitalizing rural economies, and reigniting America’s energy and agricultural engines.
We must end the practice of sidelining productive land under the false banner of conservation and return it to the hardworking people who know how to care for it best. Putting America First begins with unshackling rural America and trusting its greatest stewards—the farmers, ranchers, and producers who live and work closest to the land—to manage it with the wisdom and responsibility they have demonstrated for generations.”
LikeLike
Ron C,
Apologies, but your comment was stuck in “pending”. I have just found it.
I’m not sure I agree entirely with your comment. I object to wind and solar farms because they damage wildlife and nature, but so do some farming practices. Some farmers care about nature, others worry about the bottom line, and put that first.
State intervention can make things worse, but some controls are needed. Balance in all things.
LikeLike
Meanwhile, right on cue from the BBC:
“Spring’s hot weather to be treat for nature lovers”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0780j0rpx3o
...”On the plus side, better weather is more inviting for us to get out and enjoy the spring. Dawn chorus is at its peak at the minute and calm, warm mornings are perfect for enjoying it! ” says Jon Carter of the BTO.
The Met Office says a brief spell of warmth at the end of April isn’t a bad thing for wildlife – and there shouldn’t be much impact on water sources such as ponds.
“Climate change is already having a big impact on our wildlife, but a temporary blip like this is an end of April dividend for wildlife,” says the Met Office’s Grahame Madge….
…There could also be some sightings of rare visitors such as the exotic European bee-eater, which have recently begun nesting in the UK.…
That old chestnut about the bee-eater is misinformation, as we have discussed here in the past, and as Paul Homewood has also written about. Bee-eaters have sporadically nested in the UK for around a century. I saw a bee-eater on the low hills above Kendal around a third of a century ago.
Then we get this:
…Anne McCall, director of RSPB Scotland, says climate change is driving more regular wildfires of greater intensity, and especially so in spring.…
And this (also claimed without evidence):
…On the coasts, conservation experts say there has been a crop of sightings of whales and dolphins close to British shores – and though it’s difficult to pin down a reason, warming seas and climate change are likely to be a factor.…
LikeLike
People who should know better are convinced that climate change is responsible for things it isn’t. There is no point trying to save UK biodiversity by reducing CO2 emissions. There just isn’t.
Let me pose readers two different scenarios.
The first is a counterfactual version of Earth, with 560 ppm CO2, but where a destructive species called Homo sapiens never evolved. It’s the Garden of Eden.
The second is the real Earth, where humans did appear, and have trashed everything they have laid eyes on, in which biodiversity is actually in a genuine crisis at spatial scales from municipal lawns to tropical rainforests.
Life moves. That’s one of its essential characteristics. And yes, there may be circumstances where physical barriers prevent movement in response to climate change: populations that are close to the top of a mountain, or on isolated islands, may be in trouble. But in global terms, in comparison to habitat destruction, real pollution, introduced species and hunting, it’s a fleabite.
Regarding whales, it is particularly humorous to see people wittering on about climate change causing more sightings. Beasts that were hunted almost to extinction in many cases, and pushed to the most remote areas at the least, are now more frequently seen than before. It’s climate change! No it isn’t, you idiot. It’s usually a slowly recovering population venturing back into their pre-exploited ranges.
Also on the topic of whales: it was called a fact for many years that the increase in use of kerosene “saved the whales” by supplanting whale oil for lighting. Now, it has become the fashion to say that in actual fact, kerosene had no such role to play. Heaven forbid that any hydrocarbon could have done anything good. It’s a question I must read up about. Which is correct: the new story, or the old story?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jit:
The first is a counterfactual version of Earth, with 560 ppm CO2, but where a destructive species called Homo sapiens never evolved. It’s the Garden of Eden.
The second is the real Earth, where humans did appear, and have trashed everything they have laid eyes on, in which biodiversity is actually in a genuine crisis at spatial scales from municipal lawns to tropical rainforests.
Exactly. Thank you – beautifully put.
LikeLike
I have been desperate to tell the story of my experience with an Osprey for years. Ospreys have been back in the Ochils for a few years now and have been regular visitors to the Frandy trout fishery regularly taking fish in full view of the fisherman. My experience came about when I had hooked a fish and was bringing it in for the net an Osprey came down to take the fish, I had to frantically wave the net and shout at it to stop it taking the fish, it was furious glaring at me with yellow eyes. With a screech it took off leaving the fish. I got the fish in , unhooked it and returned it to the water, 2 seconds later there was an almighty splash, he /she was back for the fish. This time it gave me a milder screech and I’m sure it winked and away it went with the prize. I have heard that some years there are no birds and other years there are 3 pairs, if they give other fishers the thrill I got it’s a lifetime memory.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Mark, the point of the quote for me was that the pendulum is way over on the side of “habitat loss” as a weapon against any productive use of resources. Permitting for needed energy projects is delayed forever by claiming some creature or another is at risk. Indeed, the needs of all species must be balanced by responsible stewards of the environment.
LikeLike
Ron,
Thanks for the clarification. The irony is that in the UK we have a government hell bent on renewable energy, that is determined to tear up environmental protections in order to achieve its “clean, green” [sic] policy. You couldn’t make it up, really.
LikeLike
Mark, I hear you and what you are up against:
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jit – a primer maybe? – The PBS Newshour Whale Oil Myth – Andy May Petrophysicist
LikeLike
I don’t have time to check the claim in the headline:
“Area burned by UK wildfires in 2025 already at annual record”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0m9gm3jwljo
Though I notice that the first two paragraphs don’t support the strident and conclsuive nature of the headline:
The area of the UK burnt by wildfires so far this year is already higher than the total for any year in more than a decade, satellite data suggests.
More than 29,200 hectares (292 sq km or 113 sq miles) has been burnt so far, according to figures from the Global Wildfire Information System, which has recorded burnt area since 2012....
Satellite data suggests, since 2012. Hmm.
Instead, I post this here for this reason:
…scientists expect the UK to see an increase in weather conditions conducive to extreme wildfires in a warming world, even though there’s lots of variation from year to year.
A study led by the Met Office, external found that the extreme “fire weather” that helped spread the destructive blazes of July 2022 were made at least six times more likely by human-caused climate change….
...”One thing that seems to have consensus is that we are likely to see more fires and possibly worse fires with climate change,” said Rory Hadden, senior lecturer in fire investigation at the University of Edinburgh.
“We need to be prepared for this to become more common.”
Tucked away in the middle of those concluding paragraphs is this:
…Shifts in the way land is used can also play a key role in shaping fire risk.…
Indeed, as can arson, and human-caused fires as the population increases and more people ignorant of the ways of the great outdoors spend more time enjoying it (barbecues, cigarettes etc). Yet absolutely no attempt is made to identify the relative importance of the different factors – climate change, land use, human error or malice. No, it has to be climate change what done it.
LikeLike
Mark,
What is lacking here is the “interrogation of causal arguments” that comes with empirical scepticism. It requires that counterfactual questions be asked regarding all causal factors, together with quantification of impacts. I have yet to see any attempt at such an interrogation whenever climate change is involved. All you ever get are scary sounding statements such as “climate change has made this n times more likely”. That doesn’t even begin to form an adequate causal argument.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“New plan to ‘eradicate’ mink from Outer Hebrides”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpdz0xv3ql2o
Wildlife experts hope to “completely eradicate” a species of invasive mink from the Outer Hebrides after receiving new funding to trap the remaining animals.…
...The animals were first brought to Scotland for the fur farming industry in the 1950s, but they became feral after the farms closed and began threatening native birds.
Breeding populations of mink became established on North Uist and Benbecula in 1999.
Nature Scot said the Hebrides’ coastline and freshwater loch meant the population of mink was able to grow to levels rarely reached in its native North America.
The Hebridean Mink Project started capturing the animals in 2001.
This allowed local wildlife species to recover, including terns and gulls and wader species such as oystercatcher, lapwing, curlew, snipe, dunlin and plovers.…
…“We believe that while it will be challenging, total removal is feasible and in the long term offers both the most effective protection for our native wildlife and the most cost-effective solution to the problem.”
[Populations of birds including including ducks, terns, lapwings and red-throated divers have started to return]
Pesticides, habitat loss, hunting, invasive species/predators etc, all probably play a bigger role than climate change in reducing populations of native creatures. The miracle is that the BBC didn’t mention climate change in this article.
LikeLike
But right on cue we get this:
“‘Worrying’ decline of crucial insects in NI, says charity”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20xel5qpqzo
…And while we might be enjoying the unseasonably warm weather, she said it can pose a risk to our insect populations.
“Whenever the nice sunny weather comes out, our insects come out and think, great, it’s time to get to work,” said Hannah.
“And then suddenly, it begins to rain, the temperature starts to drop and that can have devastating effects for our invertebrates because they’ve come out of hibernation.
“This is resulting from climate change as well, which is a big issue that we’re suffering from as well as over-use of herbicides and pesticides.”...
…“It’s most likely that we are seeing the compounding effects of both a background rate of decline as well as a short-term cycle of decline, perhaps linked to the extreme climate in recent years.…”.
Yet the article ends with this:
...Planting wildflowers, letting weeds grow and leaving some wood or small piles of stones in our gardens can help support our vulnerable insects, like solitary bees, said Hannah.
“If we get nature back it’ll help look after itself.“
LikeLiked by 1 person
Had to look up “solitary bees” as it was new to me, surprised by the answer –
The NHBS Guide to UK Solitary Bees – partial quote –
“There are around 270 bee species in the UK, and over 90% of these are solitary – they do not nest in colonies, do not produce honey and don’t have a queen. Instead, these bees lead solitary lives, only coming together to mate. The group can be divided into ground-nesting species, found on lawns, paths and loose soil, or aerial nesters which utilise hollow plant stems, dead wood and man-made bee hotels to build a nest for larval bees.”
You learn something new every day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another example of major problems, that have nothing to do with climate change, but which are caused by humans:
“UK sand eel fishing ban remains in place despite EU legal challenge
Creatures make up the bulk of seabirds’ diet but they are fished for commercial pig food”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/02/uk-sand-eel-fishing-ban-despite-eu-legal-challenge
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Country diary: Capercaillies need peace to survive, let’s give it to them
Cairngorms national park: They’re in there somewhere, performing their morning breeding displays this time of year. But some things are better left unseen”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/02/country-diary-capercaillies-need-peace-to-survive-lets-give-it-to-them
…They have been locally extinct in Scotland before and were reintroduced in the mid-1800s, but their endangeredness here feels much more existential, especially given the conservation projects that have sought to protect and re-establish them over the years. Their decline is due to a number of factors, including habitat loss, predation and changes in the climate, but people – dog walking, mountain biking and our increasing encroachment in wild places in general – add further stress.…
It strikes me that there is a contradiction there. Extinct in the past, but re-introduced in the mid-1800s? But modern climate change is a problem….along with lots of other factors. How about making an attempt to assess the relative importance of each of the factors mentioned, and not just throwing climate change into the mix as usual without any evidence of its relevance?
LikeLike
Regarding that last comment, this might be relevant:
https://www.gwct.org.uk/news/news/2023/september/capercaillie-faces-extinction-despite-conservation-efforts-to-reverse-decline/
...Dr David Baines, Head of Uplands Research at GWCT, said: “Declines are associated with a reduction in breeding success, which varies annually in relation to poor weather in June when chicks are growing and increased signs of predators such as pine marten in recent decades.
“This has happened despite efforts by land managers to improve habitat, and legally control foxes and crows.
“To reverse the trend and save the capercaillie from once again dying out in Scotland, we need to take urgent action and conservation measures must be stepped up, including legal predator control, reducing predation risk by pine marten and further reducing the risk of bird collisions with deer fences.”…
…The devasting impact that collisions with deer fences can have on capercaillie and the related black grouse is now well established. These fences, designed to keep deer out of regenerating woodlands, can both injure and kill capercaillie when they fly into them.
Trust research proved that by marking fences, bird collisions can be reduced but not prevented. Despite this knowledge, many fences dangerous to capercaillie and black grouse remain and of these many are unmarked. This new study suggests those fences are still impacting capercaillie by killing full-grown birds.
Dr Baines explained: “By 2020, the risk of capercaillie extinction in Scotland was 23% after 25 years, 95% after 50 years and 100% after 100 years.
“When we removed deaths caused by fences from our analyses, the likelihood of extinction went right down to 0% after 25 years, 3% after 50 and 40% after 100 years, highlighting that fence removal must be an immediate and high priority to help save the capercaillie.”…
Not a mention of climate change, and the only mention of weather is that associated with poor weather in June, which isn’t the usual climate change narrative – but it might explain, in part at least, why they died out in the 1780s, when we were just starting to emerge from the Little Ice Age.
LikeLike
“Sand groomers v turtles: how wildlife is falling foul of the demand for Insta-perfect beaches”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/02/sand-groomers-vs-turtles-mediterranean-instagram-overtourism-aoe
...As sand groomers have been transforming beaches from vital habitats into backdrops for photoshoots, their work has had an enormous impact on the turtle population. “Occupation of the beach by private owners reduces a vital living space for the turtle,” says Salvatore Urso, a naturalist and co-founder of Caretta Calabria Conservation, who has been monitoring and protecting loggerhead turtle nests since 2005. “There is still not much sensitivity to coexisting with this species.”
Tractors not only crush or displace eggs – their mere presence can scare away female turtles, preventing them from nesting….
…The sand groomers versus the turtles is one of a series of conflicts between wildlife and tourists seeking picture-perfect locations that scientists and activists say are playing out around the Mediterranean as the holiday season looms.
Across southern Europe, tourists driven by Instagram and TikTok are taking to remote areas in greater numbers, threatening local environments and biodiversity. Visitors to the region account for about a third of all the world’s tourists, or about 330 million people in 2024 – and are forecast to reach 500m by 2030.…
…The growth of construction can require wetlands to be drained and soil tarmacked over. This limits the freshwater available to the 185 million migratory birds for whom the Cyclades are a vital stopover. According to the WWF, in the Mediterranean basin the populations of wetland-dependent species have declined by 81% in the past 50 years.…
…In Greece, Andrianopulu says they have successfully campaigned for a ban on vehicles being used for beach grooming this year. “It is a big success that the machines that were there for years to flatten the beach will not be working this year … my only concern is that the progress we’re making is too slow in comparison to the massive and rapid destruction.”
LikeLike
How’s this for a serious analysis (not)?
“Bug splat survey reveals ‘alarming’ decline”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3v947vlkzgo
A survey tracking the “staggering” decline in insect numbers across the UK and Ireland has begun….
…The results from 2024 found the number of flying insect splats recorded across the UK had fallen by 63% since 2021. Ireland was not included in last year’s survey but will take part this year.
Dr Lawrence Ball, from Kent Wildlife Trust, said the decline could perhaps be linked to “the extreme climate in the UK in recent years”….
Could? Perhaps? No alternative explanations considered. Shoddy indeed. But it fits the agenda, so there you go. Interestingly, a different story is hinted at if one visits the Kent Wildlife Trust website:
https://www.kentwildlifetrust.org.uk/news/bugs-matter-Kent
It doesn’t mention climate change anywhere, but does say this:
Kent Wildlife Trust are working with farmers across Kent in ‘Farmer Clusters’ to support collaborative working to drive wildlife-friendly farming practices.
The results from the Bugs Matter surveys inform a growing requirement for conservation research, policy and practice targeted at insects. …
Which suggests to me that it’s abut things like habitat loss and/or loss of the plant-life that sustain insects. So, shame on you BBC for twisting the story to suit your agenda. Where’s BBC Verify when you need them?
LikeLike
There seems to be so much that is wrong with this that I barely know where to start:
“Smoke from climate-fueled fires in US contributed to 15,000 deaths in 15 years, study finds
Exposure to small particulate matter from fires contributes to thousands of annual deaths in US, according to study”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/07/wildfire-smoke-deaths-climate-crisis
It’s possibly worth an article in its own right, but for now, this will do (and I do think the Guardian for these two paragraphs, despite them being relegated almost to the end of the article):
…Patrick Brown, a Johns Hopkins University lecturer in climate and energy policy, said he had some concerns about the study. One was conceptual. The study acknowledges the power non-climate drivers have on wildfires, but it doesn’t give them proper weight, he said in an email.
Brown, who was not involved in the study, worries decision-makers could wrongly conclude that mitigating planet-warming carbon emissions is the only solution. “Yet in many regions, the more immediate life‑saving action may be fuel breaks, prescribed burns, ignition‑source regulation, public health efforts, etc,” he said….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark – thanks for the quote & Guardian link. Had to do a double take when the name “Patrick Brown, a Johns Hopkins University lecturer in climate and energy policy” was quoted!!!
Well well, seems to be the same guy that caused Factcheck: Scientists pour cold water on claims of ‘journal bias’ by author of wildfires study – Carbon Brief
LikeLike
dfhunter,
Yes, indeed. Unless I’m mistaken, he’s the scientist whose work John Ridgway has highlighted on more than one occasion. I’m not surprised to see a Carbon Brief hit job.
LikeLike
Mark – Carbon Brief hit job was back in September 2023, the fact the Guardian quote him now I found surprising.
LikeLike
Not a mention of climate change – what a refreshing change:
“Celtic rainforest facing species ‘extinction crisis'”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7873ynnn57o
An “extinction crisis” is happening in Britain’s temperate rainforests where some of the world’s rarest mosses, lichens and liverworts are vanishing, ecologists have warned.
Also known as Celtic rainforests, temperate rainforests are found primarily along the UK’s western coasts.
A survey of Welsh rainforests, external in 2024 found only 22% were in a good condition due to pollution, fragmentation and invasive species….
LikeLike
“Tropical forests destroyed at fastest recorded rate last year”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0lnngl6713o
I find this article by the BBC to be particularly annoying for two reasons.
First, its sole concern seems to be that the loss of forests will make climate change worse – not much concern is shown about the loss of habitat this entails:
The world’s tropical forests, which provide a crucial buffer against climate change, disappeared faster than ever recorded last year, new satellite analysis suggests.…
…Tropical rainforests store hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon in soils and woody trunks. But this new global record raises further questions about their resilience on a warming planet.…[etc].
There is a single reference to habitat loss and biodiversity, but the whole thrust of the article is climate change:
...Until recently, the Amazon had been doing humanity a favour, absorbing more planet-warming carbon dioxide (CO2) than it released.
But the burning of these forests emits huge amounts of CO2 – adding to warming rather than limiting it….
Second, there is the attempt to claim that the rate of forest loss, as well as being likely to contribute to climate change, is because of climate change:
…Fires were the main cause, overtaking land clearances from agriculture for the first time on record, with the Amazon faring particularly badly amid record drought.…
...In 2023-24, the Amazon experienced its worst drought on record, fuelled by climate change and the natural warming El Niño weather pattern.
Many fires are started deliberately to clear land for agriculture, making it difficult to disentangle the two.
But the drought provided ideal conditions for fires to spread out of control, with Brazil and Bolivia most badly affected…..
…While only a single year, it fits the expected pattern of more intense tropical fires in a warming world.
“I think we are in a new phase, where it’s not just the clearing for agriculture that’s the main driver,” said Rod Taylor of the World Resources Institute (WRI), which is also behind the latest report.
“Now we have this new amplifying effect, which is a real climate change feedback loop, where fires are just much more intense and much more ferocious than they’ve ever been.”…
But it’s not climate change that’s the cause, as is self-evident from the paragraph above:
Many fires are started deliberately to clear land for agriculture, making it difficult to disentangle the two.
Why is there no attempt to identify the extent to which arson, rather than climate change, is to blame?
Then the article undermines the “climate change to blame” argument, by continuing as follows:
...Countries in South East Asia, however, bucked the global trend.
The area of primary forest loss in Indonesia fell by 11% compared to 2023, for example, despite drought conditions.
This was the result of a concerted effort by governments and communities working together to enforce “no burning” laws, according to Elizabeth Goldman, co-director of the Global Forest Watch project at WRI.
“Indonesia serves as a bright spot in the 2024 data,” she said.
“Political will is a key factor of success – it’s impossible otherwise,” agreed Gabriel Labbate, head of climate change mitigation at the United Nations forests programme UNREDD, which was not involved in today’s report.
Other countries, including Brazil, have seen success in the past with similar approaches, but started to see losses increase again in 2014 following a change in government policies....
I suppose the climate decided to obey the “no burning” laws? I don’t think so. As is the case so often these days, they blame climate change for human activity that is unrelated to climate change. Disgraceful stuff, BBC.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Surprise, surprise (not): the Guardian runs the story too:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/21/fires-record-loss-forests-global-heating-agriculture-logging-brazil-bolivia-aoe
However, although they also push the climate change narrative, it is slightly more balanced:
...From the Brazilian Amazon to the Siberian taiga, Earth’s forests disappeared at a record rate last year, losing an area the size of Italy to agriculture, fires, logging and mining, according to analysis from the University of Maryland hosted on Global Forest Watch.
In tropical regions, home to the most biodiverse and carbon-dense forests on the planet, fire became the leading driver of loss for the first time since global records began. However, fire is not a natural part of tropical ecosystems.…
…In Bolivia, the loss of previously untouched forest continued to rise, ranking second behind Brazil in overall loss for the first time, driven by drought, fire and government policies promoting agricultural expansion for soya, cattle and sugar cane. The loss of Bolivia’s primary forest has increased nearly fivefold since 2020, reaching more than 14,000 sq km (1.4m hectares).…
LikeLike
I could have posted this in a few places, but here seems as good as any.
“The tiny island where puffins are thriving despite global decline”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0mrxwpevxmo
The BBC analyses the reasons for the success of the Skomer puffins:
…The island’s isolation means that it is protected from predators such as rats, cats, dogs and foxes, and also from the human impact on the mainland….
Having don so , it then concludes (without offering any supporting evidence):
…Like many seabird species, puffins are listed as vulnerable to extinction on the global International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red list, as they face pollution, food shortages and climate change….
Why are there food shortages? No analysis of Danish trawlers fishing for sand eels in UK waters in the North Sea is offered, which many people think is a large problem. It can’t be climate change, because the article goes on to say, with regard to the Skomer puffins:
…According to the WTSWW, the growth in Skomer Island’s puffin population is “likely linked to the abundance of food in the wider area, meaning there is plenty of fish for chicks resulting in high breeding success”….
Yes, that and this repetition of the earlier explanation:
…They said the absence of rats and other predators on the island had also contributed to the seabirds’ success….
And yet still the BBC shoehorns climate change into the article. This level of daily propagandising is beyond a joke now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s another one:
“Campaigner warns blackbird decline is ‘taste of future'”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgv4740xg4o
A young ornithologist has warned a mosquito-born disease linked to a sharp decline in blackbird populations “is a taste of things to come”….
…“One of the reasons [blackbird decline] concerns me is because it’s getting worse because of climate change,” she said….
…She added: “I think on top of the disease, one of the reasons it concerns me is because it’s getting worse because of climate change.
“Because of warmer weather and increased flooding, so it feels like kind of a taste of what’s to come.”…
…Ms Craig added blackbirds are far from the only species to be hit by climate change, pointing out that the starling populations have fallen 80% since the 1960s….
Another shoddy, shabby, shameless piece from the BBC. It all looks quite calculated. No scientific evidence is offered for the claim that blackbird decline in the UK is linked to climate change. I suppose the BBC would claim that it did no more than report the words of a third party. But the BBC deliberately chose to report those words without qualification, while simultaneously seeking to give greater weight to those words by adding:
…Ms Craig, who was awarded an honorary doctorate from the University of Bristol in 2020…
I would complain if it wouldn’t be a complete waste of time. It’s like whack-a-mole. For every successful complaint, the BBC will get away with 100 other complaint-worthy articles.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Everything the BEEB broadcasts has a blatant “climate crisis” slant (28 gate).
No point in complaining, it’s now baked in (to borrow a phrase).
LikeLike
dfhunter,
The BBC is now a climate propaganda organisation, pure and simple. Of late, for family reasons, I have found myself driving from north west Cumbria to York and back rather a lot. On a good day, that’s 2.5 hours in the car each way; on a bad day it can take rather longer – I do have to drive over the A66 (6 separate sets of roadworks and twice stuck behind tractors for considerable distances this week):
https://cliscep.com/2024/05/04/highway-to-hell/
While alone in the car, I tend to listen to the radio. Despite all my criticism of the BBC, it’s still my listening of choice – preferably Radio 4, failing which the World Service, failing which (in desperation) Radio 5. Never the Beeb’s local radio programmes, which in my experience tend to be drivel. Anyway, the point of the story is that the radio propaganda from the BBC is constant. Climate change is either a central feature of its radio programming, or it features in its advertising of itself, or it’s sneaked in to programmes which on the face of it have nothing to do with climate change. I find myself channel-hopping at an increasing pace in a failing attempt to escape it, and often end up just switching the radio off. No wonder the public is brainwashed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This article quite rightly for once doesn’t mention climate change (though it does bang on about peat being a “carbon” store). What it demonstrates is that climate change is pretty much insignificant compared to habitat loss and habitat restoration when it comes to bird numbers:
“Rare birds appear on restored wetland ‘in hours'”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce395dv0v9ko
Rare wetland birds such as cranes and great egrets have appeared within hours of the completion of a peatland restoration project, according to the National Trust.
The charity began restoring 590 acres (238 hectares) of lowland peat, a vital carbon store, at its oldest nature reserve, Wicken Fen in Cambridgeshire, a year ago.
Peatland restoration project manager Ellis Selway said: “Seeing nature respond so quickly gives us real hope for the future of this landscape.”…
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s getting beyond absurd now:
“Climate change a growing problem for power network”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg40753gyzo
Criss-crossing the south of England are the thousands of miles of overhead cables bringing power to homes and businesses.
Keeping those lines clear of trees and vegetation is a never ending task for power distributors like Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks (SSEN).
The company is spending £25m a year surveying and clearing its lines.
With climate change meaning longer growing seasons, the company that supplies power across Hampshire, Dorset, the Isle of Wight, Berkshire and Oxfordshire, says it is likely to become a bigger problem.
Resource & Scheduling Manager Russell Turner explains: “On average, I think we forecast back in 2021, it was 1.2m of growth per year.
“And that is only going to increase with climate change going the way that it’s going.
“Growing seasons seem to mean that we’re experiencing larger growth and of course we need to cut more to stay on top.“…
In its hysteria about climate change, the BBC is tying itself in knots. Even assuming (which seems dubious) that this is true, it poses too main problems for climate alarmists/net zero enthusiasts:
LikeLike
Yet again, evidence that habitat loss is a far greater bigger issue than climate change. Restore habitat, and wildlife thrives:
“Restored watering holes bring life to National Park”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8eyryx048jo
A wealth of biodiversity has been discovered during ecological surveys of old livestock watering holes, known as dew ponds, restored by the South Downs National Park.
The blue-tailed damselfly – once thought to have been extinct – was recently spotted in one of the newly restored ponds.
The national park has been working to bring ten of the ponds back to life; providing homes and drinking water for insects, birds amphibians and mammals.
“The plants are growing in it; the insects are coming back. Just to see it alive, it’s exciting when you come up here, you’re never quite sure what you’re going to see,” Sylvia King, who carries out a survey on one the ponds, said.
A hundred years ago, dew ponds were a common feature of the South Downs countryside.
Dug into the chalk by farmers for sheep, more than a thousand were dotted the Sussex landscape and served as important freshwater habitats for thousands of animals.
Changes in farming practice meant these ponds, which had been oases for wildlife, were left to fall into disrepair and dry-up.
The South Downs National Park has been restoring the ponds, with diving beetles, water boatmen, dragonflies, back swimmers, whirligig beetles and ramshorn snails some of the species found in the ponds……
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Council wants feedback on ‘no mow’ zones”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgznkk3elzo
LikeLike
“Restoration project sees meadows ‘come to life'”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn4jzv1r183o
A major nature recovery initiative is transforming south-east Cornwall’s landscape, the National Trust has said.
More than 70 acres (28.5 hectares) of species-rich meadow has been restored since 2020 and there are plans for another 247 acres (100 hectares) over the next five years...
...Andrew Simmons, National Trust ranger for south-east Cornwall, said: “It’s been incredible to watch these meadows come to life.
“We’re seeing more wildflowers each year, and with them come bees, butterflies, crickets, skylarks and even barn owls returning to hunt. It’s a real sign that nature is bouncing back.…
…Only for huge swathes of the UK’s countryside imminently to be covered in solar farms.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We read story after story like this. When will it be acknowledged that habitat makes far more difference to wildlife than does climate (change)?
“Island’s birds thriving decade after railway project”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgex91yyg1qo
An island transformed into a nature haven thanks to excavations from a major engineering project is thriving with record numbers of birds.
RSPB Wallasea Island, a 740-hectare reserve at Rochford in Essex, was created using more than three million tonnes of earth, brought by boat from the tunnels and shafts created by the Crossrail scheme.
Before work began more than a decade ago there were just a small number of birds present – but almost 40,000 arrived last winter….
…Now, the haven on the island, Jubilee Marsh, has nearly 800 Avocets, over 10,000 Knot, and nearly 3,000 Grey Plover and Bar-tailed Godwits, with a new record of 39,000 birds over-wintering on the site.…
LikeLike
Mark, Thanks for that little tale of good news, much needed in these grey days. Quite agree about habitat being the obvious prime factor influencing wildlife abundance. Look at the remarkable resurgence of all sorts of species on the Knepp estate.
LikeLike