Comments about ‘Global warming may shrink sheep’

If your data is correct and the interpretation correct -- good news is coming. Many are pointing to 1998 at the end of our previous warming cycle and which means we are only in the beginning of the next cooling cycle since weather comes in cycles. Jupiter, Mars and Earth have experienced the warming pattern not due to cars American drive but to changes in the universe. So - perhaps in time if this has been the cause -- it will start to self correct. Best wishes and good luck!

With Global Warming, we won't need wool sweaters anyway.

I don't fit into some of the sweaters I wore two years ago. After reading the article I now know why. I believe in global warming (and warm donuts).

This is garbage science at its best... or worse. Like most "global warming propaganda, the subjective "research" was designed to support a preconceived result... these researchers were SLOPPY!

The "article" says that the sheep are 5% smaller than they were in 1985. What the article FAILED TO MENTION is that the actual juvenile survival of these feral sheep, which are isolated on a 250 acre island, is highly associated with resistance to levels of intestinal nematodes (parasites). With lower levels of parasites you get higher survival rates of genetically inferior, smaller sheep. This article fails to address research by Paterson et al (1998) that concludes that "parasites are likely to play a major role in the maintenance of diversity in this population of sheep" (Yes, the same herd of sheep). Also, over the years, many of the sheep have been treated with anthelminic drugs (that kill parasites). Kill the parasites and you get smaller sheep.

Bottom line is that there are far too many variables to conclude that so called "climate change" has anything to do with the claimed results.

Sound science is tough on liberals with agendas.

"Research Scientist | 11:14 p.m. July 2, 2009
This is garbage science at its best... or worse. Like most "global warming propaganda, the subjective "research" was designed to support a preconceived result... these researchers were SLOPPY!

The "article" says that the sheep are 5% smaller than they were in 1985. What the article FAILED TO MENTION is that the actual juvenile survival of these feral sheep, which are isolated on a 250 acre island, is highly associated with resistance to levels of intestinal nematodes (parasites). With lower levels of parasites you get higher survival rates of genetically inferior, smaller sheep. This article fails to address research by Paterson et al (1998) that concludes that "parasites are likely to play a major role in the maintenance of diversity in this population of sheep" (Yes, the same herd of sheep). Also, over the years, many of the sheep have been treated with anthelminic drugs (that kill parasites). Kill the parasites and you get smaller sheep.

Bottom line is that there are far too many variables to conclude that so called "climate change" has anything to do with the claimed results.

Sound science is tough on liberals with agendas."

Nice post!

I can tell you that here in the NW, we've had our 2 coldest years on record. That's not opinion, you can go look it up. It was so cold in Alaska last year that the salmon didn't run - they were confused because the rivers were iced over in mid May.

So I don't know where all the polar bears sitting in hot tubs are that Gore keeps talking about, but it's not here. I don't know why these people think they can tell us what we can see and feel is not real.

Mean nothing. It's not unusual for wild shifts in weather. It's the average temperature that is used to determine global temperature.

"I can tell you that here in the NW, we've had our 2 coldest years on record. "

Good for you. Do you know the difference between global climate and local weather?

"I don't know why these people think they can tell us what we can see and feel is not real."

That's not what's happening at all. What "these people" (climate scientists) _are_ saying is that as an entire system, Earth is warming.

From a NASA 2005 report on Global Mean Surface Temperatures:

"The highest global surface temperature in more than a century of instrumental data was recorded in the 2005 calendar year in the GISS annual analysis. However, the error bar on the data implies that 2005 is practically in a dead heat with 1998, the warmest previous year."

Or how about this from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia:

"The year 2008 was tenth warmest on record, exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2001, 2007 and 1997."

Globally, the last decade is the warmest on record. That's a fact, and it has zero to do with "liberal" agendas.

Will save us all!!

All science is a crock! We should just go with our gut feel like George Bush did!

It is kind of chilly this morning -- no global warming in Utah today!

"Globally, the last decade is the warmest on record. That's a fact, and it has zero to do with "liberal" agendas." But hysteria does.

No, no, no ... you miss the point. Of course the researchers' conclusion is nonsense, but the researchers satisfied their goal of collecting a paycheck! Linking the study to global warming provides an avenue for funding that these 'studiers-of-sheep' would never get otherwise.

Follow the money.

...why the sweater that fit me five years ago is too small now!!!!

Data discovered on NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) website revised recorded temperatures for the United States. This information was discovered by Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit on Wednesday (8/8/2007). No NASA press release, no James Hansen (head of GISS) announcement, nothing. Could it be because they don't want anyone to see it? The data is certainly devastating for the Al Gore camp which has based much of their Carbon Credits sales pitch on recent temperatures (e.g. claiming that 1998 was the warmest on record).

Other aspects of the data are just as stunning.

Out of the top 10 warmest years half occurred before 1940.

The years 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004 were cooler than the year 1900.

1996, just two years before what Al Gore called the hottest year in the history of the planet, was actually cooler than average.

1921 was the third warmest year in recorded history (behind 1934 and 1998).

It is obvious that in just the past 125 years there have been other periods just as warm, or warmer, than what we are now experiencing.

is an interesting video available for viewing on the internet. One point that a scientist makes is that government research money is in global warming. He states: "If you want to study the nut-gathering behavior of squirrels in Sussex, no one will fund the research. If you want to study the nut-gathering behavior of squirrels in Sussex, and how this is influenced by Global Warming, the research money will come".

Sounds exactly like what this article is about, even before reading the above mentioned parasite problem with these same sheep and how multiple variables throw this research conclusion in question.

I looked at my take-home pay & global warming/climate change has made it shrink too.

This idea that man is causing global warming/climate change is a theory at best, the science debate is never over, the debate & study will only make us learn more & become better.

I only hope my take-home pay will change, not just become change!

How fascinating that the working title of the upcoming Disney/Al Gore docu-drama is "Honey, we shrunk the sheep."

I know nothing about globel warming and evan less about this flock of sheep and the island they live on but I know a great deal about animal husbandry. If everything I've just read is fact I can tell you that if you issolate anything on a 250 acre island you get inbreeding. Prolonged inbreeding produces smaller offspring. Thats a fact

alright, they would still be lamb chops to me....LOL!!