I hate Academic Studies that present conclusions with no explanations of what the conclusions apply to, or whether the "wildlife" is nocturnal or diurnal, coast based or desert.
It leaves the same bad taste in my mouth as the "Executive Summary" of the global warming/climate change scam, of the UN IPCC, which tilts all public information to validate predetermined conclusions.
Bottom line... where is the entire so called study details on which the new hysterical report, rich on generalities but short on details is based.
Is the Study "repeatable?"
Is it actual science?
Do we have another East Anglia Fraud unit here?
Probably.
"Outdoor environments are changing rapidly and in ways that can impact wildlife species," said Travis Longcore, lead author of the study and assistant professor of architecture, spatial sciences and biological sciences with the Spatial Sciences Institute at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences. "We provide a method to assess the probable consequences of new light sources to keep up with the changing technology."
Posted for future reference.
This guy definitely deserves a closer look, as well as does his "study."
His entire thesis seems to argue that the world needs to abandon ALL artificial light.
Only a self-centered nut case would go there.