All argues aren’t valid

Today we can hear many voices calling for greater strength by the scientific community about climate change and its consequences. This call is due to complete paralysis of government in this question. Weather changes and we can see it day by day and we just see how it applies some paid, later and bat.
In other hand economic powers pay scientific or pseudo-scientific informs that denies the climate change or justified by an improvement in changing environmental conditions. In this respect we find a paper published in The Guardian: Light pollution can have positive effects on wildlife, study shows (Jessica Aldred 28/11/12); where expose those artificial light benefice migratory birds.

 

I believe that migratory birds life better after arrived of electrical light and its perpetual day, but how many species suffer the inconvenience of living without night. That some birds can hunt at night like day precludes other species that need the darkness can do, for example the owl. Other problem we can find is the change of vital circle of some species, especially insects. The day without night accelerate vital circle of them and their rising, in consequence increased pests and pesticide use to combat them. 
Same migratory birds have adapted to new paradigm of day without night but this doesn’t mean that new paradigm is good to nature. This only shows the capacity to adaptation of nature at changes. But it is showing how can help ours changes the nature and this is only a lie.  Birds migrant in the sky before that humans put electric light and they were adapting to this conditions; and electric light don’t be similar a fool moon every day, as discussed in paper.
Earth has day and night from the beginning of its existence. If solar system has to Suns it would be possible the natural day without night, but also the species that living in this Earth would be adapting at this paradigm. But ours current Earth hasn’t two Suns and its species need day and night.
But the question is Why do we need illuminated the night? I thing that’s an unjustified spend of energy illuminate roads that runs nobody, or runs cars that haven light. We illuminate buildings only that people can admire at night, at tree of night (3:00 am)? People at this hour must be sleeping. Global warming is produced by massive consumption of fossil fuels; however other sources of energy do not yet have much power to replace them. So why do we continue growth the extension illuminated year by year when we must save energy? 
This paper is another example of how people see what they want to see. It defends a most damaging human intervention in environment with argues that shows a positive effect of our intervention to nature. Skeptics of global warming using two kinds of response front the evidence: a paper that they were taking a selected data to show the opposite that it prove, or a paper that shows a real benefice to environment however partial benefice but they always forgot to mentions.
I don’t criticize The Guardian to post this paper, because all the voices must be heard, and in the same sense the contents of this paper I’m sure that is true. But the message is a trap, it put by people that win a lot of money selling energy and illumination kids. When we  must save energy, Why we enlighten the field to benefice of animals and plants that do not want.