OMG! Look What The Libtards Are Saying About Wolves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[three5x5s]

If the wolves eat all the elk, cougars eat all the deer, you have no big game to hunt, and there for have no need for big game guns.
But that was never the plan, or was it??

 

[Darren Best]

Killing off the big games animals to destroy hunting has been their plan all along.

The thinking that humans can control what happens to our planet is arrogance in the extreme.

Anyone that believes in climate change bull is either a fool or an accomplice.

 

[ftballman125]

Buckle Up! You are in a for a bumpy reality trip.

Volcanic eruptions undo all climate change measures

The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just four days, negated every single effort we humans have made in the past five years to control carbon dioxide emissions on our planet.

The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just four days, negated every single effort we humans have made in the past five years to control carbon dioxide emissions on our planet.

Of course you know about this gas we are trying to suppress – it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow, and to synthesize into oxygen for all animal life.

The volcanic ash has erased every effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon.

And there are about 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this gas every day.

I don’t really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire time on earth.

Should I mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change?

I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the bushfire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years.

Do your homework and stop believing anything anyone tells you cuz many people on the left are full of chit and have a financial interest and/or gun control agenda so they are only interested in fooling you.

Heh. OK. It's quite obvious you didn't look at the links I posted above, or if you did, that you discount science. Not much point arguing any further, it seems.

 

[Shrek]

If you believe in climate change or not doesn't matter. If man made climate change is real then by believers own numbers we are already doomed and nothing we can do now will stop the earth from warming so all the anti CO2 laws and schemes are about a social agenda and if yo don't believe then all the laws and schemes are a social agenda. Wolves and CO2 laws are both about ending our way of life by "no trace " assholes. Bottom line is that greenies are consumed by self loathing and can't deal with their world dominating top predator nature.
There are scientists who's heads are not firmly planted up their asses and they are working on real solutions to enable us to control the content of the atmosphere. Lucky for us we already know how to kill all the wolves and just need to find the political solution to put it in motion.

 

[Where's Bruce?]

If you believe in climate change or not doesn't matter. If man made climate change is real then by believers own numbers we are already doomed and nothing we can do now will stop the earth from warming so all the anti CO2 laws and schemes are about a social agenda and if yo don't believe then all the laws and schemes are a social agenda. Wolves and CO2 laws are both about ending our way of life by "no trace " assholes. Bottom line is that greenies are consumed by self loathing and can't deal with their world dominating top predator nature.
There are scientists who's heads are not firmly planted up their asses and they are working on real solutions to enable us to control the content of the atmosphere. Lucky for us we already know how to kill all the wolves and just need to find the political solution to put it in motion.

I read em but I just don't think we can blame bears and global warming for the decline. Per one link:
"Elk accounted for 84% of all ungulates consumed by both bear species. Whitebark pine nuts continue to be a primary food source for both grizzly bears and black bears when abundant, but are replaced by false-truffles (Rhizopogon spp.) in the diets of female grizzly bears and black bears when nut crops are minimal. Thus, both grizzly bears and black bears continue to adjust to changing resources, with larger grizzly bears continuing to occupy a more carnivorous niche than the smaller, more herbivorous black bear."

An 80% reduction in elk within the part ONLY SINCE THE WOLVES WERE RELEASED tells me far more about the cause than this babble. The same scientists promoting the wolf project admitted they were wrong about their impact on the ungulates in the park. How can you be willing to believe anything they claim now?

 

[ftballman125]

I read em but I just don't think we can blame bears and global warming for the decline.

I didn't post the wolf links; was referring to the climate change links.

 

[Where's Bruce?]

I didn't post the wolf links; was referring to the climate change links.

I trust common sense science like polar ice and geological core analysis. Global warming is psuedo science nonsense. Anyone that buys into it is gullible. If you believe we can adjust the planet's weather in any measurable manner than you are dumb enough to accept responsibility for the change. The truth is simple...the Earth is always warming or cooling and cycles like everything else in nature. The planet was a lot warming when dinosaurs ruled the Earth and a lot cooler after their demise. Perhaps global cooling was the dinosaur's fault and not the meteors' fault. Buy 5 vowels-get a clue.

 

[ftballman125]

I trust common sense science like polar ice and geological core analysis. Global warming is psuedo science nonsense. Anyone that buys into it is gullible. If you believe we can adjust the planet's weather in any measurable manner than you are dumb enough to accept responsibility for the change. The truth is simple...the Earth is always warming or cooling and cycles like everything else in nature. The planet was a lot warming when dinosaurs ruled the Earth and a lot cooler after their demise. Perhaps global cooling was the dinosaur's fault and not the meteors' fault. Buy 5 vowels-get a clue.

Alright, we'll run with your words then Bruce. Also, I'm making a point to keep this civil, maybe you'll do the same? There are smart people who don't believe in global warming, but the vast majority of the world's smartest and most critical thinkers do believe in it:

"Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.short

I trust common sense science like polar ice and geological core analysis.

"The most concerning example of ongoing climate change is the rapid Arctic sea-ice retreat. While just a few years ago ice-free Arctic summers were expected by the end of this century, current models predict this to happen by 2030. This shows that our understanding of rapid changes in the cryosphere is limited, which is largely due to a lack of long-term observations. Newly discovered long-lived algae growing on the Arctic seafloor and forming tree-ring–like growth bands in a hard, calcified crust have recorded centuries of sea-ice history. The algae show that, while fast short-term changes have occurred in the past, the 20th century exhibited the lowest sea-ice cover in the past 646 years."

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/49/19737.short

If you believe we can adjust the planet's weather in any measurable manner than you are dumb enough to accept responsibility for the change.

"Significant changes in physical and biological systems are occurring on all continents and in most oceans, with a concentration of available data in Europe and North America. Most of these changes are in the direction expected with warming temperature. Here we show that these changes in natural systems since at least 1970 are occurring in regions of observed temperature increases, and that these temperature increases at continental scales cannot be explained by natural climate variations alone. Given the conclusions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely to be due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, and furthermore that it is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica, we conclude that anthropogenic climate change is having a significant impact on physical and biological systems globally and in some continents."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/abs/nature06937.html

Be critical Bruce; by all means look at the data. But certainly don't just parrot what you've heard on TV or from groups sowing misinformation because they stand to gain massively from inaction on climate change.

I'm a very skeptical person and trust data, multiple sources of it, long before I'd trust the word of any political hack from either side of the aisle. As a conservationist who cares about protecting our hunting grounds for our children and theirs, I think that climate change is arguably the biggest threat we hunters face. Maybe you'll trust other hunters, if not scientists directly?

http://www.trcp.org/issues/climate-change#.U0dmD3Wx06U
http://conservationhawks.org/
Steven Rinella

 

[Wapiti66]

org/content/110/49/19737.short[/URL]

" Given the conclusions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely to be due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, and furthermore that it is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica, we conclude that anthropogenic climate change is having a significant impact on physical and biological systems globally and in some continents."

I'm a very skeptical person and trust data, multiple sources of it, long before I'd trust the word of any political hack from either side of the aisle

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/abs/nature06937.html


http://www.trcp.org/issues/climate-change#.U0dmD3Wx06U
http://conservationhawks.org/
Steven Rinella

What about "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" do you think does not include political hack from either side of the aisle??? You are conflicting yourself within your own posts. This entire climate change scam is just a way to gain more control/regulations on the people...which in turn is a huge revenue generator for the government. Either way, it's all a scam to regulate us, tax us, and fine us terrible polluters. The left has done a great job convincing people like you that if you don't "buy in" you are ruining your kids future and the planet. Anybody that doesn't buy in is considered "the problem" and has no compassion or care for nature. You can look at your data all day long but just know there is data that can back up both sides, it's a matter of who did the study and what message they are trying to portray.

 

[mmw194287]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not have "political "hack from either side of the aisle." The fact that you think it does (I assume because the root word "government" is part of intergovernmental) means that you don't know what the IPCC is, what it does, or what the word "intergovernmental" means.

I'm not trying to be belligerent here, but multiple participants in this discussion have suggested that if you recognize the overwhelming scientific consensus then you are either easily deceived, downright stupid, or part of some worldwide conspiracy against freedom. So don't read the above paragraph as the first ad-hominem on this thread.

What I like most about Rokslide is that it's an online community full of people who are knowledgeable about a shared interest and eager to share good information with others. This thread over the past few days has devolved into something far different than that--it looks more like the comments you'd find beneath a Yahoo news story.

 

[UPnorth]

RE volcanoes and Mt. Pinatubo: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

If you want to be skeptical about the claims of some climate scientists and/or global warming "alarmists", it may make more sense to do based on things like the relatively small amount quality temperature data that is available (in a historical sense), the inherent difficulty and uncertainty involved in trying to model a complex multi-physics system like the earths climate, or a lack of realistic/practical solutions to the problem (assuming the situation is exactly as described).

 

[Shrek]

What I was trying to get at with my earlier post is that there is little to nothing that can be done if there is man made climate change. By the most comprehensive work I've read the earth's temperature will continue to raise for the next 100 years if we didn't put another ounce of co2 in the atmosphere. Reality is that China and India will both surpass our current emissions within a decade and the rest of the third world is right behind them. All the anti co2 law making is going to do is crush our economy and limit personal freedom without making any difference is the ultimate outcome. Mechanical co2 reclamation is about the only real solution. It will have to be undertaken on a worldwide scale with millions of accumulators working around thee globe. In the meantime climate change has become a stalking horse for radical environmentalists and those enamored with federal regulatory power.

 

[Wapiti66]

You are right, I did not know of the IPCC. So, a little research to their site further proves my point and is worse than I first believed...a scientific branch under the UN to analyze data and studies on climate change to interpret to the world what we "know". Do you believe the UN is non-partisan? Because I'd say they follow very liberal/socialistic view points that I cannot share or agree with them on. I can't believe their isn't a strong bias of "believers" to this man-made global warming involved in this panel. They (UN), have a set agenda, they are very political (hacks). Of course this is only my opinion of the UN, but to me they are not a group I trust on many issues, especially global warming.

 

[Clarktar]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not have "political "hack from either side of the aisle." The fact that you think it does (I assume because the root word "government" is part of intergovernmental) means that you don't know what the IPCC is, what it does, or what the word "intergovernmental" means.

I'm not trying to be belligerent here, but multiple participants in this discussion have suggested that if you recognize the overwhelming scientific consensus then you are either easily deceived, downright stupid, or part of some worldwide conspiracy against freedom. So don't read the above paragraph as the first ad-hominem on this thread.

What I like most about Rokslide is that it's an online community full of people who are knowledgeable about a shared interest and eager to share good information with others. This thread over the past few days has devolved into something far different than that--it looks more like the comments you'd find beneath a Yahoo news story.

This is exactly why I bowed out of this thread days ago.

 

[Where's Bruce?]

Look at Al Gore's net worth before the "global warming" alarm and after. http://www.examiner.com/article/al-gore-pushes-global-warming-for-personal-profit
There's your motivation. The planet is constantly undergoing temp changes, always has-always will. The planet is influenced by many things, the cycles of the sun being paramount among them. The polar icecaps have always had big swings too...core samples don't lie. Stop focusing on short term research and look at the science that spans millenia! The notion that man's impact is so significant and devastating is comical, look at the impact of naturally occurring volcanic activity. How can any sane person argue in favor of Al Gore's position? It's just nuts. I'm gone.

 

[Coyote Commander]

Meanwhile in ID, the governor just ok'd funds to set up a predation board and kill an additional 500 wolves. A board represented by sportsmans groups, ranching groups, farming groups, with NO requirement to have representation of wolf conservation groups. I like this guy!

Man, I tell ya what, Idahos got their shit wired and tied. Killing wolves, killing ravens and crows (ahem, the #1 threat to sage grouse, contrary to what the concrete dwelling "wildlife experts" would like you to think).

Good for you Idaho!

 

[Darren Best]

It's a little late, but at least it's getting done.

 

[Coyote Commander]

It's a little late, but at least it's getting done.

Its better than what we got here.

We got groups trying to ban ALL public ground trapping (not just for wolves), which will effectively cut our wolf harvest in half.

 

[Morlock]

Alright, we'll run with your words then Bruce. Also, I'm making a point to keep this civil, maybe you'll do the same? There are smart people who don't believe in global warming, but the vast majority of the world's smartest and most critical thinkers do believe in it:

Sorry for resurrecting this thread months later, but this really stuck in my craw and I wanted to respond to it.

Science is not based on consensus. Science is based on verifiable facts. It is falsifiable.

Any good scientist will be the first to tell you that science is not based on a majority vote, or consensus. While good science tends to draw majorities and consensus, neither is in any way, shape, or form causative to good science. The scientific elite has been wrong time after time throughout history.

There's a term for the argument being used here: Argument from authority. It's one of the classic logical fallacies: "Oprah says our product is the best, so it must be good!" "9 out of 10 bought-off Dentists approve!" Etc.

The vast majority of the world's smartest critical thinkers know better than to fall for this bunk.

It's also silly to argue that the only alternative to the global warming alarmists' claims is that there must be some vast conspiracy on the part of scientists. A consensus is built in the scientific community in much the same way it is built in any community that relies on research: a small number of people do the research and publish their findings. A larger, but still small, number of people actually read the published data. The rest of the community (the vast majority) get the short version via word of mouth, the press, etc. So a very small number of those scientists who actually do the research, or read it carefully, know what they're talking about. The rest don't. They accept on faith.

Further, a whole lot of those scientists are relying on the same data set. A whole army of these global warming alarmists get their data from the NOAA, for example, which was recently exposed for cooking their books (fudging temperature data to make global warming more plausible). Now, I honestly have no idea how many data sets the scientific community is ultimately relying on to support the global warming alarmist position. But I can easily imagine that the whole house of cards just tumbled with the revelations about the NOAA. Food for thought, at least.

Finally, I have done a lot of (layman level) reading about certain scientific areas over the years. I know for a fact that a great many scientists are all too willing to use deceptive language that contradicts the facts in service of a "greater good." Basically, they lie by using language that will be interpreted by the public in a certain way, while parsing their diction carefully enough that it's actually true, if you have the proper background and know what to look for. Again, I know this for a fact; it's actually standard procedure in certain hot-button areas. These scientists figure their research is important enough that they'd rather tell a few white lies to the rubes than risk their jobs, funding, or reputations.

If you give people an incentive to lie, ignore the truth, fudge the truth, or otherwise be less than fully honest, they often will. Scientists are just as human as the rest of us. The influence they could gain through global warming alarmism is enough to explain a lot.

Understanding that consensus and authority prove nothing is the first step toward being a critical thinker.

 

[Where's Bruce?]

Sorry for resurrecting this thread months later, but this really stuck in my craw and I wanted to respond to it.

Science is not based on consensus. Science is based on verifiable facts. It is falsifiable.

Any good scientist will be the first to tell you that science is not based on a majority vote, or consensus. While good science tends to draw majorities and consensus, neither is in any way, shape, or form causative to good science. The scientific elite has been wrong time after time throughout history.

There's a term for the argument being used here: Argument from authority. It's one of the classic logical fallacies: "Oprah says our product is the best, so it must be good!" "9 out of 10 bought-off Dentists approve!" Etc.

The vast majority of the world's smartest critical thinkers know better than to fall for this bunk.

It's also silly to argue that the only alternative to the global warming alarmists' claims is that there must be some vast conspiracy on the part of scientists. A consensus is built in the scientific community in much the same way it is built in any community that relies on research: a small number of people do the research and publish their findings. A larger, but still small, number of people actually read the published data. The rest of the community (the vast majority) get the short version via word of mouth, the press, etc. So a very small number of those scientists who actually do the research, or read it carefully, know what they're talking about. The rest don't. They accept on faith.

Further, a whole lot of those scientists are relying on the same data set. A whole army of these global warming alarmists get their data from the NOAA, for example, which was recently exposed for cooking their books (fudging temperature data to make global warming more plausible). Now, I honestly have no idea how many data sets the scientific community is ultimately relying on to support the global warming alarmist position. But I can easily imagine that the whole house of cards just tumbled with the revelations about the NOAA. Food for thought, at least.

Finally, I have done a lot of (layman level) reading about certain scientific areas over the years. I know for a fact that a great many scientists are all too willing to use deceptive language that contradicts the facts in service of a "greater good." Basically, they lie by using language that will be interpreted by the public in a certain way, while parsing their diction carefully enough that it's actually true, if you have the proper background and know what to look for. Again, I know this for a fact; it's actually standard procedure in certain hot-button areas. These scientists figure their research is important enough that they'd rather tell a few white lies to the rubes than risk their jobs, funding, or reputations.

If you give people an incentive to lie, ignore the truth, fudge the truth, or otherwise be less than fully honest, they often will. Scientists are just as human as the rest of us. The influence they could gain through global warming alarmism is enough to explain a lot.

Understanding that consensus and authority prove nothing is the first step toward being a critical thinker.

Really? Scientist are willing to exchange ethics for grant money? Huh. I kinda buy that. <g>