60% Of NH Yearling Moose Population Dying

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
TCD said:
Regardless of the cause of the swings (IMO natural), and regardless of whether we can do anything about them (IMO no), what we can and should be spending resources on is getting relocated and ready for a 20' sea level rise. To my knowledge, NO ONE ANYWHERE is doing anything at all about that. And that is what we need to fix. I am sure in the US and Europe we will able to take care of this 75 years from now on an emergency basis, but it would be easier to fix now. And I fear that in places like Bangladesh, where 100 million people live within 5' of sea level, and they do not have the technology and wealth to support rapid relocation, there will be extensive loss of life over a 100 year period.
Click to expand...

Big time agreement here, although the relatively rapid rise of the oceans will be difficult to perceive even year to year, I suspect a large portion of the relocation will not be by choice. Large storms will roll in and kill or displace tens or hundreds of thousands at a time, and rebuilding just won't be an option. I'm not sure how many humanitarian disasters it will take before a major concerted relocation effort takes place.

Similarly, I don't think the moose population will just gradually decline in NH, but be hit with substantial drops from external factors, followed by occasional periods of recovery. Eventually it will either find a sustainable equilibrium, or the population will quickly die off. The moose are mating, but the yearling mortality rate is too high. The higher the mortality rate, the higher the replacement rate needs to be. I'm not sure how many yearlings a cow can produce in her lifetime though (I bet someone on here knows though!).

An analogy I would draw would be the difference between a few trees falling on a trail throughout the course of a year to a massive blowdown event. I've been told my analogies are terrible though, so that might not make sense outside my head. :)
 
Good news, people. We can relax and enjoy the weekend without undue fear of sea level rise. As it turns out, sea level rise is steady at around 1.7mm per year. As for Greenland melting, isn't that pure conjecture? Is that based on computer climate model forecasts?

"New study using GRACE data shows global sea levels rising less than 7 inches per century"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/...levels-rising-less-than-7-inches-per-century/

"What it means The final geocenter-corrected result of Baur et al. is most heartening, as Chambers et al. (2012) indicate that "sea level has been rising on average by 1.7 mm/year over the last 110 years," as is also suggested by the analyses of Church and White (2006) and Holgate (2007). Concomitantly, the air's CO2 concentration has risen by close to a third. And, still, it has not impacted the rate-of-rise of global sea level!"

Cheers all
 
Last edited:
For the Record

OK, as long as this one is still going, since the work and motivations of a large number of scientists is being called into question here, let's play fair and talk about Anthony Watts.

Willard Anthony Watts is the writer/blogger behind many of the linked posts used to deny climate change in this thread.
He's a non-scientist, paid AGW denier. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by the oil industry among others.

Watts is paid by the Heartland Insititute to deny climate change.

The Heartland Institute is the same group from the nineties that worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, and to lobby against government public-health reforms. They made their mark in the nineties paying people to deny that cigarette smoke was bad for your health, now they are paying people like Watts to confuse you over the issues of climate chage so the companies that fund the Heartland Institute can continue their work.

A comment from the Joural Nature from 2011, one of the most respected science journals on earth: "the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations....makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading.... Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth. ... The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters."

They are funded by some interesting groups including Exxon-Mobil, not that they would have a vested interest in denying AGW right? :rolleyes:

Maybe some of what Mr. Watts has to say is correct. Or, and far more likely, he's simply on the payroll of an institute funded by the oil industry to cause confusion so that said company can continue to drill. I will continue to get my scientific facts from scientists, not unethical, untrained, paid mercenaries for the oil industry.

If you want to believe people funded by the Heartland Institute, then check out this ploy: they tried to link people concerned about climate change with Osama Bin Laden, Charles Manson, and Ted Kaczynski (unabomber). Laughable.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/may/04/heartland-institute-global-warming-murder
 
Last edited:
Raven said:
OK, as long as this one is still going, since the work and motivations of a large number of scientists is being called into question here, let's play fair and talk about Anthony Watts.]
Click to expand...

For any readers open minded enough to read it, Mr. Watts has to defend himself from ad hominem attacks on a regular basis, and has done so in a FAQ on his blog.

But what about that sea level study? Would you...um..."deny" the veracity or worthiness of a scientific study because you didn't like the politics of someone who brought it to attention?

I have friends and loved ones on both sides of the political spectrum, and I'm a firm believer that they all have valuable contributions to discussions.
 
marnof said:
Good news, people. We can relax and enjoy the weekend without undue fear of sea level rise. As it turns out, sea level rise is steady at around 1.7mm per year. As for Greenland melting, isn't that pure conjecture? Is that based on computer climate model forecasts?

"New study using GRACE data shows global sea levels rising less than 7 inches per century"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/...levels-rising-less-than-7-inches-per-century/

"What it means
The final geocenter-corrected result of Baur et al. is most heartening, as Chambers et al. (2012) indicate that “sea level has been rising on average by 1.7 mm/year over the last 110 years,” as is also suggested by the analyses of Church and White (2006) and Holgate (2007). Concomitantly, the air’s CO2 concentration has risen by close to a third. And, still, it has not impacted the rate-of-rise of global sea level!"

Cheers all
Click to expand...

Have risen, not will rise.
 
I think the last two sentences refute CO2's influence, which is the gist of this thread. Future predictions about enormous sea level rise are as good as past predictions. Not good at all.
 
marnof said:
For any readers open minded enough to read it, Mr. Watts has to defend himself from ad hominem attacks on a regular basis, and has done so in a FAQ on his blog.

But what about that sea level study? Would you...um..."deny" the veracity or worthiness of a scientific study because you didn't like the politics of someone who brought it to attention?

I have friends and loved ones on both sides of the political spectrum, and I'm a firm believer that they all have valuable contributions to discussions.
Click to expand...

Mr. Watts is a paid shill of big oil and he is anything but objective. Google him. He's been doing this awhile.

What Mr. Watts brings to our attention is done so with the motivation to cause confusion, regardless of the quality of the study.

It's quite possible Mr. Watts may have valid information among his lies and misinformation. But because he is a paid shill, his motivation for bringing that study forth will always be in question and therefore the scientific community as a whole will continue to ignore his ramblings.

The most basic tenet of scientific research is that it is done objectively with no bias toward the result. Mr. Watts is anything but objective. So to respond to your statement, no I do not believe everyone has something valuable to bring to the discussion. I believe the scientific discussion is much more valuable without the input of people with financial and political motivation driving them. Political motivations, education level, and favorite foods do not preclude one from having input into the conversation, however a lack of honesty and integrity do. Mr. Watts appears to be of this ilk. Therefore his opinion does not matter to me and IMO he should simply be ignored.

I have two sisters on opposite ends of the political spectrum. I no longer associate with either major political party. It's not about politics. That's the entire point. It's about scientific truth and reality, not about clouding that reality.

Also disappointing is that Mr. Watts gives honest, ethical libertarians a bad name.
 
Wow. I think I'll just step back and let that draw flies for a while. Maybe he'll read it and get a chuckle. So much for a discussion of the facts. When the facts don't agree with your position, attack their character. Sad, really.
 
Everyone has a right to believe whomever they choose, judged according to whatever criteria they feel appropriate.


Of course, science works a bit differently. If a scientist makes a claim that the climate is driven mainly by, let's say, cattle-produced methane gas, it doesn't matter if the research was funded by the UN, Koch bothers, US gov, Exxon, or George Soros. If the claim falls apart under close scrutiny, then it is falsified. It's how the scientific world casts aside ideas with no merit and makes progress.


It doesn't matter if you heard about the cattle-methane-global warming theory from Fox News, Huff Po, Jon Stewart, Bill O'Reilly, Rachel Maddow, Bill Nye, Anthony Watts or Beezelbub. If another scientist falsifies your claim, then into the trash it goes, no matter if you like who told you about it, or feel like you can't trust them, or think they're infallible, or basically evil. It has no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the science.


If a person goes through life with that kind of myopic outlook, they will eventually make critical errors in judgment, denying valid arguments based on prejudices and biases.


Now let's all go back and pretend that Jon Stewart or Bill Nye highlighted that sea level study and see if it makes more sense scientifically.


Since Nature is such a highly regarded journal, here's a recent paper that highlights just how tenuous our understanding of CO2 is. This paper shows that the data we use to create climate models has significant problems.


I don't think Nature published it to "confuse" anyone. That's a pretty bizarre assumption to make, and it is really baseless in a discussion about CO2's effect on climate and moose mortality.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13376.html
 
marnof said:
Everyone has a right to believe whomever they choose, judged according to whatever criteria they feel appropriate. It doesn't matter if you heard about the cattle-methane-global warming theory from Fox News, Huff Po, Jon Stewart, Bill O'Reilly, Rachel Maddow, Bill Nye, Anthony Watts or Beezelbub. If another scientist falsifies your claim, then into the trash it goes, no matter if you like who told you about it, or feel like you can't trust them, or think they're infallible, or basically evil. It has no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the science.
Click to expand...

Yes, everyone has the right to believe whomever they choose. I would not rely on 'another' or 'one' scientist to falsify a claim because the probability of having at least ONE scientist disagreeing with each other is high. However when a poll of climate change scientists indicates that the majority [forget about the 97% figure] agree that it's man made, then the facts, if you choose to believe them, speak for themselves.
 
Regarding arctic ice = polar vortex = New England snow conditions affecting moose:

The Guardian is a huge proponent of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, if you're judging source according to bias. So here they showcase a renowned expert in the field of arctic climate studies and his prediction of lessening arctic summer ice, leading to a completely ice free summer in 2015. Depending on whom you believe, this could lead to runaway global warming…or cause New England to have very harsh winters…the details are sketchy and malleable according to the forecast you want to portray. This scientist may be part of a consensus--it doesn't really matter. If his prediction for an ice-free arctic doesn't materialize, he has egg on his face.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice

(Now, if you keep up on such things, NOAA has just forecast above average ice for the next arctic summer (Sept, Octoberish) so the above forecast looks less likely.) This author goes on to mention some ideas to mediate this oncoming disaster, such as cloud seeding to create white clouds that reflect the sun's energy away from Earth and back into space. A far-out concept, to be sure, but very interesting to me because it recognizes the sun's importance in Earth's climate, and clouds' as well.

There are ongoing studies that are looking into the sun as being the primary driver of climate, not C02, and certainly not man's minuscule contribution of CO2. They propose that high solar activity limits cloud formation (causing global warming), and low solar activity allows more cloud formation (similar in a way to the cloud seeding idea above, causing cooling). From what I've seen, their data on solar activity correlates much better with global temperature than atmospheric CO2 levels. It's all very fascinating stuff, and definitely not consensus-based science. These researchers are pretty much on their own, having a hard time getting published. I think they have ongoing experiments regarding subatomic particles and cloud formation at CERN in Switzerland.

The Cloud Mystery

http://youtu.be/ANMTPF1blpQ

Based on all this, quite a few scientists are predicting an upcoming period of low solar activity and a corresponding cooling of the Earth's climate.
 
marnof said:
Wow. I think I'll just step back and let that draw flies for a while. Maybe he'll read it and get a chuckle. So much for a discussion of the facts. When the facts don't agree with your position, attack their character. Sad, really.
Click to expand...

People can choose to get their scientific information from people who have clear conflicts of interest or from those who do not.

Mr. Watts has historically taken money from big oil. No one has a more vested interest in killing AGW than big oil. Mr. Watts can claim there are 26 letters in the alphabet. He may be right, but since his words carry little value, I would personally verify that information.

It's not an attack of character to shine a light on a clear conflict of interest.
 
Raven said:
It's not an attack of character to shine a light on a clear conflict of interest.
Click to expand...

It is a character attack if you make bogus claims repeatedly without data to support it. Who is "Big Oil" and how much do you claim they paid him and for what?

I'll repeat that he discusses this in a FAQ on his blog, if you dare read it. Ahh... I forgot... You won't read anything contrary to your opinion. Well, never mind.

Yawn.
 
marnof said:
He actually looks pretty plump after surviving the worst winter in 100yrs. Nice pic. :)
Click to expand...

I meant the fur situation, specifically. It did seem healthy and trotted down the bike path quite briskly afterwards. From what I can tell, the large sections of missing fur are from rubbing to try and get the ticks off, but my understanding is limited. No sign of the cow, so it looks like this moose was orphaned or is old enough to be run off by its mom.
 
As this topic lends itself to lengthy debates, and appears to be winding down, I would like to recommend people check out this page: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ It does a great job of explaining and giving examples of various logical fallacies - many of which have appeared in this thread. The more you are aware of these the better your discussion will be. Ones blatantly used here include (and I'm withholding specific examples to avoid any sense of being called out, as that is not my point):

Strawman: Misrepresenting another's argument intentionally to make it appear weaker than it is.
Appeal to emotion: Tossing logic aside and asking people how they feel.
Personal Incredulity: This is almost inevitable when one distrusts the date/source/motives of another party.
Ad hominem: Just because you think someone is an a-hole doesn't mean they are wrong.
Band wagon: A majority opinion does not mean it is right.
Appeal to Authority: Just because a claim is made by someone who should be an expert does not mean it's right. Conversely though, it is not reasonable to automatically reject an argument from someone who has demonstrated expertise and competency in the field of study.
Composition/Division: An exception does not negate nor prove a point; it requires clarification of a point.
Genetic: Just because it came from someone you think is an a-hole doesn't mean they are wrong.
Begging the Question: The conclusion cannot be in it's premise. Saying something is 'obvious' (even if it is) is not a logical argument.
Appeal to Nature: Anything 'natural' is ok/good/right.
Anecdotal: Disregarding an argument based on ones interpretation/generalization of their own experience.
Texas Sharp Shooter: Only selecting data/articles that support your argument, rather than taking an honest view of all the arguments.
Fallacy Fallacy: Just because someone argued a point terribly doesn't mean they don't have a point; it means they don't know how to convey it.

I am strongly of the mindset that the scientific method should be used and that those reporting findings have a fiduciary responsibility to due so without bias. Since that does not happen all (or maybe even most) of the time, we must create and be educated consumers of media think critically, and learn to make solid arguments that stand up to scrutiny. It is difficult to discern truth when there are people (and organizations are just groups of people) intentionally muddying the waters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SpencerVT
Moose Apocalypse on Salmon Mountain? (WARNING: Graphic dead animal photos)
Replies
8
Views
5K
CaptCaper
CaptCaper
grouseking
Looking for moose....
Replies
3
Views
2K
forestgnome
forestgnome
Snowflea
Trailwrights 72 in 6 weeks
2
Replies
21
Views
7K
Sunshine Chris
Sunshine Chris
procook131
Baxter State Park 1/5-1/8/13
Replies
10
Views
4K
procook131
procook131
Tom Rankin
Free Shawangunk Ridge Lecture Series
Replies
1
Views
1K
MattC
MattC

Latest posts

Top