Blame it all on global warming

Yep, you, Mr and Ms Super Cub pilot, are the cause of the declining caribou herd with your CO2 producing little aircraft. Not the wolves, but you!

IMO, the "human-caused" global warming hoax is going to threaten our freedom to fly if it stays on its current course...


---------------------------
Canada worried by plunging caribou population By David Ljunggren
Fri Jan 26, 12:32 PM ET

OTTAWA (Reuters) - The caribou population in Canada's vast Northwest Territories is falling rapidly and the increasingly warm climate could slow the animals' chances of recovery, a wildlife specialist said on Friday.

Herds of barren-ground caribou -- which for centuries have been a crucial source of food and furs for local aboriginals -- have dropped by between 40 and 86 percent over the last 10 years. The largest single herd fell from 472,000 animals in 1986 to 128,000 in 2006 and is still declining.

"The level of concern is very high in the Northwest Territories," said Ray Case of the territories' environment and natural resources ministry.

Case -- blaming natural factors such as varying climate, insect levels, the amount of food available, and the number of predators -- said the caribou population had traditionally risen and fallen over a 30-year cycle.

But he told Reuters that warmer winters and easier access for hunters to the ranges that the caribou cover make it harder to say what will happen to the herds in years to come.

"That doesn't suggest global warming is driving this but certainly there is concern that things are changing ... we do have some uncertainty about what the future holds as far as climate and as far as human activity," he said.

Case spoke by telephone from Inuvik, in the Mackenzie River Delta, where politicians, wildlife officials and aboriginals were attending a four-day summit on the caribou herds.

"If they experience a number of years with very low calf production and calf survival the herds can decline quite quickly. They can also increase quite quickly," he said.

Over the past few years hunters have been allowed to kill a an average of 11,000 animals annually, a number that Case said would have to be reduced.

He also expressed concern about modern forms of transport that allow hunters to reach once inaccessible areas where in the past the caribou would have taken refuge while herd levels gradually recovered.

"They can't hide from us any more. People can either go by ice road or snowmobile or aircraft and actually find the caribou and continue to harvest ... we need to be cautious about how we manage the future," Case said.

Animal rights activists say they are concerned about increased mining and oil extraction on calving grounds in Canada's mineral-rich northern region. Case said this did not seem to be a major factor in the territories.

"There has been some drilling, some seismic activity on some of the ranges but over the period that this decline occurred the activity has been very low," Case said.

"There hasn't been activity on all of the ranges yet all of the caribou herds have shown a similar decline."

There's a pretty good novel out bu Michael crichton called "State of fear", about this sort of hoaxy environmental thing. Good reading.

Rooster

Your so right about it being a Hoax....Lets see if this makes R&R.

I know many who will almost fight you in disagreement. I wonder who all on this site thinks its true ? :roll:

Agree to disagree, pro versus con on....
clear-cut logging
global warming
grey-whale hunting
war in Iraq
nuclear power

It is warming, without doubt. If it keeps up, it may become as warm as it was in the eleventh, twelth, and thirteenth centuries, when the Norse were farming in Greenland and when they reported winters without frost in Newfoundland. Humans just must have been the cause of that warming period as well -- but I haven't quite figured out how....... They also must have been the cause of the 'Little Ice Age' as well, during the 14th to 17th centuries, during the Maunder Minimum.
Personally, I'm more worried about the current warming triggering an ice age than I am about rising sea levels. I'm scared the Atlantic conveyor is going to shut down.
JimC

As a previous Geologist, I would suggest studying some geomorphology or pleistocene geology. There have been hundreds (thousands?) of episodes of warming-cooling-warming etc.

The earth may be getting warmer, just like it has done hundreds (thousands?) of times in the past. I don't believe man has affected it to any significant degree.

Next time you are flying over the West/Alaska/Canada or wherever, just look around and see how much man has affected the terrain. Considering land only represents 20% of the earth's surface, our activites are minor compared to mother nature.

Politicians 30 years ago were arguing about global cooling. Now they seem to be getting traction (and money and power...) with global warming.

Go figure....

Bill

How come the hoax theory isn't that common on this - less oil dependant - side of the pond?...

/Mattias

Bill, I agree with you about the land -- but, I do believe that we may be doing serious damage to the oceans with our fisheries. For example, the collapse of cod fishing in Newfoundland.

I guess I shouldn't have sold my house in Florida! At least I have skis for my plane 8)

Tim

Poor 'ol Al. Wonder if he's got a new scam yet.
Mike

Remember, the new buzzword is "global climate change". The term "global warming" has become unpopular due to some strong evidence to the contrary. With "global climate change" the lefties have all of their bases covered. Seems as though even the lefties in Europe are starting to have their fill of climate change, and all the taxes their governments are trying to impose on them to combat the non-existant enemy. In the US we are already be "taxed" to fight climate change, its called ethanol subsidies, renewable energy mandates, and the like. Follow the money as they say. A whole lot of it finds its way right into the government coffers.

You mean the "global warming" that some cheap political hack made up and the sheeple are buying, or the "global warming" that every reputable atmospheric scientist is saying is a complete and utter fraud? Folks, there IS NO "global warming." Believe the scientists or believe Owl-gore.

I heard that the "...vocal 3% of climate scientists that shout 'Global Warming' are the vocal 3% of climate scientists and are the ones that the media echo...".

In other words..................97% (!!!!!!) of the worlds climate scientists do not buy the global warming hoax as sold by "OwlGore".

Anyone still have the link to "The Great Global Warming Scandal" from the BBC? I'd like to see that again.

DAVE

Global Warming

Spend the money ($26) and take the time too read Six Degrees by Mark Lynas, then post your opinion.
bmh

Re: Global Warming

Brooks Hurley said:

Spend the money ($26) and take the time too read Six Degrees by Mark Lynas, then post your opinion.
bmh

Click to expand...

Brooks could you summarize Lynas? Thanks. DAVE

BBC documentary

Anyone still have the link to "The Great Global Warming Scandal" from the BBC? I'd like to see that again.

DAVE

Click to expand...

This link still works........

http://www.garagetv.be/video-galeri..._Global_Warming_Swindle_Documentary_Film.aspx

Randy

Hey! I saw the movie "Six Degrees" in Norway when it first came out!! That's one of the best comedy's I have seen in a long time!
WOW. Talk about a hoax. At least they could have made the blurred objects they were trying to add a voice to a little more clear. What a waste of $$.
Greg

Re: Global Warming

Dave Calkins said:

Brooks Hurley said:

Spend the money ($26) and take the time too read Six Degrees by Mark Lynas, then post your opinion.
bmh

Click to expand...

Brooks could you summarize Lynas? Thanks. DAVE

Click to expand...

??

Global Warming

Dave:
In his book Six Degrees Mr. Lynas chronicles the potential effects of global warming as the earth’s average temperature sequentially increases by one degree. There are six chapters in the book, hence the title Six Degrees. Of course as the book progresses and the earths temperature continues to rise the greater the projected damage. Since the average temperature has almost reached the one degree mark (0.8 degrees actually) the first chapter (One Degree) has several examples of the effects of global warming that have come too pass. Many of which I was unaware of. The remaining chapters deal with the future effects as the earth continues too warm. Controversial, absolutely, a hoax, I don’t think so.
I read the book on the recommendation of a good friend; I have not seen the film. I thought Lynas did a good job writing the book, his research seemed extensive, objective and well referenced. I found it fascinating, informative and scary all at the same time. In the end I thought his work was creditable. He sited nearly three hundred references in the back of the book to substantiate his effort. The man did his homework.
The common argument that “global warming and cooling has been going on for centuries”, is true to a point but what took thousands of years before, Lynas points out, now is happening in a matter of decades. But of course global warming is much more complex than one sentence. He does a nice job explaining the changes in some detail in a way most of us can understand. I think this is a real strength of the book and a testament to his writing style.
Do I believe global warming is real? Yes. To what extent I’m not sure, but even at a moderate level the consequences are going to be significant and I believe they will be significant. Unfortunately global warming will have a greater impact on my children and grandson then it will on my generation. This bothers me the most.
Just for the record I am not an alarmist by any stretch but this book bothered me. I know most will not read the book but if a few do I would be interested in your thoughts.
Like some of you I would like to believe that this is all a hoax….but it is not.
As Pogo once said “we have met the enemy and he is us….”

bmh

Regardless of if we have global warming, or global cooling.....we will adapt. The only thing that stays the same is that things always change.

Tim

Regardless, we need to cut down on the pollutants we put in the air. When I fly towards the Metro-mess (Dallas/Ft. Worth) it is very evident the difference in their air and the air in the less populated areas like where I live.

Time will tell, for certain. We have had a very cool summer '08 here in Anchorage, about 15 degrees F. cooler than average. I have heard the same for areas of the Western US......time will tell.

SteveP., yes, we should be aware of pollutants. Also, awareness of our consumption of all things should be brought to the forefront. Overconsumption and waste is bad. We look at the some Chinese manufactured junk that is not meant to last more than only several uses, and the way it goes in a landfill, and the stuff is not worth its' "cheap" initial cost to us, the consumer.

Anyway, yes, we should look at our impact on the earth, but "global warming", as the media alarmists put it with the associated 'carbon credit' scam and the greenie hangers'-on????? I don't buy it, and when we watch the next cooling trend and they change the term to "climate change" we'll still be here, hoping people can still afford to rebuild and fly their airplanes and touch down on the "holy" 'mother-earth'. :lol:

Sun's Not Screwy, Scientist Says
By SPACE.com Staff

posted: 11 July 2008
09:38 am ET

Nothing is out of whack with the sun, a NASA researcher said this week, despite some scientists' suggestions that a lull in the weather there lately is unusually long, a phenomenon linked to at least one small ice age.

The sun goes through a roughly 11-year cycle of activity. It is now at or near the low point in that cycle, so sunspots are rare and solar flares infrequent.

At a conference earlier this year, scientists expressed concern that the low ebb was lasting longer than normal and that the inactivity might lead to a longer-term absence of sunspots. An unusually inactive solar cycle in the 17th century has been linked to the Little Ice Age that occurred around the same time.

The Maunder Minimum, as it's called, lasted 70 years, from 1645 to 1715.

"There have been some reports lately that solar minimum is lasting longer than it should. That's not true," said NASA solar physicist David Hathaway. The ongoing lull in sunspot numbers "is well within historic norms for the solar cycle."

The sun has been relatively quiet for more than two years. Hathaway said there were stretches in the 20th century when the slack periods lasted twice this long.

"It does seem like it's taking a long time," Hathaway said, "but I think we're just forgetting how long a solar minimum can last."

Hathaway has studied sunspot data going back to 1749. While the cycle is commonly said to last 11 years, in fact its length can vary by more than a year.

Nobody knows what causes these fluctuations, but Hathaway does not expect the current lull to last.

"We have already observed a few sunspots from the next solar cycle," he said. "This suggests the solar cycle is progressing normally."

He expects the next solar maximum around 2012, when space storms should again become frequent. Scientist and others want to know, because the storms are known to knock out satellites and damage power grids on Earth. The storms can also increase risks to space travelers[/url]

Steve Pierce said:

Regardless, we need to cut down on the pollutants we put in the air.

Click to expand...

Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant, it's a nutrient that helps plants grow!

As Christina says .... it helps plants grow and they in turn produce oxygen to complete the cycle !!

I'm talking about pollutants, I know what carbon dioxide does. My Mom is a Master Gardener.

I just read the thread again and would like to know who said carbon dioxide was a pollutant?
The argument is that carbon MONOXIDE not dioxide contributes to global warming.
Problem is that you have one group with their head in the sand on just about everything and the other that goes around crying "the sky is falling".
Heaven for bid anyone would agree on something. One side is right 100% of the time and the other side is wrong 100% of the time. Doesn't matter what side your on, it's all BS as far I'm concerned.

Taledrger said:

I just read the thread again and would like to know who said carbon dioxide was a pollutant?
The argument is that carbon MONOXIDE not dioxide contributes to global warming.

Click to expand...

Al Gore says that carbon DIOXIDE causes global warming, NOT carbon MONOXIDE.

Where have you been all these years???

Taledrger said:

I just read the thread again and would like to know who said carbon dioxide was a pollutant?
The argument is that carbon MONOXIDE not dioxide contributes to global warming.
Problem is that you have one group with their head in the sand on just about everything and the other that goes around crying "the sky is falling".
Heaven for bid anyone would agree on something. One side is right 100% of the time and the other side is wrong 100% of the time. Doesn't matter what side your on, it's all BS as far I'm concerned.

Click to expand...

Generally, normally functioning, well adjusted scientists and engineers consider Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and Sulphur Oxides (SOx) harmful pollutants made during some combustion processes (especially coal). Fortunately Ozone, which is O3, is highly reactive and converts most of this into large quantities of CO2 and other relatively innocuous compounds. The issue is, do increased levels of carbon dioxide cause atmospheric damage as well. There are quite a few respected scientist that do believe that a dramatic increase in CO2 could be harmful. That's why "increased CO2 emmissions" gets so much press.

Yes, the earth has gone through several periods of warming and cooling. If it didn't, I wouldn't have a job (Petroleum Engineer...this is how many depositional basins were created). The fact is that all of the warming trends were preceeded by a significant spike in atmospheric CO2. Most likely from volcanic activity. These increases in CO2 ramped up over hundeds or thousands of years.

The facts are that currently there is an elevated level of CO2 in our environment, much like many of our historical warming trends. The thing that concerns many scientists is the rapid ramp up that is taking place right now..just over a period of a few decades. Will it cause a "man made" climate shift, or will mother earth respond in rapid plant growth to offset it? Is there some other climate-balacing mechanism at work here? Do we have the botanical capability to do this (think rain forest)?

These are the reasonable scientific questions that we should be asking instead of knee-jerking or grandstanding about environmental policy and screaming the sky is falling.

I'm still going to go out and burn avgas, but I think Steve said above, it's always good to reduce, re-use and conserve.

Bill