Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

leech~~

You can't have it both ways, you just can't!

13 posts in this topic

Anyone else just watch this on the Weather Channel?  This clown spends the whole show running around the North shore talking to people about how the Wolves are changing and becoming more aggressive and dying off because of Climate change.

Here is how he summed up the Wolf problem in Minnesota at the very end of the show.

"If climate change continues to bring (Wait-for-it) colder Arctic temperatures to Northern Minnesota, this will continue to reduce their pray, make the Wolves more aggressive and limit their survival in the future!"

 It's either Getting Hotter or Colder you nut jobs but you can have it both ways to keep fitting your agendas!  :crazy::crazy::crazy:

 

Natural Born Monsters - Gray Wolf (Episode 6)
Episode 6:

Gray Wolf

Over 2,200 Gray Wolves are estimated to roam the forests of northern Minnesota; several fatal attacks have been the result of the wolves acting against their instincts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, leech~~ said:

Anyone else just watch this on the Weather Channel?  This clown spends the whole show running around the North shore talking to people about how the Wolves are changing and becoming more aggressive and dying off because of Climate change.

Here is how he summed up the Wolf problem in Minnesota at the very end of the show.

"If climate change continues to bring (Wait-for-it) colder Arctic temperatures to Northern Minnesota, this will continue to reduce their pray, make the Wolves more aggressive and limit their survival in the future!"

 It's either Getting Hotter or Colder you nut jobs but you can have it both ways to keep fitting your agendas!  :crazy::crazy::crazy:

 

Natural Born Monsters - Gray Wolf (Episode 6)
Episode 6:

Gray Wolf

Over 2,200 Gray Wolves are estimated to roam the forests of northern Minnesota; several fatal attacks have been the result of the wolves acting against their instincts.

This is not to support global warming but you are describing a situation where you are using a local example to debunk a global phenomenon.  GW deals with AVERAGE global temps meaning some local temps can be hotter and some can be colder yet not disprove the theory. Just saying. 

I agree that the people you quoted probably have an agenda and are trying to use limited data to fit their narrative.

Haven't they been estimating the population to be 2200 for the past 30 years or so?

fr0sty likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, PurpleFloyd said:

This is not to support global warming but you are describing a situation where you are using a local example to debunk a global phenomenon.  GW deals with AVERAGE global temps meaning some local temps can be hotter and some can be colder yet not disprove the theory. Just saying. 

I agree that the people you quoted probably have an agenda and are trying to use limited data to fit their narrative.

Haven't they been estimating the population to be 2200 for the past 30 years or so?

Your a little behind the times. They now call it "Climate Change" and not Global Warming as much anymore because it was getting harder to fit all their end of world scenarios. Climate Change is a fit-all: warmer, colder, wetter, drier, and your SUV and cow farts are causing it! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

weather is not climate, unless the data supports "global climate change", then it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no doubt that we are starting to experience "climate change". How unnatural it is and how much man has to do with it are the things I question.

BoxMN likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have been undergoing climate change and global warming for the last several thousand years.  Where I am typing this was under a very large pile of ice back in the day.   Fortunately we experienced, for some reason not related to mankind, a significant warming. 

It is generally agreed that  the increase in CO2 from human activities will cause some warming.  The big argument is how much and how fast.    Given the population trends as countries become developed, it is not out of the question that the population 100 years from now will be lower or at least not much higher than it is now, which would also impact the projections.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 10:26 PM, delcecchi said:

 it is not out of the question that the population 100 years from now will be lower or at least not much higher than it is now,

 

Del, you really need to get a job with the EPA or climate change Org, folks. They love people who talk out both sides to cover every base! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, leech~~ said:

Del, you really need to get a job with the EPA or climate change Org, folks. They love people who talk out both sides to cover every base! :lol:

Do you disagree with the statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're giving to much credit to a show called Natural Born Monsters.  

Facts aren't a big issue for most shows all they want is drama.  Ever seen the Mountain Men show?  A little editing and creative story telling can make a guy living 20 minutes from town living in a $300,000 home look like a mountain man living off the land. Doesn't matter that he gets his food from the local Pick n Save and the only bear problem he has is the one that keeps knocking over his bird feeder. 

 

leech~~ likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, leech~~ said:

Del, you really need to get a job with the EPA or climate change Org, folks. They love people who talk out both sides to cover every base! :lol:

Pretty much every developed country has a fertility rate below replacement value of 2.1 children per woman. 

Check it out.   http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN

You are entitled to your own opinion.  You are not entitled to your own facts 

Edited by delcecchi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, delcecchi said:

Pretty much every developed country has a fertility rate below replacement value of 2.1 children per woman. 

Check it out.   http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN

You are entitled to your own opinion.  You are not entitled to your own facts 

Yeah, just not sure you can state "will be" & "at least not much" in the same statement as facts.

In my opinion, of course.   ;)

  On 7/28/2016 at 10:26 PM, delcecchi said:

 it is not out of the question that the population 100 years from now will be lower or at least not much higher than it is now,

Edited by leech~~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a matter of demographics and death rates.   Not enough kids being born at present, but demographics mean population will continue to rises.  Eventually it will level off and start to decline if birth rates remain low.  How fast depends on death rates.  The trouble with the future is that it is so hard to predict.   So I hedged a little.  

The point is that in the developed world the population rise is slowing and seems to be headed for an actual decline.  The time frame is somewhat uncertain.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm loving climate change or whatever it is haven't plowed snow in 2 straight winters hoping for a 3rd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now



  • Posts

    • Way to get him out MM!  I'm sure he appreciates it.
    • I believe some units come with maps of some lakes but probably wont have any real detail as far as contour lines.  I think most will have a map of the US but when you zoom in you wont get much for detail on lakes and If they do contours will probably be 5-7ft apart.  If you want to put data on a card you will need a zero line card for mapping. About $150 i think.  8 hours should give you quite a bit of mapping.  Best would be to buy from a retailer so someone with knowledge of the product can show you how to run it.  You might be able to take some snap shots of sonar and put on a blank card but don't think you can map with it. I would get a Lakemaster card for the area(s) you want to fish.  Worth every penny.
    • Turkey season is over for my nephew!! It was a long season with many hours spent in the blind. He seen more turkeys then ever before and had a toms close enough to grab. It is going to be nice to sleep in. Until fall turkeys!
    • Heading up to Devils in a couple weeks and again later on.  Doesn't look like a lot of activity on here.  Tryng to get an idea whats happening before I go.
    • I have been out the last two days locally and haven't set the world on fire. Caught a few each day, but fish have been scattered. Lake is loaded with curly leaf mats this year, so that hasn't helped things. Once that starts dying and weather warms up, things should pick up.
    • Nada for me today. Had some hens come in to give my decoy some company today, but no toms. Sorry I wasn't able to help out on the scoresheet this year. As always, learned some stuff that will make me better next year.
    • We caught plenty of bass this weekend.  However most were small 12-13".  Deep fish were less than eager to bite.  Still seen a couple guarding nests yet. Small plastics fished slowly was by far the best tactic. Only found a couple decent fish, biggest being 19.25".
    • We called at about 4 had them as close behind the blind but never came around for the nephew 
    • What great fun on a 4-weight fly rod!!  Those are dandy panfish.
  • Our Sponsors