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

[leech~~]

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! 

 

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.

[PurpleFloyd]

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! 

 

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?

[leech~~]

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!

[delcecchi]

 

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

[Big Dave2]

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.

[delcecchi]

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.

 

 

 

[leech~~]

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!

[Big Dave2]

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!

Do you disagree with the statement?

[nofishfisherman]

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. 

 

[delcecchi]

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!

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 August 2, 2016 by delcecchi

[leech~~]

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 August 2, 2016 by leech~~

[delcecchi]

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.

 

[O.T.C.]

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