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.
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.

You do not know my opinion on climate change because I've not stated it. That would be a straw man you just knocked down as long as we are talking logical fallacies.

The only opinion I've put forth is that people making scientific claims should not be taken seriously when there is a conflict of interest and that there is a clear correlation between CO2 and temperature on earth.

I applaud TJSName for putting up the list of logical fallacies. Everyone should be aware of them because they are used in arguments regularly, and not just in online forums.

Ad hominem is the one you have accused me of using against Mr. Watts. It is certainly true that just because someone is an A-hole, that doesn't mean their point is not valid. Someone can be a known liar, cheat, killer, slimeball, etc. and yet still have valuable things to say right? Of course. However, in the real world, when you make personal decisions that cause people to question your motives, no one cares to listen anymore. Ted Kaczynski had some valid points about the negatives of technology. Should we listen to them? Maybe. But that's not how the world works.

Here's some data for ya on how Watts has taken money from Big Oil (Who I will define as Exxon-Mobil) via the Heartland Institute. Nothing I have stated is false and it all has plenty of documentation. Here's a quick blurb from Wikipedia which we all have access to. The little numbers in brackets are footnotes for a host of other sources backing this up if you want to dig further. Exxon gives money to the Heartland Institute, who by their own admission is a politically conservative group that does not believe in climate change or thinks it will be beneficial depending on where you read.

"Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute, including over $600,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.[51] Greenpeace reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.[23] In 2008, ExxonMobil said that they would stop funding to groups skeptical of climate warming, including Heartland.[51][52][53] Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, argued that ExxonMobil was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its public image.[51]"
"Documents obtained from the Heartland Institute and made public in February 2012 reveal that the Institute had agreed to help Watts raise $88,000 to set up a website."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)#Affiliation_with_Heartland_Institute

There's your quote to back up my claims. There's plenty more for you to look up if you are curious.

The Heartland Institute took over a quarter million dollars from Walmart and then all of a sudden they were vigorously defending their treatment of workers. They took huge sums from Philip Morris and then it became a question of whether cigarette smoke really causes cancer. They have given Mr. Watts almost $100,000 but we're all supposed to believe he is objective about climate change? Please.
 
He actually looks pretty plump after surviving the worst winter in 100yrs.

Worst winter in 100 years? Really? According to whom? Source, please.
:D
 
We saw a moose yearling (that survived the winter) yesterday by the Skookumchuck trail head. It was looking a little ragged: View attachment 4957

Yes, he does look ragged. It makes me wonder that given what seems a higher than normal death rate for yearlings, that Fish & Game be more proactive with seeking them out and helping them with survival. I'm not sure exactly what they could do...I'm not an expert; just a thought.
 
Worst winter in 100 years? Really? According to whom? Source, please. :D
Good one, Stinkyfeet. Let's just say it was really harsh. (Grin) I would imagine any severely infested moose would likely not survive the harsh conditions.
 
For anyone obsessed with Anthony Watts' supposed nefarious background, here are excerpts from his FAQ page. http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/faqs/ It doesn't sound like he's making Al Gore or Warren Buffet kind of money. The last questions are particularly relevant. Bold is mine.

Q. Why do you blog? A. I've been a TV and radio broadcaster since 1974, when I helped my high school setup a student radio station program. In 1978, I began doing television at WLFI-TV in West Lafayette, IN while working at the Purdue Meteorology Department as a meteorological technician and later at KHSL-TV in Chico, CA from 1987 to 2002. Currently I do daily radio broadcasts at Newstalk 1290 in Chico. Broadcasting and blogging seem much alike to me. Both jobs require you to be always “on”, and both jobs require you to be able to keep an audience interested. I simply see blogging as a natural extension of broadcasting in a different medium. The best part about blogging is that I can do it from anywhere, anytime. I don't have to put on a suit and tie, do makeup, or be in a studio. Blogging also allows more freedom than TV or radio because there are no time constraints, and presentations can be far more detailed. I also blog because it is interesting, mentally challenging, and it allows me to meet new and interesting people. Prior to blogging, I had few contacts outside of my local sphere of influence. Now, I have friends and associates worldwide. Now that WUWT has become the most viewed (and arguably the most well-known) website in the world on climate related issues, I feel a sense of duty to keep people informed. I also feel a duty to make known what I see as the untold story of the climate debate from the climate skeptic side.

Q. Were you always a climate skeptic?

A. No, actually in June 1988 I recall watched the newsfeed at KHSL-TV of Dr. James Hansen's address before congress telling of the issues of CO2 and its effects and that we a as nation had to do something about it. That moved me, and I thought we needed to do something.
I had wondered what I could do and in 1990 I came up with an idea that combined my emerging talents in computer graphics for television weather with doing something about the global warming problem. I approached the National Arbor Day Foundation in Lincoln Nebraska about an idea which was to provide TV weather-casters nationwide a series of computer graphics slides and animations that would tell the global warming story, and explain how planting trees could help offset CO2. Then president John Rosenow granted me the greenlight, and the production was put into motion. With the help of CBS Newsfeed's Steven Ackerman, the graphics presentation was sent via their satellite newsfeed to all CBS affiliate stations and through an announcement on AP newswire, non CBS stations were told how to tune in and capture the video feed for use on their station. The program ran on TV stations during weathercasts in the week leading up to Earth Day 1990 and was dubbed "Arbor Day Weather Week". 174 TV stations participated, and about 250,000 trees were planted (according to National Arbor Day's logged requests for free Colorado Blue Spruce Seedings) as a result of the program. The program was repeated in 1991. Clearly, I was fully engaged in the idea that global warming was a serious problem. It wasn't until the mid 1990's that I began to question the issue. My questioning started due to a professional friendship that came about with Jim Goodridge, who was the State Climatologist of California, and had retired to Chico. He had showed me some of his investigations into California's temperature and precipitation records that didn't quite add up to some of the claims about warming I was reading about. In a short essay published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society in 1996, Mr, Goodridge demonstrated that California counties warming rates varied with population, and when I saw this graph from his BAMS paper, that was the moment when I really began to question if the observed surface warming was really a signal of CO2 or an artifact of UHI and population growth.

Q. Are you paid to blog?

A. No. There are some people who have this idea that because I put so much effort into WUWT that I must be on somebody's payroll and that my stories are "pay for play" or something like that. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Being a broadcaster, the surest way to kill a career is to run afoul of the FCC's payola laws, and because I see blogging as just another style of broadcasting, I'd never consider "pay for play". Besides, most people don't know how I abhor "dead air", be it on radio, TV, or in blogging. I'm self motivated to keep it interesting and fresh. Plus, WUWT's reach gives me a larger sense of purpose. WUWT doesn't run articles for hire, it is not nor has it ever been on the payroll of any company or organization (and that goes for me personally too), and it is managed mostly by myself with the help of about half a dozen volunteer moderators. That said, I do get some revenue from some Amazon book sales via their referral program, and from the wordpress.com sponsored advertising program which is a revenue sharing arrangement. Advertising is placed on WUWT by wordpress.com and WUWT gets a portion of the ad revenue from wordpress.com just like many other wordpress hosted blogs do. WUWT also gets occasional personal donations via the PayPal button on the right sidebar, and we sometimes sell promotional items such as coffee mugs, t-shirts, and calendars. One of the most humorous episodes of the "you are in the pay of some big oil/big activist outfit" meme WUWT often gets accused of came in December 2012 when our volunteer community cartoonist "Josh" in the UK decided to collect some of his artwork into a calendar. He offered WUWT a version for the US as well, and I had to come up with a way to print them and sell the for readers. I chose COSTCO's calendar service because they could print and drop ship and I never had to touch them. For fun and since it was Christmas time, I sent a few calendars out to some well known climate activists, Gavin Schmidt, Peter Gleick, Dana Nucitelli, and the infamous Dr. Michael Mann. The insular Dr. Mann had apparently never seen COSTCO before (since there isn't one in State College, PA where he resides) and upon receipt of the free calendar, got the hilarious idea that it was funded by some activist campaign. I set the record straight here: Too Funny! I send Michael Mann a free WUWT calendar as a Christmas gift, and he goes full conspiracy theory including showing my COSTCO Photo Center receipts. It just go to show how perceptions by people who want to paint you as being a bad guy can be erroneous.

Q. Do you accept paid advertising?

A. Generally no, as it conflicts with the wordpress.com ad sharing program. There are some ads on WUWT's right sidebar for my own business interests and for some Amazon books. Occasionally WUWT may highlight a product or service of interest, or promote a cause that needs funding such as the 50 to 1 project, but WUWT takes no portion of these promotions and they are done as a community service.

Q. What about that $44,000 that supposedly came from the Heartland Institute that was written about by document thief Dr. Peter Gleick?

A. First, that didn't come from Heartland, it came from an independent donor that Heartland helped me find through their networking. Second, that was specifically for a special project my company is doing to make data from the Climate Reference Network more widely available and easier to view for the layman. Currently NOAA does not include the state of the art Climate Reference Network data in their monthly State of the Climate Reports, even though it is a superior system. More about this here. The project was to be funded to completion in 2012, but due to interference by Gleick, that second phase funding seems unlikely to materialize. That said, an effort is being made to complete the project sans that second half funding. Preliminary output maps were highlighted on WUWT here. Year end data for 2012 was announced here. The second phase was to be completed in 2013, and it is hoped that can be done and the finished fully automated website made fully operational and public then.

Q. Aren't you paid to go to Heartland conferences?

A. Yes, and that's nothing any different from what any other organization does. Like any other invited speaker at a conference, trade show, or conclave, Heartland pays a small honorarium and travel expenses for people they invite to speak at their conferences. For example, Dr. Scott Denning, a scientist who is on the opposite side of the climate debate from me who has spoken at Heartland conferences, got the same honorarium and travel reimbursements that I did.
 
Last edited:
So, back to the original premise of this thread: CO2 is warming the planet and harming the moose. I was wondering how many of the readers following this discussion realize that CO2's direct effect on warming is virtually indisputable. Shocking? No one really has any arguments about that. What is in dispute are the purported amplifications and feedbacks supposedly caused by CO2 that are supposedly leading to runaway, catastrophic warming. Dr. David Evans has presented the skeptic's case in a short, 12 minute video, which falsifies CAGW theory very effectively, and therefore it's effect on moose. This is not presented to confuse, but to enlighten, to get closer to the truth of the matter.

http://youtu.be/vcQTyje_mpU

The same information in text with charts: (charts 3 and 4 show climate modeling's epic fail)

http://mises.org/daily/5892/The-Skeptics-Case

Some background on Dr. Evans for character reference. Please refrain from mud slinging and let's discuss the science, not deny it.

Dr. David M.W. Evans consulted full time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The area of human endeavor with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analyzing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks. The evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing Evans to move from being a warmist to a skeptic.
 
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.

Thank you! I used "Reply With Quote" simply because your excellent post bears repeating.

Most people have great difficulty disciplining their thinking process. In general people fool themselves first, using one or more of these fallacies. Then they set out to convince others of what they now truly believe, and it's very hard for them to rewind their thinking process at that point.

Thanks again.
 
Most people have great difficulty disciplining their thinking process. In general people fool themselves first, using one or more of these fallacies. Then they set out to convince others of what they now truly believe, and it's very hard for them to rewind their thinking process at that point.

That list of fallacies is interesting, and as the author states, it does make a cool poster for arguing on the interwebs. But it is very incomplete. I like Wikipedia's List of Fallacies much better because it's more comprehensive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Your comment about people being fooled and unable to reason an argument properly (besides being a huge generalization) is a fallacy called Bulverism:

Bulverism (Psychogenetic Fallacy) – inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result. It is wrong to assume that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then the idea itself must also be a false.

The fallacy below is commonly used in CAGW discussions. The claim is that CO2 is harming moose.

Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.

Having pointed out flaws in CAGW theory, the skeptics are often attacked with Bulverisms, red herrings and ad hominems, as evidenced in this thread:

Red herring fallacies

A red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.

Red herring – argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from the subject of argument. See also irrelevant conclusion.
Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.
• Abusive fallacy – a subtype of "ad hominem" when it turns into verbal abuse of the opponent rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.
 
Mod hat
We're drifting away from anything resembling a hiking/outdoors topic, and certainly away from the NH moose population. If you have something to add that's on topic feel free to contribute, but let's not get into an epistemological discussion about logic.
 
I've been looking at weather conditions at First Connecticut Lake, covering the last five years http://www.nrcc.cornell.edu/page_nowdata.html and have some observations to make.

Although it varies, the freezing/snowy conditions that would limit winter ticks from finding a host generally don't occur until the last week or so of November. This is well after the ticks find their hosts, since they seem to time it to correspond with the moose rut. The ticks definitely have the advantage here.

The other thing I'm seeing is that snow cover varies a bit during the time the female tick leaves the host to lay eggs, which can happen April-May, so it would require a year such as the last one we had in order to limit winter tick reproduction. Data for 2013-2014 is not available, but 2008-09 and 2010-11 look close to normal or above in that regard. That makes me think that the winter tick is very opportunistic, and it takes extreme weather on either or both of those timeframes to limit their spread, along with a lower moose population to seek out.

As the article I posted earlier suggests, the so-called polar vortex breakdown, which is being blamed on global warming, may in fact produce the weather necessary to limit the winter tick infestation.
 

Attachments

  • acc2008-09.jpg
    acc2008-09.jpg
    98.7 KB · Views: 67
  • acc2010-11.jpg
    acc2010-11.jpg
    100 KB · Views: 79
Last edited:
The scenario of future harsh winters (New England included) caused by the breakdown of the "polar vortex," are explained in this video on the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy website, featuring Director of OSTP John Holdren. This would have major effects on moose winter survival rates.

http://youtu.be/5eDTzV6a9F4
 
Kind of a big deal on the horizon

For all the moose lovers and hikers following this thread, something fascinating has come across my radar. Dr. David Evans, referenced earlier in post #87, has been working diligently, along with others, on something truly ground-breaking: a model of Earth's climate that is based on solar influence, that being roughly 80% of the mix, with all other factors (CO2 included) in the remaining 20% or so.

This new working model of climate could be, in the words of Ron Burgundy, "kind of a big deal." It's going to be interesting to see how the media, and the scientific community at large, reacts to something that turns conventional theory on its head.

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/bi...c-development-new-solar-climate-model-coming/

I have great respect for these researchers, who are working with their own family savings, and taking donations to defray costs, creating an actual working model of Earth's climate based largely on solar influence, while being scorned or ignored by the…ahem…"97 percent" all the way.

Contrast this to the debacle of billions of dollars of government-funded computer climate models that have failed miserably in forecasting the 17-year lull in global warming, or the recent cooling.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/uscrn_min_temp_time-series.png

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/...face-temperature-record-over-nearly-a-decade/

These are interesting times. It's going to be amazing, if this works out, to have a model that can forecast the future climate of earth with an acceptable degree of accuracy. We don't have that ability now, but this could be a major leap in that direction. :D
 
Last edited:
Here's hoping that everyone is surviving the "climate crisis" this summer and is able to enjoy the outdoors. I read the following articles and had a mixed reaction. I wasn't sure if I wanted to laugh, cry, or throw up in my trekking hat.

http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazin...2-2014-Ticked-Off-The-Outdoor-Experience.aspx

Be sure to read the PDF which blames seemingly every worrisome outdoor event on the nebulous bogey-man of "climate change." As if mankind is able to stop the climate from changing. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. :roll eyes:

http://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Global-Warming/Reports/2014/Ticked-Off-LOW-RES-FINAL-081814.pdf

Back in the real world, more links are being discovered between solar activity and global temp (seems like a no-brainer, unless you see CO2 as the control-knob of global temp). Much of the US has enjoyed a cooler summer, due to the circumpolar vortex phenom, which, combined with lower solar output and the cooler Atlantic and Pacific ocean influence, could mean another whopper of a winter. CO2 is a very minor player in all this.

Enjoy the summer while it lasts! :)
 
Top