Climate Impacts to America’s Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife Heritage

[mpotzold]

Celebrate Carbon Dioxide-Dr.Patrick Moore -as opposed to demonizing it!
Today-At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.

Freeman Dyson
"... the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial,

Article-Plants will grow better as CO2 concentration continues to rise.Thousands of empirical studies, as opposed to mere models, have found that, on average, for every doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, there is about a 35 percent increase in the efficiency of plant growth. ....The consequence is more food for plant-eaters and eaters of plant eaters

MORE CO2=MORE PLANT GROWTH=MORE ANIMALS-simple isn't it!

CO2 LAGS TEMP.
Article- CO2 changes lagged temperature changes as temperature increased or decreased. Temperature changed and then, several hundred years later, CO2 levels changed. Since a cause does not follow an effect, this indicates that CO2 is not a primary driver of climate change.



Again-

Global Warming is a HOAX! PERIOD!

http://osnetdaily.com/2015/02/climate-guru-brace-massive-cover-data-rigging-scandal/

[jassmine]

MORE CO2=MORE PLANT GROWTH=MORE ANIMALS-simple isn't it!

Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe

Thuiller, W., Lavorel, S., Araújo, M. B., Sykes, M. T., & Prentice, I. C. (2005). Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the united States of America, 102(23), 8245-8250.

Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to US crop yields under climate change

Schlenker, W., & Roberts, M. J. (2009). Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to US crop yields under climate change.Proceedings of the National Academy of sciences, 106(37), 15594-15598.

Climate change effects on plant disease: genomes to ecosystems

Garrett, K. A., Dendy, S. P., Frank, E. E., Rouse, M. N., & Travers, S. E. (2006). Climate change effects on plant disease: genomes to ecosystems.Annu. Rev. Phytopathol., 44, 489-509.

Extinction risk from climate change

Thomas, C. D., Cameron, A., Green, R. E., Bakkenes, M., Beaumont, L. J., Collingham, Y. C., ... & Hughes, L. (2004). Extinction risk from climate change. Nature, 427(6970), 145-148.

[hawk-i]

Yeah, like there was no climate change before human industrialization ...what a joke!

[souwester]

Again WHO GIVES A SHIT
I don't care if I get banned...whoever BCWF is, start posting some stuff that's worthy of a paycheck from your members.

[tuner]

Which ones?
Were they all based in as much scientific evidence?

Well let's see, I've survived an ice age, the population bomb, deforestation of the rainforest, the depletion of the ozone layer, mass extinction etc.... At the first earth day in 1970 Harvard Biologist George Wald boldly predicted "civilization will end in 15-30 years unless imidiate action is taken" apparently we were entering a man made ice age. A UC Davis ecology professor (I'm sure you can appreciate the unerring predictions of a fellow ecologist)
kenneth Watts warned " the world has been cooling sharply for 20 years, the world will be 4 degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990,but 11 degrees colder in the year 2000.this is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age". Mass extinction was scary prospect, senator Gaylord Nelson warned the terrified gathering that " Dr. Dillion Ripley, secretary of the smithsonian institute believes that in 25 years time
75/80% of living animals will be extinct" also as result of human activity, needless to say,WRONG!!! The population bomb that was going to lead to mass starvation, as the world hit a population of 7billion by the year 2000 (it wasn't reached until 2011) instead of mass starvation the human race has never in it's existence,been as prosperous, healthier, or lived longer. I survived all these impending calamities because these theory's were all alarmist bullshit disguised in a semblance of scientific or scholarly legitimacy. The prospects of another cardiac arrest poses a greater existential threat to me than any impending environmental doomsday scenario, I've survived enough to know. The so called environmental movement has become a religious like, cult like farce,branding those that don't subscribe to their doomsday prophesys as blasphemous heretics, soulless fools destined to eternal,albeit earthly damnation.Like other doomsday cults, inaccuracies, wildly erroneous predictions,are simply shrugged off as insignificant details unworthy of further discussion.

[brian]

Well let's see, I've survived an ice age, the population bomb, deforestation of the rainforest, the depletion of the ozone layer, mass extinction etc

Depletion of the ozone layer is still a concern, but banning the use of CFC's by governments through international agreements has helped in reducing further ozone depletion from happening and I remember reading a study that indicated that the ozone layer may be recovering. Basically science informed policy and averted a significant problem from getting worse.

Acid rain, same thing but this time governments put limits on the release of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. Policy informed by good science.

Population bomb, well that one is on going. That is 7 billion is drawing on a limited resource base. Some people like to claim catastrophe but this one is still a real concern. It is simple math. We need to adopt economic models that don't rely on a foundation of population growth and support policies that allow for natural population reduction.

Deforestation of the rain forest is an ongoing issue. Many species and habitats are being lost as we speak.

Listen just because some people like to be overly alarmist does not mean underlying issues do not exist. In most of the cases you site, good policy was enacted after the science raised the alarm. But when it comes to oil and carbon pollution, the science is simply being thrown out the window and the policy is getting stupid.

Mpotzold you still don't make any sense. You claim global warming is a hoax and then you say additional carbon in the atmosphere is a good thing. Is global warming a hoax or is it real yet beneficial? On the latter point maybe you're right or maybe you're wrong. After all the planet has seen Antarctica being warm enough to support forests that in turn supported mega fauna. That would be a win win for life on this planet. But then again during this time of warmth the continents were dominated by large inland seas as ocean levels were much higher. This will not bode well for a massive percentage of humanity living on the coasts or on land that has become an ocean. This is one of the real issues of global warming, not that life will cease to benefit but whether humanity can adapt to the changes it is bringing about and at what cost?

[mpotzold]

Well let's see, I've survived an ice age, the population bomb, deforestation of the rainforest, the depletion of the ozone layer, mass extinction etc.... At the first earth day in 1970 Harvard Biologist George Wald boldly predicted "civilization will end in 15-30 years unless imidiate action is taken" apparently we were entering a man made ice age. A UC Davis ecology professor (I'm sure you can appreciate the unerring predictions of a fellow ecologist)
kenneth Watts warned " the world has been cooling sharply for 20 years, the world will be 4 degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990,but 11 degrees colder in the year 2000.this is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age". Mass extinction was scary prospect, senator Gaylord Nelson warned the terrified gathering that " Dr. Dillion Ripley, secretary of the smithsonian institute believes that in 25 years time
75/80% of living animals will be extinct" also as result of human activity, needless to say,WRONG!!! The population bomb that was going to lead to mass starvation, as the world hit a population of 7billion by the year 2000 (it wasn't reached until 2011) instead of mass starvation the human race has never in it's existence,been as prosperous, healthier, or lived longer. I survived all these impending calamities because these theory's were all alarmist bullshit disguised in a semblance of scientific or scholarly legitimacy. The prospects of another cardiac arrest poses a greater existential threat to me than any impending environmental doomsday scenario, I've survived enough to know. The so called environmental movement has become a religious like, cult like farce,branding those that don't subscribe to their doomsday prophesys as blasphemous heretics, soulless fools destined to eternal,albeit earthly damnation.Like other doomsday cults, inaccuracies, wildly erroneous predictions,are simply shrugged off as insignificant details unworthy of further discussion.

WELL SAID!
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!

[tuner]

^^^what was the science based policy that saved the world from the grips of a new man made ice age? Agricultural output at this very moment could adequately feed several billion more, distribution is the problem not production, needless to say, we should all be canibilizing ourselves for a meal according to past predictions, it should also be noted that government policy did little to avert our potential descent into desperate canibalism. As far as deforestation and acid rain go, have Sting, and Bruce Cockburn to thank for mankinds continued existence. (Incredibly competent scientists those two, who knew that shitty vocals, worse lyrics, and mediocre musicianship could be such a potent scientific tool) No one in their right mind would begrudge efforts to clean up, and protect the enviroment, quite the opposite, but it has to be done Without pandering to the enviro/cultist who'll have have us living in third world conditions if given half a chance.

[tuner]

If global warming warming does come to fruition then Blacklab and Auggiehunter are in for a big treat,it will mean no more needless worry about over harvesting whitetails. Global warming will usher in the age of the whitetail(mule deer might not fare so well) Even Bowen island will have to allow a gun season to control the pesky beasts, LML hunters will save millions collectively on fuel cost by not taking trips to Rock Creek or the kootneays. Chilliwack, Mission and Hope will replace the Christian valley as the go to places to drop a big whitey. The regional bag limit for region 2 under the ruling NDP government of Glen Clark (the 3rd)will be 10 does and 5 bucks, season runs from June 1st to March 31st.( this incidently will be the fourth election in a row that the NDP have swept into power on a platform of "ask and you shall receive", Vlad Putin will be minister of a appropriate social conduct, Jassmine heads Up the ministry of make believe ecology, Photoshot as clarks' closest confidant, will head up the ministry of propaganda) Fisherdude and 358mag will head the official opposition who replaced the liberals ( after it was revealed that Christy Clarke was Scott Ellis in drag). The opposition is unabashedly conservative, it's official name is " true blue, midnight blue Torys" ( it's rumoured that they worship Ronald Reagan, and feast on the flesh unicorns, and drink the tears of war orphans. Fisherdude declined to comment on the rumours) This my friends,is as factual a version of the future as any the raincoast foundation or the David Suzuki foundation can claim, it's every bit as scientific as well.

[brian]

These predictions of an ice age you keep on about were never based on good science nor were they widely accepted by the mainstream scientific community. This was a hypothesis from a single or small group of scientists. You site many examples of environmental issues that were dealt with by policy driven by science. These were success stories for the environmental movement and how science based policy can address these problems. Your own examples weaken your hypothesis.

Agricultural output at this very moment could adequately feed several billion more, distribution is the problem not production

Sure, but the carrying capacity of the land is limited. Unlimited population growth is not supported in a limited carrying capacity. It is simple math. Eventually we reach its limits. Our basic economic model is based on population growth, this is a problem. Just like the foundation of our society is built on cheap access to a non-renewable resource. We need to change that.