Hell, why not. I vowed I wasn’t going to waste my time further correcting and offering some honest appraisal of the way in which agenda-driven journalists and scientists use speculation and unproven statements of fact to sell copy and/or promote an agenda – one that most often in connected with money.
However…….
I was reading the other day an article published by Accuweather.com carrying with it the title, “Moose-Killing Ticks Thrive in Shorter Winters Due to Climate Change.” It is so filled with inaccuracies and outright fraud that I couldn’t let it fall by the wayside. More people need to call these frauds out and make them pay.
Let’s start at the beginning. I will post here a statement and then offer rebuttal.
“Moose calves across northern New England are dying at alarming rates, and scientists believe that deadly parasites benefiting from shorter winters are the primary culprits.” – Please understand simple English. Scientists “believe” does NOT verify any such fact. As a matter of fact, if you took the time to read every available “study” on this topic, nearly all of the information is copy and pasted from someone else and text is loaded with terms such as, “believe,” “suspect,” “might,” “assumed,” etc. I acknowledge that Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont are in the middle of moose studies, mostly to determine the causes of death. If they are able to do this, God only knows what useless drivel they will charge us with after the fact. Instead of reporting that “scientists believe,” perhaps a bit more honesty would be a better approach, i.e. “from information gathered to this point of the study, along with data and information provided from previous studies, winter ticks are found to be…….blah, blah, blah. But that doesn’t sell copies nor does it sway public opinion, leaving them with the unsubstantiated, hyperbolic, emotional, clap-trap claims that winter ticks, due, of course, to “Climate Change” are killing moose “at alarming rates.” And to further clarify, I might ask, is this “alarming” rate one of perspective from the author, the scientist, the next-door neighbor, the dog or the cat? How does this “alarming” rate compare to other years, perhaps dating back to the time of Noah? They won’t tell you because they don’t know.
“…killing about 70 percent of moose calves.” – Where does this information come from? (Boston Globe) It is important to know because I have spent enough hours, days, weeks, months and years studying this information to know that there exists a tiny number of actual studies of the winter tick or moose tick (Dermacentor albipictus) to know that even within the handful of studies, one study is used to support the other study…as studies go. Right or wrong, it matters not to a reporter interested in a story. Where did this statistic come from? It is important because for one, it renders much of the entire article without any credibility. But, again, that doesn’t stop the effort to sell copy.
““It’s just off the charts; this should not happen with such frequency,” said [the] chairman of the Department of Natural Resources and the Environment at the University of New Hampshire (UNH). “This is about a calf carrying 75,000 ticks that are draining it of blood.”” – This is emotional clap-trap, which, of course, sells copies. I understand the use of an analogy to describe what this person perceives as a whole bunch of ticks that are found on moose. If you’ve seen a moose covered in winter ticks, it is quite astonishing. However, a scientist/professional should refrain from such emotional nonsense. “Off the charts.” What charts. Is this person saying that he has historic, scientific charts that show that 75,000 winter ticks on a moose is the highest it’s ever been? If so, produce them. If not, one has to wonder if there isn’t money to be made by influencing public opinion while playing on their emotions by describing the dire misery a poor and innocent moose calf might be experiencing.
This same person also states, “this should not happen with such frequency.” How does he know this? Once again I ask that he provide the historic, scientific documentation that shows ticks in numbers of 75,000 is higher than it’s ever been. Or is this about perpetuating an unproven theory about Climate Change and attaching it to a moose study that might be in need of more money?
“… at the center of a six-year study in which researchers in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont are attaching tracking devices to moose as part of an effort to learn how ticks are affecting them.” – I have addressed this in the past. The claim by all three state’s studies is that they are trying to determine the mortality rates of moose and what forms of mortality are causing it. To claim that part of the study is to determine “how ticks are affecting” moose, cannot be done, other than to perhaps devise some percentage figure of how many moose deaths are caused by ticks. To learn how ticks affect moose, one must undertake a separate study of the tick, instead of simply relying on sketchy, echo-chamber studies that make claims that still remain unsubstantiated.
“In addition, unlike deer and other animals, moose appear to do a poorer job of removing ticks through grooming.” – This is an unscientific claim, for what purpose I’m not sure. “moose appear to do a poorer job.” I have to ask the question, appear to whom? Is it what the reporter perceives in his or her travels and research on moose, or is this just something he or she reads someplace else, repeating over and over again? I have read often in winter ticks studies that “it is thought to be” that moose aren’t as good at grooming as other wild ungulates, but I’ve never seen any scientific substantiation of that claim. Of course that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. So, in short, we really don’t know if moose are poor groomers or whether the smell of their hair is a giant attractant, or some other such reason that might cause moose to attract winter ticks more than other ungulates. Why not? One guess is as good as another.
(Note: Readers should bear in mind that finding cures, answers and solutions to such scientific/biological “problems” dries up the money source. Finding solutions sends these scientists to the poor house.)
“Winter ticks may be thriving in part due to the New England ecosystem being disrupted by global climate change. According to AccuWeather Senior Meteorologist …., the average winter temperature in Maine has climbed 4 degrees Fahrenheit between 1895 and 2015.
“This region of the country is one of the areas that’s warming the fastest in the lower 48 (U.S. states),”” – I emphasized “may be” again, because it is not a scientific term. How can you report on science by repeatedly using such wishy-washy terms? But here’s the real kicker – one that the worshipers of Climate Change refuse or are incapable of understanding.
According to what this reporter says, a meteorologist claims that between 1895 and 2015 Maine “average winter temperature” has increased 4 degrees F. It is completely dishonest for any meteorologist to make this claim unless they can provide proof of the following extremely important elements of scientific temperature research: 1. That since 1895 the science collecting agency – it must remain the same agency providing the same data – is using the exact same equipment in 2015 that it used in 1895, and, 2. That the locations of the collection sites have not changed both geographically and its immediate surroundings, and, 3. That the agency responsible for the collection and perpetration of temperature data hasn’t “fudged” the data to promote agendas – that is agendas that are sure to continue the flow of cash as well as perpetuation of political agendas.
Science 101 tells us that in making comparative judgements of possible changes in anything, all testing and equipment used, etc. must always remain constant. How else can you make an honest assessment?
It has been often repeated in news reports (and yes, you decide if any of the information in those reports is truthful or not) that the locations of where temperatures are taken, have moved all over the map, destroying that portion of consistency. We can only assume that the equipment has all changed. Do we trust those involved to have made honest adjustments and provided transparency to inquiring minds as to how changes to sample collecting may have been altered?
We know that there has been more than one occasion when those involved with Climate Change, have lied about information and have manipulated the data in order to support claims made or to continue the promotion of collecting research monies and political agendas. NOAA, it was recently discovered, deliberately changed its data to influence “charts” like the one provided by Accuweather in this article to promote Climate Change. This is a criminal act but ignored because people just want, so badly, to be True Believers.
“According to …, a staff entomologist for the National Pest Management Association (NPMA), the winter tick benefits from a warming climate.” – Unless this person has conducted studies on the winter tick to make such a determination, it would be my guess that he is simply supporting the Climate Change Echo-Chamber. There is little science done that would support this claim, and others. If anything, it suggests the opposite.
““In the past, snowfall and freezing temperatures in early/mid spring have curbed winter tick populations by killing a percentage of those ticks that dropped off their host,”” – This unproven clap-trap is repeated so often, even scientists think it’s a fact. All one must do is spend a little bit of time gleaning through the documentation that does exist and you can discover just how extremely viable the winter tick is. Once you’ve learned that, you’ll see how silly it is to make claims that a week of snow here and a bit colder there, will kill the ticks at whatever stage they are at.
“…steadily rising temperatures have caused the fall season in New England to be slightly longer, by about a week, while the winters have also been shortened. That extra week in which winter is delayed gives ticks an extended window to latch onto moose for the duration of the winter.” – Odd that I just heard this same claim being made by a Maine biologist also studying moose this winter – echo-chamber of propaganda. (Boston Globe) It would seem to make sense to the average Joe, especially a mentally deficient one who thinks Climate Change is real, that a longer, warmer Fall season would, naturally (wink-wink) increase tick production. But does it? The truth is, these guys don’t know. They are only repeating what they have been told and refusing to pay attention to information that might be contradictory to the religion of Climate Change.
In studies that exist, the number one deterrent to ticks getting onto moose in the late Summer and early Fall, is weather…specifically wind. As part of the winter tick’s life cycle, in late summer the animal begins it’s ascent of vegetation – sometimes as high as 15-20 feet. Some “believe” this action is triggered by the duration of light as it is shortening heading into Fall. If there are brisk winds during this process, it will often blow the tick off the vegetation and they must begin their ascent again. If the timing is such, and this dynamic of tick-up-vegetation and getting on a moose is a short one, the tick fails to hitch a ride on the moose or other host for the coming winter. This, of course, breaks the life cycle and those ticks die.
It happens to be coincidental, or perhaps it was God’s plan, that at the same time that the ticks are making their way up the vegetation, that moose are at their most active stage – i.e. the mating season. This event also is “believed” to be caused by the same decreasing of available light. One could conclude that a skewing of these two events, even in small quantities could upset the tick’s life cycle, but how much?
It is not incorrect to state that an extra week of plant climbing for the ticks in Fall might contribute to some increased activity, however, the extent to which that might apply would be heavily dependent upon timing of the mating season and weather conditions.
“He added that climate change has the greatest impact on insects like ticks rather than large mammals like moose….the tick infestations are driving the moose die-offs.” – We must see some scientific substantiation of such claims. To make such a claim about how Climate Change has a greater influence on ticks suggests that the tick, at all stages of its life cycle, is susceptible to weather/climate changes. I have not read any scientific evidence that would suggest anything other than that the winter ticks is an extremely viable creature that has very little in the way of negative influences due to climate and weather.
“While winter ticks may benefit from shorter winters, they are not helped by drought conditions.” – Yes, and I have read this now from several separate echo-chambers. All it takes is one news report to publish that drought conditions limit tick production and the media runs with it. Tomorrow it will be something else.
I am beginning to sound like a broken record. I have already stated that wind is the single most determining factor to tick mortality during the vegetation-climbing stage. I have also stated that the tick is extremely viable in all temperatures and climate conditions, as can be attested in the varying climate worldwide where the tick survives quite well….thank you. These same studies, which seem to be of little interest to anyone else, also suggest two things: 1. Increased humidity can slow down tick activity, and 2. Cold and damp weather during the vegetation climbing phase and moose activity phase, MIGHT also slowdown tick activity. Contrary to reports that “old fashioned winters” KILL winter ticks, it appears to me that weather might only slow down their activity at differing times. It is for this and many other reasons that I am a firm believer that the reason the winter tick is being seen as a killer of moose is because wildlife managers have caved to the whims of society and have grown far too many moose. Perhaps time will give us that answer but I have serious doubts.
I have often told the story – and heck, why not one more time – of the man who went to his neighbor and asked to borrow his ax. The neighbor said, “No! It’s Tuesday.” Perplexed the man wanted to know what Tuesday had to do with borrowing his ax. The neighbor’s reply was, “Nothing! But if I don’t want you to borrow my ax, one excuse is as good as another.”
As long as the media and science cling criminally to a false theory of Climate Change (they don’t want to loan their ax), taxpayers can expect nothing to change (one excuse is as good as another). With this in mind, all studies, like the ones now underway with moose and moose mortality, will be a waste of time and money. The real scientific method is no longer in play. Neither is honest journalism. We live in a post-normal society where the most important things in life have been cast aside and replaced with immoral, dishonest and self-serving agendas, i.e. the means justify the end.
Journalism today is to employ a keyboard and then just copy and paste what the last guy wrote. It seems that “science” has picked up the torch and is doing the same thing. This post-normal science is perpetuated by Scientism – the religious worship of fake science to prop up personal idealism.
Each time I do one of these rebuttals I say I’ll never waste my time again. Nobody cares and nobody listens. They only hear what they want to hear and this infectious disease has so deeply taken root in our society that the same approach is taken for everything that we do.
I just wonder!
