March 21, 2018

To Ask If Fighting Climate Change is “Worth It” Admits Climate Change Exists

I just finished reading the Shake, Rattle, and Troll newsletter. One item in the newsletter was an Op-Ed titled, “Is Fighting Climate Change Worth Sacrificing Modern Civilization.” To be forthcoming, I consider Don McDowell and John Kolezar of Shake, Rattle, and Troll (not the authors) to be my friends and I have been a guest on their Sunday morning radio broadcast in Arizona once or twice. Having said all this, by this place in time Don and John have probably already figured out that am not an echo-chamber of the fake dichotomy of political bias. I am my own man, but there’s another name for what that some might prefer to call me. Let me explain briefly.

Just this past Fall I was asked a question by someone that I have known for many years. This was his question: “Were you born an asshole or did you grow into it?” Once I figured out the question was more serious than in jest, I couldn’t really come up with a quick reply. I didn’t know! The best I can do now is to say it has been a little of both.

Perhaps I am burying my head in the sand a bit…or not…but I choose to think that most people who think me an asshole do so because they disagree with what I say and do. Because most people disagree with what I say and do, I’m readily known as an asshole. I accept that.

I will have to digress from this topic and reenter the realm of Climate Change before you click away!

The author of the Op-Ed wants to know if “fighting climate change” is worth destroying or sacrificing “modern civilization.” With this comment, I have no fewer than three questions.

Question 1: In this article, outside of titles, the term “climate change” is used 7 times and all seven times it is in lower case letters. For those who may not know there is a difference between “Climate Change” and “climate change.” I am not alone when I say that Climate Change refers to the Al Gore variety of make-believe – a political creation for many sinister reasons, the main ones being profit, people control, and genocide.

When used in the context of natural climate change, I would stick with lower case. If, as a reader, you don’t know in what context the author is using this term, it makes it impossible to understand or to have a rational discussion. Distinct lines immediately become crossed and confusion takes over.

I will, for the sake of discussion, assume that the author, when he writes “climate change” and not “Climate Change” he is referring to the natural form of climate change.

Question 2: What does the author mean by “fighting?” The piece certainly lets us know those things Environmentalism is forcing civilization to do to “save the planet,” but how do you “fight” that? I guess you just write Op-Eds and express your dislike? If you don’t understand what is really going on, what’s to fight? God?

Question 3: What is “modern civilization?” Isn’t this too broad a term when discussing a more specific subject like “climate change,” or “Climate Change?” From my perspective, a whole bunch of this “modern civilization” I would like to see destroyed.

My real attempt here is not to try to ridicule the author. It’s to get readers to think beyond overused expressions and platitudes about the environmental, Environmentalism, climate change, and Climate Change.

The author writes of how environmentalists make statements about the climate and the environment in general and present their theories and rationale from the position that man is screwing everything up. Never, ever discussed in any of this is the most important part of all – that our Creator, who made all of this, is far greater than any of us, which includes Climate Change. Yahweh did create it all and that includes you and me as distinct, alpha dogs of the environment. In that plan is perfection. His perfection may not resemble our plans and that’s one of the biggest reasons nobody wants to discuss it. Sorry!

I’m not going to try to guess whether or not Yahweh’s Great Plan includes any kind of Climate Change. I am sure He has and will continue to instruct his angels on what to do about our climate that is always changing and that we have no control over and therefore cannot “fight.”

Also never brought up in discussions about climate change or even Climate Change, is the deliberate man-caused changes in our atmosphere, resulting in weather phenomenon, toxic poisoning of the populace, earthquakes, fires, etc. Ignorant people never look up and if you point it out to them they are not at all interested even though it is killing them. It’s easier to deny. This topic is unending and so I’ll leave it alone.

So, when someone asks if fighting climate change is worth anything, I have to say no. No, because climate change is Yahweh’s call and I can’t tell Him what to do, and, no, because Climate Change is a sinister, political plot that the people are being used to their deaths for. Join it if you wish and you will because you fail to recognize what’s really going on.

One thing is for certain. When someone asks if fighting climate change or Climate Change is worth it, is to admit and recognize that it actually does exist. I’m here to tell you that climate change is natural, that Climate Change is an evil hoax designed for profit and control and that technology, not the kind you think, is behind Climate Change.

Take the easy road and…





Global Warmingists’ Eagerness To Be Ignorant

It amazes me how willfully ignorant people are. Evidently, they like being that way, so much so that they are willing to present themselves in a public forum to show everyone. This is some of the fallout over the religion of “Climate Change,” i.e. Global Warming.

There is a difference between climate and weather. I’ve said so before. Repeated episodes of warm or cold weather might indicate that there is some kind of temporary change in climate; the changes that have existed as a natural phenomenon since the beginning of time. Man-caused global warming, as is being sold to a dupable public, does not exist. Perhaps governmental/military/scientific manipulation of weather events does exist. Criminals like Al Gore know this fact and are doing all they can to cash in on it.

The U.S. is in the midst of a prolonged very cold spell. Is this something never before seen? I don’t think so. But when we have all been programmed, through mass media mind control and manipulation, to react a certain way to certain events, emotions run high and for some…WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!! Fear is the main ingredient to controlling the masses of people.

The program, whose major promoter is Al Gore, tells us that Global Warming is extreme cold. Gore tweeted, “It’s bitter cold in parts of the U.S., but…that’s exactly what we should expect from the climate crisis.” Please don’t be fooled by his use of the term “climate crisis.” This is nothing more than a rebranded term for global warming. He and his minions are still preaching that any “climate crisis” is global warming and that this warming is caused by man’s existence. And we know how much he believes that by seeing how he lives his lavish life with a carbon footprint bigger than just about anyone else in the U.S. Isn’t all of this just too convenient? Isn’t all of this just plain wrong?

This is nothing but the results of a well-trained mass of servants, robotic automatons doing as they are told, believing what they are told, never attempting to make any sense from any of it. Think of the submissive behavior of people who will demand that we control the lives of all people to “save the planet” and yet, willingly turn a blind eye to what the “master” does, never questioning. Think of the submissive behavior of people that in one breath tell of how global warming is causing milder winters and hotter summers and in the next breath talk about how cold it is and that also is because of global warming.

Here’s an example: Yesterday I was reading a writer’s report of all the awful things that happened in 2017. The piece begins with the author warning all of us of the “desperate need to listen to scientists and fight global warming with total conviction.” Because of this blind and foolish belief, the author attributes everything that happened in 2017 to global warming – hurricanes, winds, high seas, a warm fall, bad fishing, a dull fall foliage, forest fires, algae blooms, increased ocean acidity, dead monarch butterflies, dead moths, disruptions of migrating birds, more migrations, fewer migrations, etc. There was no end to all the terrible things that happened because of global warming.

The author states early on that all the bad storms were created because of an “unprecedented build-ups of ocean energy.” This, of course, to a Global Warmingist means warm ocean waters caused by global warming. Then look what happens. We read: “America was struck again by extreme weather… Throughout the season, a weak La Niña — a condition of lower than normal cold surface water that normally gives us in the North East above average snow falls — developed in the Pacific. Consistent with these conditions, on Dec. 9, we had our first major snow storm with six-inches falling… Snow and cold would continue to plague us.” (emboldening added)

From here on out, the doom and gloom were centered around how bad duck season was because the waters all froze over early. Snow and prolonged cold through Christmas caused life to be miserable; the author stating that “maybe one Christmas in 10 is snowy here.” (Connecticut)

A clear thinking person should be able to see the nonsense in what is being written here. The contrasts being told, according to the author and all others that bow down and worship the Al Gore religion of Climate Change, can easily and ignorantly attribute anything they want to the fake phenomenon, as we clearly see.

How do you deal with an individual so eager to be ignorant?




Perpetuation of Myth of Climate Change Is Killing Moose in Droves

There is no end to the perpetuation of ignorance by those still claiming that climate change is responsible for what some believe to be an increase of incidence of winter ticks killing moose in Maine and other regions of New England and in Minnesota.

The Media Echo Chamber is undaunting when it comes to copy-and-paste fake journalism concerning Climate Change. Of course, this is fueled by fish and game departments nationwide eager to rattle the rafters with the battle cry of Climate Change. After all, it does give them the ultimate in excuses for doing a lousy job of wildlife management.

One can only hope that eventually (probably when it’s too late) biologists will figure out about winter ticks that are killing moose. However, the political agendas (this includes profits and people control) are so strong pertaining to Climate Change, there is little hope that much will change. As a result, a lot of suffering will occur.

In 2012, Maine biologists explained to the public, through their preferred echo chambers, what was causing winter ticks to flourish. One biologist reported, “Winter ticks are affected by what the previous winter was… If you have a lot of snow and a lot of cold, that’s not good for the ticks. If you have less snow and more warmth, it’s really good for the tick.”

This is but one example of countless reports from wildlife biologists regurgitating information of which they know little about. I will not clutter up this page with the hundreds, maybe thousands, of media reports that global warming is responsible for the growth of winter ticks.

The consensus takeaway from all these fake reports is the claim that cold winters and lots of snow will keep the winter tick in check and that because we are experiencing “climate change,” i.e. global warming, places like Maine are not having snowy years and cold temperatures. Thus, winter ticks are flourishing…according to them.

I have reported for several years that lots of snow and cold will have no real impact on the winter tick aside from abnormal events that might occur in late summer or early fall and in the spring.

I have also expressed my concerns that trying to artificially grow moose populations to please guides and wildlife- gawking businesses is what is really contributing to all the ticks.

Attempting to cause people to think for a change and ask simple questions gets tiring. For example, if “Climate Change” (no snow and warmer temperatures in winter) is causing tick growth (sea level rises and other predicted phenomenon that is impossible to measure – we must rely only on well-bribed climate scientists), then other events predicted or used as excuses should be manifesting themselves. The statement “deer are at their northern habitat fringe in Maine” is repeated relentlessly when management tactics by wildlife biologists fail. If we are experiencing enough global warming to cause ticks to grow out of control and seas to rise, then it only makes sense, according to their reasoning, that the “northern fringe” must be migrating north and the deer population growing due to less severe winters.

Another example involves the moose. As I have pointed out, if the increase in winter ticks is caused by a warming climate, then because moose are at their southern habitat range, moose populations in Maine would be decreasing because moose are migrating north.

Are any of these things happening? Would you know even if they were?

But let’s get back to that statement, “If you have a lot of snow and a lot of cold, that’s not good for the ticks. If you have less snow and more warmth, it’s really good for the tick.”

According to the brain trust that promotes global warming as the cause of everything, all that is needed to mitigate this winter tick problem is “a lot of snow and a lot of cold.” Without this condition (caused by Climate Change) ticks do happy dances.

Evidently, it’s more important to rinse and repeat the Media’s echo chambers mantra about the existence of global warming and the myriad theories of death and destruction from a “warming climate” than it is to bother reading what research has been conducted involving the winter tick.

(Note: I have done a lot of that work for you. All you have to do is read it…here.)

As I indicated earlier, perhaps there is some glimmer of hope that eventually some of these wildlife biologists will put their “eye pads” and cell phones away and read some real scientific journals to learn something. Today, I have read in the Bangor Daily News that researchers in Maine who are studying how weather and climate affect tick survival are indicating (and seemingly in agreement with previous tick studies I have referenced for years) that deep snow and cold temperatures may not have the effect on ticks once thought: “From what we’re finding, even with these persistent below-zero temperatures, it’s staying 25, 30, as high as 35 degrees down close to the ground,” said Griffin Dill, coordinator for the tick identification program at the University of Maine Cooperative Extension Pest Management Office. “It’s still relatively warm under there … If we have the ticks covered by leaves and covered by a foot or so of snow, chances are, even with these persistent cold temperatures, they’ll be relatively unharmed.”

To be forthcoming and honest, this phenomenon is beneficial to the growth of many other ticks and not so much for the winter tick. I don’t want to be misleading. However, the general consensus among Climate Change wildlife biologists is that if there is lots of snow and cold in the spring when engorged winter ticks drop from the moose, the snow and cold will kill them. Perhaps, but consider what this study reports the temperatures are at ground level. I doubt very seriously that engorged ticks are going to lay on top of the snow, break out their suntan lotion and crack a bottle of Corona. It is possible that conditions might exist to prevent some ticks from getting below the snow surface but according to existing data, it would take a minimum of six consecutive days where temperatures, day and night, would not exceed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit. When is the last time in March and April that weather phenomenon existed? I thought so. It should also be noted that persistent sub-zero temperatures will have no effect on ticks hitching a ride on a warm moose’s back for the winter.

In an attempt to understand the reasoning behind blaming global warming, the chore becomes a bit difficult. Winter ticks, we are told, are killing moose. Winter tick infestations at levels high enough to cause death and destruction of moose are caused by global warming. This is convenient. This excuse says it’s not my fault. It’s the fault of global warming, that there are no deer and moose are dying. There’s nothing I can do. Give me millions of dollars and I will conduct studies in an attempt to create more scientism to support my scientismic claims about global warming.

As the Tin Man in the Wizard of Oz exclaimed, “If I only had a brain,” so too have our trained biologists readily and eagerly stated, “If we only had lots of snow and lots of cold.”

Well, as much as Maine’s fraternity of “scientists” want to claim that last winter in Maine was “mild,” while parts of Western Maine saw record snowfall, this winter has turned into “lots of snow and lots of cold.” But now, tick scientists are telling us this is good for the ticks.

So what’s it going to be?

That’s easy to predict. It will be what is convenient to fit that narrative, which in turn will ensure those retirement checks in the end.

Business as usual as our moose pile up dead in the woods and biologists attempt to take care of the guides and wildlife gawkers and hoping Climate Change will bail them out.

We should be reminded of what one Alaska State veterinary said about controlling winter ticks: “Once (winter ticks are) introduced in a moose population in an area, the only known way to control it is to reduce the moose density, especially calves, so that there are no hosts available,” she said. “It would require an antler-less hunt or even a cull of calves and yearlings, which would not be something that would be easy to sell to the public.”




Once Again Caught Fudging Climate Data

Alarmist scientists have been caught red-handed tampering with raw data in order to exaggerate sea level rise.

The raw (unadjusted) data from three Indian Ocean gauges – Aden, Karachi and Mumbai – showed that local sea level trends in the last 140 years had been very gently rising, neutral or negative (ie sea levels had fallen).

But after the evidence had been adjusted by tidal records gatekeepers at the global databank Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) it suddenly showed a sharp and dramatic rise.

The whistle was blown by two Australian scientists Dr. Albert Parker and Dr. Clifford Ollier in a paper for Earth Systems and Environment.<<<Read More>>>


Among Other Things, Confusing Climate Change With Air Pollution

Ah, yes! Once again it appears time to invoke the statement that it is better to keep your mouth shut and force people to wonder about your level of intelligence, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

One of the most frustrating parts about any discussions centered on “Climate Change” (a title intended to hide the original headline of global warming) is that the majority, including self-proclaimed and paper-holding, education factory-produced scientists(?) are totally ignorant of any kind of science that supports or denies the existence of any kind of man-caused global warming. They pick a side and run with it. Sounds good and feels good! And yet, the totalitarian inside us overpowers any sense of self control forcing us to “open our mouths and remove all doubt.”

Much the same as Henny Penny yelling “the sky is falling,” the cartoon character never looked up. Neither do those claiming the high ground on Climate Change, as though it was some magical scientific phenomenon that one day emerged, not from any scientific journal or an act of honest scientific research, but from out of the bowels of political dishonesty for political gain.

In our programmed ignorance, we can’t think or question beyond Facebook any longer which causes the job of the fakers of Climate Change to be so much easier…also a planned event.

I place Climate Change in capital letters because it denotes a political entity not a scientific phenomenon.

George Smith, a Maine outdoor writer and political activist, not only is on the bandwagon of, “we’re all gonna die” because of Climate Change, but he appears to have taken over the reins and is driving full speed ahead. And for what purpose?

Save the Children! We must save the Children! We’re all gonna die! Oceans are rising! Ice caps melting! Moose ticks! Constipation! All caused by Climate Change. Run, says Henny Penny! Run for your lives! The sky is falling! I SAW IT ON FACEBOOK!!!!!

It’s all very nauseating. Had anyone actually paid any attention to the lying politicians and imitation intelligentsia, led by Al Gore, half of us should have been dead by now along with millions of acres of land flooded from rising sea levels.

In addition, Climate Change is always presented as a bad thing, i.e. we’re all gonna die! Our children will have no  planet to worship any longer. When historically, periods of time, as there have ALWAYS been periods of time, when the earth is cycling through warming trends, food growth is highest, the economy flourishes and fewer people die. Give me global warming.

When the Scriptures foretell us of “signs and wonders” in the sky, our programmed, automatonic, deceived brains scoff because we have been mentally coded to think these “signs and wonders” are something strictly the result of the Creators manipulations. Not to deny that may be the case but we are incapable of grasping any concept that some, if not all, of these “signs and wonders” are generated by man, and that this manipulation of “signs and wonders” is what some are confusing “Climate Change” with.

Historically, our climate (also ALWAYS confused with weather) has been changing. These are natural cycles sometimes lasting long periods…sometimes short. It is nearly impossible for the everyday actions of man’s existence to influence a giant so large as our climate – the result of which will kill us or our children.

To induce fear and mongering, which is necessary to keep the automatons in compliance, as we see in Smith’s article, he wanders from the talking points (that’s all they are) of man-caused Climate Change, to air pollution, seemingly unable to tell the difference.

The fake “scientists,” in cahoots with stupid media, tell us under no uncertain terms that carbon dioxide is the cause of Global Warming Climate Change. Most have been convinced that carbon dioxide is an air pollutant and dangerous to our existence. It’s not only a good thing but a necessary thing.

This article also brings up Greenhouse Gases, right on cue. What are Greenhouse Gases? They don’t know but “We’re all gonna die!”

Nobody wants dirty air and water. Carbon dioxide, the causer of Climate Change we are told, is not dirty. It provides life and provides it abundantly. Why are we being forced to fear it?

The Climate Change that people like Smith promote, does not exist within the context they have been brainwashed to believe. I’m not doing it and neither are you. If weather could be manipulated over very long periods of time, is there then a possibility that this continuous influence would eventually alter our climate? Or could weather manipulation, in turn, cause the exploitation of the masses, a necessary evil event to achieve sinister political and religious agendas?

On this very website, recently a contributor provided government documents about weather manipulations. These documents date back to the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.


We know that William Cohen, Secretary of Defense from 1997 – 2001, spoke of weather warfare, of the existence of technology to control and manipulate such, and the call for, and existence of weather warfare treaties.

A simple search today, one can easily discover that weather and atmospheric engineering is as common as birds in the sky.

One can choose to think that from the 1950s to the present, any kind of research and technology development to manipulate the weather, does not exist. Or, one can wonder what advances have been made to weather warfare from what the Government tells us they have successfully done nearly 70 years ago.

Nobody looks up to the sky, and if they do, their programmed and deceived minds limit them to call those billows of chemicals, condensation trails from jet engines. Like with echoing the utter nonsense of “Climate Change” none bother to discover the physics and atmospheric conditions necessary to create a condensation trail from a jet engine. Do condensation trails last all day long?

The author is worried that the children will be without a planet and that carbon dioxide, and other Greenhouse Gases (ignorant of what those even are) are going to kill us. In addition, this event is because I drive a car and burn wood to keep warm. Let’s not talk about Al Gore’s private jet or the billions of dollars he has made by using people like Smith to pad his bank account – to give but one small example.

And yet, these people are willing to believe anything anyone tells them about how the taxpayers are causing “Climate Change,” but mention that the Government is dumping toxic chemicals on our heads and manipulating our weather on a daily basis, and you’ll get laughed at.

What a job the Ruling Establishment has done on our brains.



Gore Criticized by Black Activists for Green Agenda Hurting Poor, Minorities

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Hypocritical Actions, Hysterical Assertions Hurt Gore’s Credibility

Washington, DC – As Al Gore takes his An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Powerdocumentary into theaters nationwide, black activists with the Project 21 leadership network are criticizing the former vice president for being out of touch with the needs of the American people.  In particular, Project 21 members say Gore’s green agenda is harmful to the well-being of poor and minority households and that his actions detract from his message.

On the documentary’s promotional website, people are urged to reduce their “carbon footprint” by using fewer of the plentiful and more economical fossil fuels, to embrace more expensive alternative energy sources and to be politically active in the pursuit of increased environmental regulation.  As energy costs inevitably rise under such an agenda, those who are already at an economic disadvantage will find themselves facing unnecessary new budgetary burdens.

“Al Gore’s comments and actions hammer home the fact that climate change alarmists aren’t taking into account how much their pet project hurts African-Americans, other minorities and low-income families,” said Derrick Hollie, a member of Project 21 and the president of the Reaching America policy organization.  “Energy is the lifeblood of our society.  Any increase in its cost disproportionately affects lower income groups.  Green activists tend to ignore how their agenda affects energy poverty, which keeps disadvantaged populations poor through high energy prices and decreased economic opportunities.”

Additionally, the National Center for Public Policy Research, the parent organization of Project 21, reported this week that Gore’s estate near Nashville, Tennessee used over 21 times more electricity in the past year than the average American household.  This conspicuous consumption of energy from someone who asks others to make do with less – and potentially more expensive – energy raises allegations of hypocrisy.

“Isn’t it cute when someone who has made a living peddling lies about the weather lectures Americans about how they should live?  Actually, it isn’t.  It’s not cute, it doesn’t make sense and it’s downright insulting,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Stacy Washington, a syndicated talk radio host and U.S. Air Force veteran. “Americans have every right to use all the energy they can afford – just like Al Gore does in a mansion you might be able to see from space at night because of its size and energy use.  Gore simply doesn’t practice what he preaches. His electricity use rivals over 21 American households combined.  We should ignore his climate decrees until he starts walking the walk.”

Another aspect of Gore’s environmental advocacy that angers Project 21 members is his comparison of environmentalism to civil rights.  At the recent EcoCity World Summit in Melbourne, Australia, Gore compared  global warming activism to “all the great moral causes” such as the abolition of slavery and passage of civil rights laws in the United States and the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa.  On comedian Marc Maron’spodcast, he likened the gradual acceptance of civil rights 50 years ago to people now interested in installing solar panels on their homes.

“This is truly rich coming from the son of a segregationist. When his father was filibustering against the civil rights for blacks in the Senate, where was Al Gore, Jr.’s concern?” asked Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper, a former assistant law professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, in response to Gore’s Melbourne speech.  “Study after study demonstrate that the radical climate policies advocated by Al Gore, Jr. will hurt blacks and the poor most.  Just as segregation and interracial marriage bans were purported to be for the good of all while clearly done to generate political support, today’s climate alarmism is pushed solely to get the support of a small group of so-called eco-warriors at the expense of blacks.  Please spare us any more of this.”


While Biologists Dither, Hunting Opportunities Are Squandered

Maybe there is some hope…or maybe not. An article in the Boston Globe provides a few statements from so-called wildlife biologists that offer a glimmer of hope, even if ever so slightly.

Recently in an article I had written about how scientists are attempting to seek an answer to the affect of winter ticks on moose by only studying the moose and making huge assumptions about the tick – assumptions that have been passed on through half-ass “science” and incessantly repeated by the Media echo-chambers – I referenced a Boston Globe article echoing “Climate Change” as the reason there are too many ticks killing moose.

However, the latest bit of propaganda from the Boston Globe, might cause some of us to pause in hope that perhaps…just perhaps, there are some things that might be changing. (Note: Readers may or may not understand the extreme difficulty I find is uttering such statements.)

Let’s take a look at some of the comments found in this article.

The author of the piece begins by saying, “Researchers say that over the last few years, ticks have killed about 70 percent of the calves they have tagged in certain regions, an indication that the tick is taking a significant toll.”

Perhaps this statement needs further clarification and some more answers to important questions. The author says that “researchers” claim 70% of moose calves tagged “in certain regions” have been killed and that this indicates a “significant toll” on the moose. Does it?

Maybe it’s a significant toll in that one region but is this indicative throughout the greater region or the state being referenced? Most of these studies are centered around gaining a better understanding of how the tick effects the survival of the moose. In order to better understand this, it only seems plausible that scientists will pick areas they believe have high infestations of ticks and moose.

What isn’t being said here is that, if assuming the reference to “tagged” means collared and tracked, then 30% of collared moose calves are surviving. What also isn’t said is that we don’t know from the information given, whether the moose calves collared and data collected for this study, is representative of the entire state or perhaps just in areas believed to be the most heavily infested with winter ticks?

Under “normal” conditions, what is the “recruitment” or survival rates of moose calves? And what is the benchmark moose calve survival rate believed to be necessary to “sustain” a moose population? Sensational media reports might play to the emotionalism of ignorant readers but does little in revealing scientific honesty – or perhaps that’s an oxymoron.

“The study expanded last year to northern Maine — which Kantar said had a lower mortality rate of 48 percent — and to Vermont this month. There are about 250 moose collared for the study.” Lee Kantar is the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s (MDIFW) head moose biologist. The differences in calf survival rates between 30% and 52% are significant. And yet again, we must ask whether these numbers can, in any way, be attributable to moose and tick interaction statewide?

“Kantar said the study was about moose survival — not climate …..

Every single day when temperatures are above the norm in the fall is another day that the ticks are out there and able to get on a moose.”

At first glance we are told that the moose study is about moose survival and not climate. This is immediately followed by a statement supporting global warming as a culprit of moose tick infestations. So, which is it?

And, let’s examine this statement that temperatures in the Fall making it easier for ticks to find a moose. Where did such a claim come from? And is this statement about fact or is it about what we are not being told? From all the studies and even the echo chambers repeating non-scientific mumbo-jumbo, is there data showing that warmer Falls leads to more ticks on moose? Or is it more repeated emotional, climate-change clap-trap?

In the late Summer and early Fall (September and October) when ticks are making their climb up vegetation to hitch a ride on a passing moose (or other ungulate – cattle, deer, pigs, elk, horses, etc.) temperatures at, or below, freezing will “slow down” activity. It is readily stated that in order for “weather” to significantly kill off ticks, an area needs temperatures to be below 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit for six consecutive days. Not only is this an unrealistic expectation in September and October, it is unrealistic in Maine throughout the winter.

Kantar’s statement that extended warm Fall days “is another day” that ticks can get on a moose, isn’t false. It’s just not very accurate and is misleading. In one breath we read how the studies being conducted aren’t about climate and yet climate appears to be the excuse.

If you want to believe what is written about ticks, the consensus is that “WEATHER” not climate is the biggest limiting or perpetuating factor for moose ticks. Some of the original tick studies that I have read clearly show that the moose tick, at every stage of its life cycle is extremely viable and is virtually unaffected by temperatures. Humidity can limit the productivity of the ticks, but wind is the biggest deterrent to keep ticks off the vegetation they climb where they can attach to a moose when it passes by. Other than any of this, it only makes sense that if you limit the free rides on ungulates, necessary to complete the life cycle, you will limit the presence of ticks.

“More moose, researchers say, mean more hosts for ticks.” Bingo! Give the man a cigar. Finally, I have found somewhere within the hollow, echo-chambers of the mass media that the increase in ticks might actually be directly proportionate to the moose population. In addition to this statement, we also read: “The biologists say that one possible way to control the problem, though counterintuitive, is increased hunting.”

Which brings me to the point of this post – dithering at the expense of hunting opportunities!

We further read: ““It’s just going to be a long and brutal situation for them, until the habitat either changes or humans decide we just need to take more of these animals.” (emboldening added)

Isn’t this part of the problem? Isn’t the extremely high moose population in Maine the result of both ignorance and the caving to the demands of the public for more moose for gawking? What in hell should a scientist expect when decisions are being made based on social demands rather than responsible wildlife management and science?

And lastly, we read, “We hope that the tick numbers are thus going to be reduced and at some point you get a new equilibrium of moose density.”

We hope?

Yes, at some point Maine will reach a “new equilibrium” of moose density. Unfortunately, I have serious doubts that the “equilibrium” will be at all stable if scientists continue to dither and cave to social demands. I really don’t think it requires tens of thousands of dollars to be spent on moose studies (and no money spent on tick studies) to figure out that too much of anything, in wildlife, isn’t very good. No, we don’t have the necessary data to make just about all the conclusions that are being drawn. We don’t know if the number of ticks in Maine now is normal, above or below normal. Maine should have figured out a long time ago that the state had too many moose and done something about it. Instead, they wanted to keep the moose gawkers happy and give them all the moose they demanded that could be seen from their living room picture windows.

Mother Nature is only doing what wildlife managers should have been doing. The old girl is killing off moose in droves in order to mitigate the tick infestation. What is extremely unfortunate in this dithering is, that, while the North American Model of Wildlife Management utilizes hunting as a means of managing and perpetuating wildlife, our new, post-normal, environmentally brainwashed “scientists,” too worried about social whining, would rather the hunting opportunities by thrown in the garbage in exchange for letting the ticks kill and waste the meat.

Maybe the idea is to grow tens of thousands of moose, thinking they can, and really making the moose hunting a bigger and better cash cow. There is a reason that moose don’t grow on trees and fill every corner of the forest. I guess we’ll have to spend a few hundred thousand more dollars and time, letting moose be managed by Mother Nature, in her cruel and wasteful way, stealing away hunting opportunities – which incidentally are funded by the hunters – perpetuating a situation in which the only winners are the companies that make the collars and fly the helicopters.

Does any of this make sense?


Benefiting From Increased CO2

“But the global effect of CO2 levels on the quantity of vegetation had not, as far as I could tell, been measured — until now. When I wrote about this, it was among the very first non-scientific articles on the satellite evidence for global greening. But, as I found out, there is not much market for this good news. I was subjected online to withering scorn by the usual climate spin doctors, but even they had to admit I was ‘factually accurate’.”<<<Read More>>>


Despoiling the Environment to Save the Climate


Click on image to read National Review article.




Al Gore: A Legend in His Own Tiny Mind

I have a relative who once founded and run a business he called, “Spots Be Gone” – a rug cleaning business. Now it appears that the sun’s spots-be-gone leading many scientists to further think the earth is heading straight into a period of global cooling.

We also are now hearing more and more that those same “scientists,” who ignorantly jumped on board with the unproven theory that the earth was warming and we were all going to die from melting polar ice, are now getting ready to jump on the global cooling bandwagon.

However, Al Gore, wishing to continue his fraud and the making of billions more money, isn’t wavering from his perpetuated lie. Not only does Algore think we all need to do more to prevent “global warming” so he can fly his jet around the world more often, he now, in his feeble, sick, evil and demented tiny little brain, has likened himself to Jackie Robinson in breaking through the race barrier in professional baseball.

Keep it up Al! Someday, like O.J. Simpson, you keep telling yourself you are way too damned cool for this world, and you’ll actually believe it one day. Perhaps you too will end up in jail right alongside Orenthal James Simpson.