# Rare GREAT news for some wolves in Idaho



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Just received this in my emails, the situation for wolves is pretty bleak but today there is some rare good news. I cannot praise EarthJustice enough, they have consistently battled through the courts to defend wolves & Americas natural heritage from insidious forces.

*Dear 
*
*Thanks to you, wolves in Idaho's Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness will be safe for another year!*

*During the winter of 2013-2014, a state trapper killed nine wolves in the wilderness…beginning a brutal extermination program aimed at killing up to 60% of wolves in the Middle Fork zone in order to artificially inflate elk populations for a small number of commercial outfitters and hunters.

With your support, we immediately fought back in court to stop this slaughter.

In response, the Idaho Fish and Game abruptly terminated its wolf-killing activities and agreed to halt state wolf-killing in the wilderness at least until November 1, 2015
And yesterday the U.S. Forest Service confirmed that wolves of the River of No Return will be safe from Idaho's killing program for the 2015-16 winter, as well.*



*This is huge news…and would not have been possible without you!*

The Frank Church Wilderness is the largest forested wilderness area in the western United States and is core habitat for gray wolves. Thanks to our work, at least for the coming winter it will be managed as a wild place with natural wildlife populations, rather than as an elk farm.

And rest assured, my team and I will remain vigilant to ensure that wilderness values prevail for the long term.

*States like Idaho have made it clear that they won't quit trying to kill wolves. But thanks to you, Earthjustice won't quit defending these magnificent animals.*

Wolves are among our country's most iconic species, and they play a critical role in the wild. Yet they're facing brutal attacks across the country.

Today we're


Opposing the elimination of Endangered Species Act protections for wolves across the country, as well as any weakening of the ESA

Defending our Wyoming wolf delisting court victory in federal appeals court and in Congress

Challenging the government's failure to prepare a legitimate management rule and recovery plan for the Mexican gray wolf
For years we have fought for wolf protections and won. And with you by our side, we'll continue fighting for real and enduring wolf recovery.

Thank you for making this possible


----------



## KingLuke1 (Aug 6, 2015)

That's great! Wolves should be saved. I hope this organization though, the Earthjustice, is telling the truth about everything. I only say that because I just learned (months ago) that not every animal organization tells the truth. They omit a lot to get their way.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

KingLuke1 said:


> That's great! Wolves should be saved. I hope this organization though, the Earthjustice, is telling the truth about everything. I only say that because I just learned (months ago) that not every animal organization tells the truth. They omit a lot to get their way.


Check the out Luke, they have won many victories in the courts fighting to save Americas natural heritage. http://earthjustice.org/the-wild/wildlife 

_"Earthjustice was created by a small group of attorneys with a passionate belief that the power of the law could be used to preserve the environment. They helped establish the right of citizens to go to court to enforce environmental laws when the government couldn't or wouldn't."- Trip Van Noppen,President._


----------



## KingLuke1 (Aug 6, 2015)

Yep, I read a bit about it and needless to say, while I agree with some things they're saying (save our animals and Earth), there's other reasons that I don't agree with at all. 

I think some organizations like to shove things down our throats, so on the whole I'm very wary when it comes to sending to these types of organizations. I think, on the whole, that's why I stopped giving money to them. 

But hey, if you like it...then go for it. I'll give my money elsewhere.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

KingLuke1 said:


> Let me try to say this without sounding bad. I think it sounds like a great organization, animals and our Earth should be saved. But it's also sounding a lot like the World Wildlife Fund that I used to get and send money too. The reason I stopped sending them money was because of 1) Personal reasons and 2) They kept shoving global warming down my throat. I'm still on the fence of that whole subject and am teetering towards one side, but I don't like how animal organizations will basically shove anything down our throats to get our money.
> 
> Like I said, I'm not trying to sound mean or anything...I love wolves. I love our Earth and I can't stand it how people litter or don't take care of it. But I'm very wary of the "global warming people". When our Earth turned out not to be warming, they changed it to Climate Change instead. And now many people are blaming the simplest of weather changes on it when it could be something entirely different. I hope this organization isn't going down the same road as many other big time animal organizations. That's all I'm saying.


The science is now crystal clear on climate change Luke, it is happening & we are the cause of it & the scientific consensus on that is huge - 97% of the worlds leading climate scientists say so. So the environmental organisations which are clear about the catastrophic consequences we are facing if we fail to address climate change are ones we should look into supporting & the ones that dismiss climate change are most definitely astroturfing organisations (agencies set up to peddle propaganda & misinformation for corporate interests but made to appear like a grass roots organisation).

Global warming & climate change are two different things Luke & both terms have always been regularly used by scientists. But this is an excellent example of what the astroturfers/propagandists have done to deliberately confuse & play down the threat; eg the term used was global warming now its climate change so the whole thing is a lie. Its not a lie, the ice caps are melting, the seas acidifying, global temperatures are increasing - if we don't do something immediately to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, temperatures in the next few years we will reach the 2 degree pre industrial point of no return & there will be nothing we can do to prevent catastrophic climate breakdown. This is the greatest threat to all life on earth.

You are right about the WWF though, they are a really bad organisation, they warn about the dangers of climate change whilst at the same time they are tied to corporations who are contributing to it.


----------



## KingLuke1 (Aug 6, 2015)

Actually it's not crystal clear as some people say the polar ice caps aren't melting and the information many are getting are false. Our Earth isn't heating up; this whole thing reminds me of State of Fear by Michael Crichton. It's actually a good read and I hate it when I can't find links to back up what I'm saying. I have heard it on the news though if that counts.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

KingLuke1 said:


> Actually it's not crystal clear as some people say the polar ice caps aren't melting and the information many are getting are false. Our Earth isn't heating up; this whole thing reminds me of State of Fear by Michael Crichton. It's actually a good read and I hate it when I can't find links to back up what I'm saying. I have heard it on the news though if that counts.


Do you believe some people, or do you believe the 97% of the worlds leading experts on the subject? The ice caps are melting its a scientific fact, the glaciers are in retreat. The seas are warming, rising & acidifying. The climate is breaking down.

State of fear is a work of fiction.

But these are scientific FACTS Luke.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...e-change-nightmares-are-already-here-20150805

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ont-break-records-but-could-wipe-the-recovery


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

KingLuke1 said:


> Actually it's not crystal clear as some people say the polar ice caps aren't melting and the information many are getting are false. Our Earth isn't heating up; this whole thing reminds me of State of Fear by Michael Crichton. It's actually a good read and I hate it when I can't find links to back up what I'm saying. I have heard it on the news though if that counts.


The other side
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/spectacularly-poor-climate-science-at-nasa/

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/james-hansen/

Something is happening though. I do think we will all be poisoned by the very air we breath before killing our planet. I hope so anyway


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> The other side
> https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/spectacularly-poor-climate-science-at-nasa/
> 
> http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/james-hansen/
> ...


The other side? Oh you mean the propagandists side as opposed to the eminent scientists? lol With references to Monckton, Dellingpole, Plimer & co those links have no credibility lol

Lets have a closer look at the 'blogger' responsible for your first link - Steven Goddard

*Who Is Steven Goddard?*



It seems fitting that I should have at least one post looking at the Man who's pseudo-science blog this one parodies.

So what are his qualifications to post on climate issues? Who has/does he work for? How credible should he be taken?

According to a question asked in one of his own postings Mr Goddard says;
*"I have a Bachelor of Science in Geology and a Masters In Electrical Engineering"*
So academically he is about as qualified as myself and about as qualified as my cat to post his own analysis's climate change. Also from various comments and posts it seems that he likes soccer and follows the English Premiership and enjoys cycling.

If you do a search for "Steven Goddard" on Google, it doesn't really show up much and this man seems very elusive, almost invisible. There are no photographs and no biography to the point that 'Steven Goddard' may even be a pseudonym. The cynic in me might suggest the name picked as a method of generating search hits on "Goddard" + "climate".

He has had some articles published in The Register a British technology news and opinion website. Searching his name at The Reg gives links to just 5 opinion pieces all from about four years ago.
One of his pieces posted on Friday 15th August 2008 called ' "Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered: There's something rotten north of Denmark" he attacked the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

But after being contacted by Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC he was forced to issue a retraction;

_*Steven Goddard writes:*_* "Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC has convinced me this week that their ice extent numbers are solid…. It is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year - just as NSIDC had stated."*
Unfortunately, this original error raced around the world on the the blogosphere and in many cases remains uncorrected. More information on this retraction can be found here.

Mr Goddard has previously popped up with numerous and inventive "sea ice updates" at Anthony Watts'WTFUWT blog. This should be a clear warning to any WATTS followers as to the awful standard permissible for posting there, and some embarrassing back tracking has also happened as this post shows; "Arctic Ice Graphing LessonIncreasing Bt 50,000 km2 per year".

Goddard's ignorance on sea ice has also made him a topic at Skeptical Science.

Mr Goddard has also contributed to to the Science and Public Policy Institute's never-ending stream of climate denier propaganda joining the ranks of the truly potty with Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley now as a peer. A good over view of his standard of scientific rigour at SPPI can be found atsciblogs;
*If anyone else has any relevant information, or even if Mr Goddard himself care to get in touch, to fill in the blanks with some biography or a picture, feel welcome.*

*UPDATE:* I don't know how I missed it but it looks recent - Mr Goddard has an *'About Me'* on his site confirming his engineering qualifications, that his name is in deed a nom de plume and claims to be an environmentalist. http://reallysciency.blogspot.co.uk/p/who-is-steven-goddard.html

(you dont half love your pseudo science, dont you Rona?)


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Who Is Steven Goddard?


The answer is on the link 

As always, I'm just giving links that give the alternative view. Does not mean I agree or disagree with them.

Also stops you having to bump your own threads 

I did think this one would be a safe thread to try and converse but obviously not. You don't seemed to have picked up on my own comment at the end of the post, just found a part that you can try and whip me with. I notice that all the scientists etc are ignored in the second link


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> The answer is on the link
> 
> As always, I'm just giving links that give the alternative view. Does not mean I agree or disagree with them.
> 
> ...


Rona what is the point of posting links to site stuffed with propaganda & misinformation? I just don't get it It serves no one only the liars trying to play down THE greatest danger to life on this planet . Any site that resorts to referencing Monckton et al is a joke so any 'scientist sited there has either been deliberately misinterpreted or is one of the 3% - who's integrity must then be called into questioned. The scientific consensus could not be any clearer - we are facing catastrophic climate breakdown & the window of opportunity to do something about it is right NOW, fail to & every living thing will suffer the consequences. I LOVE nature, my kids are my world, I am desperate for people to wake up to the reality of climate change - so why do you think I get upset with you for peddling propaganda?

.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 6, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> It serves no one only the liars trying to play down THE greatest danger to life on this planet .


You seem very adamant, Noushka. Are you just as adamant about the threat of Artifical intelligence? Dr. Stephen Hawking has warned that AI will be the death of mankind. And we need to stop now.

Perosnally, I feel this is more of a threat (and more believable and will kill us sooner) than global warming, and comes from probably the most credible source on the planet.

The earth will take care of herself. Not that we can't help, but when nature is done with us, it will hit the reset button. It always does.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> You seem very adamant, Noushka. Are you just as adamant about the threat of Artifical intelligence? Dr. Stephen Hawking has warned that AI will be the death of mankind. And we need to stop now.
> 
> Perosnally, I feel this is more of a threat (and more believable and will kill us sooner) than global warming, and comes from probably the most credible source on the planet.
> 
> The earth will take care of herself. Not that we can't help, but when nature is done with us, it will hit the reset button. It always does.


Of course I'm adamant, nature is my passion & global warming is the greatest threat to all life on earth. My opinions are based on the scientific consensus & Who am I to argue with 97% of the worlds leading experts on the subject? I'm not that arrogant to think I know better than they do.

I think world war 3 combined with climate change will be the death of mankind & the doomsday clock is now just a few short seconds away from 12 oclock Armageddon.

Of course earth will survive, its just a rock. But most of its living treasures wont.

You wont find a single scientist with credibility deny the threat we are facing from ignoring global warming - not one.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 6, 2015)

You didn't answer my question, or even acknowledge it. I don't think I even expected you to. 

If global warming was "crystal clear" as you stated, this thread wouldn't be here. We would all look at it and say "yep, he's right."

I'm not saying you aren't right, I just think that if it does exist, and it is not "crystal clear" as you stated, Man is pretty arrogant to think he can overcome nature and reverse the damage done. It is a case of too little too late. If it doesn't exist. (Have an open mind and read some more) your time would be better spent rallying for world peace. It is probably just as attainable.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> You didn't answer my question, or even acknowledge it. I don't think I even expected you to.
> 
> If global warming was "crystal clear" as you stated, this thread wouldn't be here. We would all look at it and say "yep, he's right."
> 
> I'm not saying you aren't right, I just think that if it does exist, and it is not "crystal clear" as you stated, Man is pretty arrogant to think he can overcome nature and reverse the damage done. It is a case of too little too late. If it doesn't exist. (Have an open mind and read some more) your time would be better spent rallying for world peace. It is probably just as attainable.


I have no problem answering your question. No, obviously I'm not just as adamant about the threat of AI, because I haven't heard that much about It. I haven't seen thousands of the worlds best scientists shouting about the danger posed by AI, have you?. But if Stephen Hawkins believes it poses threat, who am I to argue?. Is this just his opinion though or has there been extensive research done into on this? Thousands of the worlds leading experts have spoken about the dangers we are facing by failing to address AGW. They know now unequivocally it is occurring because tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers has led to that conclusion. So until I see differently I'll continue to believe the experts that the dangers of runaway climate change (& the threat of nuclear war) are the most imminent dangers we face .

Climate change will be catastrophic for our life support system - a life support system which supports all living things - not just mankind, it is a threat to all life on earth. The climatologists have warned in order to avert catastrophic, runaway climate change, we must cease our dependence on fossil fuels if we are to ensure we don't go over the crucial 2 degree pre industrial mark. The experts couldn't be clearer - Anthropogenic Global Warming is real & happening, its not caused by a natural event - we have caused it. The people perpetrating the lie that AGW is a myth are a bunch of astro turfing, propagandists - many of them with links to the fossil fuel industries. They deliberately muddy the water to confuse people - that's the only reason it isn't crystal clear, that & the media-driven madness that has brainwashed millions in the West into believing there are greater threats out there: ISIS for example! http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/07/14/climate-change-seen-as-top-global-threat/ .

So now can you find me a single intellectual heavyweight of the calibre of Stephen Hawkins, just one credible scientist, who disagree with what I have said?


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 6, 2015)

All I'm saying is - If you ONLY look at one side of a bill when someone hands you money, you will eventually end up with worthless paper.

Even Dr. Hawking changed his mind on black holes after looking at all sides of the matter.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> All I'm saying is - If you ONLY look at one side of a bill when someone hands you money, you will eventually end up with worthless paper.
> 
> Even Dr. Hawking changed his mind on black holes after looking at all sides of the matter.


And if we are to believe in science, we simply don't have time to waste looking at the other side of the bill. You have to ask yourself this, do you trust the integrity of literally thousands of the worlds most eminent experts? or do you trust those on the other side of the bill - of whom, many have been exposed as having links to the fossil fuel industry?



I suspect he changed his mind on black holes as the science became clearer. All the science coming in on climate change is only strengthening the scientists position on this. Those who now dispute the science are looking as silly those who once disputed the earth was round - Flat earthers. Hence why I challenged you to find a well respected intellectual who disputes the evidence. The science is now so strong - I doubt, very much, you could find even one.

Please have a look at this trailer, because there is a window of hope IF we all wake up


----------

