Thank you for the 1990’s mediafire website Mal, but… Â :)
Some scholars suggest
Isn’t exactly imperical evidence… ?
And your website supports my position quite fundamentally
“Although the army was plagued by strategic failures, the near extermination of the American bison during the 1870s helped to mask the military’s poor performance. By stripping many Indians of their available resources, the slaughter of the buffalo severely reduced the Indians’ capacity to continue an armed struggle against the United States. The military’s role in this matter is difficult to asses. Sheridan and Sherman recognized that eliminating the buffalo severely reduced the Indians’ capacity to continue an armed struggle against the United States. The editors of the Army and Navy Journal supported the proposition, comparing such an effort with Civil War campaigns against Confederate supplies and food sources. Forts provided de facto support for hunters, who used the civilian services often found near army bases. Officers and enlisted personnel also killed buffalo for food and sport, though the impact of their hunts was minute when compared to the organized efforts of the professionals.” (The Military and United States Indian Policy, p. 171) “In 1874, Secretary of the Interior Delano testified before Congress, “The buffalo are disappearing rapidly, but not faster than I desire. I regard the destruction of such game as Indians subsist upon as facilitating the policy of the Government, of destroying their hunting habits, coercing them on reservations, and compelling them to begin to adopt the habits of civilization.” (The Military and United States Indian Policy, p. 171) Two years later, reporter John F. Finerty wrote that the government’s Indian allies "killed the animals in sheer wantonness, and when reproached by the officers said: ‘better kill buffalo than have him feed the Sioux.'” Although Sheridan added that “if I could learn that every buffalo in the the northern herd were killed I would be glad,” some indications point to a groundswell of military opposition to the killing. (The Military and United States Indian Policy, p. 172)
While evidence seems to point to the existence of an official policy, the debate about whether one actually existed still continues (as noted in the above paragraph).
I’m still not seeing any compelling evidence? Even from the source… Other than Indians killed the herds of their enemies… and that a modern 1870’s government recognized the importance of the food source strategically?
And the second source agrees… the first factor in the -extinction- of the species.
American Indian tribes acquired horses and guns and were able to kill bison in larger numbers than ever before
Not as previously expressed in a statement I wholeheartedly REJECT.
and because the animals they relied on for sustenance were slaughtered specifically to starve them to death
:)
The history of the buffalo though, is an interesting read, especially in a climate-change/enviromental context.
Again, it’s move, adapt, or die. That’s history, And not even 150 year old history. One has to look at the whole picture.
I have no doubt horses and guns help natives hunt for sustenance more vigorously, but natives tend to use and eat what they killed unlike the white man.
Rather than rehashing that debate lets review how others debated the topic of ‘Buffalo being killed to control the Natives’
http://www.westerncivforum.com/index.php?topic=2284.0
From:
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/macleans/bison-back-from-brink-of-extinction
In the United States, the decimation of the buffalo was part of a deliberate, and successful, effort to starve the Plains Indians into submission. As Geist recounts in his book, many high-ranking U.S. officials were explicit about their intentions. “The civilization of the Indian is impossible while the buffalo remains upon the plains,” declared secretary of the interior Columbus Delano in 1873. Two years later, Gen. Philip Sheridan told a joint session of Congress that buffalo hunters had done more to settle what he called “the vexed Indian question” than the entire U.S. army. Sheridan urged the politicians to continue to support the hunters. “For the sake of lasting peace,” he said, “let them kill, skin and sell until the buffaloes are exterminated.”
The Canadian government didn’t go after the buffalo quite so vigorously. But commercial over-hunting to supply the fur trade achieved much the same result. In both countries, the demise of an animal that had dominated the landscape for so long proved astonishingly swift - by 1890, only a few hundred head remained.
I try to play devils advocate with myself before asserting claims that are easily refutable. Googling the contra-position from yours helps to make your argument more sound.
The efforts of early 20th century organizations like the American Bison Society, headed by zoologist William Hornaday and former president Theodore Roosevelt, were able to rescue the bison from its impending extinction
Well there’s no contra position to “The American President rescued the bison from it’s impending extinction” is there?
I’m not quite clear what we’re discussing though… ?
1. I am refuting the claim that the sole reason the buffalo almost went extinct was because of efforts to control natives? It’s a fallacy.
2. I’m proving is that the migration/forced adaption of people is NORMAL, and has occurred in very recent history.
those are the points I wish to convey that relate to the climate change discussion….
**HOLY ******
FYI - those are Bison skulls if you didn’t know…
2. I’m proving is that the migration/forced adaption of people is NORMAL, and has occurred in very recent history.
those are the points I wish to convey that relate to the climate change discussion….
So why can’t reduction in carbon emissions in order to preserve the current climatic system be part of the adaptation process? Kind of like trying to preserve the Buffalo from extinction?
Doesn’t that seem like the rational choice?
Please explain your opposition to this course of action, it seems completely in congruence with your perspective.
I read this article this morning and thought of this thread.
The Register is a British IT/Science ‘rag’ somewhat off the wall but often an interesting source of news with usually a science/technology twist.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/06/climate_change_articles_survey/
Saw this today and thought it was relevant to our discussion: Global warming ended 15 years ago?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/13212-global-climate-warming-stopped-15-years-ago-uk-met-office-admits
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/
Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.
From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat.
Well folks, the science doesn’t lie?
:roll: Can’t let this nonsense go and since I addressed this already in my first post with the “pre-emptive strike link.” Either argument 5 or 9 or 52.
Direct link to 52 which illustrates the statistical lie trying to be called a scientific one: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm
Oh and there’s this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/misleading-daily-mail-prebunked-nuccitelli-et-al-2012.html
Check your sea-ice data Garg. Lowest in recorded history by far this last year. (Continuing the trend since record began.) Blew the scary science predictions away.
Also, you still haven’t addressed my suggestion/question. It seem sliek you want to help multiple opinions here:
then when someone presents a reasonable way to fix it you revert back to:
Please address this for the sake of your scientific discussion.
P.S. The sea-ice data records are quite good. They record is actually maintained by the US department of defence. They needed an accurate record of sea-ice thickness at the north pole so that they could strategically place nuclear submarines as close to Russia as possible while still allowing the subs a thin enough ice pack to surface for oxygen.
So someone that has NO interest in distorting the data has been keeping an eye on this one since the early seventies. (The science doesn’t lie.)
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Check it every day if you like. They update it every 24 hours.
PS
nice debunk frimmel
My guess is that Garg will conveniently choose not to address this or admit that his statistic was silly.
We have done this discussion many times. Let me sum it up for you:
This is the one time in history - IN HISTORY MIND YOU!!! - that NCSCSwitch and I agreed on ANYTHING! The universe almost imploded on itself. Some might say it both exploded and imploded simultaniously having a complete negation on each other - we do not know. What we know is, Herr Switch and I agreed on this topic way back in, what, 2000? I know it was around the time of the election then, maybe it was 2001, dunno…go look it up. Very lively debate, was a lot of fun and then I beat the ever living SNOT out of Herr Switch in a game of KJF - AA Revised! Hillarious!
Oh and there’s this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/misleading-daily-mail-prebunked-nuccitelli-et-al-2012.html
Interesting…
I love this graphic…
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif
@Cmdr:
We have done this discussion many times. Let me sum it up for you:
This is the one time in history - IN HISTORY MIND YOU!!! - that NCSCSwitch and I agreed on ANYTHING! The universe almost imploded on itself.
Okay, so climate science tells us that humans need to cease pumping carbon into the atmosphere or we’ll bring about calamity for much if not all of humanity.
Switch and Jenn are/were in agreement that we don’t need to worry about how much carbon humans are pumping into the atmosphere.
Switch and Jenn in agreement is to be seen as a sign of the impending apocalypse.
Does that fit the definition of irony?
Oh my gods, we are all going to die!
And with the segue we have this article…
Last month ties for WARMEST September on RECORD
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/15/ncdc_september_2012_report/
For people like Switch and Jenn. An honest question of them to ask is: What would it take to convince you?
I don’t believe in magic, but if some dude snapped his finger and I was rich and had a harem and more importantly my girlfriend DIDN’T mind, then I would change my mind and declare I believe in magic.
I wonder how many of the those who are labelled as deniers of man made effect have as their premise that god will keep things in check so no amount of proof is enough. Much like the belief in God, no amount of proof to the contrary matters as the belief transcends proof. I think the rest believe man has an effect but is small or not dangerous.
Check your sea-ice data Garg. Lowest in recorded history by far this last year. (Continuing the trend since record began.) Blew the scary science predictions away.
Also, you still haven’t addressed my suggestion/question. It seem sliek you want to help multiple opinions here:
- You admit that climate change is occurring but state that there is no reasonable way to fix it
then when someone presents a reasonable way to fix it you revert back to:
- Climate change is not occurring.
Please address this for the sake of your scientific discussion.
P.S. The sea-ice data records are quite good. They record is actually maintained by the US department of defence. They needed an accurate record of sea-ice thickness at the north pole so that they could strategically place nuclear submarines as close to Russia as possible while still allowing the subs a thin enough ice pack to surface for oxygen.
So someone that has NO interest in distorting the data has been keeping an eye on this one since the early seventies. (The science doesn’t lie.)
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Check it every day if you like. They update it every 24 hours.
Great website Canuck! As a realist though, I am dissappointed that you only cherry pick what you want to see.
Let me quote the first paragraph of news from YOUR source.
The sun has set over the central Arctic Ocean and sea ice extent is now increasing. While much attention has been paid to the record minimum Arctic ice extent set on September 16, 2012, winter sea ice extent in Antarctica has reached a record high. The Antarctic extent increase is an interesting response to changes in circulation patterns in the Southern Hemisphere.
This really says everything I need to know. Â All the attention of the Frimmels of the world are freaking out about artic record lows, whilst ignoring a clear polar/cold shift to antarctica which is setting recor highs. (It’s this entire continent of mostly ice if you didn’t know).
1. The Science doesn’t lie
2. This is from your totally objective and uber source
3. An entire continent of ice is growing in the southern hemisphere setting record highs AND NO ONE including yourself is talking about it!
Whats the bottom line you ask? Your source kindly points it out.
“While much attention has been paid…”
Instead of looking at the whole picture, as a realist like me, some ice caps growing, some melting, things changing as they have for billions of years, the attention of the world is being force fed cherry picked information.
Why do you have to cherry pick - if the information is simply the truth?
And how does an entire growing continent of ice, fit into your global sea temperatures are astronomically rising models?
HOLY SH*T GUYS!
Antarcitca has been growing by 1% on average every year since 1979!
It’s growing at something like 16,000 Square KM’s EVERY YEAR!
We’re all going to die! It’s a NEW Ice age! The science doesn’t lie!
Sigh. Pre-emptive strike link again. Argument number 10 and argument 113.
Direct link to number 10: http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-basic.htm
