Guess what made the front page of the National Post today!
- Thread starter leckett1
- Start date
Sdot.
Active member
Since you insisted on using a website, I'll quote from there, as well.
3.5-6 years? Are you kidding. It says right there that the AVERAGE was 5-6 years, and that 3.5 was the low (meaning very rare... high would probably be about 8 years, averaging out to 5-6 years, which matches up with the figure of six years that I gave). They didn't include in there that SUCCESSFUL mating (meaning a litter results) doesn't usually happen until 8-10 years of age, usually closer to the latter.
Three females to one male... It's an averaged statistic taken straight from a 294-page published document (by a Doctor of Wildlife Biology) that I had to read during my training. If you want a reason, it partially has to do with the fact that a mother keeps her cub with her for so long. Only about 1/3 or less of sexually mature females reproduce every year for various reasons (usually having to do with the afore-mentioned reason). So say there are 30 females and 30 males in a population. If only 1/3 of the females are going to be mating that year, that makes 10. 10:30 = 1:3. Get it? Ever watch the Discovery Channel? Remember when you see the males of almost any species fighting over a female? There you go.
The site you gave also stated that a female cub is born approximately every four years per sexually mature female, further backing what I stated.
You took the extreme statistics from that site and then tweaked them to your liking or misinterpreted them, altogether. You also forgot to factor in a number of things.
Yes, the population did increase, which is why it made the front page of the news. Do you think that if that was a normal thing (which is what you're arguing), it would make front-page news? Hell no! I'd bet money that conservation efforts played the major role in the extreme population increase, as JD already stated. I'm not sure you really understand the concept of exponential growth...
3.5-6 years? Are you kidding. It says right there that the AVERAGE was 5-6 years, and that 3.5 was the low (meaning very rare... high would probably be about 8 years, averaging out to 5-6 years, which matches up with the figure of six years that I gave). They didn't include in there that SUCCESSFUL mating (meaning a litter results) doesn't usually happen until 8-10 years of age, usually closer to the latter.
Three females to one male... It's an averaged statistic taken straight from a 294-page published document (by a Doctor of Wildlife Biology) that I had to read during my training. If you want a reason, it partially has to do with the fact that a mother keeps her cub with her for so long. Only about 1/3 or less of sexually mature females reproduce every year for various reasons (usually having to do with the afore-mentioned reason). So say there are 30 females and 30 males in a population. If only 1/3 of the females are going to be mating that year, that makes 10. 10:30 = 1:3. Get it? Ever watch the Discovery Channel? Remember when you see the males of almost any species fighting over a female? There you go.
The site you gave also stated that a female cub is born approximately every four years per sexually mature female, further backing what I stated.
You took the extreme statistics from that site and then tweaked them to your liking or misinterpreted them, altogether. You also forgot to factor in a number of things.
Yes, the population did increase, which is why it made the front page of the news. Do you think that if that was a normal thing (which is what you're arguing), it would make front-page news? Hell no! I'd bet money that conservation efforts played the major role in the extreme population increase, as JD already stated. I'm not sure you really understand the concept of exponential growth...
clrumivier4life
Active member
Umm.... The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change just released their global warming summary that stated with greater than 90% certainty that humans are at fault. Not 99%
SmoKinSkier
Active member
i love reading these because they are identical, every global warming thread is the same and its not just NS..Even scientists argue over this shit, u have a group of extremely intelligent scientists that say we r the cause, and another group of extremely intelligent scientists that say we aren't. Its all a matter of who you want to believe and really its to soon to know who's right? ITs basically a religion in the sense everyone has their own beliefs and ur not changing n e ones opinion!
jtski
Member
I'm kind of confused as to who your siding with here..
but anyway
What I said was that if rates continue at current rates, if you can read, then these bad things will happen. Yes a market solution would be great, but its not fucking happening right now. Emissions are greater every day, the northeast is already on average 2 degrees warmer than it was 30 years ago. This will continue at exponential rates if left alone. The concepts that your school teach you do not mean that it is a viable solution. Cerbon Trading! awesome, then lets get the US to sign up to the UN Carbon Market RIGHT NOW. The Chicago Climate Exchange and others are making an attempt i the US but it is not even close to enough. SRI trading, great! but its not saving the world.
We need action done right now..right this second in order for our world not to get fucked up drastically as you should know. Ecosystem functions are being destroyed at a extremely fast rates and it will make it so I my kids won't be able to ski.
And arguing over this is useless..if we know that CO2 is causing rising temperatures, then we need action. It has been proven that money could be made on the transformation away from oil dependency..so have united action right now.
And what are you talking about the kyoto protocol for? We didn't sign it..and it was a major step in the wrong direction.
An educated public is the key to not ruining our planet, I completely agree. But again, this was probably a waste of time because most people don't care on this site.
but anyway
What I said was that if rates continue at current rates, if you can read, then these bad things will happen. Yes a market solution would be great, but its not fucking happening right now. Emissions are greater every day, the northeast is already on average 2 degrees warmer than it was 30 years ago. This will continue at exponential rates if left alone. The concepts that your school teach you do not mean that it is a viable solution. Cerbon Trading! awesome, then lets get the US to sign up to the UN Carbon Market RIGHT NOW. The Chicago Climate Exchange and others are making an attempt i the US but it is not even close to enough. SRI trading, great! but its not saving the world.
We need action done right now..right this second in order for our world not to get fucked up drastically as you should know. Ecosystem functions are being destroyed at a extremely fast rates and it will make it so I my kids won't be able to ski.
And arguing over this is useless..if we know that CO2 is causing rising temperatures, then we need action. It has been proven that money could be made on the transformation away from oil dependency..so have united action right now.
And what are you talking about the kyoto protocol for? We didn't sign it..and it was a major step in the wrong direction.
An educated public is the key to not ruining our planet, I completely agree. But again, this was probably a waste of time because most people don't care on this site.