I've been somewhat skeptical of "Global Warming" turned "Climate Change" as a force in general, or artificial in particular. However, when animals perviously classified as fantasy by rigid science despite hundereds of years of sightings suddenly start popping up all over the global ocean with increasing regulairty, it does make me wonder if there isn't some alteration in their habitat. Hundereds of years of mystery and dismissal, and then sightings and corpses become routine over the course of a decade?

So, let's postulate two unknowns as fact for a moment; Bigfoot exists and Human's are radically altering the Earth's climate. Are there any environmental pressures that might spontaneously make Sasquatch start turning up dead "washed up on the shores" of our highways? Will the genesis of sicentific acknowledgment be suddenly having to deal with scores of Bigfeet displaced by deteriorating conditions of their habitat?

There's other ways to phrase this excercise obviously, but I need to leave for the dentist. f**k

Proof via Habitat Destruction?

Something I think about every time I hear of a major forest fire in California/Florida/British Columbia/etc. etc.

RayG

Good point. I can't think of any sightings involving fire at all. Anyone else? Fleeing a forest fire? Curiosty / fright of a camp fire?

The obvious answer would be retreating glaciers and melting icecaps in the more frozen parts of NA. Perhaps coupled with losses in perma-frost and excess run-off unburying things? I started thinking about this too with the fantastic mammoth discovery, but was never skeptical of global warming or climate change.

Apeman

Climate change has been happening since time immortal......... that's a given.

Now linking climate change to man kind is another!

I think if you go through history, you'll see that there's a fairly steady discovery of species. With the exception of the 'age of discovery'..... but even then those species were known to the folks living there.

If you think the climate is changing now, just wait a few decades when the sun is likely to be going into a 'cooler' period.... the sun is the ultimate source of nearly all 'heat' on this planet and researchers that study the sun seem to be ignored by the 'global warming' crowd.

Now as far as to climate change aiding in discovering BF....... I think that given the range in which they are claimed to inhabit, they are fairly good at adjusting and adapting, so I don't think it's going to be of any help to BF researchers.

As far as the forest fires, there are alot of reasons for those occurring and I don't think global warming is in the top five. But I've always wondered if they might flush one out as well?

I figured they already have, just no one around to witness it. I suspect that they are highly aware of their surroundings and know the most discrete way to get from any point A to any point B.

There are at least a couple of forest fire BF reports on BFRO. I think one was from the St helens eruption and the other elsewhere that sounded really like a Hoax because it claimed a conspiracy of govt people (fire and EMTs) secretly removing a burned BF like a Mulder operation

Ha! Sorry to ressurect a thread that didn't really catch anyone's interest, but I just read that Giant Squid, so recently dismissed as myth, have now offically become a "nuisance." Jeeze Louise.

I think I'd rather have Sasquatch stay cryptidian than become an obnoxious irritant. "Nusiance" animals don't typically fare well around irritated Americans. In my neighboorhood the influx of affluent Californian and Seattle retirees are campaigning to kill off or relocate to a reservation (any of this ring a bell?) our herd of Roosevelt elk. Why? They interfere and harm their landscaping. They've already bought the Mayor. He says we can keep our sculptures of the Elk to remind us of them though. Ain't that nice?

10 Years from now:

"God damnit Alexis, there's another one of those Bigfoot foraging in our garbage can. Get me the phone, I'm calling Fish and Game. Guess I'll be cleaning up blood stains on the driveway all weekend again."

OK.. i promise not to say anything about global warming, but please don't tempt me by posting any more disinformation...


The OP's premise is interesting, but we'll have to wait and see if and when more dramatic changes happen on land. I do think that BF may be affected less than many other species, because they are apparently able to survive in a wide range of environments across North America, and they are probably highly intelligent, and therefore probably more likely to be able to adapt to a changing environment.

The retreating glaciers will be very interesting, i think. Who knows what may be found.

Disinformation? Pardon?

I think we could try getting up some saucy artwork of foxy female sasquatches, print and laminate it on a load of 8x11s and nail it to trees all over the place. 5 years or so later, we might get one or two male roadkills due to blindness....

(Not actually based on such an "old wives tale" as it turns out, since cataracts have recently been linked to zinc deficiency, and that can occur due to excessive self stimulation, if the diet isn't heavy enough in zinc to replenish it.)

I came dangerously close to a PC dogpile by simply espousing the "I don't think we know enough to claim man is destroying the planet" view in another thread. I can't wait to see what this one brings. If there is one thing I am certain of, it's that the climate is changing, and so are environments around the globe. I know this because these events have happened continuously for billions of years (Dr. Carl Sagan, where art thou?). Is it man? Maybe. Is it the sun? You mean the most powerful force in the Solar System? The giver of life and death on this planet (physical realm only please)? Maybe. We simply don't know enough to say for sure. If we can solve that problem, I'm sure finding a primitive hominoid in the woods is cake.

That being said. I'm surprised there aren't more sightings centered around forest fires every summer. I don't know if we have more fires, but we fight more now, and more aggressively. There are also more people living in these areas. I know of the two reports, of the wounded BF and the dead one, both supposedly covered up, but have never heard of other reports. I still don't know why the gov't would want to cover up BF, but once secrets become a habit, people tend to make everything a secret, even if there is no need for it.

Well I know that it's not simply 'a natural order of events that has always happened' that makes where I live go from regular winter snows and cold winters every few years to no snows at all and no cold winters at all...in the space of just 15 years.

That ain't how it's always been. This isn't a natural cycle. The winter climate where I live has drasically altered in the blink of an eye. That's not normal.

Something's up, and it's most likely to do with man.

The Planet has undergone rapid climate changes long before man was even a glint in God's eye.........

I expect that it will do the same long after he is tired of us and has wiped the planet clean from the eruption of Yellowstone or an asteroid..........

We know the climate is changing, but we also know that is has ALWAYS been changing.........

That sums up the extent of our knowledge at this point.

Fixed that for you

Robo, are you saying that the climate didn't change a wit until humans came along? Certainly, not.........

Climate patterns are simply too big for us to appreciate.... and our modelings of our effect on the climate are just too limited (or skewed) to put any merit in at this time.......

So when you're claiming that someone doesn't understand the mechanics of climate change, I hope you're honest enough to count yourself in that camp as well......... I don't claim to understand it all, but I also KNOW that nobody does! And rushing to use this light bulb or that one, or using hybrid cars (which some believe actually cause more pollution) may well end up being much more damaging to our world than our current practices. Heck, folks are blaming cows for global warming!! Do you honestly think that cows produce more methane than a plant eating dinosaur did 200 million years ago!! (news flash!! The dinosaurs were not driven to extinction by an asteroid but by a do good'er time traveler who wanted to end their awful effect on the climate...) The mere act of being alive impacts the climate in a miniscule way!! So short of killing all life you'll never stop it!! But wait that would also affect the climate......... now wouldn't it!!

Heck there is research that suggests that the sun is about to go into a cooling period... ...... so we may very well need all the global warming that we can get!! Will we then issue reverse carbon credits.........

Live prudently and be a good steward of the earth.....

God Bless

Obviously i'm not claiming that. I posted stuff in the 'Consider' thread... i'm not going to get into it here.

Forgetting the 'cosmic truth' of it all for a minute, it is inconceivable to me (and seemingly numerous others) that we have officially attained the right to CLAIM some kind 'absolute knowledge' of the climate, in the past, present or future. The 'debate' over climate change (and its causes) is not pure, in fact far from it. There are countless political and socioeconomic biases within the debate, and the 'benefits' of it being any one way are valid only to the degree of one's own point of view. When one scientist says one thing, and another just as qualified scientist says something else that contradicts the former, there's OBVIOUSLY far more to learn than just who has the biggest mouth. For ANYONE HERE to claim they have some kind of intimate knowledge of the 'cosmic truth', they're gonna have to cough-up more justification and 'qualification' than just their opinion and/or the opinion of their own 'scientist du jour'. And yes I'm talking to Robo and anyone else who seems to think they 'have it licked'. The debate will NOT be settled here, nor could it be or should it be.

I guess what i posted came across wrong.. I'm not saying we know the answers, or 'have it licked'. But those people advocating doing nothing are in a sense declaring that they know there's nothing to be done. In my opinion the prudent route is to do what's possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce our usage of resources etc, since there's a pretty good chance that it's adding to or creating the problem, even if we don't know for sure. I'm not talking about stuff like buying hybrid cars, but simple stuff like, drive your car less, or don't use the AC unless you really have to, or try to re-use things you'd otherwise throw away. That kind of stuff. At best, it helps, at worst, no harm done.

But i do think the notion that 'for every scientist who says one thing about global warming, another just as qualified scientist says something else that contradicts the former' is a misconception that is created by the media, who have their own motives. There is a format that a lot of news shows use, probably to give the impression that they are even-handed and aren't taking sides, whereby if they show one guy saying one thing, they have to have another guy saying 'I don't think so'. The problem with this is that sometimes it gives the impression of a controversy when there really isn't one (and oh, how the news channels hate controversy!). The global warming 'debate' is a classic example. There really isn't a debate, at least, not in the scientific community, which represents the only group of people really qualified to say anything on the issue. It's accepted as 'almost certainly happening, and almost certainly affected by stuff we are pumping into the atmosphere' by the vast, vast, vast majority of scientists in relevant fields.

But what happens on the news shows is that they'll have a scientist explaining something about global warming, and then they'll find another guy and add him to the show just because he will argue against the first guy, and it gives the impression of a divided scientific community, where half the scientists say one thing and half the scientists say another thing, when that really isn't the case. There are a small handful of scientists that have made a side business of appearing on various news shows and documentaries and casting doubt on the issue - their names pop up again and again not because they are experts, but because their position is so rare that the media has to keep trotting the same couple of guys out every time.

Everybody knows not to believe everything they are told on TV, but there are insidious ways that a message can be conveyed without saying it explicitly.


Anyway, i said i wouldn't get into it and here i go

Wow, uh, this really wasn't I was hoping for when I started this thread. Giant Squid are showing up dead as a matter of apparently increasing routine where they were myth scant decades ago, and some places in quantities enough to be labeled a "nuisance". I guess I find it hard to believe that this is happening irrespective of a change in their environment, but I don't much care, to the extent of this thread anyway, why that is so. In fact, I'm not even sure why in the original postulate I stated one of the givens to be that humans were causing the hypothetial pressures on the Sasquatch environment. That apparently was a mistake.

I just find it an interesting notion that after decades of active search, and hundreds of years of passive record, Sasquatch reality may be deposited in the Scientific lap simply by environmental change.

Um, are giant squid "showing up" more frequently due to some kind of change in fishing practices, or are you referring to carcasses washing up somewhere?

Well said! I wish people would learn more about epistemology (how and why we know what we think we know), and the philosophy of science before making these statements. I'm sure most people think it's blah, blah, blah philosophy, but everyone should spend a little time thinking about why they hold whatever position they do. They should strive to poke holes in their own way of thinking, rather than just reinforcing it.

One common myth is that consensus in science leads to truth. Consensus doesn't indicate truth at all. There are many examples of the consensus being shown later to be wrong.

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=13419

& there was also the story in The Locals, written by Thom Powell, about the BF that got badly burned in a Forest Fire in NV ( i think ) some time back..

Thanks robo!

The Nevada story was debunked by Hairy Man here

I think we can all agree that debating man's involvement in climate change (or not) on this forum is a fruitless exercise, and I would recommend that those who wish to debate it, go and read a wide range of scientific material from independent researchers across the globe, and then make up their own mind. I have, and it was an enlightening experience.

In the meantime, please keep this thread away from climate change debate. We know the climate is changing, that is accepted by just about everyone, so lets move the conversation on shall we?

^ I'll second that.

Only two effects of climate change that I can think of could cough up a body, and they've already been mentioned.

Forest fires probably have, and probably will, catch the occasional Sasq. It may be worth the time to scout areas where other big mammals like deer or elk have been known to have died. If big ungulates get herded and trapped, who's to say a Sasq. wouldn't also. Something similar was done after the Mt. St. Helens eruption when researchers looked for a Sasq. body in the aftermath.

I've thought of the glaciers melting out bodies too. I don't have a reference for it, but I remember a story about a Native American melting out of a glacier in, I believe, Alaska. He was a few hundred years old, just slightly Pre-Columbian.

But glaciers are pretty extreme environments that not alot of animals go into in the first place. A better place to look might be melting perma-frost. It seems most of the mammoths found are from perma-frost grounds. The down side of that is that there are thousands and thousands of square miles of the stuff to search and it ain't easy to foot around in it when it's melting.

The glaciers on mars have melted also did we couse those to melt too ? I dont think so . As for bigfoot and fires I have seen a picture of one geting away from a forest fire and yes the gov. knows all about it .

I, for one, would like to see that picture!

That would make me #2 I guess....

oregonfooter, congrats on winning the national championship.

From an alumnus of the other OSU that has a NCAA baseball championship under its belt (Oklahoma State U.; six national title games, one championship win).

Living in Omaha, I've enjoyed the opportunity to see many College World Series games, over the years. Hearty congrats from a college baseball fan!

Here's an interesting related tidbit....

BBC Story on bodies emerging in Alaska

I think the global warming being the fault of man is greatly exaggerated. Do we have an impact on the environment? Yes. Are we completely responsible for Global Warming? NO! We know of ice ages. We know of meltings. We know that what may be desert now was once dense forest with many rivers. What is now fertile plains were once the bottom of a sea. Climate changes. Period. If we have periods of global cooling, we MUST have periods of global warming. I saw one documentary or article about Global Warming where they were trying to prove it with ice core samples from the arctic. Thier research showed that CO2 levels were so much higher now than they have been for 10,000 years. Big deal! We were ending an Ice Age then. What was the climate like before the last Ice Age?

Sorry for the rant. I just hate to hear all the Global Warming and how we must stop it hype.

If it wasn't so dangerous, trying to catch a BF while running away from a forest fire would be a good idea. In some instances you could get a really good idea where they would be heading and where one would likely to be seen. But in answer to your post. I would rather the opposite would be true. Protection could bring thier numbers up to a great enough level that they would have to let themselves be known by sheer numbers.