This is setback against EbA. If it is not flexible enough to address future issues rather than just the ones human face now that could be a potential problem. It will cost time and money. Hopefully, research will continue to be done to help address this issue.

I like that the authors make the point that this EbA approach not only helps individuals with the physical effects of climate change, but it will also help will providing economic, social, and environmental effects as well. This could potentially better a nation because it doesn't just address climate change, but it fixes all of the problems associated with it.

The authors bring up this idea of ecosystem-based approaches that consist of combing both soft and hard approaches. Ultimately, the result will consist of a broad scope that will use natural infrastructure to provide adaptation services. This approach is valuable because it is effective while at the same time flexible, cost-effective, and seen at a national and international levels.

Here is what "they" are saying. The authors are stating that there is funding that has been created to help with the effects of climate change on individuals throughout the world. This money; however, needs to be divided into groups such as soft and hard approaches. The soft approaches as stated in the journal, will focus on "information, policy, capacity building, and institutional function." The hard approaches, on the other hand, will focus on technology and actions that will be taken to physically control and/or help the effects of climate change.

Not much was available about the professional lives of each author, but I was able to determine that each author published on the Nature Climate Change website is a PhD- level scientist. Additionally, all work is reviewed by an 'External Advisory Panel in the areas of social sciences, policy and economics to provide advice on submissions in these areas in the initial few months." Therefore, I find this publication to be written by credible sources.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/authors/gta/index.html

Furthermore, The Website, Nature Climate Change, mission statement states they are, "dedicated to publishing the most significant and cutting-edge research on the science of climate change, its impacts and wider implications for the economy, society and policy." The journal reports on a wide range of scientific topics and only published original interdisciplinary work.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/about/index.html

Jones, Holly P., David G. Hole, and Erika S. Zavaleta. "Harnessing Nature to Help People Adapt to Climate Change." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 26 June 2012. Web. 09 Mar. 2016.

The claim in this article by the authors is that people need to learn about the tools and/or steps they can take to help them tackle the threats that climate change causes to people, their lives, and livelihood.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Possible prediction to different wolf behavior and population due to predation patterns changing.

They do not only target one species of prey to feed. They have a distribution between their choice. Ethos and logos.

Relation to the post after this one.

Shows that wolves do not kill everything. They kill to eat and they kill the weaker for a reason. Gives hint to pathos and ethos to gain less hostility to wolves.

This can be used with the other articles as a logos and ethos perspective and give credibility to the evidence presented by other articles.

Gives background and insight to what this article is about.

Further proves claim with the hint of logos.

Stahler, DR, DW Smith, and DS Guernsey. "Result Filters." National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of Medicine, July 2006. Web. 07 Mar. 2016.

This is the claim for this article. Showing a scientific approach to wolf behavior. This is a scholarly reliable source.

So the opposition (the wolf lovers) may not understand that livestock are very fickle and complicated creatures. You can't just buy some cows and start a heard, its hard work and work that needs constant re-evaluation. A cow might survive a wolf encounter but the stress associated with that could make her barren for a time. Stress also makes bovine lose weight which is bad when you get paid by the pound.

I think people go to the store or to MacDonalds and there's your beef. They don'y think about where and how that meat gets there. I mean come on there are people that honestly believe the meat is somehow magically made at the store.

The reason the statistics are so low is explained here. But even if you take the 1% number, their are almost 5 million cattle in Idaho and Montana, that is still 50,000 head of cattle killed (http://beef2live.com/story-cattle-inventory-vs-human-population-state-0-114255). And that is just cattle, not all other livestock and pets.

This also shows what the opposition base everything off of, just numbers and hearsay. The author is obviously from a ranch back ground with the niche words she uses but she does report both sides. That is good to get rid of the stubborn farmer stereotype.

The audience is definitely not the sierra club and its members but I believe it's anyone who has grown up in the rural West where you do still have predators. People who have grown up and raised any kind of feed animal or even pets, like dogs. In the city your pet goes missing... its either adopted by someone else, at the pound or hit by a vehicle. In the country when they go missing it's either a predator or a highway. So anyone who grew up in the rural West should be interested in this. We are the ones that have to deal with this disaster while the courts and organizations in the East, so far removed, keep these oppressions on the hard working ranches and farmers that feed them. I am certainly the audience here but I have much more of an elevated tone then the article.

Claim: Human involvement placed wolves in a small area but wolves are wolves and go where the want when they want and have the know how and stamina to do so. We humans like to think we can tweek nature to our foreseen outcome, but we are idiots. Nature solves itself one way or another. This wolf debacle is a fantastic example of how human involvement just creates more chaos. First off they forgot that there are multiple species of wolves and placed the big bad Canadian version in our back yard, the ones that are built to cover hundreds of miles a day and are bigger and hungrier then the small local population (which has now been killed of driven out by these new wolves). Whoops, now they are everywhere and livestock are being killed on a scale 5% more then usual and those beloved Elk and Deer that everyone loves to watch from their cars on the side of the highway, they are disappearing too.<br> This claim of the author may come of as sarcastic but it carries meaning if you understand that people in a totally different area and culture decide what to do with the land others have pioneered and fought out a living on.

This web source is all about farm and ranch. Everything from markets to laws to alerts. Wolves are an important thing to this website and it's users. Its easy to say they could be bias towards anything ranch and against wolves, but this article was very factual and pretty objective considering the forum.

More excellent research most likely carried out from behind a desk somewhere or at least skewed to cover what wolves really are, very curious and quick learning animals. Just because you don't see that wolf anymore doesn't mean its gone.

Heather Smith Thomas. "Western Ranchers Fight The Curse Of Introduced Wolves". September 10, 2010. Web. March 6 2016. <beefmagazine.com>

The total population in Brazil was recorded at 204.5 million people in 2015. In my opinion, the whole number of people for the survey is too small to generalize as the most of nations’ views. The survey reflect only one out of hundred-thousandth of the entire population of Brazil.

The research depends on the authority of the Brazilian Social Research Survey (BSRS) to gain credibility from the audience.

The authors state why they write this scholar journal. It has a scholarly significance to perform the first research which explores the association between religion and abortion attitudes among the Brazilian population.

Although Catholic Church’s official dictum is strongly against abortion, the authors suggest that the Catholic laity’s opinion may different from it. It can lead the further research.

The authors present a hypothesis that role of religious factors is related to the abortion attitude in Brazil. There are no published research that reveals the link between religion and public policy in Brazil up to now. Therefore, the authors give the United States’ research result to gain credibility from the audience. However, Brazil has different socioeconomic situation such as the per capita national income, gross domestic product (GDP), or a political posture from the U.S. In my opinion, the authors committee the logical fallacy. It is nonsense to apply the study in Brazil which has different circumstances from the U.S.

Catholic leaders still cling to their position strictly that no abortion or contraception for Zika virus.

This sentence regards Brazil as one of the country which has a great influence of religion. Every policy should consider religious groups’ opinions.

These statistics is shocking that 25% of Brazilian women had received at least one abortion. The unproven process of illegal abortion can potentially make a negative effect on female health outcome. The situation will be exacerbated due to Zika virus. The Brazil government should prepare several measures before it is too late.

It shows that Brazil has hostile condition to get an accurate rate about receiving illegal abortion because the women who report abortions receive the fear of social and legal sanctions.

Historically, the abortion have been prohibited for 76 years in Brazil. The citizens have already recognized that abortion is illegal and they accept the reality and adapt themselves. That is why it is hard to change the abortion law although unsafe illegal abortions in Brazil are widespread and pose a significant health risk for women. However, Zika virus outbreak has prompted quite a commotion in public, so it may affect to revise the abortion law completely.

Dilma Rousseff is the first female elected president in Brazil. Although she was heavily popular with the public, she faced tough competition due to her position on favoring the legalization of abortion. This episode illustrates that the abortion is not only women’s rights problems but also a divisive cultural issue with moral and religious dimensions.

The audience can foresee the situation that a discussion on abortion and its policy in Brazil will be heated by a dramatic rise of Zika virus.

The authors formulate a hypothesis that Pentecostals and Catholics tends to the strongest opposition against the practice of abortion and its legalization.

Malaysia, for the LMDCs, stressed the need to “recognize that the principles of equity and CBDR must be preserved in all their facets and forms.” He urged parties to look at the best available social science to assess modern realities and stressed that civil society must have access to negotiations.

Calling for a REDD+ mechanism to be reflected in the agreement, Panama, for the Coalition for Rainforest Nations, recalled that heads of state sent a “strong” political signal on the role of forests and biodiversity in their speeches.

Saudi Arabia, for the ARAB GROUP, emphasized that setting a goal for governments’ efforts “needs to be substantiated by proven science,” provided by the IPCC.