the polar bear climate change photo

Started Mar 24, 2007 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Ryan McDaniel Regular Member • Posts: 449
An Al Gore Disciple is in the house!

Chato wrote:

The Polar Bear is now threatened by global warming,

On what basis do you justify labeling a relatively stable population of animals "threatened"?

ALL
those who study the Polar bear say it is in danger of disappearing.

Typical environmentalist fallacy: "ALL people agree with me. ALL people say it's true. EVERYONE knows it. You MUST agree because ALL people agree." Repeat it enough and you can even get some of the simple minded to believe it.

Sorry, "ALL" people do not agree with you. "ALL" scientists do not say the same thing.

The polar bear is not in danger of disappearing. Some populations are decreasing, others are increasing, and others are stable. All this despite the fact that 1,000 bears are hunted each year.

If there's any long term decline in some of the polar bear populations, it could quickly be reversed to growth by wiping out the hunting.

Dumb photograph or not, such is the case. Drowning was never the
issue in this photograph and the people who released it never
claimed that. The issue for Polar Bears is very simple, open water
is not freezing at the normal times, and the bear, dependent on
hunting seals, are starting to starve to death.

BS. There are no "starving polar bears". No dead bears from lack of food. Just alarmist theories.

The rate and extent of the northern ice cap freeze is highly variable, as documented by the U.S. Navy and...heck...even the British Navy back in the day when they were an empire, before "global warming". (Yes, we have letters and journal entries describing open water in the north that are centuries old.)

You want to talk about open water, let's talk about what the ice cap was like when Greenland was a thriving colony during the climate optimum. Some how the polar bears managed then. What makes you think they're going to "starve to death" now?

If they ever get really hungry, they can start hunting the environmentalists following them around all day.

Twenty years ago, according to YOUR reasoning most scientists were
Conservative because they doubted that global warming, even if
occuring, was caused by human activity. Now, once again according
to you, they have decided to become "liberal" and back the idea
that not only is global warming occurring, but it is human made.

I never said or implied any such thing in my post. I don't know what you're talking about, but reading comprehension is apparently not high on your skill list.

All and I mean ALL climatologists, with the exception of a handful
of cranks, have now proven the above.

You're a crank for making such stupid claims. "ALL" climatologists DO NOT agree with the theory of human induced global warming, and you are in no position to question the work, education, or standing of those that are critical of the theory.

I hate that fallacy most of all. Who do you think you are to call accomplished scientists cranks just because they don't support your pet theory of the Earth? What qualifies you as judge?

Your evidence doesn't exist,
it was made up complete out of the kind of fantasies that one gets
from being addicted to Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.

FACT: the planet warmed 0.6C from the time we started observing temperature until today.

FACT: that's well within natural variability, both in terms of total change and rate of change.

FACT: Earth is cooler today than it has been in recent history, including the medieval climate optimum. BTW, we have written descriptions of Greenland from that period that do not include the extend of ice we observe today. Yet, some how, polar bears survived.

FACT: the temperatures observed in the 20th century do not agree with predictions made by global warming models. Most of the warming occurred prior to the post-WWII ramp up in CO2 output. Post WWII saw a sustained cooling period despite dramatic increases in CO2 output.

Want me to continue? Why don't you actually go look up and study some temperature charts before telling me what "ALL" scientists think.

Recently I read a column propounding your beliefs at NewsMax.com.
The columnist stated that this was one of the most brutal winters
on record, and how dare these clowns claim that global warming was
occuring. Of course, it's one of the warmest on record, and the
writer wrote during a legitimate cold snap. How touching.

It's not one of the warmest on record, it's cooler than 05/06! And the "record" being used by NOAA only goes back 30 years. Which places the start of the series right smack in the middle of the 1950-1980 cooling period.

Let's start the series in the 30's or 40's, when average U.S. temperatures were HIGHER than they are today. That would make this winter average at best.

High, low, and average depend greatly on the series you're looking at. You can get a graph to tell you want you want just be carefully chosing your start and end points. So look beyond the Sierra Cub press releases.

The bottom line of your post is that only Neocons are honest,
liberals always lie and make things up.

Never said that. Again, the reading comprehension thing.

(I will pause and point out that the majority of Conservatives,
while I may disagree with them, do not hold this appalling world
view. This is strictly a Neeocon thing, which is the same as saying
a fringe element thing...)

So you accuse me of committing the fallacy of labeling "the world's scientists" as "liberals", all while blatantly committing the fallacy of labeling all who disagree with you "cranks" and "fringe elements"?

Such blind faith and devotion to the Al Gore cause cannot be argued with....

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
igb
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow