the polar bear climate change photo

Started Mar 24, 2007 | Discussions
markspan Regular Member • Posts: 462
Re: Scary.

Matt Nelson wrote:

Wow - the anti-global-warming voices here are pretty scary.
Complete denial that there may be any merit in the opposing camp's
statements.

On the one hand, you've got a bunch of scientists saying "Human
activity is causing the planet to warm." On the other hand, you've
got a bunch of scientists saying "Human activity is NOT causing the
planet to warm."

Not that many, actually. There is quite a lot of agreement on this. Among scientist that is...

At best, there is some debate about the issue

The problem is, we've only got one planet to experiment with. If
it's true that humans are changing climate (either warm or cool,
btw), then we are on the road to really screwing up the planet in
ways that we may never be able to reverse. If not, then no worries.

With those kind of stakes in play, I say let's play it safe until
we know for sure. Me, I'm trying to reduce my energy consumption.

Chato Forum Pro • Posts: 46,027
And I'm sure they will

NWbeginner wrote:

Sounds like a great way to justify rate increases.

And I can't recall them needing an excuse, but their afraid of losing money. No matter what they charge, they will lose money in a global catatrophe.

Their recognition of Global Warming started with the Reinsurance industry. Big companies that insure the consummer insurance companies.

But it they DIDN'T come out on this topic, then they would be sited as proof that Global Warming isn't happening....

In fact in duscussions I had in the late 90's people DID site the insurance companies as PROOF that there was no global warming.

And the Party Line is changing as reality becomes harder and harder to deny.

First they denied it, now most of those same deniers, admit that it is occuring, but claim it has nothing to do with human activity.

And now some of them are saying "It's a good thing."

Fanatics can never be argued with.

Dave

Terry Sessford Senior Member • Posts: 2,497
Re: Symbolic of ... absolute rubbish!

The fact of the matter is that virtually all scientists agree that global warming IS happening and that the vast majority agree that the most likely cause of the bulk of the warming is the emission of 'greenhouse gases' (CO2, methane, etc) due to the activities of man, most notably the burning of fossil fuels. There are a very small number of scientists who argue that the warming is entirely due to natural solar cycles etc, however this is very much a minority position and should not be presented as a 50/50 split in the scientific community, or anything even approaching that. On virtually all scientific matters, especially the interpretation of empirical data, there are disagreements between scientists and in this respect global warming is no different - that is how science 'works', through debate and argument.

It is interesting to note that those 'scientists' who argue that man is not responsible for global warming are usually the same people who previously argued that global warming is not happening at all. Most have now 'admitted' that they were wrong on this point, but have now contrived various spurious reasons in order to argue that man is not responsible for the warming. I have little doubt that these people will be proved wrong again.

Terry.

 Terry Sessford's gear list:Terry Sessford's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Olympus E-M5 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +4 more
Terry Sessford Senior Member • Posts: 2,497
Re: An Al Gore Disciple is in the house!

To quote Dr John Gribbin of the University of Sussex in the UK:

"[claims of] a decline in global mean temperatures from 1940 to 1970, [are] actually based (inaccurately) on northern hemisphere data alone. The global temperature figures stayed more or less steady over this time.

There is a sound scientific reason for this. During 'the post-war economic boom' industrial pollution in the atmosphere acted as a sun-shield, preventing some heat from the sun reaching he ground, and counteracted global warming. Since the air has got cleaner, warming has resumed with full force. Both the pollution and the subsequent clearing have been measured."

All the arguments that I have seen which attempt to debunk man-made global warming have been based on out-of-date or erroneous data or just simply bad science. Whilst it is not true to say that ALL scientists agree that man-mage global warming is happening, it IS true that the great majority do agree and that it is only a very small (but vocal) minority who disagree.

Terry.

Ryan McDaniel wrote:

Kenstrain wrote:

Recently I've noticed the apparent anti-correlation (your FACT
quoted above) being used as an argument against CO2 related
warming. There is also the argument that at earlier times there
was no causal correlation (indeed that the CO2 concentration is
determined by prior temperature history rather than the other way
round).

If that apparent anti-correlation is not causal it probably should
not be used in an anti-global warming science argument, even if its
political utility is clear (for example for the fossil fuel
industry:" look, we do no harm"). If it is causal the implication
is that human activity is affecting the climate (but not in the way
predicted by the naiive climate models).

I wonder if that could be partially due to cloud formation related
to soot and other pollution, as well as non-anthropogenic changes
(or some other anthropogenic cause).

I don't follow the literature on this though, nor do I have an
opinion on whether there is causality.

You have some valid points. I use that fact to illustrate that
climate science is not an open and shut case, but that we still
have a lot to learn before we can rely on computer simulations. It
shouldn't be misconstrued as any kind of absolute proof. I don't
want to be guilty of the rigid, dogmatic attitude of people who run
around saying ALL scientists are in agreement and it's absolutely
proven.

People like Chato send me into a rant with their "ALL scientists
agree; only cranks don't" nonsense. There's plenty of evidence to
lead one to a different conclusion than the worst-case-imaginable
scenarios pushed by the Al Gore crowd.

 Terry Sessford's gear list:Terry Sessford's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Olympus E-M5 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +4 more
Chipsthe1 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,828
Re: Err, no

Chato wrote:

But I, a young man, one year short of sixty disagree. I'm not
married, have no children, but as part of a strange phenomena, feel
connected to the human race, of which I actually believe myself to
be an integral part...

I have absolutely no quarrel with what you choose to believe.

No, the Antarctic ice pack is receding...

No, actually it is not but there is considerable difference in how the ice pack forms in the Artic as opposed to the Antarctic ice. The latter is a more seasonal formation while the Artic is more of a full time coverage. The Antarctic ice increases about 0.8% a decade. Or so some experts claim, I have never gone to the Antarctic to check it out. Nor have I made a trip to the Artic to ascertain how much shrinkage occurs there each decade.

I feel connected to the human race but gave up windmill tilting a few years back. The darned windmills kept winning.
--
Shoot lots of pictures, always fill the frame

Chato Forum Pro • Posts: 46,027
Since your seventy five

Chipsthe1 wrote:

I feel connected to the human race but gave up windmill tilting a
few years back. The darned windmills kept winning.
--

I recall on trips to Washington from New York how every damn river was a rich color or brown or slimy green.

I recall that In Westchester County (just north of New York) you could see only a handful of stars...

And some people tilted at windmills and the clean air and the clean water acts were passed.

Those who pushed these measures were attacked for their Junk Sceince.

I recall when cars got 8 miles to the gallon, and yet there were those who tilted at windmills and demanded that MPG be doubled.

They were attacked as destroying American industry, with "unrealistic" goals that would destroy the enonomy.

Combating global warming COULD be the greatest spur to economic development that the world has ever seen. Pushing new technologies, pushing for a new environmental realtionship does NOT inherently mean "sacrifice," anymore that having clean water and clean air means sacrifice.

What those who stick their heads in the sand are demanding is sacrifice. Because if one does nothing about the hand writing on the wall, at some point you have to pay up in a hurry - And that indeed will be a sacrifice.

Dave

dipics Veteran Member • Posts: 4,317
Re: Err, no

Chipsthe1 wrote:

Chato wrote:

But I, a young man, one year short of sixty disagree. I'm not
married, have no children, but as part of a strange phenomena, feel
connected to the human race, of which I actually believe myself to
be an integral part...

I have absolutely no quarrel with what you choose to believe.

No, the Antarctic ice pack is receding...

No, actually it is not but there is considerable difference in how
the ice pack forms in the Artic as opposed to the Antarctic ice.
The latter is a more seasonal formation while the Artic is more of
a full time coverage. The Antarctic ice increases about 0.8% a
decade. Or so some experts claim, I have never gone to the
Antarctic to check it out. Nor have I made a trip to the Artic to
ascertain how much shrinkage occurs there each decade.

I feel connected to the human race but gave up windmill tilting a
few years back. The darned windmills kept winning.

Actually, to a degree, both are happening. There is more snow in the interior (it is one of the driest deserts in the world, if it warms up any that allows MORE snow) but the ice shelves around the edges are pulling back.

DIPics

44Magpie Regular Member • Posts: 134
Re: Well, you are of course a complete fool, so no surprise

Chato wrote:

Ryan McDaniel wrote:

...to see a picture of some polar bears playing on some ice and
think they're there because the north pole melted and they're
dying. Are the people who attend Al Gore's lectures really so
ignorant?

I know, I know...dumb question. If they're attending an Al Gore
lecture....

The Polar Bear is now threatened by global warming, or if YOU
choose you can come up with any reason at all - nonetheless ALL
those who study the Polar bear say it is in danger of disappearing.
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. This is only a
minor symptom of the greater problem/

The rest of your argument is nonsense as well. It rests on the
Stalinist premise of science being a total product of politics -
in YOUR case, Liberal or Conservative "science."

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.

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

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.

NB.

The bottom line of your post is that only Neocons are honest,
liberals always lie and make things up. And since you disagree with
the worlds scientists, ergo, they are liberals putting forth a
"liberal agenda."

(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...)

Much the same argument is used for everrything - and no matter how
often you clowns are proved wrong, it doesn't disturb your
reasoning one bit. Whether WMD's in Iraq, or Polar Bears facing
extinction, it's all part of the Great Liberal Plot to destroy the
world. And whether the source is actually a Conservative or a
Liberal, they MUST be really liberals. "Surrender Monkies," or
"Alarmists or "traitors." And they are that because of course
they've proved to be right.

Dave

Well, thanks for the view from the far left. Now please go back to worshipping at the shrine of Clinton/Gore.

Chipsthe1 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,828
Re: Err, no

dipics wrote:

Actually, to a degree, both are happening. There is more snow in
the interior (it is one of the driest deserts in the world, if it
warms up any that allows MORE snow) but the ice shelves around the
edges are pulling back.

There are those who feel the ice shelves, at the Antartica, are breaking is because the heave ice and snow pack have pushed the ice shelf further out to sea.

After much study I have concluded global warming is the result of the collections of National Geographic. People never toss those things out and the collections have reached critical mass. The weight is compressing the earth which is producing heat. The result, global warming. I have worked this out in some detail and can, if you wish, provide the complete proof of this occuring.
--
Shoot lots of pictures, always fill the frame

dipics Veteran Member • Posts: 4,317
Re: Err, no

Chipsthe1 wrote:

dipics wrote:

Actually, to a degree, both are happening. There is more snow in
the interior (it is one of the driest deserts in the world, if it
warms up any that allows MORE snow) but the ice shelves around the
edges are pulling back.

There are those who feel the ice shelves, at the Antartica, are
breaking is because the heave ice and snow pack have pushed the ice
shelf further out to sea.

I have seen no evidence at all that the ice shelf has been (or was) pushed further out to sea. Could you please cite some.

After much study I have concluded global warming is the result of
the collections of National Geographic. People never toss those
things out and the collections have reached critical mass. The
weight is compressing the earth which is producing heat. The
result, global warming. I have worked this out in some detail and
can, if you wish, provide the complete proof of this occuring.

It's ot Nat Geo. It's internet porn. As everyone knows, the internet is growing and porn is the hottest segment of it (pun intended). The result is obvious.

DIPics

Chato Forum Pro • Posts: 46,027
Absolutely right

44Magpie wrote:

Well, thanks for the view from the far left. Now please go back to
worshipping at the shrine of Clinton/Gore.

See these mindless scientists are more or less leftist robots. Would they claim that global warming was occuring unless they got their marching orders from Al Gore?

Of course they wouldn't.

In fact all of them completely denied that global warming was occuring until they saw the movie "An Inconvenient Truth."

Yup, that's it. Go search the net, you wont find ONE mention of global warming dated before the release of that movie (and if you do, it's probably the work of leftists forging the dates).

Now to be frank, I haven't seen the movie, and to be even franker have No use for Clinton, and while I would say the same about Gore, the truth is that he's growing on me - Even though I wouldn't vote for him for President (or Senator, or dog catcher).

But strangely enough, I'm under the impression that this is not a political question - rather a scientific one. Silly of me, I admit that up front.

Al Gore could be a serial killer and alchoholic - A child molester and a secret agent of insurance companies - Strangely enough - That's not the question - And in fact raising it, is really, really pathetic.

To my mind, turning this into a political question is absurd, just as turning evolution into a political question is absurd - But hey, if that's the way you want to look at the world, enjoy it!

Dave

Terry Sessford Senior Member • Posts: 2,497
Re: Well, you are of course a complete fool, so no surprise

Chato wrote:

Ryan McDaniel wrote:

...to see a picture of some polar bears playing on some ice and
think they're there because the north pole melted and they're
dying. Are the people who attend Al Gore's lectures really so
ignorant?

I know, I know...dumb question. If they're attending an Al Gore
lecture....

The Polar Bear is now threatened by global warming, or if YOU
choose you can come up with any reason at all - nonetheless ALL
those who study the Polar bear say it is in danger of disappearing.
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. This is only a
minor symptom of the greater problem/

The rest of your argument is nonsense as well. It rests on the
Stalinist premise of science being a total product of politics -
in YOUR case, Liberal or Conservative "science."

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.

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

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.

NB.

The bottom line of your post is that only Neocons are honest,
liberals always lie and make things up. And since you disagree with
the worlds scientists, ergo, they are liberals putting forth a
"liberal agenda."

(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...)

Much the same argument is used for everrything - and no matter how
often you clowns are proved wrong, it doesn't disturb your
reasoning one bit. Whether WMD's in Iraq, or Polar Bears facing
extinction, it's all part of the Great Liberal Plot to destroy the
world. And whether the source is actually a Conservative or a
Liberal, they MUST be really liberals. "Surrender Monkies," or
"Alarmists or "traitors." And they are that because of course
they've proved to be right.

Dave

44Magpie wrote:

Well, thanks for the view from the far left. Now please go back to
worshipping at the shrine of Clinton/Gore.

Err ... sorry 44Magpie but you seem to have completely misconstrued Dave's point. He is arguing against the politicization of science - the concepts of political 'left' and 'right' are irrlelevant to science (or should be). Dave's point is that it is those who disagree with the conclusion that global warming is happening and that man is responsible for the majority of the warming who are, sadly, politicizing science, as you have done in your reply. The fact that global warming deniers are reduced to such irrational arguments only serves to demonstrate the (scientific) weakness of their position.

Personally I have no interest in 'left' or 'right' or, indeed, in Clinton or Gore, but on this issue I have little doubt that Gore is correct - I would equally say that Bush was correct if he took a similar stance. Here in the UK it is the leader of the politically 'right' Conservative party who argues most strongly that we should take urgent action to counter man-made global warming.

Terry.

 Terry Sessford's gear list:Terry Sessford's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Olympus E-M5 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +4 more
Chato Forum Pro • Posts: 46,027
In todays world

Terry Sessford wrote:

44Magpie wrote:

Well, thanks for the view from the far left. Now please go back to
worshipping at the shrine of Clinton/Gore.

Err ... sorry 44Magpie but you seem to have completely misconstrued
Dave's point. He is arguing against the politicization of science

  • the concepts of political 'left' and 'right' are irrlelevant to

science (or should be). Dave's point is that it is those who
disagree with the conclusion that global warming is happening and
that man is responsible for the majority of the warming who are,
sadly, politicizing science, as you have done in your reply. The
fact that global warming deniers are reduced to such irrational
arguments only serves to demonstrate the (scientific) weakness of
their position.

Personally I have no interest in 'left' or 'right' or, indeed, in
Clinton or Gore, but on this issue I have little doubt that Gore is
correct - I would equally say that Bush was correct if he took a
similar stance. Here in the UK it is the leader of the politically
'right' Conservative party who argues most strongly that we should
take urgent action to counter man-made global warming.

Terry.

Thanks for summing up in a more coherent manner my point. But to people like Magpie your comment:

"Here in the UK it is the leader of the politically 'right' Conservative party who argues most strongly that we should take urgent action to counter man-made global warming."

Merely proves that they are secret leftists. If you disagree with the Party Line, you are a leftist. Your previous credentials really don't count.

You're British, so you are unacustomed to dealing with the lunatic fringe as mainstream politics. Here in the US people such as Jim Baker, Ed Meese, and others who wrote the Iraq Study report suddenly became lunatic members of the "Left" when they issued their report.

Mind you, it is difficult to find people more right wing than the above. Yet our media referred to them as "Surrender Monkies."

On the simple question of global warming, you Brits can be rational and even disagree without tossing around political labels to create a mindset where discussion is impossible.

If you go over this thread, three quarters of those saying that the global warming theory is a fraud begin and rest their arguments with an attack on Gore (Clinton) as if the issue is Gore and not science. Indeed, you will get the impression that this question ONLY came about after Gore released his movie.

And it's such a shame that I haven't seen it yet...

Dave

Chato Forum Pro • Posts: 46,027
Why do you feel it necessary to argue by using slander?

Deecy wrote:

-- hide signature --

Straight from Move on.org! Complete and utter nonsense!

Jonathan Chait is an editor of the New Republic. He's also a supporter of the Iraq war, if not a supporter of Mr. Bush.

Why do you find it necessary to debate a scientific question by attacking the messenger instead of the topic itself. I'm curious at a mindset such as yours where this is considered a legitimate debating tactic.

One would never know from the lunatic fringe political right that this question preceded Mr. Gores movie. It's as if the question of global warming was invented by Mr. Gore to further his "hate and destroy America agenda."

That's a quote from a right wing blog.

Who are you fooling? Yourself? Is this a way to avoid even a modicum of thinking?

Dave

Tom McCarty Contributing Member • Posts: 833
Re: Global warming is either a religeon or a new substitute for communism

When the fella said all scientists agree with Al Gore, you were supposed to know he was making a joke.. wasn't he? If not Jim Jones is back in town.

Sadly if you disagree with the GW alarmists ( I like the GW sticker, may make them balk ) they call you names, even Nazi... honest, it has been in the papers.

I would love it if you take a minute and get a few podcasts from Dennis Prager's radio show.. just google to it....

The plain truth is there. He doesn't care if you agree or not, he just wants clarity.

Now I also see the same people, PETA I think, are asking that some polar bears be killed as they have been in captivity so long they are accustomed to man.... and it is better to kill them than let them live in an unreal world... hmmmm wonder if they are also making a case for self annilation?

-- hide signature --

Tom

Dominic Groß Veteran Member • Posts: 7,181
Re: Whoa, cool...

Petteri Sulonen wrote:

Looks like all the remaining global-warming deniers are gathered
here, on this very thread. Fascinating.

yeah and all these american neocons have such good arguments to support their view, like name calling... whats next, lowering temperature by switching to Celsius?

-- hide signature --
 Dominic Groß's gear list:Dominic Groß's gear list
Sigma DP2 Sigma DP1 Sigma DP1x Sigma SD9 Sigma SD10 +9 more
Gary Eickmeier Veteran Member • Posts: 3,479
Short Course on Global Warming

GLOBAL WARMING SHORT COURSE

Most of us believe that global warming is a serious threat to the planet, that it is caused by anthropogenic (human) activity, but the administration is ignoring it because it is too expensive to fix. You read arguments from both sides on the science of the issue, but how do you know which scientists to believe? Well, all you can do is gather together a few simple facts on the greenhouse effect and decide on a more informed basis. So let’s begin.

First, the warming from the sun would re-radiate back into space if it weren’t for an atmosphere that is held close to the surface of the planet by the force of gravity. This atmosphere acts as a greenhouse in keeping the heat in until a point of equilibrium is reached. This is a good thing, because without this effect we would be a giant iceball.

The gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect are water vapor, CO2, Methane, N2O, and miscellaneous gases such as CFCs. These gases are not equal in their global warming potential, or contribution to the effect. It all shakes out to CO2 being 72% of the contribution from gases other than water vapor. However, most of the carbon dioxide is natural, and the man-made part from driving our SUVs around is about 2.33% of the contribution from all gases excluding water vapor.

But water vapor is the 800 pound gorilla that is usually ignored in the hysterical reports from the councils that everyone is reading about. Water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse effect, which then makes the anthropogenic contribution from all of our factories, vehicles, and breathing closer to 0.117% of the total contribution - that is zero point one-one-seven percent, just in case you thought that was a typo.

So how did all the hysteria start, and why are they doing it? The simplest explanation is that there are environmental organizations that depend for their funding on “sky is falling” scenarios that they can save the world from. The scientists are pulled into it because their funding is controlled by politicians, who will pull their funding or grants unless they are coming up with the “right” answers so the politicians can save the world. This leads to a groupthink effect in which dissenters are discredited, misquoted, or fired.

Now - you can quote any source you want, or believe any argument to the contrary, but those numbers above will not change. The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory CO2 reductions (of 30%), which, in Dr. Fred Singer’s opinion, would have an undetectable effect on global warming, but have a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. I do not mean to argue against those things that we should be doing anyway, such as decreasing our dependence on foreign oil and building more mass transit systems. But those good things have nothing to do with global warming and should be approached in ways that will help, not destroy, the economy.

Sources: www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist University of Virginia, U.S. Weather Satellite Service
Dr. Wallace Broecker, Columbia University
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology, MIT

dipics Veteran Member • Posts: 4,317
Re: Global warming is either a religeon or a new substitute for communism

Tom McCarty wrote:

When the fella said all scientists agree with Al Gore, you were
supposed to know he was making a joke.. wasn't he? If not Jim Jones
is back in town.
Sadly if you disagree with the GW alarmists ( I like the GW
sticker, may make them balk ) they call you names, even Nazi...
honest, it has been in the papers.

LOL! As if you don't get called names if you agree with the majority of the scientists.

I would love it if you take a minute and get a few podcasts from
Dennis Prager's radio show.. just google to it....
The plain truth is there. He doesn't care if you agree or not, he
just wants clarity.

Now I also see the same people, PETA I think, are asking that some
polar bears be killed as they have been in captivity so long they
are accustomed to man.... and it is better to kill them than let
them live in an unreal world... hmmmm wonder if they are also
making a case for self annilation?

Sniff, sniff, it smells like someone has run out of arguments and is just throwing anything he can think of in hopes that some of it sticks.

For the record, it wasn't "the same people" (the people in discussion here being climate scientists) who want the polar bear cub killed. It is a single animal activist in Germany.

DIPics

Tom McCarty Contributing Member • Posts: 833
Re: Global warming is either a religeon or a new substitute for communism

http://dennisprager.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=c7f996f6-a340-4f8a-9317-250614e5af76
--
Try this link. The facts are here. Self declared liberal scientist

The above transcript is from the radio show which I podcast. No commercials

No talking heads off topic, no insults. No anti this.. just clarity, which I would bet many on this forum yearn

BTW polar bears can swim 20 miles in open water easily.....

dipics Veteran Member • Posts: 4,317
Re: Short Course on Global Warming

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

GLOBAL WARMING SHORT COURSE

Most of us believe that global warming is a serious threat to the
planet, that it is caused by anthropogenic (human) activity, but
the administration is ignoring it because it is too expensive to
fix. You read arguments from both sides on the science of the
issue, but how do you know which scientists to believe? Well, all
you can do is gather together a few simple facts on the greenhouse
effect and decide on a more informed basis. So let’s begin.

First, the warming from the sun would re-radiate back into space if
it weren’t for an atmosphere that is held close to the surface of
the planet by the force of gravity. This atmosphere acts as a
greenhouse in keeping the heat in until a point of equilibrium is
reached. This is a good thing, because without this effect we would
be a giant iceball.

The gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect are water vapor,
CO2, Methane, N2O, and miscellaneous gases such as CFCs. These
gases are not equal in their global warming potential, or
contribution to the effect. It all shakes out to CO2 being 72% of
the contribution from gases other than water vapor. However, most
of the carbon dioxide is natural, and the man-made part from
driving our SUVs around is about 2.33% of the contribution from all
gases excluding water vapor.

But water vapor is the 800 pound gorilla that is usually ignored in
the hysterical reports from the councils that everyone is reading
about. Water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse effect, which then
makes the anthropogenic contribution from all of our factories,
vehicles, and breathing closer to 0.117% of the total contribution

  • that is zero point one-one-seven percent, just in case you

thought that was a typo.

So how did all the hysteria start, and why are they doing it? The
simplest explanation is that there are environmental organizations
that depend for their funding on “sky is falling” scenarios that
they can save the world from. The scientists are pulled into it
because their funding is controlled by politicians, who will pull
their funding or grants unless they are coming up with the “right”
answers so the politicians can save the world. This leads to a
groupthink effect in which dissenters are discredited, misquoted,
or fired.

Now - you can quote any source you want, or believe any argument to
the contrary, but those numbers above will not change. The Kyoto
Protocol calls for mandatory CO2 reductions (of 30%), which, in Dr.
Fred Singer’s opinion, would have an undetectable effect on global
warming, but have a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. I do
not mean to argue against those things that we should be doing
anyway, such as decreasing our dependence on foreign oil and
building more mass transit systems. But those good things have
nothing to do with global warming and should be approached in ways
that will help, not destroy, the economy.

Sources: www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist University of Virginia,
U.S. Weather Satellite Service
Dr. Wallace Broecker, Columbia University
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Dr Singer has been for sale for quite some time now. Singer is also "skeptical" about the connection between CFCs and ozone depletion, between ultraviolet radiation and skin cancer and between second hand smoke and lung cancer.

Pretty much any actual science that makes someone look bad, Dr. Singer is there to call it "junk" science, for a price.

DIPics

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads