or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Polar Bear Endangered. Sort of.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Polar Bear Endangered. Sort of.

post #1 of 150
Thread Starter 
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1


Well, a new level of Teh Global Warming hysteria has been reached: We're protecting a species as "endangered" even though their numbers have increased five fold in the last 40 years.

The reason? Teh Global Warming, of course! Here's a fun quote:

Quote:
He said that computer models projected declines in sea ice averaging 30 per cent by the middle of the century. Scientists predict that as a result, two-thirds of polar bears could disappear by then.


Also:
Quote:
...because of the decline in Arctic sea ice from global warming, officials said Wednesday.


Hmmm. Except here's a pickle: That quote is patently false. Sea ice is not decreasing, but increasing. Really...look it up.

So here we have an action taken to protect a species whose numbers are increasing, supported by predictions of what might happen, which in turn are based on the lie that sea ice is decreasing. Action supported by prediction supported by another prediction supported by claim that is demonstrably false. Nice.

Let the hysteria continue!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2 of 150
You really are a piece of work.
post #3 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Really...look it up.

"Now, I know some of you might say, "I did look it up and that's false." But that's because you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut!"

No.

Quote:
Using the latest satellite observations, NASA researchers and others report that the Arctic is still on "thin ice" when it comes to the condition of sea ice cover in the region. A colder-than-average winter in some regions of the Arctic this year has yielded an increase in the area of new sea ice, while the older sea ice that lasts for several years has continued to decline.

P.S., you really are begging for a spanking courtesy of Vicksburg's finest, aren't you?
post #4 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Let the hysteria continue!

NASA Study Links Earth Impacts to Human-Caused Climate Change

Quote:
Cynthia Rosenzweig of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Science in New York and scientists at 10 other institutions have linked physical and biological impacts since 1970 with rises in temperatures during that period. The study, to be published May 15 in the journal Nature, concludes human-caused warming is resulting in a broad range of impacts across the globe.

"This is the first study to link global temperature data sets, climate model results, and observed changes in a broad range of physical and biological systems to show the link between humans, climate, and impacts," said Rosenzweig, lead author of the study.

Rosenzweig and colleagues also found the link between human-caused climate change and observed impacts on Earth holds true at the scale of individual continents, particularly in North America, Europe, and Asia.

To arrive at the link, the authors built and analyzed a database of more than 29,000 data series pertaining to observed impacts on Earth's natural systems. The data were collected from about 80 studies, each with at least 20 years of records between 1970 and 2004.

...and...

Quote:
Some of the most compelling evidence of global warming comes to us from NASA. No longer do we need to rely on guesswork and computer modeling, because satellite images reveal a dramatic disappearance of glaciers, Antarctic ice shelves and polar ice sheets. And I've seen some of this evidence up close. A few years ago I traveled to the area of Svalbard, Norway, a group of islands in the Arctic Ocean. I was shown the southernmost point where a glacier had reached twenty years earlier. From there, we had to venture northward up the fjord to see where that same glacier ends today -- because all the rest has melted. On a trip to Alaska, I heard about a national park visitor's center that was built to offer a picture-perfect view of a large glacier. Problem is, the glacier is gone. A work of nature that took ages to form had melted away in a matter of decades.

Our scientists have also seen and measured reduced snowpack, with earlier runoffs in the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere. We have seen sustained drought in the Southwest, and across the world average temperatures that seem to reach new records every few years. We have seen a higher incidence of extreme weather events. In the frozen wilds of Alaska, the Arctic, Antarctic, and elsewhere, wildlife biologists have noted sudden changes in animal migration patterns, a loss of their habitat, a rise in sea levels. And you would think that if the polar bears, walruses, and sea birds have the good sense to respond to new conditions and new dangers, then humanity can respond as well.

- John McCain May 12, 2008

The whole Polar Bear link may be bullshit, I know...but they should have protected status. Especially from this asshat.

But honestly, I'm going to wait for the God Almighty and Jesus Christ Climate Change results to be announced until I accept anything. But you know them two, haven't made a peep in over 3,000 years or more.

Keep me posted SDW when you hear something.
post #5 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Keep me posted SDW when you hear something.

Good luck, he's probably left this thread already, like so many other threads.
post #6 of 150
Reminds me of the AP photo of the polar bears... floating on ice... as some sort of evidence of AGW. As if, uh, polar bears don't, well, float on sea ice. It was almost like CNN could have used cuts from Waterworld as their stock footage.

Complete sophistry.

"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #7 of 150
Secretary Kempthorne Announces Decision to Protect Polar Bears under Endangered Species Act

Rule will allow continuation of vital energy production in Alaska

Quote:
Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne today announced that he is accepting the recommendation of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The listing is based on the best available science, which shows that loss of sea ice threatens and will likely continue to threaten polar bear habitat. This loss of habitat puts polar bears at risk of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future, the standard established by the ESA for designating a threatened species.

In making the announcement, Kempthorne said, “I am also announcing that this listing decision will be accompanied by administrative guidance and a rule that defines the scope of impact my decision will have, in order to protect the polar bear while limiting the unintended harm to the society and economy of the United States.”

Kempthorne further stated, “While the legal standards under the ESA compel me to list the polar bear as threatened, I want to make clear that this listing will not stop global climate change or prevent any sea ice from melting. Any real solution requires action by all major economies for it to be effective. That is why I am taking administrative and regulatory action to make certain the ESA isn’t abused to make global warming policies.”

Carry on...

post #8 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1


Well, a new level of Teh Global Warming hysteria has been reached: We're protecting a species as "endangered" even though their numbers have increased five fold in the last 40 years.

The reason? Teh Global Warming, of course! Here's a fun quote:




Also:


Hmmm. Except here's a pickle: That quote is patently false. Sea ice is not decreasing, but increasing. Really...look it up.

So here we have an action taken to protect a species whose numbers are increasing, supported by predictions of what might happen, which in turn are based on the lie that sea ice is decreasing. Action supported by prediction supported by another prediction supported by claim that is demonstrably false. Nice.

Let the hysteria continue!


We need to get guys that think like you out of government soon!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #9 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Good luck, he's probably left this thread already, like so many other threads.

Probably.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #10 of 150
John McCain outlines a plan to tackle global warming

Quote:
Distancing himself from President Bush, John McCain pledged a new era of environmental stewardship Monday as he outlined his plan to address global warming, a cause he has embraced since activists hounded him during his 2000 run for president.

At a wind turbine manufacturer here, McCain called for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 60% by mid-century and pledged to take the lead in pressing rising economic powers India and China to cut emissions.

Quote:
Referring to melting glaciers in the Arctic Ocean and the vanishing habitats of polar bears and walruses, the Arizona senator and presumptive Republican nominee for president said it was time to stop quibbling over the causes of global warming. He pledged to "deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring."

\
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #11 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Reminds me of the AP photo of the polar bears... floating on ice... as some sort of evidence of AGW. As if, uh, polar bears don't, well, float on sea ice. It was almost like CNN could have used cuts from Waterworld as their stock footage.

Complete sophistry.



Did they show the location of the ice, and its distance from more ice? Ice melts as it heads south and the image obviously shows melting (unless the bears dug the hole just for fun - look ma, we made a jungle gym). Sure, they swim, too, but they have to swim long distances to find solid ice. If they float on ice that then floats south, then they move south, too, where they can't live. If the ice moves away from other ice, they have to swim further, sometimes possibly not making it.

Why are some people (like our current government) so opposed to actually trying to help make a better world and thus country for us to live in?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #12 of 150
Imagine a news story 100 years from now:

Last century, people had the knowledge to recognize global warmer and had the ability to do something about it but rather chose to focus on their own short-term well-being as they understood it, meaning they primarily focused on the economy and ignored the few polar bears that were seen here and there struggling for survival. A few people increased their wealth over the next several years and patted themselves on the back for a job well-done.

Today, many years after those great leaders have passed away, their legacy remains: the project to move the White House to its new location in order to avoid the rising seas finally got underway after years of planning and heckling over budgeting. Construction of the Manhatten Dike was completed last year slightly under budget, so the spare funds are being diverted to the White House move. To secure funds for the WH project, cuts to education and veterans benefits were slashed and taxes raised, again. Sadly, the NY dike is only expected to hold for 50 years, so people continue to move from the Big Wet Apple to higher land. GDP has dropped another 3%, making for a total drop of just under 25% in the past decade due largely to mass evacuations from the county's coastal areas. Martial law continues to be in effect.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #13 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Why are some people (like our current government) so opposed to actually trying to help make a better world and thus country for us to live in?

Because the things being proposed will only make a "better world" in the view of people who are completely in love with telling others how to live their lives.

You've swallowed the premise that global warming is all our fault, and that anyone who does not buy that premise hook, line, and sinker must "not want a better world." Horse shit. If you wanted to stop global climate shifts, or create them, and were given any power you wanted to achieve the goal... you'd fail. You don't control the sun. You don't control volcanoes. You don't control water vapor. And come to think of it, you had nothing to do with climate shifts for millions of years before Albert Gore found a new way to push his central planning wet dreams.

The global warming hysteria is the new home for the 60s left... and anyone who dares to challenge their usurpations of personal freedom is labeled as a "planet hater" and tarred accordingly. (Sure to follow in responses to this very post... )
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #14 of 150
wow, berg... that could happen... however that doesn't really help the discussion...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #15 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Because the things being proposed will only make a "better world" in the view of people who are completely in love with telling others how to live their lives.

The religious right? what do they have to do with global warming?


Quote:
You've swallowed the premise that global warming is all our fault, and that anyone who does not buy that premise hook, line, and sinker must "not want a better world."

it doesn't have to be our fault. climate change modeling doesn't depend upon source of heating drivers, just that they exist. these models are telling us that we should have been doing *something* for years now...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #16 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Imagine a news story 100 years from now:

Last century, people had the knowledge to recognize global warmer and had the ability to do something about it but rather chose to focus on their own short-term well-being as they understood it, meaning they primarily focused on the economy and ignored the few polar bears that were seen here and there struggling for survival. A few people increased their wealth over the next several years and patted themselves on the back for a job well-done.

Today, many years after those great leaders have passed away, their legacy remains: the project to move the White House to its new location in order to avoid the rising seas finally got underway after years of planning and heckling over budgeting. Construction of the Manhatten Dike was completed last year slightly under budget, so the spare funds are being diverted to the White House move. To secure funds for the WH project, cuts to education and veterans benefits were slashed and taxes raised, again. Sadly, the NY dike is only expected to hold for 50 years, so people continue to move from the Big Wet Apple to higher land. GDP has dropped another 3%, making for a total drop of just under 25% in the past decade due largely to mass evacuations from the county's coastal areas. Martial law continues to be in effect.

What flavor was that Kool Aide? At least you have your talking points and fear-mongering tactics straight.

Do you mind if I get in on this "news story from the future" thing? I have a few I'd like to write while we are vacationing in la-la land.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #17 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

The religious right? what do they have to do with global warming?

That was almost funny. It seems to be the professional self-appointed do-gooders who want to tell me what to drive, what to eat, how to raise my kids, what light bulbs to use, when to use my fireplace to warm my family, when it's OK to use my AC in my home... shall I go on?

Beware, planet hysteria masturbators... empowering government in this way WILL come back to haunt you. (Remember how the government you guys worshipped got SOOOOOoooooo out of control in violating people's rights under Bush? Of course, then you scream, because the power you've handed the government is not being used in the way you intended, but now, you guys are doing it yet again.)

If you want to empower the government to tell your fellow citizens how to live their lives, then you need to be prepared that the government will, at some point in the future, have the power to tell you how to live yours. The saddest part is that some of you (especially one I can think of in Hong Kong) are perfectly fine with ceding your liberty for the illusion of "security" or the so-called "common good."

Quote:
it doesn't have to be our fault. climate change modeling doesn't depend upon source of heating drivers, just that they exist. these models are telling us that we should have been doing *something* for years now...

Um... if the sun increases its output we get hotter. And apparently that should translate into higher carbon taxes, et al? See what I am getting at here? YOU DON'T CONTROL THE SYSTEM.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #18 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Um... if the sun increases its output we get hotter. And apparently that should translate into higher carbon taxes, et al? See what I am getting at here? YOU DON'T CONTROL THE SYSTEM.

Well the sun hasn't been getting hotter, so try again?

Maybe you don't realize how much we do affect changes in the environment. Tomorrow, just to help you envision it, imagine what your neighborhood looked like 100 years ago, 1000? Perhaps this task is daunting, but if you really try you would realize that we, in our own little carpenter ant fashion have refashioned the world to make it easier for us to live. There is nothing wrong with that per se. Unfortunately, we seem to be unable to admit or even fathom that some of those changes could be bad for us in the short and long term... We have brains, let's start planning sustainability... if you have an actual intellectual argument against sustainability, i would love to hear it, otherwise shut your mouth...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #19 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

if you have an actual intellectual argument against sustainability, i would love to hear it, otherwise shut your mouth...

Why thank you, hardee... I missed your particular style. And sorry, I will not "shut up" because that is exactly what you want people to do, after you throw out some strawman attempt like "sustainability."

I'm referring to AGW, that's what we've been discussing, not "sustainability."

Go ahead and define "sustainability" so that I know we are on the same page. That particular word is ideologically loaded... I mean, who is against the dictionary definition of "sustainability"?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #20 of 150
I have said it many times but will say it again.

If GW isn't really our fault and we do nothing, nothing is lost and we keep the same dirty planet.
If GW isn't our fault and we do something, we get a cleaner planet.
If GW is our fault and we do something, maybe our grandkids can live peaceful lives.
If GW is our fault and we do nothing, then everybody gets screwed because of our selfishness.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #21 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Why thank you, hardee... I missed your particular style. And sorry, I will not "shut up" because that is exactly what you want people to do, after you throw out some strawman attempt like "sustainability."

I'm referring to AGW, that's what we've been discussing, not "sustainability."

Go ahead and define "sustainability" so that I know we are on the same page. That particular word is ideologically loaded... I mean, who is against the dictionary definition of "sustainability"?

Dictionary definition here.

And discussion of AGW is no different than discussion of GW, causation isn't of concern... solving associated issues, and projecting changes that can be made by people is... so perhaps you want to argue that we can't do anything to the environment (that seems to be what you are arguing), and well, that argument is more horse shit than anything anyone has ever attempted to pass off on this forum before.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #22 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

If GW isn't really our fault and we do nothing, nothing is lost and we keep the same dirty planet.
If GW isn't our fault and we do something, we get a cleaner planet.

First of all, our planet is not "dirty." Second, please show me how all that has been done for "global warming" to this point has had a single, demonstrable result.

Quote:
If GW is our fault and we do something, maybe our grandkids can live peaceful lives.

I hate to break this to you, but your grandkids and mine will not live peaceful lives. Nor free ones, if the kind of crap we've tolerated and is being proposed to expand happens.

Quote:
If GW is our fault and we do nothing, then everybody gets screwed because of our selfishness.

My favourite liberal word- "selfishness." I asked tonton about this a long time ago... at what point is there a line where you respect the individual and don't try to control them through the "you're being selfish" argument?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #23 of 150
All the blabbing about the economy is interesting because it assumes a permanent continuation of the status quo. Business and tech and lifestyles change and adapt over time. New opportunities arise and people jump in and manage to make fortunes. Striving to do something about GW will do just that: create new opportunities.

A housing reform company down the street from me advertises that they can improve a home's energy efficiency, not just make it look better. This is adaptation.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #24 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

First of all, our planet is not "dirty."

Drunk any unfiltered water from a local lake recently?

Didn't think so.

The planet is very dirty.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #25 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Dictionary definition here.

And discussion of AGW is no different than discussion of GW, causation isn't of concern... solving associated issues, and projecting changes that can be made by people is... so perhaps you want to argue that we can't do anything to the environment (that seems to be what you are arguing), and well, that argument is more horse shit than anything anyone has ever attempted to pass off on this forum before.

I am for sustainable food production methods. I am for sustainable... well, everything. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who does not want to conduct things in a way that is not destructive. The reason you guys have chosen "sustainable" is the same reason that you put the term "reasonable" and "common sense" in front of whacko policy proposals. I mean, who is against "reasonable" and "common sense" and "sustainable." I need to see what you call "sustainable" to decide if that is what it is really about... or just the predictable rhetorical usage of such terminology.

And please, hardee, stop spinning my statements. I have not said that we cannot affect the environment (more moving the goalpost here)... I stated that, if you wanted to melt every glacier on the globe and were given a trillion dollars to do it, you'd have one hell of a time getting it accomplished, absent a normal climate cycle. Can we cause localised damage, like the Exxon Valdez? The Cuyahoga River? Sure. But changing the entire global climate, when it changed so many times without us here as the cancer on the planet, is an altogether different thing.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #26 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Drunk any unfiltered water from a local lake recently?

Well... not in the states certainly... in a pristine piece of costa rica, from a mountain stream, sure...

however, i wouldn't drink water from a lake in costa rica, even a pristine one... there is a significant difference in the sorts of microbial nasties that you get from flowing water and from sitting water...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #27 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

My favourite liberal word- "selfishness." I asked tonton about this a long time ago... at what point is there a line where you respect the individual and don't try to control them through the "you're being selfish" argument?

And I replied that it's when the damage done to yourself by not doing what you want is greater than the collective damage done to others by doing it.

For instance, it doesn't do you any damage to not smoke in public places, or it does little damage, the greatest of which being "makes you feel uncomfortable, itching for that drag". Meanwhile, it does damage to others, like increasing their chance of getting cancer. Therefore it's crossed the line.

Meanwhile, driving your kids to their soccer match in a Volvo station wagon instead of a Humvee doesn't harm you or your kids at all (makes them less "cool"?) Meanwhile it increases gas prices and pollution, as well as danger for other cars on the road in the event of a collision. Therefore it's crossed the line.

While having gay butt-sex in your kitchen does no harm to anyone, so it's not a selfish thing to do.
post #28 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Drunk any unfiltered water from a local lake recently?

Didn't think so.

The planet is very dirty.

Yep, I did. And swam in it. And kayaked in it. I do it every weekend. (There's your smug "didn't think so" there in the rubbish.)
Hows about you guys go fix your lakes and watersheds, and leave me and my drinkable, swimmable, and enjoyable water alone?
(Don't worry... there is already an army of Sierra Club idiots here that want to keep us out of the river we've enjoyed in our community for 200+ years, because we might "harm the environment")

The planet is not "very dirty." You need to come the US, where our capitalist system has created technologies that clean up messes created by people across the globe, and where free people who enjoy private property have a stake in keeping up the value of said property.

BTW... what part of Germany are you in?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #29 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

And please, hardee, stop spinning my statements. I have not said that we cannot affect the environment (more moving the goalpost here)... I stated that, if you wanted to melt every glacier on the globe and were given a trillion dollars to do it, you'd have one hell of a time getting it accomplished, absent a normal climate cycle. Can we cause localised damage, like the Exxon Valdez? The Cuyahoga River? Sure. But changing the entire global climate, when it changed so many times without us here as the cancer on the planet, is an altogether different thing.

I am not so sure you understand our impact... I wouldn't even know where to begin to suggest you start learning... from desertification to reductions in rainfall due to deforestations, i don't see how it is even possible for anyone to believe that we cannot affect the global environment...

i mean, you were alive for the whole ozone fiasco, and no, that wasn't hysteria, it is a profound testament to our ability to help the environment correct itself by stopping something that is directly harming it..

this is the same goal post setting of the anti-evolutionists, micro-environmental changes but not macro... you and dmz should compare notes...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #30 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And I replied that it's when the damage done to yourself by not doing what you want is greater than the collective damage done to others by doing it.

That statement is a thing of beauty... unfortunately it is very difficult to quantify, and where it will ultimately fail. Good in theory though.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #31 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

While having gay butt-sex in your kitchen does no harm to anyone, so it's not a selfish thing to do.

Ahhhh HA! Caught you (in a logical problem, not gay butt sex )

I think I can say that gay butt sex is a behaviour that creates a higher than average risk of transmission of HIV, and the costs of treating that person with HIV may fall on the public system, which means that gay butt sex can be argued to damage the, er, whole.

Remember kids... Gay Butt Sex is Selfish!
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #32 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Ahhhh HA! Caught you (in a logical problem, not gay butt sex )

I think I can say that gay butt sex is a behaviour that creates a higher than average risk of transmission of HIV, and the costs of treating that person with HIV may fall on the public system, which means that gay butt sex can be argued to damage the, er, whole.

Remember kids... Gay Butt Sex is Selfish!

Use a condom! And heterosexual butt-sex is just as dangerous. Vaginal sex a little less so, but still more dangerous than abstinence or protected sex.

In fact, Catholic condoned unprotected vaginal sex is more dangerous with regard to HIV and other diseases than protected gay butt-sex.
post #33 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

"Now, I know some of you might say, "I did look it up and that's false." But that's because you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut!"

No.



P.S., you really are begging for a spanking courtesy of Vicksburg's finest, aren't you?

I haven't looked at the most recent images, but as others have already indicated, the growth is in current year old ice (i. e. this winter). It will almost certainly to disappear by the late summer/early fall (August/September) timeframe.

Once we reach the summer solstice, with the Earth's North Pole fully exposed 247, that year old ice will disappear very quickly, so that what was an albedo ~1 (almost full reflection), now becomes an albedo ~0 (almost full absorption).

The polar regions (particularly the North Pole are most sensitive to increasing CO2 "thermal blanket" simply because there is no permanent land mass at the North Pole like there is at the South Pole.

But even adjacent to the perimeter of the South Pole and adjacent regions of South America there are dramatic increases of summer temperatures and extensive glacial losses. Heck once you are away from Antarctica, it's mostly ocean waters, since there is very little land mass in the Southern Hemisphere (i. e. dark oceans with an albedo ~0).

This is the range of Polar bears (taken from wikipedia);

[CENTER][/CENTER]

And this is the USGS (I almost ended up working for them, but then I ran off to grad school) Prediction of habitat loss;

[CENTER][/CENTER]

This USGS projection makes sense when you look at the sea ice images, since most of the multi-year ice is concentrated near the land masses closest to the North Pole between Greenland and Alaska (the most pronounced blue band).

This is just off the top of my head stuff, as I just started reading this thread, so I may not have all the pertinent facts stated correctly.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #34 of 150
If things are so clean, then why does the government have a special program to monitor beach closings due to pollution?

http://oaspub.epa.gov/beacon/beacon_...t_beacon#about

And we wouldn't need to have programs like this:

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/...ter-pollution/

And we wouldn't be worried about cleaning up the Great Lakes:
http://video.nationalgeographic.com/...ter-pollution/

This site is interesting:

http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases/us-map.tcl

The US has 2262 watersheds (which provide us with our drinking water).
Of these, 36% are labeled to have "less serious quality problems" and 23% are labeled as having "more serious quality problems" by the EPA.
http://www.scorecard.org/env-release...us.tcl#summary

Then there is smog and areas of "non-attainment":http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases/cap/

Quite a few on that list.

ITexas water body info:
http://www.scorecard.org/env-release...ode=48#ranking
Over 90 water bodies in Texas are ranked Medium or higher on the need for regulation.
64% are affected with pathogens, 19% with metals, and 8% with pesticides.

I would be careful where I drank, but I guess things aren't as dirty as it seems.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #35 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Use a condom! And heterosexual butt-sex is just as dangerous. Vaginal sex a little less so, but still more dangerous than abstinence or protected sex.

In fact, Catholic condoned unprotected vaginal sex is more dangerous with regard to HIV and other diseases than protected gay butt-sex.

OK... let me back that out a little...

Sex is selfish! It can lead to pregnancy, and pregnancy costs the public health system billions each year... so sex is selfish! Put some of this into practice, especially with the issue of "sustainability" and shazzam!- China's One Child policy.


(I'll now celebrate a selfish after sex smoke as a finisher to my selfish sex)

"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #36 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

I wouldn't even know where to begin to suggest you start learning.

One might suggest looking at photos:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/pollution/

http://images.google.com/images?um=1...=Search+Images

Spend a few moments flipping through either set and if you come away with a sense the planet is clean then you need to adjust your glasses.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #37 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

I would be careful where I drank, but I guess things aren't as dirty as it seems.

Those are some valuable links... some good data in there.

Rather than reposting, one piece at a time, my take on many of these issues... here's a post from the other AGW thread.

I do not have a problem with environmental regulations. I have a problem with someone dictating to other people, with the unimpeachable mantle of "scientist," how they should make the most basic decisions in their lives.

I just wonder if we turned on this energy we've somehow found to "fight AGW" on real environmental issues that are hurting people, right here, right now, with little outrage by comparison. Things like GMO. Things like international food production standards (fertilizer and pesticides) that allows international corporate agriculture to put outlawed poisons on our family dinner tables with no alternative we can afford. Fluoride lowering IQs of our kids. I find the self-evident things we are doing to ourselves and our populations on a daily basis is much more urgent and relevant to human survival than 1 degree in who-knows-how-many-decades that we cannot be sure would not have been there had we not ever existed.

Right now fluoridated water is making your kid dumber... but hey... "Save the Polar Bears!"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #38 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Because the things being proposed will only make a "better world" in the view of people who are completely in love with telling others how to live their lives.

You've swallowed the premise that global warming is all our fault, and that anyone who does not buy that premise hook, line, and sinker must "not want a better world." Horse shit. If you wanted to stop global climate shifts, or create them, and were given any power you wanted to achieve the goal... you'd fail. You don't control the sun. You don't control volcanoes. You don't control water vapor. And come to think of it, you had nothing to do with climate shifts for millions of years before Albert Gore found a new way to push his central planning wet dreams.

The global warming hysteria is the new home for the 60s left... and anyone who dares to challenge their usurpations of personal freedom is labeled as a "planet hater" and tarred accordingly. (Sure to follow in responses to this very post... )

Volcanic eruptions are short term (short of a megavolcano, in which case all bets are off, as in run for the hills on the next continent)) and overall don't contribute significantly relative to GHG emissions of human origin.

Water vapor is a given, it's already part and parcel with the carbon cycle, the atmosphere can hold only so much water vapor, and then you know, it kind of rains.

The sun? D'oh! That's what's known as a non sequitur. I happen to have done a lot of recent work with sun spot data and solar irradiation empirical data, so the first thing to realize is that there are no predictive models for solar variations, it's simply too complex, anyone that suggests otherwise is simply blowing smoke up their own arse.

Also sun spot cycles are on a ~22-year cycle, not 11-year as suggested by laypeople, simply because the Sun changes polarity north-south-north, but sun spot numbers, in and of themselves, make no distinction as to the sign of this polarity. I know what I'm talking about, as I've analyzed literally thousands of ocean wave gage time series.

So basically, the historic sun spot data is unsigned positive, with a minimum of zero, so that when looking at historic sunspot data and attempting to correlate it to instrumental irradiance data, the sun spot data shows zero correlation to the instrumental record as it approaches zero.

But please skip over the above, and ask yourself this question;

How does one put a metric to the Sun when there are no sun spots? Oh, look no sun spots, but my thermometer and my toes say the Earth is freezing, therefore let's give the Sun a -100 sunspots.

Anyway, approximately 30-years of instrumental data shows that for that period of record, solar fluctuations are something like 1 part in 1,400 parts (I would have to confirm that, since it's been a while).

As to the rest of your "argument" (it's the basic talking points incoherent rant hoisted upon it's own petard), how should I say it?

Basically it doesn't hold water.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #39 of 150
[CENTER][/CENTER]

Seriously, SDW needs to go see a shrink, or SDW is female, and it's you know, that time of the month.

Because SDW starts one of these nonsense threads with 28 day clockwork like precision.

Would somebody please put this AGW contrarian n00b lacking a brain into a straight jacket.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #40 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

First of all, our planet is not "dirty."

You could only say this if you haven't actually travelled to the 'planet' to see it, because 'the planet' is filthy. This is why when you go travelling to 'wilderness' places you take water tablets to make your water potable and why there's a great big swamp of plastic granules in the central Pacific, and the reefs are dying, seahorses are rare and it hurts your eyes to go out in the afternoon in Lagos, Beijing, Cairo, Mumbai, Mexico City and probably some places in North America too.

Also the planet is over-populated and over exploited, which is why it's filthy.

Also, climate change is our fault and to deny it is like denying the age of the universe or that slavery ever happened and stuff, and you're going to feel like such a bell-end in thirty years, Jubelum.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Polar Bear Endangered. Sort of.