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

Polar Bear Endangered. Sort of. - Page 4

post #121 of 150
5/17/08 at 10:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Interesting question concept:

I wonder how many polar bears are going to die due to the carbon footprint of the war in Iraq?

Maybe all of them. If not, maybe laser guided bombs could easily expedite this process. Bush should get on that, because it is not like he could be hated any more than he is at this point... and it would make the polar bear thing a done deal.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #122 of 150
5/18/08 at 3:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Maybe all of them. If not, maybe laser guided bombs could easily expedite this process. Bush should get on that, because it is not like he could be hated any more than he is at this point... and it would make the polar bear thing a done deal.

Yeah! Great idea!

Careful! Smoking can be hazardous to your health!
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 #123 of 150
5/18/08 at 8:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

.....

Once again jubelum shares with us his words of wisdom.

Quote:
Scientists are saying the future is going to be far more futuristic than they originally predicted.
Reply
Reply
post #124 of 150
5/18/08 at 1:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Once again jubelum shares with us his words of wisdom.



I've always thought it was going to be far more futuristic.
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 #125 of 150
5/19/08 at 12:58pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

You are not "open" to new evidence, as presented in the well established peer reviewed climate science literature.

How do I know this to be a factually correct statement, you ask?

When have you ever provided a link to well established peer reviewed climate science literature?

The answer is never.

Therefore, you are a priori not open to new well established peer reviewed climate science literature.

Until such time that you do present new climate science from the well established peer reviewed climate science literature, then, and only then will I give you the time of day.

In short, put up, or shut up.

And your caricature of "settled science" is laughable at best, if it were "settled science" then there would be no need for further climate science research and well established peer reviewed climate science literature. D'oh!

I'll say this for you....you play the game of Let's Argue on the Internet very well. You've successfully made the debate about me instead of Teh Global Warming. So let's boil it down:

You are claiming that no credible scientist disagrees with the theory of Teh Global Warming? I had to sift through the insults to get that, but I'm just making sure here before we go on.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #126 of 150
5/19/08 at 12:59pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat Stanley View Post

Originally Posted by SDW2001
There are, in fact, dozens if not hundreds of scientists that simply don't believe we are responsible for the greenhouse effect, if it exists at all.


You can also find "scientists" who will tell you that there is no link between HIV and AIDS, but most of us question their credibility.

"Global Warming is as certain as the fact that HIV causes AIDS."

---Correct?
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #127 of 150
5/19/08 at 1:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

"Global Warming is as certain as the fact that HIV causes AIDS."

---Correct?

Oh, this should be good......
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #128 of 150
5/19/08 at 3:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Oh, this should be good......

WHo needs Front Row when you have PO?

 

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 #129 of 150
5/19/08 at 3:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'll say this for you....you play the game of Let's Argue on the Internet very well. You've successfully made the debate about me instead of Teh Global Warming. So let's boil it down:

You are claiming that no credible scientist disagrees with the theory of Teh Global Warming? I had to sift through the insults to get that, but I'm just making sure here before we go on.

... that a majority (> 50%) of global climate change is of anthropogenic origins with a probability of 90% (p = 0.9).

I not being a climate scientist, but being first an engineer and then a scientist, believe the above statement to be conservative, I believe that it is likely that 2/3 to 3/4 of global climate change is of anthropogenic origins with a probability of 95% (p = 0.95). That's my singular opinion based on my own reading of the climate science literature.

Scientific opinion on climate change
Scientific consensus
Global warming controversy
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
Category:Global warming skeptics
Category:Organizations of environmentalism skeptics and critics
Category:Former global warming skeptics

The last three links are not scientists or well established scientific bodies, for instance Rush Limbaugh is a wingnut talk radio host.

The fourth link from the bottom is a partial list of scientists from all fields of science opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. That list I'd characterize as being mostly emeritus types (i. e. old) who have opposed global climate change from the get go, and have not published extensively in the well established peer reviewed climate science literature since taking an opposing view from the mainstream scientific opinion. Nor have the vast majority conducted their own original climate science since taking their original positions against AGW. They appeal to emotion and subjectivity by critiquing the work of others without conduction unique works of their own, they formulate their arguments in the policy and political spheres, using the WWW and the MSM editorial pages as their main vehicle of presenting their dissenting views.

I refer to this sphere of influence as the blog-o-smear, it is also used in other areas of quantitative debate such as evolution and the events of 9/11 with respect to the WTC.

Now if wikipedia were to maintain a list of scientists supporting global climate change caused mainly by human actions, I would think that the length of that list would be either a high five digit number or a low six digit number. Or the percentage of all scientists who think global climate change is caused mainly by human actions would exceed 90% (I'm guessing somewhere between 95% and 99%).

I hope that answers your impossible narrowly asked question (e. g. negative proof).
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 #130 of 150
5/19/08 at 3:53pm
Hmm, a question for the scientists - not that i dispute human caused global warming, but there is something I would like to know the answer too.

Considering the suns output only varies by 0.1% cyclically and cannot be responsible for GW. Something I dont dispute.

What is the mechanism that correlates the universally low temperatures seen in the maunder, sporer, wolf and oort minimums?
Reply
Reply
post #131 of 150
5/19/08 at 5:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post

Hmm, a question for the scientists - not that i dispute human caused global warming, but there is something I would like to know the answer too.

Considering the suns output only varies by 0.1% cyclically and cannot be responsible for GW. Something I dont dispute.

What is the mechanism that correlates the universally low temperatures seen in the maunder, sporer, wolf and oort minimums?

[CENTER][/CENTER]

I'm fairly sure that come November Republican Senators will hit a local minimum which is obviously close to the current Sun spot minima.

Hypothesis, global mean political orientation highly correlates to global mean temperature.

To stop global warming you must elect liberals.
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 #132 of 150
5/20/08 at 1:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

"Global Warming is as certain as the fact that HIV causes AIDS."

---Correct?

If you rephrase it it is.

That human activity raises global temperatures higher than their natural cycle is as certain as the fact that HIV is a cause of AIDS.
Reply
Reply
post #133 of 150
5/23/08 at 3:26pm
FWIW:

Vast cracks appear in Arctic ice

Quote:
Dramatic evidence of the break-up of the Arctic ice-cap has emerged from research during an expedition by the Canadian military.

Scientists travelling with the troops found major new fractures during an assessment of the state of giant ice shelves in Canada's far north.

The team found a network of cracks that stretched for more than 10 miles (16km) on Ward Hunt, the area's largest shelf.

The fate of the vast ice blocks is seen as a key indicator of climate change.

Quote:
According to another scientist on the expedition, Dr Luke Copland of the University of Ottawa, the new cracks fit into a pattern of change in the Arctic.

"We're seeing very dramatic changes; from the retreat of the glaciers, to the melting of the sea ice.

"We had 23% less (sea ice) last year than we've ever had, and what's happening to the ice shelves is part of that picture."

After the record Arctic melting last year, all eyes are now on what happens to the sea ice this summer.
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 #134 of 150
5/25/08 at 6:15am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

If you rephrase it it is.

That human activity raises global temperatures higher than their natural cycle is as certain as the fact that HIV is a cause of AIDS.

That's pure lunacy.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #135 of 150
5/25/08 at 8:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That's pure lunacy.

Ok. I'll bite.

How, exactly?

HIV is one cause of AIDS. FACT.

Human activity raises global temperatures higher than they would be according to their natural cycle. FACT.
Reply
Reply
post #136 of 150
5/26/08 at 9:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Human activity raises global temperatures higher than they would be according to their natural cycle. FACT.

How do you know what this particular "natural cycle" would be like without humans?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #137 of 150
5/26/08 at 9:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

How do you know what this particular "natural cycle" would be like without humans?


Well we can make an educated guess by studying the geology, fossil records and ice layers of the past. You know before we were here ( and that's alot of time to see what's come before ). You can compare and see when things are drastically different. Of course you can say " Well we don't know it's due to human intervention ". However there's no reason to discount that either and in the shadow of the mountain of evidence supporting this idea it gets pretty conclusive.
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 #138 of 150
5/27/08 at 7:32am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Ok. I'll bite.

How, exactly?

HIV is one cause of AIDS. FACT.

Human activity raises global temperatures higher than they would be according to their natural cycle. FACT.


No, the latter is not a fact. Not at all. It's a theory.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #139 of 150
5/28/08 at 5:21pm
The earth is about 4 Billions years old and in the last century humans have had a profound impact on its ecosystem. Humans are too intelligent to destroy the earth. The only thing preventing change is the greed of the powerful.

I can say this after watching this... Sir Martin Rees: Earth in its final century?

Quote:
Speaking as both an astronomer and "a concerned member of the human race," Sir Martin Rees examines our planet and its future from a cosmic perspective. He urges action to prevent dark consequences from our scientific and technological development.

Suggest you all do the same.
Reply
Reply
post #140 of 150
6/15/08 at 7:29pm
Good Old Bush! What a guy!

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news...lar.Bears.Oil/


Companies get OK to annoy polar bears

All for oil!
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 #141 of 150
6/15/08 at 11:01pm
Who wants to bet GW gets hired by an oil company after leaving office?

The guy is incredible.

Polar Bears are on the Endangered List.

But that's OK, if my buddy makes some money.

 

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 #142 of 150
6/15/08 at 11:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Who wants to bet GW gets hired by an oil company after leaving office?

The guy is incredible.

Polar Bears are on the Endangered List.

But that's OK, if my buddy makes some money.

Once again... polar bears have not been classified as "endangered". They are "threatened". If they were "endangered" (which they may become) by law, even Bush couldn't allow operations that would potentially kill some of them.
Reply
Reply
post #143 of 150
6/16/08 at 2:17am
My sincere apologies... the endless rain is getting to me. I should have said Threatened list or almost on the endangered list. Almost the same thing (at lest I would like for more people to consider them almost the same) and they might be on the endangered list after all the drilling is done.

How many people must die, how many countries must fall and how many species must suffer just so the US can get its fill of oil?

 

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 #144 of 150
6/16/08 at 11:14am
Thread Starter 
You guys are unreal. You really are.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #145 of 150
6/17/08 at 6:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You guys are unreal. You really are.

Unfortunately SDW it's all too real!
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 #146 of 150
6/17/08 at 11:40am
In my statistics class the other day, the Professor (who is a physics Prof. that also teaches statistics) was going off on a tangent about global warming statistics, and he said something along the lines of: "While many scientists are on the side of GW as a real event, not one single climatologist has signed off on GW as 'real'. "

I was going to call him on it, but wasn't completely certain he was wrong, and the class had already spent enough time O.T. I just wanted to ask if anyone knows whether he is off base or not, I have been Googling but haven't come up with any concrete statistics either way.

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 #147 of 150
6/17/08 at 12:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

In my statistics class the other day, the Professor (who is a physics Prof. that also teaches statistics) was going off on a tangent about global warming statistics, and he said something along the lines of: "While many scientists are on the side of GW as a real event, not one single climatologist has signed off on GW as 'real'. "

I was going to call him on it, but wasn't completely certain he was wrong, and the class had already spent enough time O.T. I just wanted to ask if anyone knows whether he is off base or not, I have been Googling but haven't come up with any concrete statistics either way.


The vast majority of climatologist support the IPCC AR4 WG1 report, but when he said climatologist he may have been referring to something else like statisticians. Out of curiosity, how old is he?

Scientific opinion on climate change

Wikipedia keyword search for "climatologist".

Wikipedia "climatologist" links to Climatology.
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 #148 of 150
8/13/08 at 10:05am
Instead of just interpreting rules and regulations, why not just change them.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...laxed-by-bush/
Quote:
The Bush administration wants federal agencies to decide for themselves whether highways, dams, mines and other construction projects might harm endangered animals and plants.

New regulations, which don't require the approval of Congress, would reduce the mandatory, independent reviews that government scientists have been performing for 35 years, according to a draft obtained by the Associated Press.

The draft rules also would bar federal agencies from assessing the emissions from projects that contribute to global warming and its effect on species and habitats.

Secretary of the Interior, Dirk Kempthorn, responsible for the proposed changes was lauded by Bush,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ecretary_x.htm
Quote:
"Dirk understands that those who live closest to the land know how to manage it best, and he will work closely with state and local leaders to ensure wise stewardship of our resources," Bush said.

Riiight.
Eliminating potentially opposing facts, opinion is always the right way to go as this administration has so unerringly shown.
Reply
Reply
post #149 of 150
8/13/08 at 10:22am
If anyone has the chance, they should see Werner Herzog's new documentary "Encounters at the End of the World.". These scientists working in Antarctica know what is happening and are fearful that their findings are being unheard. The sacrifices these people deal with to get the knowledge they seek are unimaginable.

Trailer, website and an interview with the great Werner Herzog.
Reply
Reply
post #150 of 150
8/14/08 at 8:41am
How do idiots like this get elected?
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpoi...ntalists_j.php
Quote:
We like to keep track of the, er, intriguing sayings of Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, the Christian Right champion from Minnesota. But this latest is really out there -- Bachmann says we don't need pesky environmentalists like Nancy Pelosi around, because Jesus already saved the planet!

If I read this poll correctly,
http://www.electionprojection.com/premium/2008/mn08.php
she will be re-elected.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Polar Bear Endangered. Sort of.