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

Polar Bear Endangered. Sort of. - Page 2

post #41 of 150
Thread Starter 
I would just like to say I'm enjoying reading the vitriol and complete insanity coming from some of our more liberal members posts.

Polar Bear Population in the 1970s--Approximately 5,000

Polar Bear population today---Approximately 25,000

Protecting a species under the Endangered Species Act when said species has increased five-fold in the last 35 years? Priceless.

Carry on.


EDIT: Oh wait, I forgot to address the bogus "sea ice" argument you've all been having:

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/...&sd=14&sy=2008

See any major differences in the high-concentration areas? Hmmm. Of course that doesn't tell the whole story:

Quote:

While recent studies have shown that on the whole Arctic sea ice has decreased since the late 1970s, satellite records of sea ice around Antarctica reveal an overall increase in the southern hemisphere ice over the same period. Continued decreases or increases could have substantial impacts on polar climates, because sea ice spreads over a vast area, reflects solar radiation away from the Earth’s surface, and insulates the oceans from the atmosphere.


In a study just published in the Annals of Glaciology, Claire Parkinson of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center analyzed the length of the sea ice season throughout the Southern Ocean to obtain trends in sea ice coverage. Parkinson examined 21 years (1979-1999) of Antarctic sea ice satellite records and discovered that, on average, the area where southern sea ice seasons have lengthened by at least one day per year is roughly twice as large as the area where sea ice seasons have shortened by at least one day per year. One day per year equals three weeks over the 21-year period.
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 #42 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

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

Great, I have some golden beaches in India I'd like to sell you.

I have also beautiful man-made islands of shiny plastic bigger than the size of Texas!


Hurry, because time is running out for Texas alone, unless keeping their top pollution ranking is an achievement to be proud of.



Yeehaw.
post #43 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I would just like to say I'm enjoying reading the vitriol and complete insanity coming from some of our more liberal members posts.

Polar Bear Population in the 1970s--Approximately 5,000

Polar Bear population today---Approximately 25,000

Protecting a species under the Endangered Species Act when said species has increased five-fold in the last 35 years? Priceless.

Carry on.


EDIT: Oh wait, I forgot to address the bogus "sea ice" argument you've all been having:

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/...&sd=14&sy=2008

See any major differences in the high-concentration areas? Hmmm. Of course that doesn't tell the whole story:

I'll say it again, what a piece of work you are.
You really oughta do some research before you post some of the crap you come up with.
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/
Quote:
In the 1960s and 1970s, hunting was the major threat to the bears. At the time, polar bears were under such severe survival pressure from hunters that a landmark international accord was reached, despite the tensions and suspicions of the Cold War. The International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears was signed in Oslo, November 15, 1973 by the five nations with polar bear populations: Canada, Denmark (Greenland, Norway, the U.S., and the former U.S.S.R.

You didn't really think that 5,000 was a normal population did you?
They were being hunted by planes and helicopters for christ's sake.

As to your bogus "sea ice" link, it says,
Quote:
While recent studies have shown that on the whole Arctic sea ice has decreased since the late 1970

See the bolded Arctic?
Now were is it increasing?
Quote:
sea ice around Antarctica reveal an overall increase in the southern hemisphere ice over the same period.

See the bolded Antarctica.
Ain't no Polar Bears in Antarctica.

So what was your point?
post #44 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

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.


I didn't really respond to this and I think I should, although I find it completely unnecessary to give you a personal definition of a word -- even acknowledging that such memes exist saddens me as the strength of our ability to communicate is predicated on some sort of consistent semblance of meaning.

Regardless, i am for a mix of carrot and stick environmental policy. Sticks where companies should know better -- superfund type idiocies. Carrots where good science tells us improvements can be made at some cost. You punish the corporations/people who willingly and knowingly destroy the environment, you benefit, through a variety of economic stimuli, the corporations/people who try to make it a better place above the norm. Of course, in a perfect world the norm is a moving target towards the dictionary definition of sustainability... Any action in the environment which is not sustainable should eventually be punished, any action that improves the conditions of the environment should be acknowledged and benefited...
"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 #45 of 150
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

I'll say it again, what a piece of work you are.
You really oughta do some research before you post some of the crap you come up with.
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/

You didn't really think that 5,000 was a normal population did you?
They were being hunted by planes and helicopters for christ's sake.

As if I didn't know that. You know, that's the thing with some of you lefties out there. You're assumption is always that you know more. Why? Because...well..you do, of course!

I never said 5,000 was normal. The point is that the population is NOT GOING DOWN. Jesus. Should I post in another language for you? The population has quintupled. And now they are "threatened." Right.

Quote:

As to your bogus "sea ice" link, it says,

See the bolded Arctic?
Now were is it increasing?

See the bolded Antarctica.
Ain't no Polar Bears in Antarctica.

So what was your point?

It was merely to discuss overall sea ice levels. It's not the catastrophe it's been made out to be. Of course, neither is Teh Global Warming. But hey, why let that stop the hysteria. Sometimes I wonder what you guys are going to say when, in 10 years, Teh Global Warming is exposed as the fucking fraud it is. I don't think there is enough bulletin board space for my gloating.
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 #46 of 150
GW basics 101: it will not warm evenly across the globe.
Some areas will increase in temperature, others will decrease. The overall net change is an increase.

Simple understanding of how weather works.

 

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 #47 of 150
The next thing the left will tell us that DDT and lead and mercury are dangerous.
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
post #48 of 150
The peregrine falcon lobby is 100 times more powerful than the chemical/ industrial lobby.

Haven'tcha heard?
post #49 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I would just like to say I'm enjoying reading the vitriol and complete insanity coming from some of our more liberal members posts.

Polar Bear Population in the 1970s--Approximately 5,000

Polar Bear population today---Approximately 25,000

Protecting a species under the Endangered Species Act when said species has increased five-fold in the last 35 years? Priceless.

Carry on.


EDIT: Oh wait, I forgot to address the bogus "sea ice" argument you've all been having:

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/...&sd=14&sy=2008

See any major differences in the high-concentration areas? Hmmm. Of course that doesn't tell the whole story:

You need to go back to your first link, as it fully supports the AGW viewpoint, look only at the actual sea ice (shades of pink through purple), it is quite clear that the polar ice cap is thinner in most areas.

And don't even suggest that the difference in apparent snow cover on land has anything to do with the actual conditions, on land, on on the polar ice cap;

[CENTER]
Quote:
Historic snow cover data not displayed on these images. Snow cover data is displayed only for most recent dates.

[/CENTER]

And as to Antarctica "apparent" sea ice growth, it due to increased calving along the perimeter of the ice sheet;

[CENTER]

[/CENTER]

NASA Researchers Find Snowmelt in Antarctica Creeping Inland

Melting Ice in Antarctica
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 #50 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

As if I didn't know that. You know, that's the thing with some of you lefties out there. You're assumption is always that you know more. Why? Because...well..you do, of course!

I never said 5,000 was normal. The point is that the population is NOT GOING DOWN. Jesus. Should I post in another language for you? The population has quintupled. And now they are "threatened." Right.



It was merely to discuss overall sea ice levels. It's not the catastrophe it's been made out to be. Of course, neither is Teh Global Warming. But hey, why let that stop the hysteria. Sometimes I wonder what you guys are going to say when, in 10 years, Teh Global Warming is exposed as the fucking fraud it is. I don't think there is enough bulletin board space for my gloating.

The basic problem is with your myopic temporal lens. It's focused on the daily, weekly, monthly, and annual events. when the correct focal plane occurs at decennial to millennial time scales.

Hunting of species by humans has a much greater detrimental effect than the processes of natural selection, so your bringing up that fact is a moot point.

What is not a moot point, is that, in the absence of human predation, the processes of natural selection are very sensitive to the environmental conditions, and that the whole of Earth's geological history is replete with extinction events driven primarily by changing environmental conditions.
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 #51 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

As if I didn't know that. You know, that's the thing with some of you lefties out there.
Quote:
You're assumption is always that you know more.

Why? Because...well..you do, of course!

No, only when you throw out numbers without backing them up.
Kinda like a philosophy of not giving all the information because, well, we should just trust you.
Quote:
I never said 5,000 was normal. The point is that the population is NOT GOING DOWN. Jesus. Should I post in another language for you? The population has quintupled. And now they are "threatened." Right.

And if steps weren't taken to halt indiscriminate killing, where would the population be now.
Now you say the population is increasing, well,
Quote:
In areas where long-term studies are available, populations are showing signs of stress due to shrinking sea ice. Canada's Western Hudson Bay population has dropped 22% since the early 1980s. The declines have been directly linked to an earlier ice break-up on Hudson Bay. A long-term study of the Southern Beaufort Sea population, which spans the northern coast of Alaska and western Canada, has revealed a decline in cub survival rates and in the weight and skull size of adult males. Such declines were observed in Western Hudson Bay bears prior to the population drop there.

Yup, everything's just peachy in Polar Bear Land.
Quote:
It was merely to discuss overall sea ice levels. It's not the catastrophe it's been made out to be. Of course, neither is Teh Global Warming. But hey, why let that stop the hysteria. Sometimes I wonder what you guys are going to say when, in 10 years, Teh Global Warming is exposed as the fucking fraud it is. I don't think there is enough bulletin board space for my gloating.

Yeah right.
In your OP you said it was a lie, changing hemispheres to prove the lie is stupid.
You're on thin ice here, but then "Stupid is as Stupid Does"
post #52 of 150
He just doesn't like polar bears. What's not to like?



post #53 of 150
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

The basic problem is with your myopic temporal lens. It's focused on the daily, weekly, monthly, and annual events. when the correct focal plane occurs at decennial to millennial time scales.

REALLY?? OK then! Let's do exactly that...let's talk about the long term! Let us discuss how the Earth has gone through natural warming and cooling cycles over the past millenia...and how those fluctuations were far more pronounced than anything we've seen since the Industrial Revolution began. Let's talk about how temperatures on Earth have no actually increased since 1998, even with all of "poisonous" CO2 we've pumped into the atmosphere. And yes...let's discuss how thousands of years ago, the Earth was several WHOLE DEGREES warmer than it is today...all without the invention of the SUV. [/quote]

Quote:

Hunting of species by humans has a much greater detrimental effect than the processes of natural selection, so your bringing up that fact is a moot point.

I didn't bring it up, champ.

Quote:

What is not a moot point, is that, in the absence of human predation, the processes of natural selection are very sensitive to the environmental conditions, and that the whole of Earth's geological history is replete with extinction events driven primarily by changing environmental conditions.

Yes, and NONE of the environmental events have been caused by humans.
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 #54 of 150
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

No, only when you throw out numbers without backing them up.
Kinda like a philosophy of not giving all the information because, well, we should just trust you.

And if steps weren't taken to halt indiscriminate killing, where would the population be now.
Now you say the population is increasing, well,

OMFG. Yes, Mr. Liberal Genius....I know that their numbers were driven down by hunting. I realize that reduction in hunting helped the population. But what does that have to do with the environment? Their population is not threatened.

Quote:

Yup, everything's just peachy in Polar Bear Land.

Yeah right.
In your OP you said it was a lie, changing hemispheres to prove the lie is stupid.
You're on thin ice here, but then "Stupid is as Stupid Does"

That is so unbelievably dumb I don't even know where to begin. And please...show me the link from which you quoted your "data."
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 #55 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

OMFG. Yes, Mr. Liberal Genius....I know that their numbers were driven down by hunting. I realize that reduction in hunting helped the population. But what does that have to do with the environment? Their population is not threatened.

Um, well according to the EPA they are threatened... Now, prove that they aren't threatened... We libs can cite the epa and the data upon which they made their decision...

Where's the beef?

damnit... i gotta log back in as hardeeharhar...
post #56 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

As if I didn't know that. You know, that's the thing with some of you lefties out there. You're assumption is always that you know more. Why? Because...well..you do, of course!

I never said 5,000 was normal. The point is that the population is NOT GOING DOWN. Jesus. Should I post in another language for you? The population has quintupled. And now they are "threatened." Right.



It was merely to discuss overall sea ice levels. It's not the catastrophe it's been made out to be. Of course, neither is Teh Global Warming. But hey, why let that stop the hysteria. Sometimes I wonder what you guys are going to say when, in 10 years, Teh Global Warming is exposed as the fucking fraud it is. I don't think there is enough bulletin board space for my gloating.


And you think you know more because you're listening to the conservative line of bull. You know the type. People who care about the here and now so much they're willing to ransom off the future for our kids. Pretty self serving and disgusting.

Well their predominance will be ending shortly. Thank god! Not soon enough of course.

We've lost a lot of ground in the last 8 years.

" I wonder what you guys are going to say when, in 10 years Teh Global Warming is exposed as the fucking fraud it is."

I wonder what you're going to say in ten years when people are asking why your group didn't do more because things are such a mess.

I just don't think history is going to very kind to people that knowingly ( in the face of so much evidence ) helped wreck the planet.

And yes I know you're going to say : " What evidence? "

Yadda, yadda, yadda. Sheesh!

It's called denial.
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 #57 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I just don't think history is going to very kind to people that helped wreck the planet.

Right on.

Arguing with evolution deniers is sort of fun, because they're basically saying 'The sun is cold and grass is blue', and it never gets tired. But arguing with climate change deniers is really irritating.

We're fucking up the planet, everyone agrees, it's just true, and I really want thing to be OK for my kids while some dumb knobcheese is going 'Everyone! Everything's fine, let's not do anything.'

Grr. Or rather, Teh Grr.
post #58 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

Right on.

Arguing with evolution deniers is sort of fun, because they're basically saying 'The sun is cold and grass is blue', and it never gets tired. But arguing with climate change deniers is really irritating.

We're fucking up the planet, everyone agrees, it's just true, and I really want thing to be OK for my kids while some dumb knobcheese is going 'Everyone! Everything's fine, let's not do anything.'

Grr. Or rather, Teh Grr.

" Grr. Or rather, Teh Grr "

I knew what he meant and I still don't think he has a good grasp of the issues.
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 #59 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

We're fucking up the planet, everyone agrees, it's just true, and I really want thing to be OK for my kids while some dumb knobcheese is going 'Everyone! Everything's fine, let's not do anything.'

And sometimes the knobcheeses win...

Quote:
I give up,

says Brazilian minister who fought to save the rainforest

Quote:
Brazil has been accused of turning its back on its duty to protect the Amazon after the resignation of its award-winning Environment Minister fuelled fresh fears over the fate of the forest. The departure of Marina Silva, who admitted she was losing the battle to get green voices heard amidst the rush for economic development, has been greeted with dismay by conservationists.

"She was the environment's guardian angel," said Frank Guggenheim, executive director for Greenpeace in Brazil. "Now Brazil's environment is orphaned."

In a letter to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Ms Silva said that her efforts to protect the rainforest acknowledged as the "lungs of the planet" were being thwarted by powerful business lobbies. "Your Excellency was a witness to the growing resistance found by our team in important sectors of the government and society," she wrote.

The destruction of the rainforest contributes to global warming/atmospheric change more than any other factor could.
post #60 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

REALLY?? OK then! Let's do exactly that...let's talk about the long term! Let us discuss how the Earth has gone through natural warming and cooling cycles over the past millenia...and how those fluctuations were far more pronounced than anything we've seen since the Industrial Revolution began. Let's talk about how temperatures on Earth have no actually increased since 1998, even with all of "poisonous" CO2 we've pumped into the atmosphere. And yes...let's discuss how thousands of years ago, the Earth was several WHOLE DEGREES warmer than it is today...all without the invention of the SUV.


I didn't bring it up, champ.



Yes, and NONE of the environmental events have been caused by humans.

As usual, we get a climate cretin giving cretinous climate discourse. BAU.

Really, you're not even worth giving the time of day.

You don't understand science, so just stop wasting PO bandwidth on your incredulous idiotic nonsense.

I've "hammered" you on all these spurious issues already. and the thought processes you lack with respect to the climate science and the facts of climate science.

So others have shot you down on the Polar bear facts and I (and others) have shot you down on your fallacious ice cap and sea ice arguments.

And since, on those three issues you brought up, you are zero for three, it would seem appropriate to close this thread, since there is nothing else to discuss with respect to the thread topic.

Anything else, is just tangential prattle.

BTW, you didn't even understand the words I wrote, which refer to your monthly PMS with respect to AGW and the regularity of your posts on AGW contrarian prattle.
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 #61 of 150


Oh, and by the way...

Ice cores show CO2 at highest levels in

800,000 Years


Carry on...
post #62 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post



Oh, and by the way...

Ice cores show CO2 at highest levels in

800,000 Years


Carry on...

The Nature peer reviewed climate science article can be found here (free PDF download);

Windows on the greenhouse
[CENTER]
Quote:
Data laboriously extracted from an Antarctic ice core provide an unprecedented view of temperature, and levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane, over the past 800,000 years of Earth’s history.

[/CENTER]
And here;

High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000–800,000 years before present

And here;

Orbital and millennial-scale features of atmospheric CH4 over the past 800,000 years

And ars technica has a good write up on these articles;

Ice core goes deep, giving us 800,000 years of climate

Now I'll be off finding the raw ice core data sets, to add to my ice core spreadsheet that covers the last 650K years.
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 #63 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

OMFG. Yes, Mr. Liberal Genius....I know that their numbers were driven down by hunting. I realize that reduction in hunting helped the population. But what does that have to do with the environment? Their population is not threatened.

Does the term "tool" sound familiar?
Read the freaking link.
Quote:
That is so unbelievably dumb I don't even know where to begin. And please...show me the link from which you quoted your "data."

Right, you never said it was a lie,
Quote:
That quote is patently false. Sea ice is not decreasing, but increasing. Really...look it up.

But, but, Polar Bears don't live in the ANTARCTIC.
Your link said it was decreasing in the Arctic,get it.

If you had bothered to read the link I provided in my first response, you wouldn't have to ask.

Can you really be this ignorant?
post #64 of 150
SDW: According to the right wing blogs that are my sole source of information about the world, this whole endangered polar bear thing is just more hippy hysteria, because there are, in fact, more polar bears and more ice than previously, if you look at just the right window of time in just the right way.

Take that, hippies!

Us: Uh, polar bear populations have rebounded from being hunted to the brink of extinction. This has no bearing on long term viability, given the destruction of their habitat.

SDW: Ha! But their habitat is improving! Game, set and match!

Us: Uh, Antarctic ice has shown some perimeter expansion, most likely due to increased calving-- not good, long term-- and, at any rate, that has no bearing on polar bear habitat.

SDW: More bears! More ice! Your appeal to facts marks you as insane! Bwahahahahaha!

Jubelum: Hippies rule the earth. Their power is so vast, they have managed to enlist nearly the entirety of "climate science" in their mad scheme to dictate what car I can drive. Christ, I hate fucking hippies.

Perhaps if I throw in the same insanely wrong headed, endlessly refuted climate change caveats that get proffered each and every fucking time the topic comes up, but just kind of in passing, it will look like I have a case to make beyond hating hippies.

Us: Uh.....

SDW: Just like a hippy to use maps and geography and shit as a jackboot on the face of whatever the hell it is I think I represent! Fascist hippies will always shout down whatever it is I'm for with their primitive "logic."

Jubelum: Did I mention that I really, really, really hate fucking hippies? I mean, there is barely a standing army in the world, or any robust industrial output, or market capitalism, or any pollution to speak of, what with their incessant meddling. The hippies are in my house right now, mocking my guns. (head explodes)

SDW: More bears! More ice! Deal with it, you hysterical lunatics! Booga booga booga booga! (head explodes)

THE END
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 #65 of 150
[CENTER]

"I CAN'T READ IT, THERE'S NO WORDS ON IT!"



"FUCK IT, WE'LL DO IT LIVE"[/CENTER]
post #66 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

SDW: According to the right wing blogs that are my sole source of information about the world, this whole endangered polar bear thing is just more hippy hysteria, because there are, in fact, more polar bears and more ice than previously, if you look at just the right window of time in just the right way.

Take that, hippies!

Us: Uh, polar bear populations have rebounded from being hunted to the brink of extinction. This has no bearing on long term viability, given the destruction of their habitat.

SDW: Ha! But their habitat is improving! Game, set and match!

Us: Uh, Antarctic ice has shown some perimeter expansion, most likely due to increased calving-- not good, long term-- and, at any rate, that has no bearing on polar bear habitat.

SDW: More bears! More ice! Your appeal to facts marks you as insane! Bwahahahahaha!

Jubelum: Hippies rule the earth. Their power is so vast, they have managed to enlist nearly the entirety of "climate science" in their mad scheme to dictate what car I can drive. Christ, I hate fucking hippies.

Perhaps if I throw in the same insanely wrong headed, endlessly refuted climate change caveats that get proffered each and every fucking time the topic comes up, but just kind of in passing, it will look like I have a case to make beyond hating hippies.

Us: Uh.....

SDW: Just like a hippy to use maps and geography and shit as a jackboot on the face of whatever the hell it is I think I represent! Fascist hippies will always shout down whatever it is I'm for with their primitive "logic."

Jubelum: Did I mention that I really, really, really hate fucking hippies? I mean, there is barely a standing army in the world, or any robust industrial output, or market capitalism, or any pollution to speak of, what with their incessant meddling. The hippies are in my house right now, mocking my guns. (head explodes)

SDW: More bears! More ice! Deal with it, you hysterical lunatics! Booga booga booga booga! (head explodes)

THE END


The problem with those damn scientists is that they have no common sense. They always let data and facts and reason get in the way of common sense. Good thing we have talk radio to set things straight.
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
post #67 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That is so unbelievably dumb I don't even know where to begin.

Perhaps a counter-argument?

Hyperbole and lashing out at the factinistas isn't cutting it, somehow.
post #68 of 150
Quote:
The destruction of the rainforest contributes to global warming/atmospheric change more than any other factor could.

Oops...

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...1-chapter7.pdf

Quote:
About 80% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions during the 1990s resulted from fossil fuel burning, with about 20% from land use change (primarily deforestation) (Table 7.1).

§7.3.12 "Perturbations of the Natural Carbon Cycle from Human Activities" p. 514, and see figure 7.3 p. 515.

My co-worker cited this for me.

Carry on...
post #69 of 150
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 #70 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post


Danny Kaye?
post #71 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Oops...

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...1-chapter7.pdf



§7.3.12 "Perturbations of the Natural Carbon Cycle from Human Activities" p. 514, and see figure 7.3 p. 515.

My co-worker cited this for me.

Carry on...

The Amazon Basin is a critical factor, deforestation reduces carbon uptake from plant species, as crops having lower CO2 uptake replace dense rainforest.

Also the climate models predict a transformation from rainforest>savannah>prairie>desert, even in the absence of human deforestation of the Amazon Basin.

Hundreds of millions of years from now a new sentient species will be digging up stuff from the geological record (as we do today), they will find homo sapiens replete within a very thin slice of the geological strata, they will also find a mass extinction event concurrent with their homo sapien data, the likes of which are only exceeded by the Permian extinction event, they will also find CO2 proxy data that sets the bar higher then at any other point in the entire geological record of Planet Earth.

This new species will be methane breathers.

They will also find a list of the names of the homo sapiens who ignored their stewardship of Planet Earth. And those on that list will be universally vilified by this new species, through ritualistic crucifixions, burnings, and lynchings in their belief system, to remind their kind not to repeat the same disastrous histrionics of that long ago, and now extinct species, called by their kind stupidious maximus.
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 #72 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

This new species will be methane breathers.



Hydrans?

I have no clue what I'm talking about, just searched for "methane breathing aliens" and lo...

Cool theory. Great start for a science fiction novel. Though it may not be fiction apparently. \

I mentioned before in another Teh Global Warning thread about two books I'd highly recommend...





Two truly visionary and frightening outlooks of man's folly.
post #73 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Danny Kaye?

Heh, no, it's Thomas Malthus.

Basically he predicted that 'peak food' would lead to a massive die off of the human race.

Quote:
Malthus regarded ideals of future improvement in the lot of humanity with skepticism, considering that throughout history a segment of every human population seemed relegated to poverty. He explained this phenomenon by pointing out that population growth generally preceded expansion of the population's resources, in particular the primary resource of food

He doesn't exactly pertain to GW, since his theory predated the Industrial Revolution, but I think it's interesting that some of the technology which allowed us to exceed his predicted food growth (fossil fuel based extensive farming techniques) may be what finally punches the human race's clock.

He was also a strong proponent of population controls (for the unwashed masses of course!) and other unpopular ideas too.
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 #74 of 150
Thanks iPoster. I learn something every day here!



Goodnight all.
post #75 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post



Hydrans?

I have no clue what I'm talking about, just searched for "methane breathing aliens" and lo...

Cool theory. Great start for a science fiction novel. Though it may not be fiction apparently. \

I mentioned before in another Teh Global Warning thread about two books I'd highly recommend...

Two truly visionary and frightening outlooks of man's folly.

.. in my youth up into my early 40's, I know I read hundreds and hundreds of SF novels, at least 500 but probably less than a thousand.

Now I watch just about anything SF related, SF movies, Torchwood, Doctor Who, Charlie Jade, BSG, anything current SF wise.
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 #76 of 150
I think I know the true identity of our infamous thread starter, he's none other than Kevin James

[CENTER]
Quote:
Hardball Episode

On May 15, 2008, James appeared on Hardball debating with host Chris Mathews and supporting the remarks made by President of the United States George W. Bush's May 15, 2008 speech to the Knesset in Israel, where Bush implied that there was a parallel between the appeasement towards Hitler and the policies of leading Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama, in reference to Obama expressing a willingness to meet with the leaders of U.S. adversaries. Although reiterating what Bush said, James admitted that "he did not know" what Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler in World War II was, after being repeatedly challenged by host Chris Matthews to clarify his remarks on the subject. This led Mathews to state: "if you don't know what appeasement is about then don't talk about it." Matthews accused James of being a "blank slate", who didn't know anything about history, and likened James to White House spokesman Dana Perino, who in a public appearance had no idea what the Cuban Missile Crisis was. The episode continued on for 9 minutes.

[/CENTER]

This ranks right up there with anything from The Daily Show or the Colbert Report.

What our infamous thread starter doesn't know about his your own empty headed rhetoric
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 #77 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

.. in my youth up into my early 40's, I know I read hundreds and hundreds of SF novels, at least 500 but probably less than a thousand.

Now I watch just about anything SF related, SF movies, Torchwood, Doctor Who, Charlie Jade, BSG, anything current SF wise.

All good shows!

There's nothing more relevant to today than Science Fiction because for better or for worse the future is here now!
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 #78 of 150
Southern Comfort tastes like cough syrup.

Really, really good cough syrup.
post #79 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

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.

This is complete bullshit. Scientists are already considering contingency plans in the event that warming gets completely out of hand. The solution is to scatter aerosols in the upper atmosphere, scattering a certain percentage of the incoming light from the sun.

The scary thing about this is that it would be cheap enough to be performed by a small country or a rich individual! Yes, this is the power that we have over our environment! You should have had your consciousness raised to humanity's power to adjust the world environment by our race 20-30 years ago to eliminate CFCs which were destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere. What lessons have you still not learned from history?
post #80 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

If GW isn't really our fault...
If GW is our fault...

Does it matter whose fault it is? We have a vested interest in keeping the global climate exactly as it has been for the past two hundred years because we have built our society based upon current rain-fall patterns and coastlines. If the global temperature increases by three degrees whether it's our fault or not, and middle America becomes a desert and all of the ice in Antarctica and Greenland melt, increasing sea levels by 80 meters, do you really think that our society will just march right on unabated? Who the fuck cares whose fault it is: we should be fighting to preserve our way of life for ourselves and for our children.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Polar Bear Endangered. Sort of.