69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research
- Thread starter petros
- Start date
...........and cabbage don't forget the cabbage! LOL!
I like starting my summer mornings by going out to my Saskatoon bushes and having a nice munch on all the fat blueberries still warm from the sun.........hmmn good! Can't beat those antioxidants.
I didn't. The myth is as Juan so kindly pointed out, that Polar bears are dying off.
That is simply untrue.
Health isn't the question, mortality is. Stop trying to move the goal posts.
The usual fear mongering alarmist crap, that caused Juan to perpetuate a myth. The only difference being, I'm not as easily conned as some.
Last edited:
Yes...I don't believe I ever said the climate hasn't changed, or that man was the cause of past changes.
Health is in question for the scientists who study this. Maybe not for what Juan claimed, but that's not my concern
I've got a big bucket of wild S'Toons in the freezer. It wasn't a good year for wild berries.
Well duh.
Since when did unhealthy stocks rebound so well, without any signs of ebbing?
It should be if you promote real science.
What has you 100% convinced it's man this time around? 75 major temperature swings in 4500 years leaves man out of the equation. What makes 76 ours?
The health of a stock is not limited to the size of a population. Bears will still reproduce even when their survival is decreasing, their recruitment is decreasing, and their body condition is decreasing.
I'm not sure why you are having a problem with this. The recovery is due to fewer bears being removed. That doesn't mean they are bears that are in better shape.
Captain morgan once had a similar beef. Ocean acidification. The solubility of a gas is dependent on temperature. It's also dependent on the partial pressure of the gas above the liquid. If temperature goes up, more gas should come out of solution. If more gas is added to the air, more gas will go into solution. Temperature is going up, and more gas is being added. So which one is winning?
I said it's largely man. Take the top of atmosphere energy imbalance. Look at the sources of greenhouse emissions. Then you get your answer. If all of our emissions ended up in the atmosphere, the concentration would be going up twice as fast.
So do a lot of species. But they don't generally double in population in less than 20 years. As they have in some regions.
I'm not. But then again, I don't have anything invested in a foregone conclusion.
That's almost as false as the claim Polar Bears are unhealthy.
You should clarify that with some fact, like...
Only some subpopulations are showing any signs of poor health.
While 43% of the population is stable, or increasing.
And the fact that the biggest threat to the Polar Bear population, is still listed as "mostly due to hunting".
Remember when you said focusing on one fact was stupid?
Did I miss the sound of the starter pistol.
Last edited:
Of course. Just like this time, It's natural.
Lets see how the last few months of the year play out as Elinin ****s with solar activity.
Not generally.
No, you are. You are having a problem with population rebound during a period of worsening individual health.
Unhealthy is your word, I never used it. I said they are showing declines in body condition, survival, and recruitment. Which is true.
I wasn't actually referring to specifics...I'm trying to explain to you that a population can be rebounding even while other stressors are reducing fitness...
That hasn't changed...I fully acknowledge that bear numbers are higher. We haven't really discussed sub-populations, but I would also acknowledge that some are doing better than others.
Logic fail. I suppose small pox must have been wiped out by natural causes rather than anthropogenic factors too?
That's ridiculous.
Sorry, worsening health.
Is there a difference?
And I'm still not having any problems with the facts. It seems you have a lock on that.
For a small subpopulation, which has been attributed to everything from regional over population to climate change. While locals say it's over population, activists and peoples who's livelihood relies heavily on find the climate change boogeyman everywhere, blame climate change.
But like you said, it doesn't generally happen.
And it hasn't.
You keep saying "worsening health" as if it applies to the whole of the population.
It doesn't.
There's signs of decreased health, in only 4% of the population, in a handful of subpopulations, in a specific region.
While the overall health and population is stable health wise, and increasing.
I can understand your confusion. That's what happens when you get your material from a singleminded source.
You spelled most wrong.
Which facts do I have problems with?
:lol: You don't understand your fuzzy logic when someone else writes it?
Just because climate change in the past wasn't attributable to man, does not mean that it can't be now. I used extinctions as an example of your foolish leap.
Catch what the **** I'm throwing at you?
The ones where you take specific intel on specific subpopulations and apply it to the whole of the population in general.
Someone was calling that kind of logic stupid several posts ago.
Tell me why this time is man? We haven't even come close to the Roman Opitmum. Why is that? We should have shot past that marker years ago.Which facts do I have problems with?
:lol: You don't understand your fuzzy logic when someone else writes it?
Just because climate change in the past wasn't attributable to man, does not mean that it can't be now. I used extinctions as an example of your foolish leap.
Catch what the **** I'm throwing at you?
Well Bear, you and everyone else were speaking in generalities up until a few posts ago.
Here's an early post of yours:
THE polar bear population...of the 19 recognized populations, almost half of the sub-populations are in decline.
When you brought up sub-populations, I acknowledged differences in the sub-populations. I guess we all should have laid our cards out better from the start...I don't have an issue at all with some populations increasing and others decreasing, some stable, and some unknown.
I already did...we can measure the radiative imbalance, we can measure the emissions from man-made sources, we can define the source by isotope, we can measure the radiative impact of natural sources, and that leaves us with one inescapable conclusion.
Until such time when someone overturns radiative transfer theory...I wouldn't count on that.
Last edited:
That statement is as factual now, as when I typed it.
Overall, they have rebounded. They are not however, overall worsening in health.
You know what's funny? The WWF lists only 11, another group lists 13, and so on.
Besides the fact that PBSG' estimated declines are based SWAG, and the fact that I do view them as a trusted source, 1/4 of the population in estimated decline, does not a global warming catastrophe make. Especially when one factors in the increase in other subpopulations.
While the overall health and population is, well, healthy.
Which brings us back to the beginning, where using Polar Bears as any manner of support for proof of climate change, is flawed.