Human Caused Global Warming Will Not Happen

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Mikemcc01 wrote:Yes, water vapour is the greater warming agent. It has also the shortest residence time of all of the GHGs. This means that there is essentially the same amount in the atmosphere globally (there's also complications about feedbacks, but keep it simple at the moment). Where as CO2, methane, etc had massively longer residence times. This means that smaller changes have bigger effects.

As an analogy thing of electrical generation, water vapour represents baseload generation. It's the major component but doesn't change significantly (yet, and with various caviats about feedbacks). The analogy does tend to fall down a bit with CO2, etc because non-baseload electrical generation does have reaction times measured in decades or centuries.
Diffusion, dude! It increases with heat. Water does what Methane or CO2 does, but like 20 times better, so Water Vapor in the air ought to raise the planets temperature, which ought to increase diffusion, which would therefore increase heat, which would increase diffusion, etc.
POSITIVE FEEDBACK.


If the theory were correct, this planet would be an 800 degree hell like v Venus. Water vapor is obviously NOT a sum total positive feedback. It is actually a pretty D@mn good control system. Below a certain temperature (above freezing) water acts as a Positive feedback system. Above a certain Temperature, it flips to become a Negative feedback system. (It forms clouds which reflect more sunlight high in the atmosphere before it has a chance to warm all the way to the ground.)

The ENTIRE SYSTEM is dominated by Water Vapor.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

ANTIcarrot
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:47 pm
Contact:

Post by ANTIcarrot »

Posting a link to Wikipedia is probably the best way to answer this foolishness. But I won't bother because they'll be ignored, or they'll give the standard "I don't care man. I don't [fracking] care." type of answer.

That is in fact why I compared AGW 'truthers' to every other kind of crack pot 'truther'. They all use the same kinds of tactics and responses.
Show Me The Money
That evidence is all faked/part of a conspiracy
Claims to special knowledge
Precious Bodily Fluids

Show Me The Money
I cannot show you a peer reviewed scientific journal for the value of pi, or the gravitational constant, or Earth's gravity at sea level, or the chemical composition of water, or the colour of the sky, or that space is a hard vacuum, or that Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1592. Peer reviewed journals are usually not on line, and when they are they are almost always behind paywalls, some of which require achademic credentials. Even if I did hand my money and qualifacations over, and did find the papers you wanted - you still won't be able to see them, because I've only paid for my access, not yours.

That's how paywalls work, and since you can use an internet forum, I'm going to assume you know how internet paywalls work. Thus:
I) You are knowingly asking for a standard of evidence that is for all practical purposes unatainable before you'll change your mind
II) You are not interested in a serious debate
III) You are a troll

That evidence is all faked/part of a conspiracy
This is more formally known as a bias. That is you assume that all research that supports your preexisting opinion is honest, but all research that counters your preexisting opinion is fake in some way. This is a form of delusion, which is why scientists are trained to watch out for it. "People are easy to fool, and the easiest person to fool is yourself." This is a delusion, and is related to another one: "Two people can keep a secret is one of them is dead." This is a truely staggering amount of evidence for global warming. But that pales into insignificance next to the odds that such a large and elaborate conspiracy could continue for so long without someone not just spilling the beans but providing damning evidence. And while many claim to have such evidence, and many more believe them, they've yet to actually prove it. Which leads us to...

Claims to special knowledge
"It's true because I just know it in my heart!" I don't care. The only people who will care are the people who already agree with you. Claiming you know it's true because someone who trust has said it is so, doesn't work either. If they are right they can get their evidence examined for faults by people with a professional knowledge. It's called peer-review and is an essential part of the scientif process for the above mentioned reasons. It's one of the things that makes science self correcting, and the only way of obtaining accurately varified knowledge of the world around us.

If you get an A on that test, look forwards to a Nobel prize. If you get a C or D, you might want to have a long hard look and see whether the mistake you made (and you did make one) was in your presentation or your opinion of the facts. But if you get a F, no one will take you seriously, but take heart: You'll make more than the entire review panel selling books about your crackpot idea to stupid people who don't know any better.

And AGW has multiple As. AGW denial has multiple Fs.

Precious Bodily Fluids
AKA: The Fox News Excuse. People who think that addressing global warming and cutting greenhouse gasses will somehow destroy their quality of life. Or make their car slower. Or some nonsense like that. Economics doesn't really work that way. Well there are many ways of answering that, but how about we do so by asking a organisation famous for their love of all things green - the US Army. Well, it turns out that you double speed, and aceleration, and dramatically reduce fuel use. "And which tiny golf cart wannabe did they test that theory on?" I hear you ask. Answer is the Humvee.
http://defense-update.com/features/du-3 ... humvee.htm
Though it wasn't without its faults. Turns out it works in desert conditions, or with armor, but not both at the same time. Still, that's not a problem for your car.
Some light reading material: Half Way To Anywhere, The Rocket Company, Space Technology, The High Fronter, Of Wolves And Men, Light On Shattered Water, The Ultimate Weapon, any Janes Guide, GURPS Bio-Tech, ALIENS Technical Manual, The God Delusion.

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Post by TDPerk »

Mikemcc01 wrote:Please provide some evidence towards ANY of those points. You've made a number of claims there and not substantiated ANY of them. Your claims - your proof.
Your evident reading comprehension goes far to explaining your faith in AGW. Among other things I'm making claims you quote about the future--I can't provide evidence of the future--you dummy. But I'm happy to put $500.00 in escrow against what ever odds you'll publicly name against my accuracy...I suspect crickets will chirp first.
Mikemcc01 wrote:I can't be bothered, at this silly hour of the morning to try and go through all of those.
So you pick and choose your evidence with all the rigor your buddies Hansen, Mann, and the CRU did! Outstanding! You're quite the fraud yourself.

And why, BTW, would I bother bringing you evidence when you've just shown you'll dismiss what doesn't suit your purposes?

And evidence of the fraud of Mann is already in this thread. Disprove it if you can.

No honest researcher could claim there is a "hockey-stick" rise in global temperature which is explained only by manmade CO2 based global warming which is unprecedented in history--not with the history shown. Mann committed fraud.

Hansen and CRU's fraud arises from their deliberate manipulation of data until AGW seemed to be supported by it. Their "corrections" were the AGW.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Post by bcglorf »

AntiCarrot wrote:I cannot show you a peer reviewed scientific journal for the value of pi, or the gravitational constant, or Earth's gravity at sea level, or the chemical composition of water, or the colour of the sky, or that space is a hard vacuum...
Well, maybe you can't but I can. Using google scholar you should be able to as well, type each subject into google scholar and you could too, if that much is beyond your ability it explains a lot.

The trick is that journals, as I stated before, also exist showing a century so of warming is real, that CO2 contributes to warming, and that humans are emitting a measurable level of CO2. That's unfortunately the end of the hard science on the matter. Nothing more than that is 'settled' or a well agreed upon consensus among knowledgeable experts. The hardest evidence for the percentage contribution to warming that human CO2 represents is how unusual the warming since human CO2 emissions began is. Turns out, reassessments, even by Mann(who originally heralded this evidence) show that the last century isn't demonstrably unusual at all.

After that, it's all computer modeling of climate, which doesn't even understand consistently if water vapor should be a positive or negative feedback in the simulation... Not convincing.

The overall point is that catastrophic AGW is still very much lacking any hard evidence in it's favor.

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Post by bcglorf »

Mikemcc01 wrote:
bcglorf wrote:
ANTIcarrot wrote:Is this possibly a joke thread, and I'm just missing the punch line?

Or are some people on this board truely disagreeing with the global scientific concensus on AGW? In the same sense that some people really believe the world is 10,000 years old, that the second coming will happen within our lifetimes, that evolution is a lie, that the moon landings never happened, that horroscopes and homeopathy work, that vaccines cause autism, or that 911 was a conspiracy by the american government?

911 truther 55:44 - I don't care what kind of [fracking] experience he has man. I don't care. He's a person in the system. Of course he's going to tell you those sorts of things.

Seriously?
Show me the peer reviewed journals demonstrating what percentage of recent warming is caused by mankind's CO2 emissions.

It's very easy to point out journal articles demonstrating earth is more than 10k years old. If catastrophic AGW is really so strongly backed by scientific evidence, it shouldn't be hard to find journal articles declaring the same. Go take an honest look, and you'll discover they don't exist.

Journals exist demonstrating that things are warming.
Journals exist demonstrating that humans emit CO2.
Journals exist demonstrating that CO2 causes warming.

After that, it's collective conclusion jumping and what if scenarios. There are NOT journals declaring that catastrophic AGW is undeniable, so stop acting like there is.
Utter rubbish

I can't be bothered, at this silly hour of the morning to try and go through all of those.

I'll boil it down to a link to a wikipedia article (I know not the best source, but this one is accurate. If you find a flaw in it please enlighten the rest of us) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_change
Utter rubbish.

I can't be bothered to try and go through all....

If you want to claim something without evidence, I get to dismiss you without any. Say something meaningful or stop making noise.

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Post by bcglorf »

Diogenes wrote:
Mikemcc01 wrote:Yes, water vapour is the greater warming agent. It has also the shortest residence time of all of the GHGs. This means that there is essentially the same amount in the atmosphere globally (there's also complications about feedbacks, but keep it simple at the moment). Where as CO2, methane, etc had massively longer residence times. This means that smaller changes have bigger effects.

As an analogy thing of electrical generation, water vapour represents baseload generation. It's the major component but doesn't change significantly (yet, and with various caviats about feedbacks). The analogy does tend to fall down a bit with CO2, etc because non-baseload electrical generation does have reaction times measured in decades or centuries.
Diffusion, dude! It increases with heat. Water does what Methane or CO2 does, but like 20 times better, so Water Vapor in the air ought to raise the planets temperature, which ought to increase diffusion, which would therefore increase heat, which would increase diffusion, etc.
POSITIVE FEEDBACK.


If the theory were correct, this planet would be an 800 degree hell like v Venus. Water vapor is obviously NOT a sum total positive feedback. It is actually a pretty D@mn good control system. Below a certain temperature (above freezing) water acts as a Positive feedback system. Above a certain Temperature, it flips to become a Negative feedback system. (It forms clouds which reflect more sunlight high in the atmosphere before it has a chance to warm all the way to the ground.)

The ENTIRE SYSTEM is dominated by Water Vapor.
But he said to keep ti simple and IGNORE feedback for the time being while he makes his argument...

Your dead right of course, when water vapor so dominates the GHGs it doesn't even need very strong a feedback effect to handily trump CO2.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

ANTIcarrot wrote: That is in fact why I compared AGW 'truthers' to every other kind of crack pot 'truther'. They all use the same kinds of tactics and responses.
I do not believe that I used those kinds of tactics and responses, but whatever, it is not worth discussing with you. You have a very strong opinion that anyone critical of AGW theory is a fanatical idiot. I highly doubt you would get off of that position.

Your actions are curious though. If you really feel that AGW doubters are so off the wall, why even bother talking to them? It is odd. From your perspective, it is the equivalent of going to an insane asylum just to call the patients crazy. In your face, crazy people. Sorta sad really.

The science is settled. Nothing to see here. Move along now. Move along.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

Mikemcc01 wrote:Yes, water vapour is the greater warming agent. It has also the shortest residence time of all of the GHGs. This means that there is essentially the same amount in the atmosphere globally (there's also complications about feedbacks, but keep it simple at the moment). Where as CO2, methane, etc had massively longer residence times. This means that smaller changes have bigger effects.
The long carbon cycle doesn't mean that small changes have bigger effects. It means that small changes persist longer. And that CO2 levels tend to be cumulative. But if the effects are small, then even this is not a big deal.

For the small changes to have bigger effects, strong positive feedbacks in the climate system are necessary.

Jccarlton
Posts: 1747
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:14 pm
Location: Southern Ct

Post by Jccarlton »

ANTIcarrot wrote:Posting a link to Wikipedia is probably the best way to answer this foolishness. But I won't bother because they'll be ignored, or they'll give the standard "I don't care man. I don't [fracking] care." type of answer.

That is in fact why I compared AGW 'truthers' to every other kind of crack pot 'truther'. They all use the same kinds of tactics and responses.
Show Me The Money
That evidence is all faked/part of a conspiracy
Claims to special knowledge
Precious Bodily Fluids

Show Me The Money
I cannot show you a peer reviewed scientific journal for the value of pi, or the gravitational constant, or Earth's gravity at sea level, or the chemical composition of water, or the colour of the sky, or that space is a hard vacuum, or that Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1592. Peer reviewed journals are usually not on line, and when they are they are almost always behind paywalls, some of which require achademic credentials. Even if I did hand my money and qualifacations over, and did find the papers you wanted - you still won't be able to see them, because I've only paid for my access, not yours.

That's how paywalls work, and since you can use an internet forum, I'm going to assume you know how internet paywalls work. Thus:
I) You are knowingly asking for a standard of evidence that is for all practical purposes unatainable before you'll change your mind
II) You are not interested in a serious debate
III) You are a troll
Or you are actually unwilling to spend a minimal amount of time finding the information that is available and presenting it. You know, it's not hard to find the AGW stuff if you look for it. If you really had any knowledge about AGW you would know where the key stuff is and, no it's not behind paywalls. If you can't be bothered to investigate, how do you know you are correct. And, no, you will have to do your own homework.

ANTIcarrot wrote: That evidence is all faked/part of a conspiracy
This is more formally known as a bias. That is you assume that all research that supports your preexisting opinion is honest, but all research that counters your preexisting opinion is fake in some way. This is a form of delusion, which is why scientists are trained to watch out for it. "People are easy to fool, and the easiest person to fool is yourself." This is a delusion, and is related to another one: "Two people can keep a secret is one of them is dead." This is a truely staggering amount of evidence for global warming. But that pales into insignificance next to the odds that such a large and elaborate conspiracy could continue for so long without someone not just spilling the beans but providing damning evidence. And while many claim to have such evidence, and many more believe them, they've yet to actually prove it. Which leads us to....
It would be easy to dismiss the continually hostile and stupid actions of the AGW crowd as the actions of a bunch of scientific clowns acting individually. Unfortunately, somebody did dump the "beans" aka the CRU emails on the internet and yes the emails did provide damning evidence of a massive conspiracy of scientific malfeasance the likes of which the world has never seen.
ANTIcarrot wrote:
Claims to special knowledge
"It's true because I just know it in my heart!" I don't care. The only people who will care are the people who already agree with you. Claiming you know it's true because someone who trust has said it is so, doesn't work either. If they are right they can get their evidence examined for faults by people with a professional knowledge. It's called peer-review and is an essential part of the scientif process for the above mentioned reasons. It's one of the things that makes science self correcting, and the only way of obtaining accurately varified knowledge of the world around us.

If you get an A on that test, look forwards to a Nobel prize. If you get a C or D, you might want to have a long hard look and see whether the mistake you made (and you did make one) was in your presentation or your opinion of the facts. But if you get a F, no one will take you seriously, but take heart: You'll make more than the entire review panel selling books about your crackpot idea to stupid people who don't know any better.

And AGW has multiple As. AGW denial has multiple Fs.
This is so wrong on so many levels I'm not sure where to start. If you have any exposure to real scientists, especially the brilliant ones you quickly realize that science isn't like passing a test and getting a grade. The important thing to real sientist is the journey and the exploration, not the result. A real scientist understands that insight can come from anywhere. Real scientsts always believe that everything they think they know could be wrong. In fact, that is what they live for because that means new discoveries and new journies.
The fact that AGW starts fall apart just with a few thought experiments demonstrates how weak the theory is. If average people using just a little common sense with some easy research can start tearing AGW to shreds, maybe the theory is not robust enough to actually work. The biggest problem is that AGW doesn't pass the smell test.
As for peer review, the function of peer review is to ensure that your work is done correctly. That means that data is taken correctly with tools that make sense, that the correct statistical proceedures are followed and that the reporting methods make sense. Peer review is not to be used to censor work because that work happens to disagree with your agenda. That is, unfortuanately exactly how the AGW crfowd had using peer review to their massive discredit.
The fact that the AGW crowd insists on a there being a consensus should immediately raise a red flag. There is never any such thing as absolute certainty in a science. Some of the boldest scientific ideas started out as "crackpot." In fact it's the boldest work, the farout ideas, the "C graders" who don't play by the rule who end up with Nobels, most often after decades of rubbing the fact that, in the end, they were right in the noses of the scientific community and the "consensus."
ANTIcarrot wrote:
Precious Bodily Fluids
AKA: The Fox News Excuse. People who think that addressing global warming and cutting greenhouse gasses will somehow destroy their quality of life. Or make their car slower. Or some nonsense like that. Economics doesn't really work that way. Well there are many ways of answering that, but how about we do so by asking a organisation famous for their love of all things green - the US Army. Well, it turns out that you double speed, and aceleration, and dramatically reduce fuel use. "And which tiny golf cart wannabe did they test that theory on?" I hear you ask. Answer is the Humvee.
http://defense-update.com/features/du-3 ... humvee.htm
Though it wasn't without its faults. Turns out it works in desert conditions, or with armor, but not both at the same time. Still, that's not a problem for your car.
[/code]
I'm going to have believe that you have never looked at the literature from the AGW crowd. It's quite clear that destroying industrial society and the quality of life it provides is not a bug, it's a feature. The fact is that you can't have the kind of reductions in co2 that the AGW crowd keep saying are absolutely necessary and an industrial society or indeed any quality of life at the same time. To say nothing of the population reductions required. And no, you can't get there with "renewable energy" because wind and solar have pathetic er/ei ratios.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

bcglorf wrote: But he said to keep ti simple and IGNORE feedback for the time being while he makes his argument...

Your dead right of course, when water vapor so dominates the GHGs it doesn't even need very strong a feedback effect to handily trump CO2.
I am ashamed to admit I was buying their argument until I ran across that article with the spectral absorption graph. Then I knew it was nonsense. I should have known better. My first thought was: "Liberals have always been wrong about everything since forever. What are the odds that they got this one right? "

:)
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Jccarlton
Posts: 1747
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:14 pm
Location: Southern Ct

Post by Jccarlton »

If you base your arguments on flimsy evidence and computer models they get to be easy to take apart.:
http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2011/07/w ... teria.html
That means your global domination plans are put on hold until you find another excuse. I find it much easieer to trust somebody paid by big oil than somebody paid by big government. All big oil wants to do is sell me gasoline. Big government want to put me in chains.

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Post by TDPerk »

First they explained by saying, "Shut up."

Now they resort to trying to shut you up.

They have no justification, the warmists, but they will legislate obedience if they can...
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

JohnFul
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 7:18 pm
Location: Augusta, Georgia USA

Post by JohnFul »

Seems someone was off a few decimal points...

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-ga ... 34971.html

So much for AGW.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

JLawson wrote:
seedload wrote: <Snippety>
I was formerly an AGW believer. I took the time to look at the arguments and data, both for an against AGW being significant, weed out the junk science from both sides, and I changed my mind.

Have you actually looked at the skeptical arguments at all or do you simply dismiss them because of the perceived influence of the plutocratic oligarchy?
I'd venture that zapkitty hasn't. It's pretty easy to let buzzwords take over your life, and stifle independent thought. And for some strange reason, polysyllabic buzzwords (oh, there's 8 in 'plutocratic oligarchy'! wow!) crowd into the synapses and block any attempt at critical thinking about the issue. Add in an emotional appeal "The polar bears are (sniff) not going to (sob) have any ice to float on! Their cubs (weep) are gonna DIE! (wail...) if the temperatures raise a half-degree!"

That they're apex predators, just as happy to browse around on land and snack on igloos (cool, crunchy outside with a warm, tasty, gooey/cruncy/salty center...) or elk as seal doesn't matter - what hits them and cements the issue is a cute, fuzzy, cuddly baby polar bear with great big appealing eyes possibly dying from not enough ice.

But nature is never kind. We exist with it, but nature doesn't care, at all, about us It doesn't care about polar bears, or kittens, or humans. It doesn't care if we nuke the planet bald, or find some way to eliminate the mosquito that carries malaria. There is no 'Gaia', no overwhelming global consciousness - it's an anthropomorphic fantasy that somehow the planet 'cares'.

We're the ones who care.
You know what. I never really understood where the whole polar bears dying thing came from. I know the dread about it came from the Gore video, but I never read up on it very much beyond that. But, when I finally did, OMG, it is probably the most horrific bit of 'science' that I have ever heard of.

The entire polar bears are going to die sentiment came from one published paper that speculated on polar bears dying from a lack of sea ice based on a sighting of four (YES, you read that right, FOUR) dead floating polar bears after a major arctic storm. Yep, 4. FOUR! That is right, 4. No baseline on dead floating polar bears. No long term trend of dead floating polar bears. No analysis of dead floating polar bears in different conditions. Nope. No other sightings of dead floating polar bears. Just 4 seen one time AFTER A STORM!

THIS GOT PUBLISHED! This got animated into Gore's film! This is the state of climate science and it's affects!

Four bobbing bears is the genesis of an entire advertising campaign.

Four bear buoys is enough to tear at the heart strings of the world when manipulated correctly.

Four polar popsicles is all it takes.

Yes, four.

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Post by bcglorf »

seedload wrote:
JLawson wrote:
seedload wrote: <Snippety>
I was formerly an AGW believer. I took the time to look at the arguments and data, both for an against AGW being significant, weed out the junk science from both sides, and I changed my mind.

Have you actually looked at the skeptical arguments at all or do you simply dismiss them because of the perceived influence of the plutocratic oligarchy?
I'd venture that zapkitty hasn't. It's pretty easy to let buzzwords take over your life, and stifle independent thought. And for some strange reason, polysyllabic buzzwords (oh, there's 8 in 'plutocratic oligarchy'! wow!) crowd into the synapses and block any attempt at critical thinking about the issue. Add in an emotional appeal "The polar bears are (sniff) not going to (sob) have any ice to float on! Their cubs (weep) are gonna DIE! (wail...) if the temperatures raise a half-degree!"

That they're apex predators, just as happy to browse around on land and snack on igloos (cool, crunchy outside with a warm, tasty, gooey/cruncy/salty center...) or elk as seal doesn't matter - what hits them and cements the issue is a cute, fuzzy, cuddly baby polar bear with great big appealing eyes possibly dying from not enough ice.

But nature is never kind. We exist with it, but nature doesn't care, at all, about us It doesn't care about polar bears, or kittens, or humans. It doesn't care if we nuke the planet bald, or find some way to eliminate the mosquito that carries malaria. There is no 'Gaia', no overwhelming global consciousness - it's an anthropomorphic fantasy that somehow the planet 'cares'.

We're the ones who care.
You know what. I never really understood where the whole polar bears dying thing came from. I know the dread about it came from the Gore video, but I never read up on it very much beyond that. But, when I finally did, OMG, it is probably the most horrific bit of 'science' that I have ever heard of.

The entire polar bears are going to die sentiment came from one published paper that speculated on polar bears dying from a lack of sea ice based on a sighting of four (YES, you read that right, FOUR) dead floating polar bears after a major arctic storm. Yep, 4. FOUR! That is right, 4. No baseline on dead floating polar bears. No long term trend of dead floating polar bears. No analysis of dead floating polar bears in different conditions. Nope. No other sightings of dead floating polar bears. Just 4 seen one time AFTER A STORM!

THIS GOT PUBLISHED! This got animated into Gore's film! This is the state of climate science and it's affects!

Four bobbing bears is the genesis of an entire advertising campaign.

Four bear buoys is enough to tear at the heart strings of the world when manipulated correctly.

Four polar popsicles is all it takes.

Yes, four.
Being a Canadian, the Polar Bears things hits right in my home. Polar bear numbers HAVE dropped dramatically in the recent past, right up until the point that we put a hunting quota in place to allow their numbers to recover. I don't remember the exact time line, but for approximately the last 10-20 years Polar bear numbers have been rising very rapidly, thanks to us not killing as many of them with guns to make rugs and stew. Our cars and power plants aren't bothering the polar bear populations in Canada, the bullets were, but we figured out how to get that under control without massive economic reforms. The truth is, our northern communities are seeing the warmer weather is, if anything, providing a big boost to polar bear survival and growth.

Post Reply