Is this your final answer? If so, then global warming is NOT to blame for polar bear populations, is it? So, which side? the alarmist or my side would agree with your assessment and who first raised the issue of declining polar bear populations?
Is this your final answer? If so, then global warming is NOT to blame for polar bear populations, is it? So, which side? the alarmist or my side would agree with your assessment and who first raised the issue of declining polar bear populations?[/quote]
Oh, lord, now you’ve resorted to taking partial quotes and using them out of context?
Sad day indeed.
Well, reading your threads is like seeing a batshit-crazy old woman dancing and hollering naked in the street. You wish you hadn’t seen it, but it’s so totally in your face you just can’t help it.
Well, they are - as has been pointed out to you numerous times in this and other threads. Most of them are receiving no gov’t or NGO support whatsoever. Some of them are making a profit. Some of the more successful ones are sabotaged or murdered (happens a lot in Brazil, for example).
When they succeed, you will be one of those who benefits. The reason is simple: the average western country consumes about 120kWh/day/person, from various sources, in pursuit of “the lifestyle”. At an average price of $0.1/kWh, that means you personally contribute $4000+ per year to The Man, just to maintain the status quo. There are people are working on technologies to reduce that figure by 70,80,90%, which will reduce that particular bill by (perhaps) half.
There are other people working to conserve ecosystem services which you don’t even know exist; at the moment, you pay money for artificial substitutes. For example, you pay once to subsidize agricultural fertilizers and land reconstruction; twice to mitigate agricultural runoff and its effects; thrice to dispose of agricultural waste and sewage. If you had any sense, you’d be writing to your congressman shouting about phosphorus recycling and backward agricultural practices. Those three costs would then disappear from your life.
But we’ve said all this before (cfimages gave you another list of stuff you already pay for). Fred just sticks his fingers in his ears and sings 'lalala I can’t hear you". So what’s the point? You’re just wasting bandwidth. And FFS, man, put some clothes on.
[quote][color=#BFBF80]
Current populations rise and fall based on hunting practices.
[/color]
The water ways of the north are melting and opening (see the US army expenditures, Canadian gov’t expenditures, Russian gov’t expeditures etc… on the new realities of the North).
When the waters open up the bears will be in trouble (not today) because they will need to swim greater distances.
I know you agree with all the above, so my question is why are you posting so vociferously when there is an inherent flaw in your argument that you are fully aware of. On the internet, the kids call this trolling.[/quote]
This is the full text of your response. Why do you feel that you were taken out of context? Do you think that the other three add to the context of the bolded statement and thus appreciably change the meaning? If so, can you explain how?
You then ramble about Russia, Canada and the New Realities of the North. Does this change your view on how populations are primarily influenced by hunting? and you did use the future tense of the “to be” verb, did you not? So you thnk that WHEN the waters open up, the bears WILL be in trouble. So they would appear NOT to be in trouble now so if global warming alarmists are suggesting that polar bear populations are suffering because of ice-free waters, you would appear to be disagreeing with their assertion and noting that HUNTING not ICE-FREE waters is CURRENTLY the problem. Have I misunderstood you? If so, please explain yourself.
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
and I have pointed out that most of you are idiots, but you don’t quote me as a source…
Most of what?
What is being sabotaged and what is being murdered? I would imagine, though with you global warming alarmists and your “soft” powered brains, one can never be sure, that a thing or an organization can be sabotaged but surely only a person can be murdered… I suppose in a figurative sense we can refer to the murder of an idea or a dream but really…
Given that I have always been and have thus been intensely critized for my positive stance on the possibilties of new technology, I suggest to you that you are very unclear about a great many things. I have been pilloried for relying too much on technology and now you appear to be suggesting that I am the one who is standing in the way of what? funding new technology? when I have repeatedly and vociferously stated that new technology will come from MORE not LESS economic development and that I am all FOR it?
Yes, but where have I said that I have a problem with any of the above? In fact, such a poorly phrased series of statements make one struggle to know what you are really trying to say.
Really? so what exactly was that list that CF Images provided? and how did I “stick my fingers in my ears?” Was this the list regarding costs for Iraq? Afghanistan? bailouts? Subsidies? IF SO, then you did NOT read the list very carefully. Forget the clothes, PUT ON SOME GLASSES.
Honestly, can NO ONE on the left READ anymore? Seriously, this latest collection of wimpered whinings is substandard even for the dipshits that regularly bedevil this form as “concerned citizens who desire to take action to make s difference.”
Interesting though how this climate change alarmism debate goes. It was ACCEPTED wisdom that polar bear populations were declining and this was attributed DIRECTLY to global warming and now, we seem to be engaging in a very spirited debate about WHY the populations have not decreased… like so many of the sureties of global warming alarmism, a little discussion and questioning leads to some awful hyperventilating hysteria, no?
Tone it down with the " batshit-crazy old woman" , “idiots” and “dipshit” comments please.
I can’t speak for Fred, but if you read what I wrote, I was painting a picture - specifically, of the nature of the “debate” going on here.
Well, in that case, your original question “How much is it going to cost?” has, as I said, been comprehensively answered: nothing at all, beyond the normal costs of front-loading that you’d expect in a functioning market economy with expectations of future profits and/or savings, and the costs of replacing worn-out or obsolete kit. There really is nothing left to debate. I know it amuses you to “hahahaha” at everything, but really, lets move on, eh?
I can’t speak for Fred, but if you read what I wrote, I was painting a picture - specifically, of the nature of the “debate” going on here.[/quote]
With a thread title like “Climate Change Kills Polar Bears hahahahahahahah” I must ask, was anyone’s expectations that it would be otherwise?
No, the original question has not been answered, hence the debate continues.
Fred Smith (to other poster) prefers colorful debates and wishes that the color of the comments be allowed to continue. The clarity and celerity of the colloquy leaves much to be desired. Let it at least be colorful.
No. You cherry picked from the article in order to misrepresent it. Other people simply identified the facts you had chosen to ignore, which represented the article and the report’s conclusions accurately.
No.
In line with AGW science.
No, they weren’t dismissed out of hand here for exactly the same reasons that the Inuit gave.
No, we don’t have anything of the kind. You’re making it all up.
No. You cherry picked from the article in order to misrepresent it. Other people simply identified the facts you had chosen to ignore, which represented the article and the report’s conclusions accurately.
No.
In line with AGW science.
No, they weren’t dismissed out of hand here for exactly the same reasons that the Inuit gave.
No, we don’t have anything of the kind. You’re making it all up.[/quote]
Don’t poke the troll. In his world, if he can’t see it NOW, then it doesn’t exist.
Global Warming? LOL, last winter in snowed somewhere it usually doesn’t ergo facto… Polar bears may someday suffer from lack of ice? BULLSHIT! There are more now than a few years back! Ergo facto retardo reactionaro there is no problem, leftist are aligning to fuck hard working people out of their hard earned cash, end of story!
Is that your pathetic attempt to sidetrack us on the fact that you have not exactly explained how you were quoted out of context? Back to you. And keep your hysteria to yourself.
Fortigurn: yeah, yeah, yeah, it has all been proved. That is why we are still debating polar bear numbers, right? First, we hear how global warming has decimated polar bear populations but then whoops it has not and then maybe it has and maybe it has not but we need to argue how the observations were conducted. Shouldn’t all of this be argued out BEFORE the conclusions are, er, concluded? AND isn’t that the TRUE scientific method? I mean you are always on and on and on about the science and yet you expect people to accept poor researched efforts such as the one on polar bear numbers, Himalayan glaciers, polar ice cap melts which either were NOT scientifically conducted OR if they were do not necessarily prove the global warming alarmist position. But you keep reciting like an itinerant monk with a begging bowl. Science… dong. dong. dong… science… dong… dong… dong… I mean hey… if that or your prayer beads or your rosary or your stations of the cross keeps you from sinning and gives your life meaning, who am I to object?
Is that your pathetic attempt to sidetrack us on the fact that you have not exactly explained how you were quoted out of context? Back to you. And keep your hysteria to yourself.
Fortigurn: yeah, yeah, yeah, it has all been proved. That is why we are still debating polar bear numbers, right? First, we hear how global warming has decimated polar bear populations but then whoops it has not and then maybe it has and maybe it has not but we need to argue how the observations were conducted. Shouldn’t all of this be argued out BEFORE the conclusions are, er, concluded? AND isn’t that the TRUE scientific method? I mean you are always on and on and on about the science and yet you expect people to accept poor researched efforts such as the one on polar bear numbers, Himalayan glaciers, polar ice cap melts which either were NOT scientifically conducted OR if they were do not necessarily prove the global warming alarmist position. But you keep reciting like an itinerant monk with a begging bowl. Science… dong. dong. dong… science… dong… dong… dong… I mean hey… if that or your prayer beads or your rosary or your stations of the cross keeps you from sinning and gives your life meaning, who am I to object? [/quote]
Fred, you know full well the effects of climate change will get worse and worse with respect to the bears and it isn’t at its worse yet.
Fred, you know full well you only took one sentence out of my post and you keep reposting it as a stand alone absolute comment (which it isn’t).
Fred, you know full well that EVERYONE can see the North melting, and you can deduct this will lead to FUTURE peril for the bears.
Fred, you know full well that hunting restriction are at an all time high, and like with seals there may need to be a change to keep communities safe. Wildlife management can be reactionary at times.
Fred, you know full well you came into this thread with full intent on picking a fight (hence the sadness).
Fred, you know full well you are trolling the shit out of this thread right now.
Fred, you have basically become a muggy, rabble rousing elfin like creature who lives under a bridge.
But mostly, you are misguided and…
you’re wrong!
(if we could teach bears to surf there may be a future, they can ride bikes, so who knows?)
So why do the climate change alarmists need to lie about this or exaggerate this? IF this is as serious as many believe, why cannot they acknowledge the need for a scientific approach and wait till all the facts are in or all the needed observations are done? OR counter their statements with provisos regarding the incompleteness of the same?
And I reposted the ENTIRE post with your other four comments, asking you to explain how the other three sentences would have any bearing on the context. Want me to do so again so that everyone can see how ridiculous your assertion is that you were somehow “taken out of context?” You are not intelligent enough to have a context much less be taken out of one with any coherent meaning or purpose.
But we are told that the polar bears are dying NOW and not the FUTURE. AND the ice has been melting since the mid 1980s following the very cold 10 year period preceding it. So what is the NORMAL or even DESIRED amount of ice and why should we care? More important, what are you going to do to stop it? How much will it cost? and can you prove that anything that you do will achieve any of the objectives that you have outlined?
How do you know that hunting restrictions are at an all time high? You have taken ONE comment from ONE article, ironically from the one that I posted to show the egregious cherrypicking that you all engage in and you mention this to me? What do seals have to do with this discussion? Explain it in your own words. I doubt that you can.
Be sad all you want. I do not believe that climate change alarmists should be given control of anything. They demand respect for science and then throw out study after study such as the one here on polar bears that have not been scientifically conducted and ask us to obey, believe, trust. NO. NO. NO. And again, I don’t care what it takes for you to feel like you are “making a difference” but you can pay for that with your own money and not the taxpayers.
I know that you are engaging in sniveling passive aggressive whining. I disagree with you and anyone else who asserts that man is responsible for most of global warming and even more that vast expenditures to international feel-good bureaucracies will do anything at all to solve that problem. Where’s the troll? Do you doubt that I believe my statements?
So says the man who cannot even figure out what the context of his own posts is. Bah. I would laugh but you are not that funny.
Perhaps.
and apparently the fact that none of you can prove that makes it so? Okay, dream out self-esteem award winning student. YOU ARE SPECIAL… so special they have Olympics for people like you but SPECIAL all the same.
hahahahahahahahaahahahahaah
You can sign a petition.
Here’s what they suggest:
[quote]I am writing to voice support for strong limits on the carbon pollution from the nation’s coal-fired power plants.
Power plants are the largest source of carbon emissions in the country, and I urge the Environmental Protection Agency to take action to cut this air pollution that is causing dangerous climate change.
As an advocate for the future of wildlife, I am concerned about the impact of carbon pollution on our climate and environment. Please take action in 2012 to clean up the biggest polluters.[/quote]
But you can erase all that and just put “Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…”
No I don’t.
Yes, you do.
- IPCC?
- Himalayan Glaciergate?
- Polar bears R Us?
Or please categorically refute that you ever supported any of the above.
Yes, you do.
- IPCC?
- Himalayan Glaciergate?
- Polar bears R Us?
Or please categorically refute that you ever supported any of the above.[/quote]
Fred, you are saying that the IPCC is a poorly researched effort? What GW research is better than theirs?
Sorry for interrupting any arguments, but i thought i would throw in my 
on the topic of climate change. I know this thread is really more specifically focused on the plight of polar bears, but i thought i would stick to the topic of climate change in general. Although i find this thread pointless, along with the other emotionally charged and politically divided threads on this forum, I’m bored and have a bad habit of probing these and other meaningless discussions. And with active threads like “Penises Penises” and “the rainworm fairy,” well, it’s pretty slim pickins at the moment. I’ll find something better to do with my time than giving pointless comments on pointless threads…starting tomorrow…i promise. Anyway, back to climate change. The two opposing positions that climate change by humans is a bunch of crap and climate change by humans is scientific fact and will cause impending doom are both obtuse. The climate was warmer 1,000 years ago than it is now, and has been warmer several other times in earth’s history, as far as scientists can guess. There were times during the last ice age that were warmer than now, and periods of warm climate within the ice age that lasted longer than the time between now and the ice age. In fact, based on that alone, we don’t even know if we’re really out of the ice age yet. And even if we are, the next ice age will come along many thousands of years from now regardless of what humans try to do to make the planet warmer. A lot of the science behind climate change was poor quality, which is why some scientists have called the whole movement into question. But, when the most popular skeptic (his name?) cleaned things up and ran the numbers himself he too conceded two findings: 1) climate change does seem to be happening, and 2) it seems to some degree or another be influenced by human activity. A recent report found that the polar ice has now reached an all-time low. Things do seem to be changing. But how accurately we can measure our affects on climate? Unfortunately, climate itself involves too many variables, both known and unknown, to be able to definitively isolate the exact effects of a given input. But that particular argument is irrelevant anyway. The real heart of the matter is that air pollution sucks. It causes respiratory development problems in our children and affects the health of everyone exposed to it. It’s finding its way into our water and changing the acidity of our oceans. This is what we’re going to have to deal with. When my child has asthma, the coral reefs are dead, and i can’t catch enough fish to provide for my family i’m not going to give a shit about polar bears. Another recent report: increased energy efficiency by developed and some developing economies is far outweighed by increases in energy use by poor nations. The UN is in a catch-22. Part of it is focused on climate change while at the same time focused on lifting everyone out of poverty. Well, lift everyone out of poverty and carbon emissions will shoot through the roof. We can’t make our energy clean enough fast enough to keep the increased use of electricity among the global population from making pollution matters much worse before they have any chance of getting better. Sorry Al Gore, you might get rich off your carbon consulting investments, but the only way you’re going to reduce carbon pollution enough to halt global warming in time is the systematic eradication of much of the population, or perhaps forced mass sterilization, or maybe both. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. How are we going to get all the polluting countries on board to commit to the same solutions? It ain’t gonna happen. Look at Europe and the Euro. A handful of countries willfully agreed to sign on to that little experiment of cooperation and what happened? It’s gotten to the point where sovereignty over fiscal decisions is becoming the issue. How much more impossible will it be to get many more nations from across the globe to agree on a common solution? Will sovereignty over carbon output become the issue? It’s already a lost cause. Does that mean we should give up on controlling pollution? Of course not. But countries need to move forward knowing climate change may be an unavoidable reality and adjust to future developments accordingly. I don’t believe the world will be destroyed by climate change either way. But add another few billion people in the next 30-40 years and we got big problems even if climate change isn’t as serious as some people would have guessed. Food, water, and energy is what the future is going to be all about. Climate change may make those matters worse, but I’d pick climate change before over-population any day.
What is this? Stealing candy from a baby hour?
Okay, you tell me why you think that the IPCC research and reports are all that and I will pretend that you have been living under a media blackout rock for the past five to six years and have heard nary a wimper of the numerous scandals that have engulfed this effort.
Again, I am giving you a chance to save yourself here. Let me repeat: Do you REALLY want to defend the IPCC reports here and now or would you rather do a few google searches to understand what I will be throwing right back at you in mere minutes…