71
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2008 01:10 pm
cjhsa wrote:
TKO, you're obviously very intelligent. Intelligence doesn't translate easily to doing the right thing. Take a look at who is leading the GW bandwagon. Mr. Gore is a blowhard. We were so very lucky that Bill Clinton was not removed from office while that piece of garbage was VP.


Would you believe, if you listen carefully to hints dropped in the more informal TV interviews and/or suggested in the internet underground here, that there are thoughts that Clinton and Obama are both now too damaged to win in November and the Super Delegates should in fact choose a different, electable candidate?

And the name I've heard suggested the most for that different candidate is Al Gore.

Sleep well tonight, children.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2008 01:57 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Either you can defend it or you can't. You choose the latter.

T
K
O


... I trust you found Ican's explanation satisfactory.

Which explanation?

This one:
Quote:
:wink:
ican711nm wrote:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, over 400 prominent scientists--not a minority of those scientists who have published their views on global warming--from more than two dozen countries voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Or this one:
Quote:
Sad
ican711nm wrote:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, over 400 prominent scientists--not a minority of those scientists who have published their views on global warming--from more than two dozen countries voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.


T
K
O
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2008 02:02 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
TKO, you're obviously very intelligent. Intelligence doesn't translate easily to doing the right thing. Take a look at who is leading the GW bandwagon. Mr. Gore is a blowhard. We were so very lucky that Bill Clinton was not removed from office while that piece of garbage was VP.


Would you believe, if you listen carefully to hints dropped in the more informal TV interviews and/or suggested in the internet underground here, that there are thoughts that Clinton and Obama are both now too damaged to win in November and the Super Delegates should in fact choose a different, electable candidate?

And the name I've heard suggested the most for that different candidate is Al Gore.

Sleep well tonight, children.


Smile How about Al Gore for president and John Kerry for vice president?

Then the Dems could claim: "Been there, done that" backwards.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2008 02:33 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
TKO, you're obviously very intelligent. Intelligence doesn't translate easily to doing the right thing. Take a look at who is leading the GW bandwagon. Mr. Gore is a blowhard. We were so very lucky that Bill Clinton was not removed from office while that piece of garbage was VP.


Would you believe, if you listen carefully to hints dropped in the more informal TV interviews and/or suggested in the internet underground here, that there are thoughts that Clinton and Obama are both now too damaged to win in November and the Super Delegates should in fact choose a different, electable candidate?

And the name I've heard suggested the most for that different candidate is Al Gore.

Sleep well tonight, children.


Smile How about Al Gore for president and John Kerry for vice president?

Then the Dems could claim: "Been there, done that" backwards.


Laughing

The sad thing is that McCain, Clinton, and Obama are all on the pro-AGW bandwagon, but I doubt any one of them is as squirrely or as fanatical (or dishonest) on that as Al Gore.

So hey that Gore/Kerry ticket looks pretty good. Both super rich white guys so we could really go after them without being accused of sexism or racism or any other ugly 'isms.

And if Gore got elected, at the very least it would give us ammunition for this thread for at least 4-1/2 more years. Smile
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2008 10:25 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
TKO, you're obviously very intelligent. Intelligence doesn't translate easily to doing the right thing. Take a look at who is leading the GW bandwagon. Mr. Gore is a blowhard. We were so very lucky that Bill Clinton was not removed from office while that piece of garbage was VP.


Would you believe, if you listen carefully to hints dropped in the more informal TV interviews and/or suggested in the internet underground here, that there are thoughts that Clinton and Obama are both now too damaged to win in November and the Super Delegates should in fact choose a different, electable candidate?

And the name I've heard suggested the most for that different candidate is Al Gore.

Sleep well tonight, children.


He has shown his skill at showing fraudulant videos of melting icebergs with doctored photos, so he should be able to doctor up a bunch more ad spots for president too.
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2008 11:14 pm
"iceberg"? You mean "icecap" perhaps? icebergs always melt, always have, always will. And I hate to tell you this, but the icecaps are melting too, and the glaciologists agree with Al. The rate of melt has doubled, and now tripled, over the last decade or so. Ice that's been there for 400,000 years isn't likely to make it thru the next century. Gore's right. The people picked him in '00, and I have to question the sanity of anyone who thinks the country is better off after eight years of George Bush instead.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 10:10 am
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, over 400 prominent scientists--not a minority of those scientists who have published their views on global warming--from more than two dozen countries voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 11:55 am
username wrote:
"iceberg"? You mean "icecap" perhaps? icebergs always melt, always have, always will. And I hate to tell you this, but the icecaps are melting too, and the glaciologists agree with Al. The rate of melt has doubled, and now tripled, over the last decade or so. Ice that's been there for 400,000 years isn't likely to make it thru the next century. Gore's right. The people picked him in '00, and I have to question the sanity of anyone who thinks the country is better off after eight years of George Bush instead.


Really? It was definitely icebergs in the pictures Gore used to illustrate the dwindling habitat of wildlife. Of course he had to use a cartoon polar bear when they were unable to locate a single polar bear in distresss, and there were considerable other dishonest illusions in his presentation.

For instance, he rather carefully avoided information such as the following:

From The Times
June 22, 2007
Wildlife flourishes on melting ice
Lewis Smith, Environment Reporter

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00179/King_penguins__Apte_179715a.jpg
Icebergs released into Antarctic waters by global warming are hotspots for wildlife, researchers have found.

The break-up of Antarctic ice shelves has increased dramatically the number of icebergs and they have proved an unexpectedly rich habitat.

Nutrients released into the water by the melting ice promote the growth of phytoplankton, which attract krill, which are then preyed on by bigger animals such as whales.

Sea areas that would normally be barren - up to two miles (3km) from the icebergs - have become rich in animal life, including a variety of fish.

Among the birds observed by scientists from the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, in the US, were Cape petrels and Antarctic fulmars. Penguins, whales and seals are attracted by the krill and fish.

Almost 1,000 icebergs were counted in 4,300 sq miles (11,000 sq km) of the Weddell Sea, and scientists calculated that overall they had increased the "biological productivity" in nearly 40 per cent of the sea.

Life thrives in such quantities around the icebergs studied that the researchers describe them as free-floating estuaries.

"We envision free-drifting icebergs in the Weddell Sea as hotspots of continual micro-nutrient release that sustain the accompanying attached and pelagic communities," they say in their report, published in the journal Science."

The researchers suggest that the eruption of life around the icebergs could be helping to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Some of the greenhouse gas is absorbed by the ocean and, in turn, by animal life which, when it dies, can sink to the seabed where the carbon is trapped.

Because more animal life is being created in the region there is more that can sink to the sea floor and therefore increase the quantity of carbon removed from the atmosphere.

"Free-drifting icebergs could serve as areas of increased production and sequestration of organic carbon to the deep sea, a process unaccounted-for in current global carbon budgets," they say.
LINK
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 12:06 pm
How time flies - more than half a year later the above paper's sister (The Sunday Times, March 30, 2008) reports:

Quote:
If you want to see these lords of the Arctic, my advice is not to leave it too long, because the sea ice is breaking up earlier every year and this is bad news for bears. Already they are producing fewer cubs, becoming thinner and are increasingly driven to cannibalism. "The polar bear may well become the iconic symbol of global warming," says the Royal Geographical Society.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 12:10 pm
Don't look now Walter, but Polar Bears live at the opposite end of the world from the Penguins.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 12:14 pm
Thanks for the info.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 12:15 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Thanks for the info.


You're welcome.

Here's some other recent data on the Polar Bears at that opposite end though:

Polar Bears on Thin Ice, Not Really!
Brief Analysis
No. 551
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba551/


Anchorage Daily News
Political science
Lacking studies, state still disputes polar bear 'doom'
By TOM KIZZIA
Published: January 27th, 2008 02:42 AM
Last Modified: January 27th, 2008 11:52 AM
http://www.adn.com/polarbears/story/295420.html


Canada Free Press
U.S. Senate Report Debunks Polar Bear Extinction Fears
Wednesday, January 30, 2008

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service is considering listing the polar bear a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. This report details the scientists debunking polar bear endangerment fears and features a sampling of the latest peer-reviewed science detailing the natural causes of recent Arctic ice changes.

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations ""may now be near historic highs."" The alarm about the future of polar bear decline is based on speculative computer model predictions many decades in the future. And the methodology of these computer
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1626
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 01:47 pm
Yeah but, aren't all those polar bears breathing more CO2 into the atmosphere?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 02:55 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Yeah but, aren't all those polar bears breathing more CO2 into the atmosphere?


It's okay. I think extra seaweed and algae and stuff probably take in as much CO2 as the bears put out.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 03:24 pm
Polar bears (ARCTOS marinus) evolved during an "interglacial period" and have been uniquely adapted for SWIMMING not ice skating.
1Their nares are higher than their snouts. Their paws are adapted for swimming. The study of the "dying" polar bears was by Monnett and Gleason (2005) and has been debunked as foxfyre said. The real threat to polar bears is hunting not global warming. The only population group that is deminishing is the one in Churchill , Manitoba. That one is being killed off by humans because the bears have gotten to be threats because theyve grown accustomed to humans as sources of food or as food ourselves.


Also, one of the biggest areas of recent research has been the relationship between CO2 and warming. Recent research is showing that CO2 is not a cause but an effect of warming. Vast areas of word muskeg are now spewing CO2 as bubbling "pop" bottles. This is occuring after some degree of warming was noticed in a specific area.

We are in an interglacial stage . Thats a fact. Weve been basing circular arguments on very shitty data that is self reinforcing. (autocorrelation does not prove any degrees of cause and effect).
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 07:19 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Yeah but, aren't all those polar bears breathing more CO2 into the atmosphere?


It's okay. I think extra seaweed and algae and stuff probably take in as much CO2 as the bears put out.


Cool!
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 07:34 pm
farmerman wrote:
Polar bears (ARCTOS marinus) evolved during an "interglacial period" and have been uniquely adapted for SWIMMING not ice skating.
1Their nares are higher than their snouts. Their paws are adapted for swimming. The study of the "dying" polar bears was by Monnett and Gleason (2005) and has been debunked as foxfyre said. The real threat to polar bears is hunting not global warming. The only population group that is deminishing is the one in Churchill , Manitoba. That one is being killed off by humans because the bears have gotten to be threats because theyve grown accustomed to humans as sources of food or as food ourselves.


Also, one of the biggest areas of recent research has been the relationship between CO2 and warming. Recent research is showing that CO2 is not a cause but an effect of warming. Vast areas of word muskeg are now spewing CO2 as bubbling "pop" bottles. This is occuring after some degree of warming was noticed in a specific area.

We are in an interglacial stage . Thats a fact. Weve been basing circular arguments on very shitty data that is self reinforcing. (autocorrelation does not prove any degrees of cause and effect).


Welcome to the thread FM. We need all the reinforcements in common sense we can get. Smile

Some pages back I think it was HighSeas who reported on research that showed during eras in which the Arctic ice has mostly melted, the Polar bears became brown bears until the habitat again reverted to the frozen state to which we are accustomed. In other words, the bears seem to be able to adapt to changing climatic conditions pretty well.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 08:36 pm
I really hate the fact that the "anthropogenic causation of global warming" seems to be a political issue rather than science. As a geologist, I see no evidence from any stratigraphic records that show global climate change (warming) is human induced. The recently exposed Dannsgard Oeschger cycles are another global cyclicity that , like Malenkovitch, polar precession, chandler wobble etc etc are all reflective of the earths big climatological engine (the sun).

I think that the Oregon petition , which now numbers about 17000 scientists who dont buy into anthropenic global warming. The "...and its not good news..." is a function of spin, not science.

My politics are totally separate from this issue, and Im really sorry that so many of my liberal colleagues (and I lean liberal), just swallow the AL Gore bullshit without reading the masses of data and evidence that refutes all his points in "Inconvenient Truth". Its a damn shame because air pollution IS a big health issue and should be addressed for stuff like environmental health effects and acid rain. Global warming, I aint buying any of it.

Christopher Walter, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, had sued the British Govt on 9 errors from "Inconvenient...". In October 2007 the London High Court had affirmed that these 9 errors must be corrected by not showing the movie to English Secondary SChool students. The planned showing of the movie as a lesson plan was found , by the court ,
"To be in direct contravention of and ACt of PArliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children"

Fancy that, the UK has taken the issue by the horns and stopped it, while here in the US, we probably didnt even hear of this.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 08:41 pm
PS, and why have polar bears evolved with webbed feet?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 10:26 pm
Do they have webbed feet? I've never examined one up close and personal.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/11/2024 at 04:27:11