Polar bear situation not as dire as we thought...

Well, good news that the population is doing better than reported. This should not be a sign that it is time to evacuate protective tactics for the species, but a reminder to the scientific community that they need to work with governments and residents in order to ensure the future of polar bear populations.

There is no room for politics in wildlife conservation.
 
Bears love pepper. They hate cinammon....oh, wait. That's tigers.

Horn6721, guilty as charged. IF they're watching, they'll be greatly disappointed by the amount of time I spend on ESPN and A/V forums.
 
we can always swap experts GT. Dr. Mitchell Taylor has almost 60 peer reviewed papers and has been in the field for 30 years (about 10 more than Dr. Derocher. He disagrees with Dr. Derocher strongly and has been saying so for a few years. So where does that leave us? I guess we wait and see. For now, it is encouraging to hear that protection is paying off for the polar bear.
 
wait, are we talking about Climate Science or Polar Bear science? I thought it was the latter. He is one of the world's foremost experts on polar bears who questions global warming. Who cares? He has published almost 60 peer reviewed papers on polar bears and says that the situation is not near as bad as people have claimed. I know that must just gall you, but there it is.
 
GT, I only quoted him in regards to his expertise on Polar Bear science. He disagrees with the expert you put forth that polar bears are in as much trouble as has been claimed. I have not put him forth for his views on climate science and only mentioned it in my last response because you brought it up.

so you don't really have anything new to add. you have a polar bear scientist who says that the polar bears are in deep trouble, i have one who says they aren't. we also have a new study out that surprised everyone and showed far more polar bears than expected. at this stage, it looks like this thread is aptly named. i realize that new information may come out to call that into question, but for now, this thread shows what was claimed in the title.

Invoking the phrase "science denial" at every turn doesn't change that. for a scientist though, you sure make pathetic use of ad hominem. do you not have the ability to argue the science on its own merit without resorting to playground insults? I still think you should find time to sit in on a freshman class on logic at your university GT, it can't hurt and it would likely help!
 
see, now there's where that logic class would really help. correlation does not imply causation. I agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, i agree that the earth has warmed and i agree that man has released a lot of CO2. heck, i even think we may be responsible for some amount of the warming. but that still doesn't justify spending trillions trying to reduce CO2 without a clear causal string established. Furthermore, massive questions still remain about cloud cover, sun's influence and untold other issues. we just don't know how the earth responds thermostatically to more CO2 and to pretend we do is absurd. but this thread was about polar bears, it is strange that you keep going back to climate change. you having a rough weekend?
smile.gif
 
The journal Bioscience has a new, and troubling, report out which says that the disappearance of the cryosphere may have all kinds of unintended results, and may not be limited to just impacting polar bears:


The Link
 
I love how mop throws out trillions in spending when the reality is that we have done nothing at all. It is not a trillions or nothing proposition. The same spurious claims were made about the Clean Air Act which wound up saving more money than it cost.
 
paso, i am speaking of the global economy, but is it really your claim that we have spent NO MONEY on global warming? is that what you just said? "we have done nothing at all?" I need clarification on that comment.
 
Your claim is that it will be "trillions". This is the pretty much the same argument that was made against the Clean Air Act.

My complaint is that we have done nothing for twenty years and the decision is not trillions or do nothing.
 
My Ribeye Steak was a little dry last night at dinner and I brought it up to my waitress. She told me it's further proof that Global warming is real. She has to be a lib.

What's amazing is sometimes they point at things that happens as proof of global warming and sometimes they point of things that happen the opposite as more proof of global warming. No arguing with these goofs.
 
The correspondence between man's release of CO2 & the observed increase in global temperatures would simply be correlation were it not for the known causal link between CO2, a greenhouse gas, and retention of solar energy.

MOP, you're close to admitting that your science-denial has nothing to do with the science - it's all about the money.

texasflag.gif
 
GT, the three posts above you were all excellent, but Prodigal Horn has my response to a T. I don't question the basic physics, I question the bizarre assumption that our system is closed and that the climate is unable to adjust to the heat added by CO2. I particularly question this because we see that in geological history we had times with an order of magnitude more CO2 in the atmosphere and we never reached the magical tipping point that is so frequently invoked. I suspect that the earth has multiple effective ways to allow for less radiation escaping to space.
 
I heart GT WT. Not so much for his conclusions (which I do agree with) but with his methodology and the way he reasons his way to his conclusions.

From a quality science perspective, the original post is quite weak. It's not science that's driving mop, but something else; probably some misguided political agenda. But who knows the real reason?

Not to beat a dead horse, but imo the GOP is filled with too many like mop, who either don't understand logic and science or who just don't care.
 
GT, Wattsupwiththat is indeed my favorite blog on Climate Change. They constantly link to any new studies released on the subject, even those that disagree with their skeptical viewpoint, as well as regularly introducing readers to different aspects of the discussion. Having said that, I read a few dozen different websites to gather my opinions and it would be impossible to explain how they all inform me and to what degree. One of my favorite people to read is Dr. Roy Spencer because he does a great job of explaining things to lay people. He has the theory regarding a cloud feedback that continues to gain momentum as the data comes in. It seems more and more clear that many of the things that we have only just begun to explore are proving quite fruitful in terms of understanding natural climate variability which can dwarf any supposed human contribution. Just yesterday, a German science magazine released an article about natural climate variability as having far more variation than was believed. Bild der Wissenschaft

Bevo Icognito, if you are just looking for evidence of "tipping point" language, do a google search for the term for global warming tipping point. You can find more than you might imagine from sources as strong as Scientific American to National Geographic. This phrase has been used ad nauseum by those trying to use fear and hype to get the world to act on this issue. It is not my term and I did not find it in one obscure article, I assure you it is ubiquitous.

google search for "global warming tipping point"

Page 10 of the google search still has link after link directly referring to what I am referring. Same goes for page 20, 30 etc.

In fact, here is a search on RealClimate for the term "tipping point":
and you get 170 results:

Real Climate tipping point search
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top