Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Climate change isn't man-made?

Climate change isn't man-made? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2015, 12:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Which is why you've "lost interest" in typical fashion.
If I were a betting man, I'd put money on hostility playing a large role.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2015, 08:36 AM
 
Propaganda and faulty science taught as truth. Funny that some math guy caught the CO2 being assumed to be 5 times more important than reality in most of the formulas used to calculate the impact of it. This was only a few weeks ago.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2015, 09:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If I were a betting man, I'd put money on hostility playing a large role.
It's a weird situation for me. From his initial post, I had a pretty good idea where it was going - internet conspiracy-theorist type talk without a shred of actual, real discussion. But I wasn't completely sure. So I decided to push a little to see what happened - and sure enough, the tired personal-opinion arguments that have nothing to do with the reality of what climate science were quick to appear.

Discussion like acknowledging where the science is currently at and brainstorming actual things that could or should - or could or should not - be done as a response: that's an interesting thread. Because that's the true discussion - how (or even whether) we change and adapt.

This is the type of ignorant thread that's been beaten to death years ago - just one side that prefers not to have to study and learn the true issues, but would rather get their information from easily regurgitated 30-second sound bites delivered by people with a political bias. This one deserves to die and quick and ignorant death.
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2015, 12:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
But of course it did. The old "appeal to authority" argument when talkin about science - as though we shouldn't consider what the actual scientists have to say when talking about science. Ye gads.

Your posts here are pathetic and ignorant. But you know that. Which is why you've "lost interest" in typical fashion.
Flattery will get you nowhere. I've not lost interest in the subject, just in you. Why you persist in misrepresenting what I'm saying is baffling.

By that I mean it isn't baffling at all. I've read Rules for Radicals, too. Now play dumb and say, "I've never heard of it."

PS. You can only hurt someone with words if that person cares about what you think of them, and I don't.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2015, 01:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
It's a weird situation for me. From his initial post, I had a pretty good idea where it was going - internet conspiracy-theorist type talk without a shred of actual, real discussion. But I wasn't completely sure. So I decided to push a little to see what happened - and sure enough, the tired personal-opinion arguments that have nothing to do with the reality of what climate science were quick to appear.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but this explanation comes off like "I had a pretty good idea he wasn't interested in deep discussion, so I punched him twice in the stomach, and sure enough, there was no discussion."
     
sscreener
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2015
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2015, 02:38 PM
 
Official: NY probes Exxon, Peabody climate statements

Apparently Exxon admits their business is contributing to global warming.
InsideClimate News reported on the New York investigation earlier Thursday. The nonprofit publication reported on its own investigation earlier this year that found documents showing Exxon recognized in the late 1970s the possible threat to its own existence from global warming, said John Cushman, an editor.

Company researchers later confirmed the emerging scientific consensus that doubling carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels would warm the earth with unpalatable effects, Mr. Cushman said.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2015, 04:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but this explanation comes off like "I had a pretty good idea he wasn't interested in deep discussion, so I punched him twice in the stomach, and sure enough, there was no discussion."
Please keep in mind the original post. I think I alluded to it earlier, but a rough equivalent might be starting a thread called "Solutions for Middle East?" with an opinion piece from ISIS: it's a lesson in Heated Debate 101.

A more apt explanation might be "he slapped me in the face....instead of turning the other cheek and asking what it was all about, I punched him in the stomach."

Anyway. I have repeatedly asked for legitimate sources for some of the far-ranging opinions expressed in this thread that would seem to be, shall we say, not based in reality; but it appear that was not what this thread was supposed to be about. Ahhhh well.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2015, 10:52 AM
 
I'll have to take you at your word the OP was this inflammatory.
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2015, 12:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'll have to take you at your word the OP was this inflammatory.
It's what he was looking for, so of course that's what he found.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2015, 12:05 AM
 
I don't go in to too much depth with climate science because it isn't really my kind of science but whenever you have a 95%+ of scientists against a few (typically unknown) outliers and a bunch of (typically dumb as rocks) paid corporate shills (typically Republican Politicians and their apologists), I tend to take my usual side.

I'm all for critical thinking but believing whatever junk you hear from Glenn Beck or Alex Jones is not the same thing. I don't like having to defend corporations who we all know are soulless, dishonest profit machines, but I seem to find myself doing so more and more. Its mostly anti-vaxxers rather than climate deniers but they all wear matching tin foil hats.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2015, 05:18 AM
 
Here's subego's ignorant-ass climate change analysis:

Everything hinges on the oceans. If something along the lines of a massive plankton die-off occurs, regardless of who or what caused it, we are totally screwed. We might as well ride the thing down like Slim Pickens at the end of Dr. Strangelove.

If the oceans can stay relatively stable, I think the rest of the dangers are overblown.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2015, 08:09 AM
 
I was reading where the CO2 levels have allowed for higher food production of about 17% world wide.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 23, 2015, 10:44 AM
 
45/47
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 23, 2015, 11:06 AM
 
Whatever happened to the term "global warming"? And those poor polar bears, have they gone extinct?

I'm no climate scientist, but at least i'm not a megalomaniac who thinks i can control the global climate (or use it as an excuse to consolidate power for myself). Fear mongering much?
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 23, 2015, 12:34 PM
 
Polar bears extinct? Hell no, the buggers are thriving, populations haven't been better in over a century.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 23, 2015, 01:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Polar bears extinct? Hell no, the buggers are thriving, populations haven't been better in over a century.
Oh. Then i assume it was just the virtual polar bears in the computer models that the climate "scientists" made that have gone extinct?

I assume they need more funding from taxpayers to save the virtual polar bears? Don't you care about them? /s
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 23, 2015, 01:17 PM
 
It's probably going to be just like in the movie "The Day After Tomorrow"
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 23, 2015, 09:59 PM
 
Why do I keep seeing footage of emaciated Polar Bears then?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 23, 2015, 10:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Why do I keep seeing footage of emaciated Polar Bears then?
Are they *real* polar bears, or computer model polar bears? I'm extremely concerned about those poor computer model polar bears cause of the bad programs those "scientists" have trapped them in.

What's worse is those "scientists" are holding those poor virtual polar bears hostage, and demanding governments turn over billions of dollars to improve their virtual lives.

Ideally I don't want governments to negotiate with criminals, but then i think of those poor virtual polar bears. I care!

But, but, but..... Media Confused by Failure of Ice Sheets to Shrink According To Their Demands (www.dailywire.com)
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 23, 2015, 11:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Polar bears extinct? Hell no, the buggers are thriving, populations haven't been better in over a century.
This statement is incredibly ignorant and out of context. Yet again, I guess you drag me back in to the suck.
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 23, 2015, 11:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Why do I keep seeing footage of emaciated Polar Bears then?
They don't need to store as much fat.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2015, 07:57 AM
 
Those right wingers at the WWF say 3 populations are in decline, 1 is growing, 6 are stable, and 9 have insufficient data.

It also notes people still hunt the ****ers, so there's a global .30-06 angle.
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2015, 09:04 AM
 
I found out you can legally hunt them in Alaska. I abhor big game hunting, but I understand why it exists.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2015, 09:08 AM
 
Now there's a Sarah Palin photo-op missed opportunity.
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2015, 09:12 AM
 
My understanding is that the licensing is lottery-style, but I'm sure she could have pulled some strings.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2015, 09:25 AM
 
I wonder if Inuit get bumps in the lottery.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2015, 09:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I wonder if Inuit get bumps in the lottery.
Do the Inuit still conduct their Harp seal hunt?
45/47
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2015, 09:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I wonder if Inuit get bumps in the lottery.
They have a "limited trical exemption" of a certain number /yr, I believe.

Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Do the Inuit still conduct their Harp seal hunt?
Oh yeah.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2015, 10:56 AM
 


(Take note of who the presenter is.)
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2015, 12:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
(Take note of who the presenter is.)
And who, exactly, is the presenter? In your own words, please.
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2015, 01:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
And who, exactly, is the presenter? In your own words, please.
Oh now.... if you really want to know, you have to click that play button to find out.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2015, 02:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Those right wingers at the WWF say 3 populations are in decline, 1 is growing, 6 are stable, and 9 have insufficient data.

It also notes people still hunt the ****ers, so there's a global .30-06 angle.
The issue of polar bears is:

a) somewhat of a red herring for those who believe in the concept of anthropogenic climate change/global warming - because you simply can't in good faith make the argument "let's make all these wholesale changes in human society simply for the benefit of polar bears". Sure (unlike what Shaddim's ignorant statements might suggest - because that's what that particular talking point was designed to do) climate change is having an extremely serious impact on polar bears and that will only continue to increase in the future - but it's no different than, say, how human activities have decimated almost all large mammals the world over for tens of thousands of years. (The negative impact on polar bears is not really in dispute - again, unlike what the typical uninformed statements from the usual suspects would suggest. There are dozens of scientists who study polar bears exclusively for a living - I had the privilege of taking a science course from one of the more preeminent ones. They are experts, and if you read what they are saying, instead of the parroted political drivel spouted here, I think most people would conclude that they are extremely knowledgeable people who have very good reasons to support their predictions about the species.). So, yeah, AGW will probably put a big dent into the polar bears.....that is merely a fact to be weighed against many others, not a be-all end-all of climate change arguments. (Of course, I will point out that no one of any sophistication is making that argument. You are more likely to see it as a talking point for the uninitiated.....unfortunately that is exactly what fuels most of this thread, so, there is that I guess.)

b) totally a red herring for those who are anti-AGW. The fact of the matter is that statements like Shaddim's are not only extremely selective, but flat out lies. (Yes - that point when I get to accuse Shaddim's of lying again. It's just my confrontational nature, y'know? Oh, and also that he's lying.). In reality, we have no idea what global polar bear populations were like as recently as the early 60s - which would sort of beg the question as to how he possibly made his bold claim that populations "haven't been better in over a century". Furthermore, those sort of claims obscure a rebound of bear populations that we do know about, that occurred in the 60s and 70s, after much stricter hunting rules began to be enforced pretty much worldwide. The fact that polar bear hunting was an ongoing and increasing concern right up until governments had to start performing crackdowns is a pretty important caveat when talking about historical populations, don't you think?

Importantly, during this time, there hadn't yet been a significant dent in the Arctic ice sheet. That is what makes those sort of claims completely irrelevant - regardless what hunting restrictions did for bear populations in the past, the simple fact is that they are currently facing massive and extensive habitat loss due to a warming Arctic, and that trend is expected to continue with a very high confidence. Polar bears are designed to survive in a very specific environment, and that environment is disappearing extremely quickly. The bears will adapt in certain ways - but we have extremely good examples from other large mammals who have also faced habitat loss, and in general the eventual outcome is rarely positive.

But in any event, my point was that the lies and misinformation being repeated in this thread are just that. I have already given my opinion on the original post and will point out that I am completely unsurprised that those points apply equally well to this new topic.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2015, 02:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
Oh now.... if you really want to know, you have to click that play button to find out.
You misunderstand. I know who he is. I've seen him in person and have listened to him speak.

You seem to be placing some emphasis on him. And I strongly suspect it's because you are actually the one confused about who he is.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2015, 03:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
The issue of polar bears is:
I've never interpreted the polar bear "talking point" to mean this, nor have I until now met anyone who has. The idea isn't to address global warming so we can save the bears, it's that the effect on the bears is direct evidence of global warming.

The effect it's having on the bears has been encapsulated with "they're dying", hence me feeling the need to post the data.

The experts you refer to seem to be claiming their habitat is dying. This is a different thing. I mean... don't get me wrong, I see no reason to disbelieve the claim, it's just a different claim than "they're dying".
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2015, 04:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I've never interpreted the polar bear "talking point" to mean this, nor have I until now met anyone who has. The idea isn't to address global warming so we can save the bears, it's that the effect on the bears is direct evidence of global warming.

The effect it's having on the bears has been encapsulated with "they're dying", hence me feeling the need to post the data.

The experts you refer to seem to be claiming their habitat is dying. This is a different thing. I mean... don't get me wrong, I see no reason to disbelieve the claim, it's just a different claim than "they're dying".
Yes and no. It's certainly a different claim. But the expected/predicted end result is the same.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2015, 06:48 PM
 
So, whats up with NOAA altering historical data?
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2015, 07:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post


(Take note of who the presenter is.)
Then there's the old chestnut, "Why would scientists want to manipulate the public?" It's simple really, even if they're proven wrong about anthropomorphic climate change, and I believe they will be, they can simply shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, conservation and cleaning the environment was a good idea anyway". They're right, but holy shit is that dirty. It's huge business, though.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2015, 07:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post

b) totally a red herring for those who are anti-AGW. The fact of the matter is that statements like Shaddim's are not only extremely selective, but flat out lies. (Yes - that point when I get to accuse Shaddim's of lying again. It's just my confrontational nature, y'know? Oh, and also that he's lying.). In reality, we have no idea what global polar bear populations were like as recently as the early 60s - which would sort of beg the question as to how he possibly made his bold claim that populations "haven't been better in over a century".
Except I'm not, and you're full of shit (again).



"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2015, 10:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Except I'm not, and you're full of shit (again).



Lol. This is so easy it's like taking candy from a baby.

Something you don't know about the graph above - that your pathetic Overlords didn't feel necessary to tell you - is that the "5000" number is bullshit. It is a made-up number taken from a Russian study In the 1950s which - quite obviously if you think about that time period and political landscape - was totally inadequate by any standard. I mean, currently I believe an estimated 60%+ of the world's population is located in the North American & Svalbard Arctic - all outside of the USSR at that time - and the current Russian population is for the most part estimated based on completely inadequate data, because it's so remote that it makes the Canadian Arctic look like New York; there is completely no way to access vast tracks of the Russian Arctic, and the original researchers certainly did not do so. So, the 5000 number comes from people who didn't study the largest populations, and almost certainly didn't study the other (USSR) populations either.

See, polar bear scientists are aware that the number makes no sense, and is quite obviously wrong. So the number is easily dismissed by anyone who has a shred of knowledge. (And actually, the estimate in the study was "5000-8000" - but your Overlords like to only use the lower number because it fits their narrative better, right?) But of course, as has been the case throughout this thread: you don't have that shred of knowledge; you simply do not know any better; you simply parrot what they tell you to say.

All of which simply avoids the question of why you said "in over a century" of course. Given that we didn't start accumulating semi-reliable data until the end of the 1960s, it's quite obvious that you have chosen to simply lie - or perhaps more accurately, parrot the lies of your Overlords without a single thought as to whether they might be lying to you.

Just please stop. For your own sake, stop.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2015, 11:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So, whats up with NOAA altering historical data?
Why don't you tell me more about your complaint first?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
It's simple really, even if they're proven wrong about anthropomorphic climate change, and I believe they will be
...and you're willing to believe and repeat any lie that leads you to your destination, and avoid anything else.

I had it pegged right from the get go.
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2015, 02:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Lol. This is so easy it's like taking candy from a baby.

Something you don't know about the graph above - that your pathetic Overlords didn't feel necessary to tell you - is that the "5000" number is bullshit. It is a made-up number taken from a Russian study In the 1950s
Citation?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2015, 02:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
...and you're willing to believe and repeat any lie that leads you to your destination, and avoid anything else.

I had it pegged right from the get go.
No, that's you, I'm not the collectivist.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2015, 09:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Citation?
Placeholder for citation. That information was taken from some old class slides for a northern physiology course. I'm confident in its accuracy and I'm sure some basic Googling this afternoon will corroborate, but I'm buried at the moment. Feel free to do so yourself in the meantime.

Edit: got a spare moment. Googled "polar bear population" and two mouse clicks for the following article. FWIW, my aforementioned notes came from a lecture by one of the bear scientists referenced.

Society of Environmental Journalists: SEJournal excerpts
( Last edited by The Final Shortcut; Nov 25, 2015 at 10:49 AM. )
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2015, 09:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
No, that's you, I'm not the collectivist.
I have a real problem with that term when discussing empirical subject matter.
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2015, 12:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Placeholder for citation. That information was taken from some old class slides for a northern physiology course. I'm confident in its accuracy and I'm sure some basic Googling this afternoon will corroborate, but I'm buried at the moment. Feel free to do so yourself in the meantime.

Edit: got a spare moment. Googled "polar bear population" and two mouse clicks for the following article. FWIW, my aforementioned notes came from a lecture by one of the bear scientists referenced.

Society of Environmental Journalists: SEJournal excerpts
So, they're saying there's no way of knowing that the 5000 number is true, but they're still agreeing that there are many, many more today. Ah, I see. Well then, I guess you can then shut your ****ing mouth.

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
I have a real problem with that term when discussing empirical subject matter.
Tough shit.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2015, 02:19 PM
 
Climate scientists need AGW to appear true the same way the NFL needs concussion data to show no long term damage. I wonder if Will Smith will do that movie in 20 years, though I see that as being way less dramatic. "Guess what guys! we're fine!"

Without climate problems, we don't need nearly as many climate scientists.

"Consensus" is not a scientific tenet. There was "consensus" that the earth was flat, but over time using better scientific techniques we were able to prove otherwise.

Same thing with the climate models - I am all for making them better, but the idea that we're anywhere close to figuring out the earth's climate is laughable. The models have been shown to have problems, and to be missing a plethora of variables, as well as causative factors. We people like to feel like we're in control, and there's no better way to control people then to say "we're all gonna die!". That's actually the same reasoning religion became a thing, and the same reason the NSA is able to use the Constitution as toilet paper. Again, I'm all for protecting the environment, but I don't think wrecking our economies is the way to do it, since that would seriously slow up the scientific march (in all areas) on a magnitude far greater then the AGW zealots realize.

Again I'm all for more research and investing scientific resources to our climate, but the term "settled science" is an oxymoron, especially when talking about an infant science.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2015, 02:54 PM
 
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2015, 04:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
So, they're saying there's no way of knowing that the 5000 number is true, but they're still agreeing that there are many, many more today. Ah, I see.
No. That is completely wrong.

They are saying the 5000 number is certainly wrong. And that populations have certainly rebounded to some extent in the past 40 years, which is mostly attributed to decreased human hunting and increased food availability (due to corresponding decreased human hunting of seals).

AND, that none of that really matters or is relevant to the current issue, which is extremely rapid habitat loss due to global warming. Your argument about past population increases, as completely wrong as it was, has zero to do with the current issue - it's a complete red herring.

Well then, I guess you can then shut your ****ing mouth.
Nice. You get to post a litany of complete lies and fabrications, and then - instead of apologizing for your errors, which is the normal thing to do - you feel you're entitled to get snippy when I prove that you have zero idea what you are talking about, or zero ability or willingness to fact-check whatever source you're getting this stuff from?

It must be nice to live in your world, where being wrong means going on the attack. You'd make a great politician.

Tough shit.
Mmmmmhmmmmm. Because "collectivism" to you apparently means "refusing to believe in conspiracy theories without, you know, actual evidence."
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2015, 05:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
No. That is completely wrong.
You don't understand those words.

Nice. You get to post a litany of complete lies and fabrications,
and you don't understand any of the words there either, except maybe post.

Mmmmmhmmmmm. Because "collectivism" to you apparently means "refusing to believe in conspiracy theories without, you know, actual evidence."
You have much larger issues, such as your stupid raging out of control.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2015, 06:54 PM
 
Hah. Now we've got to the part where you abandon any pretense of defending your points. Pathetic.

I've conclusively made my point: you made statements about polar bears that were complete lies, fabrications, and irrelevant red herrings.

I won't hold my breath on you to admit your errors.....or offer any shred of proof to the contrary. Carry on.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:26 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,