• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

And another one bites the dust

I like how the article says since 2007, but doesn't say how long they have tracked their migrations.

Looks like another natural cycle to me.
 
Verax said:
You're one of the more hysterical deniers I've encountered.

I support freedom, freedom for my children to live in and enjoy an Earth at least as the one I inherited.

Your anti-science, run of the mill taxation rants are all too common with the right, and fairly boring. You're a standard tow the line of your wealthy master conservative.
Click to expand...



Everyone wants their children to have at least a good a place as we did......my parents wanted a better life economically for me, I wanted better life styles for my kids. Today, there is an hysterical emphasis on the environment, which if practiced will deny all of the above to more than 2/3 of the people on earth.

As you have brought children into this world, so dose every other family desire that; the result being a constantly growing population which requires food, power, resources, and social programs.

You simply cannot turn around what we have been told is the truth without either allowing much of the earth's population to suffer or begin practicing eugenics. That is the flaw in the science the basis of which is that global warming researchers do not believe this planet is capable of supporting the amount of life we have on it now, let alone growing at an exponential rate in so-called third world countries.
 
KLATTU said:
It's happened before.

https://polarbearscience.files.word...-mortality-1978-fay-and-kelly-1980-marked.pdf

Of course back then, scientist were actually curious to find out what actually happened rthaer than blam eit global warming five minutes after it happened( you just don't see yourself , do you?)
Click to expand...

Yep. Looks like a disease outbreak.

This one seems not to show evidence of that, at least according to what I've read.

It's funny....temperatures are dramatically warmer in the Arctic, ice is dramatically decreased, yet somehow you think it's crazy to think AGW played a role.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yep. Looks like a disease outbreak.

This one seems not to show evidence of that, at least according to what I've read.

It's funny....temperatures are dramatically warmer in the Arctic, ice is dramatically decreased, yet somehow you think it's crazy to think AGW played a role.
Click to expand...
Considering that the Walrus Haul-outs are fairly well documented, and have been observed
as far back as the 1600's, it could well be part of their normal cycle.
http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/stock/Revised_April_2014_Pacific_Walrus_SAR.pdf
 
Lord of Planar said:
I like how the article says since 2007, but doesn't say how long they have tracked their migrations.

Looks like another natural cycle to me.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know. So many of these things have been studied for such a relatively short time, we honestly don't KNOW what is normal and what is not. We do know from the historical record/ships logs etc. that there have been periods of less ice in the Arctic dating back centuries. So is the large number of walruses coming onto shore unprecedented? Or just unusual since modern day scientists have been noting it? It does seem that those promoting fears about global warming do tend to point to that as the reason for any and all anomalies that are happening everywhere.

But the fact is, the arctic ice coverage this year is the sixth lowest on record. That sounds ominous until we remember that the record covers a short 35 years since we have had satellite imaging of the Arctic circle. And next year may be the seventh lowest and then the eighth lowest, etc., but nevertheless they will continue to say that the trend is for there to be less ice.

But I remember Al Gore, in 2007, launching himself to Nobel Peace Prize and multi-millionaire status with his grandiose pronouncements that the Arctic Ice would be gone by 2014 if the world failed to act. Well the world has not made even a small dent in the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere--it has increased every year since 2007--but the Arctic Ice is still here and the overall trend has been that it has been increasing since it hit the historical low in 2006--again remembering that the history is a scant 35 years. But because it is below the average coverage over that 35 years, the global warming people insist that the trend is downward.

But I have also read that the lessened ice coverage has sharply increased the phytoplankton that is a key component of the food chain for almost all living things in the Arctic including the walruses. Which could explain why the walrus population seems to be healthy and thriving even though an unusual large number came on shore recently.

It's good to wonder and watch and figure out what it all means. But I do wish we had more pure scientists studying it instead of mostly those who promote the AGW doctrine that is dutifully repeated over and over and over again in the left leaning media.
 
longview said:
Considering that the Walrus Haul-outs are fairly well documented, and have been observed
as far back as the 1600's, it could well be part of their normal cycle.
http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/stock/Revised_April_2014_Pacific_Walrus_SAR.pdf
Click to expand...

Could be. It very well might be.

It also could be the fact that they have lost their sea ice. And regardless of the walrus haulout, the sea ice is still dramatically lower than it has been a few decades ago. And thats not disputable.
 
Threegoofs said:
Could be. It very well might be.

It also could be the fact that they have lost their sea ice. And regardless of the walrus haulout, the sea ice is still dramatically lower than it has been a few decades ago. And thats not disputable.
Click to expand...
The sea ice has changed, but the haul-outs predate the current round of sea ice changes.
Attributing Walruses hauling out, to AGW could be a reach since Walruses
were exhibiting this behavior before there was much warming.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yep. Looks like a disease outbreak.

This one seems not to show evidence of that, at least according to what I've read.

It's funny....temperatures are dramatically warmer in the Arctic, ice is dramatically decreased, yet somehow you think it's crazy to think AGW played a role.
Click to expand...
STRAWMAN ALERT!!!
It's not crazy to think it -just crazy to jump to that conclusion right away.. Huge difference.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I honestly don't know. So many of these things have been studied for such a relatively short time, we honestly don't KNOW what is normal and what is not. We do know from the historical record/ships logs etc. that there have been periods of less ice in the Arctic dating back centuries. So is the large number of walruses coming onto shore unprecedented? Or just unusual since modern day scientists have been noting it? It does seem that those promoting fears about global warming do tend to point to that as the reason for any and all anomalies that are happening everywhere.

But the fact is, the arctic ice coverage this year is the sixth lowest on record. That sounds ominous until we remember that the record covers a short 35 years since we have had satellite imaging of the Arctic circle. And next year may be the seventh lowest and then the eighth lowest, etc., but nevertheless they will continue to say that the trend is for there to be less ice.

But I remember Al Gore, in 2007, launching himself to Nobel Peace Prize and multi-millionaire status with his grandiose pronouncements that the Arctic Ice would be gone by 2014 if the world failed to act. Well the world has not made even a small dent in the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere--it has increased every year since 2007--but the Arctic Ice is still here and the overall trend has been that it has been increasing since it hit the historical low in 2006--again remembering that the history is a scant 35 years. But because it is below the average coverage over that 35 years, the global warming people insist that the trend is downward.

But I have also read that the lessened ice coverage has sharply increased the phytoplankton that is a key component of the food chain for almost all living things in the Arctic including the walruses. Which could explain why the walrus population seems to be healthy and thriving even though an unusual large number came on shore recently.

It's good to wonder and watch and figure out what it all means. But I do wish we had more pure scientists studying it instead of mostly those who promote the AGW doctrine that is dutifully repeated over and over and over again in the left leaning media.
Click to expand...

Greeting, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

Those that disagree tend to get marginalized as unlearned kooks, which they are certainly not if you look at their credentials and scientific background, but I note with interest that they still persist in their argument that this has been a normal cycle for millions of years and they have facts like ice bores and tree ring data from logs that have been buried in bogs for thousands of years as proof, which has the effect of causing back-stepping from previous claims made by the "pro-warming" crowd, and a rush to change the wording of their arguments to something new.

Then we begin to read how data has been falsified by the "pro-warming" crowd, or ignored if it doesn't agree with what they say, and it does make one wonder who stands to benefit from the billions of dollars at stake that must be taken from us to fight this doomsday prophecy, which will, as Obama has stated, "necesarily cause our utility bills to skyrocket." Should we be surprised to learn that it will only benefit the group of already extremely wealthy and powerful people around the world who back this scam? I think not!
 
polgara said:
Greeting, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

Those that disagree tend to get marginalized as unlearned kooks, which they are certainly not if you look at their credentials and scientific background, but I note with interest that they still persist in their argument that this has been a normal cycle for millions of years and they have facts like ice bores and tree ring data from logs that have been buried in bogs for thousands of years as proof, which has the effect of causing back-stepping from previous claims made by the "pro-warming" crowd, and a rush to change the wording of their arguments to something new.

Then we begin to read how data has been falsified by the "pro-warming" crowd, or ignored if it doesn't agree with what they say, and it does make one wonder who stands to benefit from the billions of dollars at stake that must be taken from us to fight this doomsday prophecy, which will, as Obama has stated, "necesarily cause our utility bills to skyrocket." Should we be surprised to learn that it will only benefit the group of already extremely wealthy and powerful people around the world who back this scam? I think not!
Click to expand...

It is the dishonesty that has surfaced and that has been admitted that does make a person raise an eyebrow or two. I once supplemented my income being a free lance part time research assistant and I know up close and personal that all scientists are not necessarily noble or honest and are capable of manipulating data to fit a particular point of view. Is that widespread and rampant in the global warming advocacy group? I don't know. I actually doubt it . . . BUT . . . I do believe the AGW promotion group does suppress data or opinion that doesn't fit the doctrine. And billions of dollars in grant money allocated by people who very much want AGW to be a fact is a powerful incentive to give those money sources what they want.

So, I remain a healthy skeptic, willing to accept strong evidence that AGW is a reality and a concern but not yet convinced that it is a problem sufficient to justify handing over my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities to people and governments that may not have my (and everybody else's) best interests at heart.
 
AlbqOwl said:
It is the dishonesty that has surfaced and that has been admitted that does make a person raise an eyebrow or two. I once supplemented my income being a free lance part time research assistant and I know up close and personal that all scientists are not necessarily noble or honest and are capable of manipulating data to fit a particular point of view. Is that widespread and rampant in the global warming advocacy group? I don't know. I actually doubt it . . . BUT . . . I do believe the AGW promotion group does suppress data or opinion that doesn't fit the doctrine. And billions of dollars in grant money allocated by people who very much want AGW to be a fact is a powerful incentive to give those money sources what they want.

So, I remain a healthy skeptic, willing to accept strong evidence that AGW is a reality and a concern but not yet convinced that it is a problem sufficient to justify handing over my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities to people and governments that may not have my (and everybody else's) best interests at heart.
Click to expand...

I don't care about the AGW discussion but I'm butting in here to say I LOVE your new avatar.
 
tres borrachos said:
I don't care about the AGW discussion but I'm butting in here to say I LOVE your new avatar.
Click to expand...

Aw thanks. It is an improvement over the old one I think. I wouldn't really care about the AGW discussion either if I could not shake the deep seated suspicion that it is deliberately and intentionally designed to shift more and more power to the government and further the advancement of a one-world government that many leftists so strongly favor. And that is simply a horrifying concept to me.
 
longview said:
The sea ice has changed, but the haul-outs predate the current round of sea ice changes.
Attributing Walruses hauling out, to AGW could be a reach since Walruses
were exhibiting this behavior before there was much warming.
Click to expand...

Everything is caused by global warming. 10 years ago frogs were going extinct because of global warming until they found out it was some parasite or disease that ran its course and now frogs are fine.
 
Threegoofs said:
Could be. It very well might be.

It also could be the fact that they have lost their sea ice. And regardless of the walrus haulout[sic], the sea ice is still dramatically lower than it has been a few decades ago. And thats[sic] not disputable.
Click to expand...
Clutching at straws when you're drowning is quite acceptable, but to hang on to them when you reach the beach, is pointless.
The polar bear saga ended in a loss to catastrophists and I'm sure that a beach full of walruses will end the same way.

Not to mention these and a few others:
extinctions (apes, human, civilisation, koalas, lizards, logic, Inuit, smallest butterfly, cod, penguins, pikas, polar bears, possums, walrus, tigers, toads, turtles, pandas, penguins, plants, ladybirds, rhinoceros, salmon, trout, wild flowers, woodlice, a million species, half of all animal and plant species, mountain species, not polar bears, barrier reef, leaches, salamanders, tropical insects, flowers) experts muzzled, extreme changes to California, fading fall foliage, famine, farmers benefit, farmers go under, farm output boost, farming soil decline, fashion disaster, fever, figurehead sacked, fir cone bonanza, fires fanned in Nepal, fish bigger, fish catches drop, fish downsize, fish deaf, fish feminised, fish get lost, fish head north, fish lopsided, fish shrinking, fish stocks at risk, fish stocks decline, five million illnesses, flesh eating disease, flies on Everest, flood patterns change, floods, floods of beaches and cities, flood of migrants, flood preparation for crisis, flora dispersed, Florida economic decline, flowers in peril, flowers wilt, flying squirrels move up, fog increase in San Francisco, fog decrease in San Francisco, food poisoning, food prices rise, food prices soar, food production increased, food safety affected, food security threat (SA), football team migration, forest decline, forest expansion, foundations threatened, foundations increase grants, frog with extra heads, frosts, frostbite, frost damage increased, fungi fruitful, fungi invasion, fungi rot the world, games change, Garden of Eden wilts, geese decline in Hampshire, genetic changes, genetic diversity decline, gene pools slashed, geysers imperiled, giant icebergs (Australia), giant icebergs (Arctic), giant oysters invade, giant pythons invade, giant squid migrate, gingerbread houses collapse, glacial earthquakes, glacial retreat, glacier grows (California), glaciers on Snowden, glacier wrapped, glass melts, global cooling, glowing clouds, golf course to drown, golf Masters wrecked, grain output drop (China), grain output stagnating (India), grandstanding,
Click to expand...
warmlist
 
Verax said:
Links to what? Other garbage blogs? Links to scientific papers? I can find research papers just fine without blogs mis-interpreting what they say.
Click to expand...



You might want to try [rimary source data gathering organizations.
 
Verax said:
And if you look at the oceans heating up rapidly we see all this extra heat that should not be here. They pretend that a slight lull in surface temperatures equates a "pause" in warming yet the Earth continues to retain a massive net heat surplus every day.
Click to expand...



You say that as if there is actual data to support it.

Would you care to link to that data? Please use actual data and not the cooked book type based on assumptions and supposition.

Here is a bar chart of Atlantic named storms and hurricanes. Not surprisingly, as the ability to "see" these storms has improved, there have been more storms seen.



List of Atlantic hurricane records - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[h=3]Number of tropical storms and hurricanes per season[edit][/h]This bar chart shows the number of named storms and hurricanes per year from 1851-2013:
9604b7b3b75a2b42b09be6fb36b17c98.png
 
LOL... I like this quote:

Anyway, to cut a long story short, his alarmist scientist colleagues in the alarmist science establishment have decided to throw him to the wolves for being, ahem, too alarmist.
Click to expand...

It's pretty bad when other alarmists mock...

Instead of listening respectfully to the great man's iterations of imminent doom, the assembled warmists - among them Michael Mann's chum Gavin Schmidt - spent much of Wadham's lecture engaged in mocking tweeting.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom