New Research Finds Polar Bear Numbers Up 42% Since 2004 – Survival Rates Unaffected By Sea Ice Avail

[Threegoofs]

He is lying since he didn't read any of it, thus he has no idea what was being discussed and what was being exposed as errors, which are well exposed by Dr. Crockford.

He is the perfect example of the climate religionist, one who avoids debate, make blanket unsupported assertions against opponents and post personal attacks as if that was a normal way to dispute someone.

He is always scraping the bottom of the barrel.

LOL.

It’s literally one blog vs the entire polar bear research community.

But somehow you think that following the blogger and ignoring the scientists is the opposite of ‘climate religionist’.

 

[PoS]

Ooo. A website says that?

Wow!

It must be true!

Hey- here’s a pretty reliable and extensively referenced website ( it has FORTY TWO references! So you know it’s real sciency!) that details how much bull**** this Heartland funded whore shovels into deniers mouths.

Susan Crockford | DeSmogBlog

So you dont even look at the data she's putting out, and you call her a whore... sheesh, youve sunk to a new low. :roll:

 

[Threegoofs]

So you dont even look at the data she's putting out, and you call her a whore... sheesh, youve sunk to a new low. :roll:

I find it amazing that you think it’s necessary to look at ‘data’ from a known charlatan who can’t get it into a peer reviewed publication.

There’s a lot of crap out there- not sure why you think it’s necessary to look at it all before declaring it to be crap.

 

[Jack Hays]

He is lying since he didn't read any of it, thus he has no idea what was being discussed and what was being exposed as errors, which are well exposed by Dr. Crockford.

He is the perfect example of the climate religionist, one who avoids debate, make blanket unsupported assertions against opponents and post personal attacks as if that was a normal way to dispute someone.

He is always scraping the bottom of the barrel.

I find it amazing that you think it’s necessary to look at ‘data’ from a known charlatan who can’t get it into a peer reviewed publication.

There’s a lot of crap out there- not sure why you think it’s necessary to look at it all before declaring it to be crap.

It's just cowardice. Fear of the data.

 

[PoS]

I find it amazing that you think it’s necessary to look at ‘data’ from a known charlatan who can’t get it into a peer reviewed publication.

There’s a lot of crap out there- not sure why you think it’s necessary to look at it all before declaring it to be crap.

How would you know its crap when you havent even looked at it?

 

[Threegoofs]

How would you know its crap when you havent even looked at it?

I’ve seen previous work. She has no credibility, and I see no reason why she somehow found some.

It’s like some homeopath writes a book on curing cancer... I don’t need to read it to know it’s crap.

 

[PoS]

I’ve seen previous work. She has no credibility, and I see no reason why she somehow found some.

It’s like some homeopath writes a book on curing cancer... I don’t need to read it to know it’s crap.

Yeah, right. Even the WWF website, which is constantly cited by your beloved IPCC says that the polar bear population is steady.

You keep saying that scientists ought to be believed yet Crockford happens to be a scientist too, and you throw insults at her just because she doesnt side with your delusional climate change hysteria. Hypocrisy at its worst...

 

[Threegoofs]

Yeah, right. Even the WWF website, which is constantly cited by your beloved IPCC says that the polar bear population is steady.

You keep saying that scientists ought to be believed yet Crockford happens to be a scientist too, and you throw insults at her just because she doesnt side with your delusional climate change hysteria. Hypocrisy at its worst...

Yeah, no.

You believe her because she says what you want to hear.

I mean, you seem to care little for the fact that her credentials on the topic are pretty sketchy, and recognized field experts consider her to be s joke, and that she’s literally never published a peer reviewed paper on polar bear populations.

But you demand we read her stuff because some denier organization funded it?

 

[Jack Hays]

Yeah, no.

You believe her because she says what you want to hear.

I mean, you seem to care little for the fact that her credentials on the topic are pretty sketchy, and recognized field experts consider her to be s joke, and that she’s literally never published a peer reviewed paper on polar bear populations.

But you demand we read her stuff because some denier organization funded it?

Because she was right and they were wrong.

 

[PoS]

Yeah, no.

You believe her because she says what you want to hear.

I mean, you seem to care little for the fact that her credentials on the topic are pretty sketchy, and recognized field experts consider her to be s joke, and that she’s literally never published a peer reviewed paper on polar bear populations.

But you demand we read her stuff because some denier organization funded it?

Ridiculous. So now its about credentials?

Let's look at the facts.

Are the polar bears dying out? No.

She said they were steady with regards to population, while the ones you like said they were dying out.

Guess what, she was proved right, and they were wrong.

That's it.

 

[Threegoofs]

Ridiculous. So now its about credentials?

Let's look at the facts.

Are the polar bears dying out? No.

She said they were steady with regards to population, while the ones you like said they were dying out.

Guess what, she was proved right, and they were wrong.

That's it.

It’s always about credentials.

Have you not read any of the thread?

And the issue is much more complicated than you know, and the populations are steady in areas where they have active conservation efforts... because conservation efforts are working.

 

[Jack Hays]

It’s always about credentials.

Hilarious BS.:lamo

 

[Sunsettommy]

PolarBear Science

Shockingly thick first year ice between Barents Sea and the North Pole in mid-July

Posted on July 29, 2019

EXCERPT:

In late June, one of the most powerful icebreakers in the world encountered such extraordinarily thick ice on-route to the North Pole (with a polar bear specialist and deep-pocketed, Attenborough-class tourists onboard) that it took a day and a half longer than expected to get there. A few weeks later, in mid-July, a Norwegian icebreaker also bound for the North Pole (with scientific researchers on board) was forced to turn back north of Svalbard when it unexpectedly encountered impenetrable pack ice.

Apparently, the ice charts the Norwegian captain consulted showed ‘first year ice‘ – ice that formed the previous fall, defined as less than 2 m thick (6.6 ft) – which is often much broken up by early summer. However, what he and his Russian colleague came up against was consolidated first year pack ice up to 3 m thick (about 10 ft). Such thick first year ice was not just unexpected but by definition, should have been impossible.

LINK

 

[Sunsettommy]

Hilarious BS.:lamo

He has no argument to offer, which is why he runs with fallacies so much.

 

[PoS]

It’s always about credentials.

Have you not read any of the thread?

And the issue is much more complicated than you know, and the populations are steady in areas where they have active conservation efforts... because conservation efforts are working.

Your posts are so silly and devoid of facts its downright embarrassing to even respond to such tripe that you spew.

 

[Surface Detail]

PolarBear Science

Shockingly thick first year ice between Barents Sea and the North Pole in mid-July

Posted on July 29, 2019

EXCERPT:

In late June, one of the most powerful icebreakers in the world encountered such extraordinarily thick ice on-route to the North Pole (with a polar bear specialist and deep-pocketed, Attenborough-class tourists onboard) that it took a day and a half longer than expected to get there. A few weeks later, in mid-July, a Norwegian icebreaker also bound for the North Pole (with scientific researchers on board) was forced to turn back north of Svalbard when it unexpectedly encountered impenetrable pack ice.

Apparently, the ice charts the Norwegian captain consulted showed ‘first year ice‘ – ice that formed the previous fall, defined as less than 2 m thick (6.6 ft) – which is often much broken up by early summer. However, what he and his Russian colleague came up against was consolidated first year pack ice up to 3 m thick (about 10 ft). Such thick first year ice was not just unexpected but by definition, should have been impossible.

LINK

That doesn't even make sense. Two definitions of "first year ice" are given: 1) ice that formed the previous fall, and 2) ice that is less than 2 m thick. Which is it? You can't have 2 definitions of the same thing!

 

[flogger]

This is what the hystericals would rather you believe whatever the evidence to the contrary

Falling polar bears youtube - Yahoo Video Search results

So pay up you evil westerner

 

[Threegoofs]

That doesn't even make sense. Two definitions of "first year ice" are given: 1) ice that formed the previous fall, and 2) ice that is less than 2 m thick. Which is it? You can't have 2 definitions of the same thing!

She’s a polar bear ‘expert’...not an ice expert!

Besides, it says what deniers like to hear, so why bother focusing on facts and logic?

 

[Threegoofs]

Your posts are so silly and devoid of facts its downright embarrassing to even respond to such tripe that you spew.

Yet... here you are.

Sorry for making you embarrass yourself all the time.

 

[PoS]

Yet... here you are.

Sorry for making you embarrass yourself all the time.

Im doing a service. Its good to expose your silly posts for the world to see.

 

[Sunsettommy]

That doesn't even make sense. Two definitions of "first year ice" are given: 1) ice that formed the previous fall, and 2) ice that is less than 2 m thick. Which is it? You can't have 2 definitions of the same thing!

From the NSIDC:

first-year ice

floating ice of no more than one year's growth developing from young ice; thickness from 0.3 to 2 meters (1 to 6.6 feet); characteristically level where undisturbed by pressure, but where ridges occur, they are rough and sharply angular.

This was found in her article...……………

:2wave:

 

[Sunsettommy]

Yet... here you are.

Sorry for making you embarrass yourself all the time.

Well you and Surface Detail were wrong about the sea ice definitions. :lol:

You and him didn't challenge the article either, another day of your blustering is coming on...… :mrgreen:

 

[Threegoofs]

Im doing a service. Its good to expose your silly posts for the world to see.

Its pretty well accepted your posting here is a train wreck.

I mean, I guess you have Jack and Tommy on your side, but that actually just reinforces how little you have here.

 

[Threegoofs]

Well you and Surface Detail were wrong about the sea ice definitions. :lol:

You and him didn't challenge the article either, another day of your blustering is coming on...… :mrgreen:

Oh, right.

I;m supposed to critically analyze some random blog post from a non-expert about polar bears and sea ice on demand.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Oh, right.

I;m supposed to critically analyze some random blog post from a non-expert about polar bears and sea ice on demand.

:lamo

second time I have to post this, you forget your glasses?

From the NSIDC:

first-year ice

floating ice of no more than one year's growth developing from young ice; thickness from 0.3 to 2 meters (1 to 6.6 feet); characteristically level where undisturbed by pressure, but where ridges occur, they are rough and sharply angular.

:lol: