- Joined
- Aug 24, 2013
- Messages
- 14,803
- Reaction score
- 11,542
- Location
- Red Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Of course, she's just a zoologist; she probably knows squat about CO2 and anomalies and probably couldn't tell you either whether we're cooling, warming, or merely changing.Dr. Susan J. Crockford, a zoologist with more than 35 years of experience, found numerous signs that the polar bear population was reaching its limit.“We have at least two reports in the peer-reviewed literature that state flat-out that the presumed negative effects of declining sea ice on a population’s size are indistinguishable from a population that is as large as it can get,” Crockford wrote in a blog post.
Read more: Polar bear population reaches its limits | The Daily Caller
Of course, she's just a zoologist; she probably knows squat about CO2 and anomalies and probably couldn't tell you either whether we're cooling, warming, or merely changing.
Just curious to know who the anti-deniers of the global warming hoax are here.
Actually, for you and the Other Warming denialist Right wing Blog-citers... I've never seen a post in this section on Polar Bears.Of course, she's just a zoologist; she probably knows squat about CO2 and anomalies and probably couldn't tell you either whether we're cooling, warming, or merely changing.
Just curious to know who the anti-deniers of the global warming hoax are here.
Of course, she's just a zoologist; she probably knows squat about CO2 and anomalies and probably couldn't tell you either whether we're cooling, warming, or merely changing.
Just curious to know who the anti-deniers of the global warming hoax are here.
Yes, it would be a lot easier - but remember, this is AGW; complexity and obscurity is everything.So polar bears are doing it like bunny rabbits, good news for them and us (well the male them's. The female thems are stuck with a bunch of cubs, no payments, and a playa polar daddy).
That said, what exactly are "anti-deniers of the global warming hoax"? Isn't is easier to say, "People who reject AGW"?
LOL - but think about it - you can't argue with smarmy syrup.The polar bears are one of the many creatures the animal rights/eco-terrorists/natural resource deniers like to throw at Canada all the time - love the commercials from GreenPeace and others with the poor momma polar bear and her cubs stranded on a tiny ice floe with the sad music in the background. Almost as good as Paul McCartney coming over to protect the seals.
So polar bears are doing it like bunny rabbits, good news for them and us (well the male them's. The female thems are stuck with a bunch of cubs, no payments, and a playa polar daddy).
That said, what exactly are "anti-deniers of the global warming hoax"? Isn't is easier to say, "People who reject AGW"?
Yes, it would be a lot easier - but remember, this is AGW; complexity and obscurity is everything.
:ytI get confused with multiple negatives, but deniers of the AGW hoax would be those reject the Hoax.
Anti deniers would be those who assert the hoax.
Actually, for you and the Other Warming denialist Right wing Blog-citers... I've never seen a post in this section on Polar Bears.
However, much to your Unwitting Regret (so sorry), YOUR article Confirms Shrinking/Shrunken Sea Ice. Which IS posted on daily.
"Carrying Capacity" more fully being.. "of the extant/shrunken Ice mass"
And I LAUGH at the GOP Brown-shirts/HACKS here trying to marginalize 95% of Climate Scientists when it's They who are the Flat-earthers.
In this particular string it'll be right back to "Obama sucks" (and the "Lets talk Beer" string) for these Non-science/pure-politicos who make up the heart of the denialist movement.
I get confused with multiple negatives, but deniers of the AGW hoax would be those reject the Hoax.
Anti deniers would be those who assert the hoax.
Okay, it seems that the polar bears of Davis Inlet are doing spiffingly.
So what about the populations in the rest of the arctic?
Of course, she's just a zoologist; she probably knows squat about CO2 and anomalies and probably couldn't tell you either whether we're cooling, warming, or merely changing.
Just curious to know who the anti-deniers of the global warming hoax are here.
"Spiffingly?"Okay, it seems that the polar bears of Davis Inlet are doing spiffingly.
Well the article didn't mention the rest of the Arctic - just "certain areas" in the Arctic - presumably those areas she'd studied - specifically the Davis Straits - which I *assume* is a rather large area to support over 2,000 polar bears, but then, I don't know; I'm no zoologist.So what about the populations in the rest of the arctic?
So they got polar bears put on the endangered species list - which prevented man from hunting them anymore; and since that time, lo and behold, polar bear populations have increased dramatically.
Go figure...
Charismatic megafauna as a bellwether for climate. There's a sucker born every day.
The real issue lies with CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature rising on both the surface and the ocean, not to mention dramatic reductions in ice coverage and massive amounts of thawing permafrost in the arctic. If the polar bears like that, good for them. Bad for farmers in temperate zones, and the people who rely on their crops.
"Climate?" But I thought.... meh. Nevermind.Charismatic megafauna as a bellwether for climate. There's a sucker born every day.
So... tell it to stop.The real issue lies with CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature rising on both the surface and the ocean, not to mention dramatic reductions in ice coverage and massive amounts of thawing permafrost in the arctic. If the polar bears like that, good for them. Bad for farmers in temperate zones, and the people who rely on their crops.
Correlatively speaking then, doing so becomes causative?Hmmm. Sounds like a correlation that may be a causation.
Well the magnetic poles are reversing so the antarctic will be the arctic soon enough anyways, proving the adage once again that when God shuts a door, he opens a window.
I'm quite aware of that it's "97%"!The basis of the 95%, actually it's 97% is in described in this article:[./b]
Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change
The basis of that is in this cut and paste:
<snip>
From the 11,994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.
<snip>
This incredibly biased and agenda driven study conclude that 97% of 32.6% is 97% of all scientists. Interesting bit of math to arrive at this, but typical of the math used to support AGWScience.
There is more ice in the Arctic Sea than any year since 2007. The Antarctic continues its cooling trend.
OOOPS!OK Let's skip Cook!
......
Expert credibility in climate change
William R. L. Anderegg a , 1 , James W. Prall b , Jacob Harold c , and Stephen H. Schneider a , d , 1
Contributed by Stephen H. Schneider, April 9, 2010 (sent for review December 22, 2009)
Abstract
Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest Striking Agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of Anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions.
Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and
(ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
Correlatively speaking then, doing so becomes causative?
Stellas, actually.I'm guessing this sentence comes from too many IPA's. If not, I'd love to see what you DO come up with after a night at the Mayor of Old Town.
Actually, not bear skin rug makers - illegal to hunt them.But are they denying the hoax or denying that it is a hoax? That is where the confusion comes in that choice of phrases.
Either way, yeah for polar bears, Coke commercials, and bear skin rug makers.
I'm quite aware of that it's "97%"!
I posted it many times. Was just being Conservative.
Of course, I also posted a SECOND study of "97%-98%"
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...an-causes-survey-finds-12.html#post1061977662
OOOPS!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?