The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Climate threat to polar bears: despite facts, doubters remain > Comments

Climate threat to polar bears: despite facts, doubters remain : Comments

By Ed Struzik, published 22/7/2009

'Given all the controversy, it might sound complicated, but it isn’t: without sea ice to hunt seals, polar bears are in big trouble.'

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Excellent article.
Posted by E.Sykes, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 9:33:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem: Polar bears are threatened by human activity. Maybe.

Solution 1: spend trillions of dollars on trying to mitigate what its proponents concede is an unstoppable trend; pass draconian laws and extort money from taxpayers to support vague, indirect and ineffective policies which will beggar the West and enrich those nations smart enough to hold back and make the most of it.

Solution 2: Spend a few million dollars directly on help for polar bears.

No question really, is there?
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 1:51:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article is at least one step up from the usual activist rantings in that it admits of some scepticism about environmental claims, albeit just to dismiss them. Specifically he mentions J. Scott Armstrong, a marketing professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania who specialises in forecasting methods. Armstrong has been particularly critical of the climate models used to predict temperature increases on various grounds - including that they are completely unproven in any sense understood by forecasters, and that the "justification" used for advancing them is that they can be made to follow some of the known changes in temperatures of the past century or so. This is called "back testing" and, as Armstrong points out, is known to be useless as a means of constructing a complex forecasting model. Those are just two of his objections.
The author resorts to an irrelevent political argument to dismiss him.
As for sea ice there are two theories on recent changes. One relates to global warming which does not fit the facts - why hasn't antarctic sea ice also changed? - but gets all the publicity. The second involves multidecadal changes in artic currents and winds. Never mind the details of any of that, what it comes to is will we take the risk that the artic sea ice will bounce back and what will be the effect on polar bear populations if it does not? Bear in mind that as Wharton points out, the forecasting in this area is completely useless.
As is widely recognised Polar Bear populations have bounced back in recent decades thanks to restrictions on commercial hunting, but there are indications that they have been affected by more recent changes in artic sea ice. If so, the main means of human control in any reasonable time frame would be to further restrict commercial hunting. So then what affect will those restrictions have on Inuit populations? Perhaps activists would be better off looking carefully at those areas
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 2:05:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems that the Canadian Government is not taking notice of alarmist hysterics like the Australian Government is.

I’m amazed that this author – another in the long line of hysterics – is still using the term ‘global warming sceptics’ when the globe is NOT warming, and hasn’t been since 1998. There is scientific proof that the globe is not warming, but there are still diehards around who keep blabbing on about global warming, even though the instigators of this nonsense switched from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ at least 12 months ago when the climate quite clearly was not co-operating with their ‘scientific’ findings.

The hysterics have been wrong about everything else; why should anyone believe their wild claim that two thirds of polar bears COULD be wiped out in 45 years.

The polar bear story has been pumped up out of all proportion by the media because these animals are ‘nice’ (from a distance) and it’s a good thing to get people going.

Struzik, like all of the others, has a crack at peoples’ ‘expertise’. Being a writer and photographer doesn’t give him any ‘expertise’ on climate science. He just chooses to believe one set of scientists and activists against another group of scientists (with climate qualifications) who would tell him that he is talking rubbish if he ever spoke to them. He only brings up ‘dissenters’ who clearly have no expertise in climate science, and ignores those who do. And, referring to ‘frustrated’ polar bear experts has nothing to do with climate change.

Still, this writer and photographer declares that the ‘The science is straightforward.’; ‘those facts are incontrovertible.’

How does this non-scientist make these judgements? What knowledge does he have to deem his heroes a ‘blue-ribbon study panel’? Are his heroes different from the rent-seekers to date who have never subjected their findings to review by an independent panel of scientists?

Unless he can answer those few questions, he is just another unbelievable political activist
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 5:37:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Ed I am telling my MP"s both State and Federal that I do not believe in Global warming and I expect no new taxes based on this nonsense.
I further expect that as we now have Google Earth that we can all see the ice.
Every year of my lif I have been facing some "Life threatening" event and yes every time this is "really" going to happen. You must take us for fools go boil your head! Hey no I have a better idea why not get a real job delivering milk or digging holes in the road rather than having a photography holiday at the taxpayers expense!
Posted by JBowyer, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 6:46:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It was warmer in the Arctic between 1920-1940 than it is now. When the Arctic heats up the Antarctic cools and vice versa. The Antarctic ice is actually growing. Paradoxically, colder temperatures may reduce ice due to decrease in rainfall. For most of the history of the Earth there has been no polar ice at all partly due to the earths volcanic nature.

To think that increased temperature leads to melting ice everywhere is a simplistic child's view of science.
Posted by Atman, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 8:30:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atman's climate 101 class notes:

<< When the Arctic heats up the Antarctic cools and vice versa.>>

Yep, some say when it's summer in the NH, it's winter in the SH - and vice versa.

<< To think that increased temperature leads to melting ice everywhere is a simplistic child's view of science. >>

Hmmm;

Put energy into a system, it heats up - if there is water around it evaporates (or melts), condenses out somewhere (as rain or snow). Middle Antarctica growing, Arctic ice shrinking.

Ergo;

The more energy in, the more 'extreme weather' events out - simple physics. (A little more complicated Atman, but you get the drift).
Posted by Q&A, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 10:01:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ed Struzik has a distorted view of facts. For a start, he fails to acknowledge the fact that the UN set up the IPCC to prove the greenhouse theory, but after 20 years of searching it has failed to find any irrefutable scientific evidence that global warming is man-made. Consequently, it is erroneous to claim that increasing concentrations of CO2 are causing Arctic ice to melt, and polar bears to diminish in size and numbers. In any case, there have been much higher CO2 concentrations in the past, and polar bears survived. There is simply no scientific or economic justification to impose CO2 taxes, so as to penalize existing efficient energy sources and thereby heavily subsidise unreliable renewable energy sources, particularly those of the when-the-wind-blows and when-the sun-shines variety.
Posted by Raycom, Thursday, 23 July 2009 12:03:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q&A,

You are just an idiot and you don't know what you are talking about
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 23 July 2009 2:36:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh,

You are obviously not aware of who popularised the term "climate change", why or when it was done.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange

6 years old already!

epilogue: Frank Luntz now believes AGW is a serious problem.
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 23 July 2009 2:55:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Teasing the skeptics again Q&A? Perhaps you could explain some of the contradictions rather that talking down to us mere mortals or sniping from academia.

Global temperatures have dropped since 1997, and yes they “could” be masked by other climatic complexities. I have however seen temperature data that does show a very slight upward tend of less than .3 of a degree over an even longer period. So whatever is happening to ice caps, polar bears and extreme weather events is happening during a cooling period. Perhaps Ed Struzik or you could explain this anomaly?

The science is not settled and there is no consensus, except to say that the many scientists that support AGW have consensus and the scientists that don’t agree with AGW have consensus.

I accept that atmospheric carbon concentrations have increased dramatically; I also accept that this is “potentially” a problem. I say potentially because there is no direct evidence of GW at the present time. The only “evidence” is prediction based from data modeling. The problems with data modeling are numerous; the most significant are that modeling works on “garbage in- garbage out” and “interpretation”, its two greatest weaknesses. Give us something to address the anomalies.
Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 23 July 2009 4:03:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a bummer.

You write a book about Global Warming, entitled The Big Thaw, & not only does global warming stop, but the bl@@dy ice all comes back, as well.

The poor bloke really does have a dilemma.

I guess the only course of action is to pretend it isn't happening, & do advertising/promotional pieces, like this bit of fantasy. You have to hope you can git rid of enough books to make a bit of proffit, before the deep freeze really sets in.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 23 July 2009 5:17:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q & A
Come on! So it's the wicked Republicans in the US who changed the terminology? Get real mate! Everyone from the supercillious Rudd and the awful Wong have been saying Climate Change. It was even a TV campaign remember "Think climate, think change" what a lot of old cobblers this all is.
Forced to were they? Made to change from saying Global Warming?
Tell me were you one of the people who texted John Faine last week blaming John Howard for knife crime?
Posted by JBowyer, Thursday, 23 July 2009 6:14:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is it just me, or has anybody else noticed that the denialists are getting shriller and more offensive lately?

Leigh's last boofheaded comment was a classic.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 23 July 2009 7:25:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh, don't be too hurt mate, I don't think you are shrill.

Even if you were, that's got to be better than comming across as a smug, condescending, self satisfied sharp point injury.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 23 July 2009 8:51:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"CJ Morgan - Is it just me" - Yes it's just you.

How's the hunt for the elusive denialist going?

Have you found anyone yet who denies the climate is changing, or is it still the word you use for anyone who disagrees with your faith?

Seems to be a lot of very shrill alarmists writing articles these days, have you noticed?
Posted by rpg, Thursday, 23 July 2009 9:34:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No JBowyer.

Your “wicked Republicans in the US” did not change the terminology - Frank Luntz was good at his job. At the end of the day, he had a conscience.

You may have missed the gem but it was Leigh who said:

<< the instigators of this nonsense switched from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ at least 12 months ago ... >>

It seems Leigh is either making stuff up, or is distorting the facts (intentionally or otherwise) - you decide. The term itself has been around for yonks.

As to your last sentence, I don’t know what you are talking about – is it relevant?

______

Spindoc

Teasing? Therefore am I to assume you damn well know how stupid Atman’s assertion was?

Put it this way, no matter what he meant, I really don’t think I should have to explain the difference between Arctic/Antarctic summer and winter.

I've said this so many times and in so many different ways (‘sceptics’ always want to take this consensus stuff out of context). There IS unanimous agreement (consensus) in the scientific community about the greenhouse effect, the science IS settled. However, there IS debate (within the scientific community) about the technical details - about climate sensitivity and attribution, for example.

I don’t care how many times you say it (or want to believe it) ... you are wrong in asserting there is no direct evidence of global warming (anthropogenic?). I am equally sure that no matter how many times I give you this evidence, you (and all other 'sceptics' that gravitate to OLO) will close your eyes and clasp your hands over your ears.

You want something to address the anomalies? Read and understand Keenleyside – most 'sceptics' can’t get past the abstract without spin-doctoring.

______

CJ ... yep

______

Hasbeen

You don’t like the truth, that’s your problem ... not mine.

_______

rpg

You don’t know the difference between a ‘faith’ based religion and science.

Btw, Susan Prior (OLO's editor) picks the articles – go complain to her.

BtwBtw, thanks for acknowledging my last reply to you.
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 23 July 2009 10:50:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I came across this interesting piece in National Geographic -October 2008 (The Last of the Neanderthal.

“ Ice core data suggest that from about 30,000 year ago until the last glacial maximum about 18,000 years ago, the Earth’s climate fluctuated wildly, sometimes within the space of decades.”

Some what sobering when viewed against some of the predictions being made on the basis of short-term temperature changes!
Posted by Horus, Friday, 24 July 2009 8:13:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q&A, you have the knowledge and perspective of an expert in the field, and the patience of a saint. I really appreciate your efforts in calmly refuting the nonsense that others throw at you here.

rpg - you're right. I think that I'll henceforth adopt John Quiggin's nomenclature for those of your ilk, i.e. "delusionist".
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 24 July 2009 8:15:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ I'll take a win anyway I can . now to try to understand what a climate change delusionist is, what a quandary!

So does a climate change delusionist not know there is climate? You quack me up!

Q&A don't be so sensitive about your faith.

Polar Bears going extinct, really - oh well, the way of the dodo, that's natural selection I guess. Should we all get so worked up about every single thing possibly going extinct, or is it selective and only works for animals with "image".

The bears clearly have a head start on the propaganda war, they should be fine.
Posted by rpg, Friday, 24 July 2009 8:33:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Polar bears need to start dying pretty soon if they are to bear out the prophesy that two thirds of them will be gone in 45 years.

The ice is also needs to stop re-appearing too.
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 24 July 2009 10:29:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All you people who argue about the facts, the science, the data and all the other hype are missing the point and the present attitude of over 5 billion people.

Nobody in the developing world wants any action on climate change and anything the West does to reduce emmissions would be quickly swallowed up by increased developing world emmissions. Until there is a move by developing nations to reduce emissions the West will do zero, nothing, zilch.

The problem is now politics, not enviroment, nor science, nor faith based.

Here is a true depiction of where things sit in the world of the climate change alarmists and skeptics. Nothing is going to change unless these particular groups of people decide to change their attitudes ... and none of them are likely to do that for at least the next 40 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/22/AR2009072202415.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

CJ one way or another you are right we are going to see huge numbers of disillusioned climate delusionists sometime in the not to distant future.

Ilk! Ilk! Did someone say ilk? Where's Bushbasher?
Posted by keith, Friday, 24 July 2009 11:34:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks CJ, but patience does wear thin ... and some OLO’ers don’t like it :)

Someone said,

<< The ice is also needs to stop re-appearing too >>

Ice reappears every winter, but it’s diminishing.

http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

Of course, that little picture doesn’t tell the whole story, does it? Maybe this one puts it into perspective:

http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png

The National Snow Ice Data Centre is not known for distorting or misrepresenting the science.

http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html

_____

rpg ... I have not said anything about polar bears, I am no expert in the field.

_____

Keith,

I would say the problem is about politics, economics and cultural differences.

This is what the bun-fight is about in the UNFCCC – not so much the science. The ‘i-don’t-know-what-to-call-them-anymores’ have got their feet and heads so firmly buried in the sand that they can’t see this, or move forward.
Posted by Q&A, Friday, 24 July 2009 3:32:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q&A, teasing? Yes. I didn’t see Atman’s assertion as stupid at all. Since Atman specifically referred to “periods” such as 1920-1940, it was clearly not a reference to “seasonal” changes. There was no need for you to lose patience and do a Homer Simpson, DOH!

By the way, I did not see in your response, any explanation as to why the supposed ice melt, polar bear extinction or extreme weather conditions are in fact occurring during a cooling period, 1997 to 2009? It’s an important point, can you please explain?

I also note you again shifted the goal posts on the issue of consensus. I agree there is consensus in the scientific community about the “greenhouse effect”, but that is not what we were discussing. What we were specifically talking about was “causes” and not “effect”, the issue of GW “caused” by man made atmospheric carbon, about which there is no scientific consensus.

CJ Morgan, it seems you are right, Q&A is an expert in the field. Consequently we have a right to expect professional standards of patience and clarity beyond those of us not professionally qualified. If the student does not understand and seeks clarification, there is no excuse for blaming, vilifying or abusing the student. I might also add that when you refer to “denialists”, you are referring to those who have not accepted the proposition of AGW. It’s bad enough being told by Islamists that we are infidels for not “buying” Islam or being condemned to eternal damnation for not “buying” someone else’s god. Agnostics have simply not accepted what we see as “soft” evidence and have no position, neither for, nor against, we are just not convinced, that is our choice. You on the other hand have taken a strong position, having done so you are obliged to defend it, your choice.

If those selling AGW cannot get “buyers”, they might wish to start with a good look at the “product”, the “packaging” and their “salespeople” before blaming or abusing their potential customers.
Posted by spindoc, Friday, 24 July 2009 5:16:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We are often told that the climate change debate is about finding causes and coming up with solutions – but, sometimes you get the inkling that there is a little more going on. Consider the following:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227146.000-methane-controls-before-risky-geoengineering-please.html

Note firstly, the admission that the measures used are inaccurate,
& secondly, this comment:

“TAKING METHANE INTO ACCOUNT WOULD SHIFT SOME OF THE BURDEN OF RESPONSIBILITY ONTO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. It may seem UNFAIR to make developing countries more accountable for warming than they are now.”

It does seem that there is some selection of evidence going on here –there seems a reluctance to remeasure/redefine the role of methane because it may upset someone’s concept of FAIRNESS!
Posted by Horus, Friday, 24 July 2009 5:32:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Apologies spindoc, please allow me to regain my composure and answer your questions thus:

1. “supposed ice melt” – it is real, please refer to the National Snow & Ice Data Centre (they have archives that Atman may be interested in).

2. “polar bear extinction” – not expert in this field.

3. “extreme weather conditions are in fact (sic) occurring during a cooling period, 1997 (sic) to 2009.”

Why 1997 spindoc? Actually, don’t bother. Please try and understand the basics first - the Arctic (and West Antarctic for that matter) has NOT been cooling. You are obviously confusing global temperature anomalies with regional.

The cause of extreme weather conditions I have answered - you have obviously overlooked or can’t understand. Weather conditions are a consequence of the Earth system trying to equilibrate. Wrt extreme conditions – increased energy has to be dissipated somehow. E.g. some goes into the oceans, some goes into the atmosphere – both react in varying ways. Have a guess, where has this 'extra' energy come from?

Having said that, do you know what the rate of ‘cooling’ has been since 1997 (or should I say 1998? Or should I say 2005? Byjeez, the hottest 10 years on record have occurred in the last 12 years. Pick any start-year spindoc and tell me how much it has 'cooled'.

Now - I agree, there is much debate in the scientific community about ‘attribution’. Indeed, we even throw cream pies and donuts at each other during these debates to make a point on the minutiae. Tell you what, I'll bet you a cream pie to a donut that Keenleyside is right - temps will start to rise again (my guess within 1 - 2 years) with a vengeance.

No spindoc, you are not a student of mine (neither are any of the other OLO ‘sceptics’) and you are most definitely not an AGW agnostic, imho. Yes, I will give answers to questions when and where I can – but mostly the so called ‘sceptics’ don’t like the answers because, well ... they don’t like the answers. Why ask?
Posted by Q&A, Friday, 24 July 2009 11:33:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q&A asks Pick any start-year spindoc and tell me how much it has 'cooled'.
Try 1999 that is 10 years ago, it is only up.
Posted by PeterA, Saturday, 25 July 2009 7:59:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q & A, I have been in sales for over thirty years but have never subscribed to the notion that bulldust baffles brains. Abraham Lincoln expressed this best when talking about "Fooling" people. You think you can Q & A but it cannot be done.
You say it has been the hottest 10 years in the last 12? I have heard this what I would thought would be an easily ascertainable "Fact" be disputed and this has got to be laid to rest.
I know you will, in your usual supercillious manner, refer me to a 20,00 word line of rubbish from some "Scientist". Refer my opening paragraph.
This is all about "Scientists" wanting grant money and sleazy politicians wanting all our money in taxes. This is a re-run of the 1930's and if Rudd and crew are successful we really will see a recession. Rudd is now preparing us for this with his latest essay. You people make me laugh you think you deserve our adulation when all you get is our derision and rightly so!
Posted by JBowyer, Saturday, 25 July 2009 8:03:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q&A, no apology needed, you weren’t teasing me. Some good stuff in your post, appreciated.

You are right to say I’m not an AGW agnostic however, that does not mean I support atmospheric carbon concentrations as “the” primary or exclusive cause, and I don’t think its good to keep chucking carbon into the atmosphere but I most definitely do not support any form of carbon tax as a solution, but lets not mix causes, effect and solution at this stage.

It is also absolutely pointless for you or any convinced AGW’er, to beat me over the head with scientific “facts”. The primary reason for this is because like so many vocal commentators on both sides of this debate, I have no qualifications or professional credibility in this subject. Another reason is evidenced on OLO, every time someone says “polar ice is melting, just look at this link”, another will point to an equally credible, yet contradictory link. The debate is therefore stalled in counter claim, frustration and animosity.

I’m genuinely trying to find a bridge to establish at least an understanding between divergent perspectives, not who is right or wrong.

To this end I would like to table some perspectives, just mine, I’m not speaking for anyone else. I’d like you to respond to these perspectives, but not from you’re scientific expertise but from a people perspective.

Lets start with <<If those selling AGW cannot get “buyers”, they might wish to start with a good look at the “product”, the “packaging” and their “salespeople” before blaming or abusing their potential customers.>>

Questions of buyer, why do I need to buy it (AGW) in the first place and what would you expect me to do if I bought it?

Questions of the product, what is it, what does it do, who uses it and what are the benefits?

Questions of the packaging, Why are the media, national politics, book publishers, scientific communities, commentariat and international bodies, promoting this product in such diverse, contradictory, threatening, costly and divisive packaging?

(continued)
Posted by spindoc, Saturday, 25 July 2009 5:55:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(continued)

Questions of the salespeople, why are so many unqualified salespeople (AGW’ers), who do not understand my needs or their product, pushing so hard, with such a rude, threatening, abusive and arrogant sales pitch? Why are they blaming me for not buying? And what benefits do these salespeople expect to receive?

You said, <<Yes, I will give answers to questions when and where I can – but mostly the so called ‘skeptics’ don’t like the answers because, well ... they don’t like the answers. Why ask?>>

In response, 1) I do look forward to your answers. 2) I feel the word “skeptic” is a derogatory term for those who have not bought your product. 3) <<skeptics’ don’t like the answers because, well ... they don’t like the answers. Why ask?>>
Wrong, they don’t like the answers because they don’t answer the question, that’s why they keep asking, it’s an “objection” not a necessarily a rebuttal.

Q&A, Rule No1 of “selling” (debating, convincing, promoting, marketing) is handling objections. They are defined as “buying signals”, positive not negative, a human response to a sales pitch, the “give me a reason to buy”. We start doing this even before we can walk or talk.

Finally (for the moment anyway), you would like to bet me a cream pie to a donut that Keenleyside is right and temps will start to rise again (your guess within 1-2 years). Done, a cream pie it is. Unfortunately the stakes for our society are actually much higher than a cream pie, the developed world is heading directly for a huge economic slug, a carbon energy tax, on the strength of a “prediction” by Keenleyside and your “guess”? Now that’s what I call gambling.

The cooling to which I referred was of course the BOM records for global annual mean surface temperature. This does show that cooling has occurred since 1997 (or 1998). I take your comment that << temps will start to rise again>> as acknowledgement of that fact.

See what I mean about selling? You did answer “a” question but it did not answer “my” question.
Posted by spindoc, Saturday, 25 July 2009 5:57:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spindoc, can I suggest you open a general discussion thread and raise your points there? They just seem too far away from polar bears.
Posted by Q&A, Sunday, 26 July 2009 5:09:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In other words, they are excellent questions (debating points) - but go beyond the scope of this article.

I would like to offer personal opinions without my hat, and I certainly don't have all the answers, no one person does.
Posted by Q&A, Monday, 27 July 2009 7:29:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy