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. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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