The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Global Warming Reality Options
Oscar D. Grouch
Posted: Thursday, December 20, 2018 10:44:18 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/26/2014
Posts: 623
Neurons: 1,007,303
Antarctica is melting. It is currently losing 65 million metric tons of ice per year from West Antarctica alone. The problem is that much of the landmass currently sits below sea level. Once this below sea level ice starts melting, the process will likely become irreversible. The National Geographic Society has predicted that this scenario will come to pass if fossil fuel consumption continues at current levels.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/

Sea level is predicted to rise 216 feet (65 meters). This will drown coastal areas around the globe. The National Geographic Society has published maps of each continent's new coastline. For example, in the US, the Mississippi River delta will become an estuary that will dwarf the Chesapeake. Florida, along with most of the Eastern Seaboard, will disappear. An inland sea will occupy California's central valley. In a world without ice, the mean global temperature is predicted to rise to about 80 °F (26.6 °C) from its current mean of 58 °F (14.4 °C). Numerous plants and animals will go extinct, food crops will fail and it will likely rival the Permian Extinction. Uncountable millions of people will die, perhaps a billion or more. This is the future that awaits our planet and future generations if we do nothing. It will make the current debates about global warming look like a playground argument among grade school children.

Hope123
Posted: Friday, December 21, 2018 9:16:33 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,541
Neurons: 48,870
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Thanks, Oscar. This warning was five years ago and there have been warnings for decades. Science and technology are working to find solutions and have had some success. It just takes political will. Politicians from early every country in the world are finally promoting a carbon tax or cap and trade and are gradually phasing out coal - in spite of protests by those who stand to gain in the fossil fuels business and those who are having a hard time financially as it is. So some program to help the struggling is advised.

Canada starts a program in January where companies that continue to pollute must pay and the money is given back to citizens by cheque to cover the inflation caused by the companies raising their prices as they fix their systems and/or pay the tax. The minister in charge of that portfolio said today that although Canada adds only a minor amount to the problem, it can reach its Paris Agreement goals if it keeps to the plans. Every little bit helps and the countries who are already meeting their goals are an inspiration to other countries to keep working.

The ice has diminished sbstantially already and there are reports of increasing infestations of Red Tide in FL as the waters heat up. Today's version of the Lancet medical journal has an article about the unusual invasion of sargassum algae along several island countries and how it affects humans who breathe the fumes. Many are hospitalized or have died.

Apparently the markets will eventually turn the tide as the carbon bubble bursts.

http://forum.thefreedictionary.com/postst187654_How-Soon-Will-the-Carbon-Bubble-Pop-.aspx

"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
Hope123
Posted: Friday, December 21, 2018 4:25:34 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,541
Neurons: 48,870
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Because of your link, Oscar, I ended up signing for emails from National Geographic. :)I've been meaning to do that to get their great pix.

Also: more evidence of ice melting indicating specific spot levels in the Arctic today.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/12/21/melting-arctic-ice-is-now-pouring-tons-water-per-second-into-ocean-scientists-find/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d3c896d48acc



"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
Ashwin Joshi
Posted: Sunday, December 23, 2018 8:27:38 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/3/2016
Posts: 1,455
Neurons: 75,754
Location: Jandiāla Guru, Punjab, India
Just two days before 13 federal agencies released a report laying out the devastating human and economic toll that climate change already is taking in the United States, Donald Trump tweeted: “Whatever happened to global warming?” The tweet was based on a spurt of cold weather in the north-east, never mind that the rest of the world was experiencing higher than normal temperatures.



Climate Change Effect



Me Gathering Pebbles at The Seashore.-Aj
Oscar D. Grouch
Posted: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 6:48:36 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/26/2014
Posts: 623
Neurons: 1,007,303
Ashwin Joshi wrote:


That bear is looking a little emaciated.
Oscar D. Grouch
Posted: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 6:52:22 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/26/2014
Posts: 623
Neurons: 1,007,303
Ashwin Joshi wrote:
Donald Trump tweeted: “Whatever happened to global warming?” The tweet was based on a spurt of cold weather in the north-east, never mind that the rest of the world was experiencing higher than normal temperatures.


Another argument from a grade school child.
Ashwin Joshi
Posted: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 10:06:28 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/3/2016
Posts: 1,455
Neurons: 75,754
Location: Jandiāla Guru, Punjab, India
Oscar D. Grouch wrote;
That bear is looking a little emaciated




Emaciated due to scarcity of food, due to receding ice-line. Reason Global warming.

Me Gathering Pebbles at The Seashore.-Aj
Oscar D. Grouch
Posted: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 10:30:27 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/26/2014
Posts: 623
Neurons: 1,007,303
Ashwin Joshi wrote:
Emaciated due to scarcity of food, due to receding ice-line. Reason Global warming.


There's an orange walrus at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue he can feed on. Anxious
progpen
Posted: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 2:50:24 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,965
Neurons: 338,776
Location: Haddington, Scotland, United Kingdom
In the US, money and politics have decimated the scientific environment, so any future progress will have to happen in spite of the US and not with our help. In the US, willful ignorance is patriotic and anti-science vitriol is worn as a badge of honor.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Romany
Posted: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 7:51:25 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 15,371
Neurons: 48,249
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Proggie -

We've noticed.
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2018 12:12:17 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,501
Neurons: 54,140
It's really difficult to understand how so many people can be so gullible.

Quote:

"
Nat. Geographic Comes Clean About that Viral Pic of the Climate Change Polar Bear
By
Nick Arama -
July 27, 2018

You may recall the story that broke last December about the poor emaciated polar bear shown in the National Geographic.

The picture was taken by Christina Mittermeier and Paul Nicklen in the Baffin Islands in Canada.

And the National Geographic used it as a proof of their claim that climate change was destroying the wildlife and the ecosystem.

From Conservative Tribune:

The original article describes, in horrifying fashion, “the polar bear clinging to life, its white hair limply covering its thin, bony frame. One of the bear’s back legs drags behind it as it walks, likely due to muscle atrophy. Looking for food, the polar bear slowly rummages through a nearby trashcan used seasonally by Inuit fishers. It finds nothing and resignedly collapses back down onto the ground.”

“We stood there crying — filming with tears rolling down our cheeks,” Nicklen said.

However, now both Mittermeier and the National Geographic are admitting that the narrative that developed around the picture was inaccurate particularly in regard to climate change in the August 2018 issue of the magazine in an article titled, “Starving-Polar-Bear Photographer Recalls What Went Wrong.”

Mitttermeir described how the picture went viral when Nicklen posted it on Instagram, telling people to do everything they could to “reduce their carbon footprint.”

“He wondered whether the global population of 25,000 polar bears would die the way this bear was dying. He urged people to do everything they could to reduce their carbon footprint and prevent this from happening. But he did not say that this particular bear was killed by climate change.” (Emphasis mine.)

Mittermeier said their “mission was a success, but there was a problem: We had lost control of the narrative. The first line of the National Geographic video said, ‘This is what climate change looks like’ — with ‘climate change’ highlighted in the brand’s distinctive yellow. In retrospect, National Geographic went too far with the caption. Other news outlets ran dramatic headlines like this one from the Washington Post: ‘‘We stood there crying’: Emaciated polar bear seen in ‘gut-wrenching’ video and photos.’”

“Perhaps we made a mistake in not telling the full story — that we were looking for a picture that foretold the future and that we didn’t know what had happened to this particular polar bear.”

But the bottom line was that they had no idea what was wrong with the bear, they just thought it helped their cause.

It’s good that they’re coming clean about it now.

But it’s eight months later. And while the picture went viral and stoked the narrative, the retraction/correction wouldn’t get anywhere near the attention of the original picture. And they should have been responsible to begin with and not implied something which wasn’t the case."


The picture was used as a piece of propaganda for "Global Warming", and all of you foolishly believed it, as you do everything you are told about that. When critical thinking is lost, that's a sad situation.



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2018 3:03:28 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,541
Neurons: 48,870
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FD,

You used one anecdotal example to draw or imply several conclusions. You've remonstrated with posters about that before so perhaps you should take your own advice.

A narrative got away from photographers and was corrected.

I am faulting the photographers for not pointing out at the time that they did not know why it was dying but just because they can't prove what that animal was dying of with an autopsy does not mean that others are not dying of lack of food or will not in the future. Or that indeed that animal may have been starving to death.

I am not sure what all you are implying here but you've expressed disbelief before that the concern for polar bears who are losing their habitat is not real. Animals losing their habitat have to adapt. 50% of the world's wildlife has been lost in last 40 years, much of it because of humankind activities when animals couldn't adapt or were hunted to extinction. An animal that depends upon ice is going to have much difficulty with the melting already taking place.

https://www.snopes.com/ap/2018/02/01/arctic-sea-ice-thins-polar-bears/

FounDit wrote: "The picture was used as a piece of propaganda for "Global Warming", and all of you foolishly believed it, as you do everything you are told about that. When critical thinking is lost, that's a sad situation."

Yes indeed, when critical thinking is lost it is a sad situation. Add yourself to that insinuation for using one photo to make your usual talking point about the foolishness of (anthropogenic) climate change and the foolishness of posters for believing in it.

One person did not see the correction, posted it here, and you imply that "you all" are not critical thinkers, believe foolish things, believe everything we are told about "that" (assuming "that" refers to climate change as that's the topic), and imply that all climate change is propaganda.

Stick it in your ear, FD.

"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2018 7:37:08 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,501
Neurons: 54,140
Hope123 wrote:
FD,

You used one anecdotal example to draw or imply several conclusions. You've remonstrated with posters about that before so perhaps you should take your own advice.

A narrative got away from photographers and was corrected.

I am faulting the photographers for not pointing out at the time that they did not know why it was dying but just because they can't prove what that animal was dying of with an autopsy does not mean that others are not dying of lack of food or will not in the future. Or that indeed that animal may have been starving to death.
I did NOT use ONE anecdote to draw or imply several conclusions. I pointed out an obvious lie and error when that picture was used for propaganda. Nor have I used just one anecdote to rebut the lie of anthropogenic climate change. I have shown on several occasions that many lies have been put forth on that topic. This is simply one more.

I am not sure what all you are implying here but you've expressed disbelief before that the concern for polar bears who are losing their habitat is not real.
And once again, you put words in my mouth that I did not say, and twist what I have said. I have never implied any such thing.

Animals losing their habitat have to adapt. 50% of the world's wildlife has been lost in last 40 years, much of it because of humankind activities when animals couldn't adapt or were hunted to extinction. An animal that depends upon ice is going to have much difficulty with the melting already taking place.
Polar bears do NOT depend on ice for their food supply. They depend on open water or holes in the ice where seals may come up for air. It is then the bear feeds. Besides that, polar bears can swim just fine. There have been many warming and cooling cycles over the history of the Earth and the polar bears are still with us. You therefore have no evidence that this will being about their extinction any more than it did in the past.

https://www.snopes.com/ap/2018/02/01/arctic-sea-ice-thins-polar-bears/

FounDit wrote: "The picture was used as a piece of propaganda for "Global Warming", and all of you foolishly believed it, as you do everything you are told about that. When critical thinking is lost, that's a sad situation."

Yes indeed, when critical thinking is lost it is a sad situation. Add yourself to that insinuation for using one photo to make your usual talking point about the foolishness of (anthropogenic) climate change and the foolishness of posters for believing in it.
And once again you are wrong. I did no such thing. I said the photo was used as propaganda for global warming, and that is a true statement, as was admitted by the article.

One person did not see the correction, posted it here, and you imply that "you all" are not critical thinkers, believe foolish things, believe everything we are told about "that" (assuming "that" refers to climate change as that's the topic), and imply that all climate change is propaganda.
Well, all of you bought into the propaganda, so "you all" seems to fit. And since "You all" agree with the propaganda, what I said was, and is, correct.

Stick it in your ear, FD.

Naw, I think not. I will continue to oppose and rebut this foolishness for as long as it continues to be put out. But I am willing to listen to facts. I ask once again for someone to show me proof positive of the direct cause and effect of human activity on changing the planet's climate. I have asked multiple times, and still no one has, or can, provide it. The climate is always in motion, regardless of what humans do. To say we can control it, or alter it, is utter nonsense.

We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
RuthP
Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2018 9:18:18 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,387
Neurons: 80,038
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
`s OK, FounDit. It's just that you and the other climate change/global warming deniers are in the same boat as all the anti-vaxers out there: you, who evidently have little to no experience with, education in, or knowledge and understanding of the scientific process, experimental design, modelling, data collection, statistics, and/or data analysis have decided there is a great global conspiracy among those who make a career of and devote their lives to studying these topics.

This conspiracy is aimed specifically at you non-scientific types, because, as you know, all scientific people have as their primary focus the duping and humiliation of all those without scientific training. They have no interest in actually researching their fields, they are just all out to get you, in one vast international conspiracy.

You all, however, with your vastly greater common sense and better understanding of anecdotes realize there is no purpose in the scientific investigation of these topics. The topics "don't make sense" and thus cannot be true. We're having severe, freezing weather in the Midwest right now, so obviously there's no global warming. All those people, who trained for years in their fields

In the (likely futile) interest of once again giving you some evidence to read, you might try this site, with a good explanation and links to the most recently published data by two big (one U.S. government and the other international) climate study groups. These are not heart rending stories (though for people who stop and think, the implications are there). They are data, they are research, they are models which are getting ever more accurate at predicting change.

Skeptical Science: Warming 'hiatus'; the myth that won't die

Try truly reading it. Try following the links and truly reading the reports. Or, just look at the graph, which clearly shows that despite the annual ups and downs, the data over the decades clearly show significant warming.

Yes, the world has been much warmer in the past. That was before civilization. That was before Homo sapiens. Mostly, it was before Homo anything and we have no experience trying to maintain civilization under much hotter circumstances. The nice little world of even temperatures (including the "little ice age" of 1300-1400 and again 1600 through much of the 1800s, and the Dust Bowl of the 1930s) that you and I know is rapidly vanishing.

Agriculture as we know it is at risk. Tropical and semi-tropical diseases and pests are spreading north, diseases and pests of crops, livestock, and humans. Seasonal water sources are appearing later and drying sooner. The warmer globe has more energy in the atmosphere and the ocean, and heavy rains are increasing. This includes rain which accompanies severe storms such as tropical depressions, tropical storms, and hurricanes and typhoons. And, with greater energy in the system, winter storms are also more severe, as we are seeing in the Midwest right now.

And this is another instance of incomplete understanding:
"Polar bears do NOT depend on ice for their food supply. They depend on open water or holes in the ice where seals may come up for air. It is then the bear feeds. Besides that, polar bears can swim just fine."

Polar bears do not depend upon open water for food. They are able to swim very well and can cross miles of open water: true. They depend upon the breathing holes in pack ice for hunting. They also require stable pack ice to pull a catch out and eat. They cannot catch seals in open water; they cannot eat in open water, and most floe ice is too unstable for them to hunt from or pull a catch out on. The retreat of pack ice and earlier ice break-up are affecting the polar bear populations. Your statement evinces a critical lack of knowledge and understanding.
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2018 9:48:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,541
Neurons: 48,870
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Well, FD, I guess you forgot. I didn't. We had a discussion about this photo before and I stated that they cannot be certain that climate change was the cause of that particular polar bear's emaciated condition. There are photos of other bears in trouble. I even posted the link to the correction. See below in copy of my post from 2017.

Just because nobody who was still reading this thread had not pointed it out to Ashwin does not mean "we all bought into it". Once again you are making assumptions and even double down when it is pointed out to you.

BTW : The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 2008 due to the threat posed by sea ice loss.

Hope wrote: I am not sure what all you are implying here but you've expressed disbelief before that the concern for polar bears who are losing their habitat is not real.
FounDit wrote: And once again, you put words in my mouth that I did not say, and twist what I have said. I have never implied any such thing.

Really! So what is this just a paragraph later? And at the end of a post from 2017 where you stated less ice is a good thing for them.

BTW - My word extinction was used for hunting, not in reference to polar bear loss of habitat.


FounDit wrote Polar bears do NOT depend on ice for their food supply. They depend on open water or holes in the ice where seals may come up for air. It is then the bear feeds. Besides that, polar bears can swim just fine. There have been many warming and cooling cycles over the history of the Earth and the polar bears are still with us. You therefore have no evidence that this will being about their extinction any more than it did in the past.

FounDit wrote: "The picture was used as a piece of propaganda for "Global Warming", and all of you foolishly believed it, as you do everything you are told about that. When critical thinking is lost, that's a sad situation."

So after reading your sentence again: why did you post if not to use one example as a talking point about "that" i.e. Global Warming. And to diss posters as foolish?

:::::::::

Copy of Hope's post from October 2017, (photo statement in colour red so you don't miss it) followed by a quote from FounDit saying polar bear was not losing its habitat, that less ice was good for them. And then Will's response to that.

Hope123 wrote:
ghorbanpour wrote:

Deamon, the climate change and its impact on the surface of the water and ice on Earth are really worrying!


They cannot be certain that climate change caused the bear's emaciated condition and probable death in the video on the link provided. But it is happening more frequently as when the bears have to stay on the land longer and longer as summer is lengthened and not get to the ice where the seals are, their hibernation period takes them almost to starvation.

Polar bear dependence on sea ice makes them highly vulnerable to a changing climate. Polar bears rely heavily on the sea ice environment for traveling, hunting, mating, resting, and in some areas, maternal dens. In particular, they depend heavily on sea ice-dependent prey, such as ringed and bearded seals. Additionally, their long generation time and low reproductive rate may limit their ability to adapt to changes in the environment.

Because of ongoing and potential loss of their sea ice habitat resulting from climate change, polar bears were listed as a threatened species in the US under the Endangered Species Act in May 2008.
(Until Trump reverses it the same he just did for the Canadian Bobcat. He also took 25 imperiled species off that list last year. Not sure if the polar bear was on that list or not. They should only come off the list if they are thriving in their environment as the act reads, not their numbers n the whole world.)


https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/12/polar-bear-starving-arctic-sea-ice-melt-climate-change-spd/

Edited - I checked the list and the polar bear is not on it yet. But since Trump puts profit over everything and he wants to drill for oil, I AM holding my breath on this one.

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2017/25-species-10-04-2017.php


::::::

FounDit wrote:
As for the polar bears, what habitat is shrinking -- the ice? You do know, don't you, that polar bears need to be able to dive into the water to hunt for fish for food? So open water, or less ice, is a good thing for them. They would starve if there was nothing but ice and no way to get into the water.


Will wrote: Are you serious? This is a frankly idiotic line of reasoning.Eh?


"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
FounDit
Posted: Friday, December 28, 2018 11:49:23 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,501
Neurons: 54,140
RuthP wrote:
`s OK, FounDit. It's just that you and the other climate change/global warming deniers are in the same boat as all the anti-vaxers out there: you, who evidently have little to no experience with, education in, or knowledge and understanding of the scientific process, experimental design, modelling, data collection, statistics, and/or data analysis have decided there is a great global conspiracy among those who make a career of and devote their lives to studying these topics.
Hope has rubbed off on you Ruth. She now has you also accusing me of things I never said. Nowhere have I even mentioned vaxers, or said global warming was a conspiracy. Apparently, both of you have developed the same ability to read my mind, except it isn't my mind you are reading, but your own imaginings.

This conspiracy is aimed specifically at you non-scientific types, because, as you know, all scientific people have as their primary focus the duping and humiliation of all those without scientific training. They have no interest in actually researching their fields, they are just all out to get you, in one vast international conspiracy.
And again, I never said any of this. It is purely your own interpretation and projections onto me.

You all, however, with your vastly greater common sense and better understanding of anecdotes realize there is no purpose in the scientific investigation of these topics. The topics "don't make sense" and thus cannot be true. We're having severe, freezing weather in the Midwest right now, so obviously there's no global warming. All those people, who trained for years in their fields
And again I repeat myself, I never said any of this. It is purely your own interpretation and projections onto me.

In the (likely futile) interest of once again giving you some evidence to read, you might try this site, with a good explanation and links to the most recently published data by two big (one U.S. government and the other international) climate study groups. These are not heart rending stories (though for people who stop and think, the implications are there). They are data, they are research, they are models which are getting ever more accurate at predicting change.
Getting ever more accurate? You mean they aren't quite accurate now? They aren't perfect? They can't accurately predict what the climate will be in 20 to 50 years?

Skeptical Science: Warming 'hiatus'; the myth that won't die

Try truly reading it. Try following the links and truly reading the reports. Or, just look at the graph, which clearly shows that despite the annual ups and downs, the data over the decades clearly show significant warming.
Where is the chart that shows the direct cause and effect of human activity on modifying the climate? I don't see that one.

Yes, the world has been much warmer in the past. That was before civilization. That was before Homo sapiens. Mostly, it was before Homo anything and we have no experience trying to maintain civilization under much hotter circumstances. The nice little world of even temperatures (including the "little ice age" of 1300-1400 and again 1600 through much of the 1800s, and the Dust Bowl of the 1930s) that you and I know is rapidly vanishing.
The "little ice age" was a world of even temperatures? Sounds like the opposite of warm. But you are right in one respect: the climate at any given time is changing.

Agriculture as we know it is at risk. Tropical and semi-tropical diseases and pests are spreading north, diseases and pests of crops, livestock, and humans. Seasonal water sources are appearing later and drying sooner. The warmer globe has more energy in the atmosphere and the ocean, and heavy rains are increasing. This includes rain which accompanies severe storms such as tropical depressions, tropical storms, and hurricanes and typhoons. And, with greater energy in the system, winter storms are also more severe, as we are seeing in the Midwest right now.
Agriculture is not at risk because of warmth. Most crops actually thrive in warm temperatures rather than cold. And as you climate changers are always saying, weather is not climate (except when it suits you).

And this is another instance of incomplete understanding:
"Polar bears do NOT depend on ice for their food supply. They depend on open water or holes in the ice where seals may come up for air. It is then the bear feeds. Besides that, polar bears can swim just fine."

Polar bears do not depend upon open water for food. They are able to swim very well and can cross miles of open water: true. They depend upon the breathing holes in pack ice for hunting. They also require stable pack ice to pull a catch out and eat. They cannot catch seals in open water; they cannot eat in open water, and most floe ice is too unstable for them to hunt from or pull a catch out on. The retreat of pack ice and earlier ice break-up are affecting the polar bear populations. Your statement evinces a critical lack of knowledge and understanding.

No, it shows you either didn't really read, or understand what I wrote, because you first deny what I wrote, only to turn around and agree with it concerning the need for open water and holes in the ice for bears to feed. You also agreed they can swim very well.

The retreat of ice pack is, again, a cycle that is always repeating itself. That it affects the bears is not in question, but that in no way proves anything relating to human activity and climate change.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
progpen
Posted: Friday, December 28, 2018 11:54:41 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,965
Neurons: 338,776
Location: Haddington, Scotland, United Kingdom
Circular arguments are a wonderful way to win by attrition. Just keep talking in circles until everyone else gets tired and goes away, then declare victory.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
FounDit
Posted: Friday, December 28, 2018 12:12:47 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,501
Neurons: 54,140
Hope123 wrote:
Well, FD, I guess you forgot. I didn't. We had a discussion about this photo before and I stated that they cannot be certain that climate change was the cause of that particular polar bear's emaciated condition. There are photos of other bears in trouble. I even posted the link to the correction. See below in copy of my post from 2017.
*Sigh* It really is quite tiresome to have to respond to the ridiculous things I'm accused of, but I will until I become bored with it...again.

What I wrote had nothing to do with you Hope or your previous post. It was in response to the posting of the photo of the emaciated bear and its use to reinforce the foolish idea of anthropogenic climate change. Another example of your taking one thing and leaping to a totally illogical conclusion.

Just because nobody who was still reading this thread had not pointed it out to Ashwin does not mean "we all bought into it". Once again you are making assumptions and even double down when it is pointed out to you.
And as I pointed out, the term "you all" was in reference to all the posters who bought into the idea and agreed with it.

BTW : The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 2008 due to the threat posed by sea ice loss.
So? That has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change except in the minds of believers. There has been absolutely no evidence presented to support the idea we are responsible for that. Sea ice is always retreating and re-growing. It is a natural cycle.

Hope wrote: I am not sure what all you are implying here but you've expressed disbelief before that the concern for polar bears who are losing their habitat is not real.
FounDit wrote: And once again, you put words in my mouth that I did not say, and twist what I have said. I have never implied any such thing.

Really! So what is this just a paragraph later? And at the end of a post from 2017 where you stated less ice is a good thing for them.
Yes, really. You said I expressed a dis-belief on your part about the concern for polar bears losing their habitat. I never said any such thing, and that is true - I don't doubt for a second your concern. I just don't share it. Do you even read what I write, or do you simply jump to the conclusions in your own mind about what I think and project it onto me? I already know the answer to that. So now I'm bored with this.

I'll not bother with the remainder of it because is it foolish and useless. I think it was Kevin D. Williamson who wrote something like: one of the lessons from Animal Farm is that you can't reason a pig out of its pigness.

Being a citizen is hard work. You have to think, analyze, reason. Being a subject is easy - you just have to believe as you are told to believe.




We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Friday, December 28, 2018 3:04:55 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,541
Neurons: 48,870
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
progpen wrote:
Circular arguments are a wonderful way to win by attrition. Just keep talking in circles until everyone else gets tired and goes away, then declare victtory.


Agreed, Proggy.

BTW - I know which side of climate change I would rather err on.


I would not have bothered to respond to FD at all if the implication had not been made by him that "you all bought into the propaganda". He can't get past making personal observations about other posters - which is none of his business anyhow.

I proved we had not all bought into it and in fact knew about it previously by even going back to prove with a previous post. But the connection remains elusive to him.

All FD had to say now was that he sees that we did not all buy into the photo propaganda. Instead he doubles down with lectures and implications about how "subjects" as compared to "citizens" believe what they are told. If called on that implication meant to refer to climate change believers to whom he knows he is addressing, FD would say he never said that. It was just a general observation. And of course as the lecturer he is always on the "smart"side. Not.

At this point I am not even responding about the climate change we all know is happening with Greenland and Canada's glaciers melting like crazy and how every country but the US has accepted that we can and should do our best with whatever mitigation is possible. I just read an article about the negative effects Trumps's deregulations have had upon the US environment already.

What I have always objected to and will continue to point out is his propensity to ad hominem and lectures with implications about other posters. He does it no matter the topic.

I don't know his particular motivation for trying to disparage others because of their beliefs, but often it is try to shore up their own self image and/or their own beliefs.

Anyhow, I too am -









"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
will
Posted: Saturday, December 29, 2018 11:38:19 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
FounDit wrote:
Nowhere have I ... said global warming was a conspiracy.


As far as I know, this is true.

FounDit has never used the actual term ‘conspiracy’ to describe the overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change – a consensus that approaches 100% in correlation to relevant fields of expertise, and includes every scientific body of national and international standing, and includes every Government on the planet (with the possible exception of the Trump administration), and includes virtually every multinational corporation (from the largest banks and technology companies to ExxonMobil and Maersk), and even includes the the most vocal contrarians, such as Patrick Michaels and Nic Lewis, who are now in agreement with the reality of anthropogenic climate change and at odds with FounDit’s repeated claims that there is absolutely no evidence that humans are responsible for any temperature rise.

What FounDit has said, many times, in various ways, is that the consensus on Climate Change is nothing but a ploy for political power from the Left. Given this and his repeated claims that there is absolutely no evidence, it is understandable why any rational and objective observer might conclude FounDit thinks there is a conspiracy afoot… but, as I say, I don’t think he has ever actually used the term ‘conspiracy’ himself.

The phrase he did use to describe the unanimous global agreement in support of the consensus on anthropogenic climate change was “circle jerk”.

So please stop misrepresenting him, he is perfectly able to discredit his own argument without your help. Shame on you


.


will
Posted: Saturday, December 29, 2018 11:40:59 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
progpen wrote:
Circular arguments are a wonderful way to win by attrition. Just keep talking in circles until everyone else gets tired and goes away, then declare victory.

Arguing with a climate change denier is like playing chess with a pigeon; it knocks over the pieces, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

.
FROSTY X RIME
Posted: Saturday, December 29, 2018 1:58:23 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/20/2015
Posts: 1,072
Neurons: 11,914
FounDit, sea ice is essential for polar bears’ hunting. They can swim but they can not outswim the seals in the open water.
They use the ice for platform to ambush the seals.

What should be shall be-The fellowship of the ring-
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, December 29, 2018 3:47:31 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,541
Neurons: 48,870
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FounDit wrote:

The retreat of ice pack is, again, a cycle that is always repeating itself.

A true statement. Are we ready for this then?




"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
FROSTY X RIME
Posted: Saturday, December 29, 2018 5:31:51 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/20/2015
Posts: 1,072
Neurons: 11,914
I understand global warming was changed to climate change quite long ago.

What should be shall be-The fellowship of the ring-
FounDit
Posted: Saturday, December 29, 2018 9:17:36 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,501
Neurons: 54,140
You all do provide me with some good belly laughs. Hope says she is so tired of all this, but she keeps banging on about it...LOL.

Will says I use circular logic, but there is nothing circular about saying there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change. It is commonly said that the "science is settled", yet there is nothing circular about asking for the definitive evidence that everyone says is "settled", but which no one can provide.

FROSTY X RIME says, "FounDit, sea ice is essential for polar bears’ hunting. They can swim but they can not outswim the seals in the open water.
They use the ice for platform to ambush the seals."


I know that. My point was that the bears can swim and need open water, full stop. I never said anything about them hunting in open water. When the ice does melt, they need to be able to swim to other patches of ice. It's amazing how logic and reasoning are abandoned in trying to prove a point; how anger and bitterness take their place in some posters.

So what did I do? I told the truth about a photo - that's all. I exposed a piece of propaganda as being just that – propaganda. How dare he do that!? That is intolerable! This cannot be permitted! It’s heresy! One can almost hear it being said; it certainly must have been thought in order to elicit the reactions we see.

Some on the forum create one of the logical fallacies of relevance by ad hominems, crediting me with positions and opinions I do not hold or espouse, and then criticizing me for holding them. But the positions and opinions are not mine. They are projections from the minds of the criticizers. They come from the fears, anger, perhaps even hatred, of those who put them upon me. I’ve pointed out many of them in this thread.

The herd instinct is very strong. It’s rooted in the desire for approval and the fear of rejection, as I’ve mentioned here on several occasions (which the herd denies, of course, even as they prove the truth of it … LOL); and those who disagree with the herd must be punished. It’s fascinating. We do, indeed, live in interesting times.

Walking away, reflecting on the Spanish Inquisition in the 1470’s, the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre of 1572, and the Salem Witch Trials of the 1690’s, all displaying an outgrowth of ochlocracy, or mob mentality. Some things never change.



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, December 29, 2018 10:26:13 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,541
Neurons: 48,870
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FROSTY X RIME wrote:
I understand global warming was changed to climate change quite long ago.


Back on topic - once again. (Instead of continued personal comments by FD that my photo referred to as s**t, although I didn't really read or need to read past the first sentence of his last post.)

Hi Frosty. Yes Republicans tried - they even needed a personal advocate to get their business-based propaganda out there as they didn't want the public to demand action. But climate change is really just more inclusive and both terms have been used interchangeably by the public for some time.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

"The second premise is also wrong, as demonstrated by perhaps the only individual to actually advocate changing the term from 'global warming' to 'climate change', Republican political strategist Frank Luntz in a controversial memo advising conservative politicians on communicating about the environment:

It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation.

“Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”. As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge."

There is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth "they changed the name from global warming to climate change".



"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
FROSTY X RIME
Posted: Sunday, December 30, 2018 6:20:55 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/20/2015
Posts: 1,072
Neurons: 11,914
For those who are awfully worried about polar bears’ well-being, I bring a news article about them. They are healthy and fine.

Polar bear well and fat

What should be shall be-The fellowship of the ring-
Oscar D. Grouch
Posted: Sunday, December 30, 2018 7:40:42 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/26/2014
Posts: 623
Neurons: 1,007,303
Hope123 wrote:
FounDit wrote:

The retreat of ice pack is, again, a cycle that is always repeating itself.

A true statement. Are we ready for this then?



Sure. Mass extinction events open up new niches for evolution. Maybe the next iteration of sentient bipeds won't have their heads up their alimentary canal.
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, December 30, 2018 8:56:42 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,541
Neurons: 48,870
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FROSTY X RIME wrote:
For those who are awfully worried about polar bears’ well-being, I bring a news article about them. They are healthy and fine.

Polar bear well and fat


Thanks for the interesting article Frosty. No sense worrying about anything, though. Worrying is like rocking in a rocking a chair. It gives you something to do but you don't get anywhere. Action, when needed, is better.

But glad the Inuit think the bears are fat and healthy. Scientists agree that some populations of bears in certain areas are doing just fine right now. The bears are smart and are finding food at dumps and are eating other foods besides their preferred seals. They have to work harder and learn to diversify their diet if the prognosis for their future is to remain good.

Too bad the Inuit father was mauled to death. The article says the Inuit are seeing more bears because the bears are spending more time around humans finding food and when hungry have become more aggressive and unafraid of humans in the last ten years. Must be scary for the people.

I know first hand bears will eat most anything when hungry. I've mentioned before how one, probably a black bear, ate the only thing I was able to grow in my garden in Northern Ontario - the squash. I know it was a bear by the scat left behind and our friends down the island watched it with anxiety through the window as it dismantled their BBQ that same evening. It is a main attraction for tourists to go see the bears at the dump at night in Northern Ontario.

The main question is whether or not the polar bears, and even the Inuit, can adapt to the increasing loss of their habitat which is definitely happening and even affecting the gulf stream and weather in other places. Let's hope all bears learn to adapt and that they are not another animal put on the large list of animals that are declining.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/21/arctics-strongest-sea-ice-breaks-up-for-first-time-on-record

Wouldn't it be nice if life came with both an eraser and a crystal ball? Although if we had a crystal ball we wouldn't need the eraser.

"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
progpen
Posted: Sunday, December 30, 2018 9:48:33 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,965
Neurons: 338,776
Location: Haddington, Scotland, United Kingdom
As natural hunting grounds for bears, wolves, etc. disappear, humans will interact with them more often. This will be used by the deniers to argue that nothing is wrong and that, if anything, more hunting is needed.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, December 30, 2018 10:20:45 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,541
Neurons: 48,870
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Proggy,

Higher hunting quotas are exactly what the Inuit want.

A book "Denial - The Unspeakable Truth" by Keith Kahn-Harris explains why people deny many truths such as the Holocaust, Climate Change, smoking is not bad for you, link between HIV and AIDS etc. The truth is unspeakable to them for various reasons, such as religion or economic reasons. Denialism is dangerous.

https://www.nottinghilleditions.com/product/denial-the-unspeakable-truth/

An opinion piece by Dow Marmur in Toronto Star today reviews the book.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/12/30/what-drives-people-reject-the-truth-in-an-open-liberal-society.html

The Guardian reviewed it last August.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/03/denialism-what-drives-people-to-reject-the-truth


"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
will
Posted: Sunday, December 30, 2018 10:53:42 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
FounDit, I’m concern that you seem prone to wild mood swings, from rolling around on floor laughing your arse off, to feelings of persecution akin to some of the worse historical events in human history… Have you considered seeking professional help? I fear you may be suffering from a bipolar disorder – bear pun noted but not intended.

FounDit wrote:
I never said anything about them hunting in open water.

Yes you did.

FounDit wrote:
You do know, don't you, that polar bears need to be able to dive into the water to hunt for fish for food? So open water, or less ice, is a good thing for them.

This is typical of your propensity to respond without first thinking, before resorting to obfuscation (and numerous other logical fallacies) in an attempt to escape the cognitive dissonance caused by holding an ideological position that is demonstrably contrary to reality. Your tactic of quibbling over semantics, whining about being misrepresented and constant moving of the goalposts is what progpen was referring to when he said ‘circular arguments are a wonderful way to win by attrition’.

This is a language forum, it is not reasonable to simply blame everyone else because you cannot get your message across in a way that anybody can understand.

FounDit wrote:
Will says I use circular logic, but…

To play your stupid game of semantics, I actually said no such thing. Circular reasoning at least requires a number of propositions that (although stemming from a false premiss) are deductively valid. At this point your argument is not even wrong. d'oh!

.
will
Posted: Sunday, December 30, 2018 11:01:41 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
FROSTY X RIME wrote:
For those who are awfully worried about polar bears’ well-being, I bring a news article about them. They are healthy and fine.

Polar bear well and fat

This is a good example of how the science on this subject is so frequently confused with the politics on this subject. The picture of the starving bear was used to make a political point in support of the science, it was then used by the contrary political position in an attempt to discredit the science. However, the science, and the consensus in support of it, remains the same regardless.

When there is an apparent disparity between what people observe and what they are told they will, reasonably, tend to favour their observations. The problem is that this can lead to the relatively easy habit of confirmation bias. This is why objectivity is vital. It doesn’t matter if you are an Innuit dodging an influx of bears or a Texan sitting at a computer, if the conclusion you draw from your observations are not supported empirically, they are not worth a jot.


progpen wrote:
As natural hunting grounds for bears, wolves, etc. disappear, humans will interact with them more often. This will be used by the deniers to argue that nothing is wrong and that, if anything, more hunting is needed.

I wonder if polar bears are attributing the retreating ice to a population explosion of humans. Think


.
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, December 30, 2018 11:45:37 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,541
Neurons: 48,870
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
will wrote:
FROSTY X RIME wrote:
For those who are awfully worried about polar bears’ well-being, I bring a news article about them. They are healthy and fine.

Polar bear well and fat

This is a good example of how the science on this subject is so frequently confused with the politics on this subject. The picture of the starving bear was used to make a political point in support of the science, it was then used by the contrary political position in an attempt to discredit the science. However, the science, and the consensus in support of it, remains the same regardless.

When there is an apparent disparity between what people observe and what they are told they will, reasonably, tend to favour their observations. The problem is that this can lead to the relatively easy habit of confirmation bias. This is why objectivity is vital. It doesn’t matter if you are an Innuit dodging an influx of bears or a Texan sitting at a computer, if the conclusion you draw from your observations are not supported empirically, they are not worth a jot.



progpen wrote:
As natural hunting grounds for bears, wolves, etc. disappear, humans will interact with them more often. This will be used by the deniers to argue that nothing is wrong and that, if anything, more hunting is needed.

I wonder if polar bears are attributing the retreating ice to a population explosion of humans. Think


.


Applause Applause Applause

"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
FounDit
Posted: Sunday, December 30, 2018 1:05:37 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,501
Neurons: 54,140
will wrote:
FounDit, I’m concern that you seem prone to wild mood swings, from rolling around on floor laughing your arse off, to feelings of persecution akin to some of the worse historical events in human history… Have you considered seeking professional help? I fear you may be suffering from a bipolar disorder – bear pun noted but not intended.
I do sometimes have mood swings. I am calm, rational, logical, and reasoned most of the time, and then I read posts from you and others and laugh my "arse" off. You all sometimes provide me with an exquisite bit of humor in a day.

FounDit wrote:
I never said anything about them hunting in open water.

Yes you did.

FounDit wrote:
You do know, don't you, that polar bears need to be able to dive into the water to hunt for fish for food? So open water, or less ice, is a good thing for them.

This is typical of your propensity to respond without first thinking, before resorting to obfuscation (and numerous other logical fallacies) in an attempt to escape the cognitive dissonance caused by holding an ideological position that is demonstrably contrary to reality. Your tactic of quibbling over semantics, whining about being misrepresented and constant moving of the goalposts is what progpen was referring to when he said ‘circular arguments are a wonderful way to win by attrition’.
Well, you got me there. I did first say they they dive into the water to hunt for fish for food, and then later said they use the open water swim from one patch of ice to another. It looks like I was wrong, but it turns out I was right (as I most often am, *ahem*).

Quote:

Polar bears sometimes swim underwater to catch fish like the Arctic charr or the fourhorn sculpin.[88] [Emphasis Mine]

Dietary flexibility

Although seal predation is the primary and an indispensable way of life for most polar bears, when alternatives are present they are quite flexible. Polar bears consume a wide variety of other wild foods, including muskox (Ovibos moschatus), reindeer (Rangifer tarandus),[106] birds, eggs, rodents, crabs, other crustaceans and other polar bears. They may also eat plants,[106] including berries, roots, and kelp;[106] however, none of these have been a significant part of their diet,[98] except for beachcast marine mammal carcasses.

One scientist found that 71% of the Hudson Bay bears had fed on seaweed (marine algae) and that about half were feeding on birds[94] such as the dovekie and sea ducks, especially the long-tailed duck (53%) and common eider, by swimming underwater to catch them.


So it would appear that ice, or no ice, the polar bear can do quite well.

This is a language forum, it is not reasonable to simply blame everyone else because you cannot get your message across in a way that anybody can understand.
Really? You STILL don't understand my message? It's quite simple. I'll write slowly so you can understand it:

Over the last 60 years, NONE of the predictions of the Climate Change group has come true. We did not die in the predicted Freeze. We did not die in the predicted Burn Up. We did not see the predicted global starvation as a result of the predicted global droughts. We did not see the predicted global sea rise and predicted inundation of global coastlines, resulting in the predicted deaths of millions.

Given this evidence, I can only wonder at those who continue to believe anything said by folks who are so continually wrong.

FounDit wrote:
Will says I use circular logic, but…

To play your stupid game of semantics, I actually said no such thing. Circular reasoning at least requires a number of propositions that (although stemming from a false premiss) are deductively valid. At this point your argument is not even wrong. d'oh!
Oh my! I used the word "logic" rather than "reasoning"? How horrible! 50 lashes with a wet noodle for me!...here I am rotflmao...again!
.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.