quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

Reading comprehension would be a good first place to start......

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

And, of course, you can't follow either logic or a simple few lines of discussion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

Of course, your right. The rest of the people that are working on this issue daily are sadly mislead. Great to know. They can stop worry about it cause you said it is all going to be ok.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

Of course, your right. The rest of the people that are working on this issue daily are sadly mislead. Great to know. They can stop worry about it cause you said it is all going to be ok.

Ah yes...the derisive liberal comment when there's nothing rational to be said.
There are people working every day at proving that the polar bears are in danger and people working every day to prove that they are not.  I tend to come down on the side with facts and figures that aren't colored by emotional arguments.  You tend to come down on the side whose facts and figures are colored by emotionalism.  You want to believe they are in danger?  Go for it.  I don't believe they are and the scientists on my side are just as credentialed as yours. 

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s.  (Hmmm...the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  Now THERE's a radical right-wing organization)
 
A new NCPA study by Dr. David Legates, director of the University of Delaware's Center for Climatic Research and state climatologist (Hmmm, state climatologist for Delaware AND director of a program at the University of Delaware...both bastions (the state and the school) of right-wing lunatics), examines the claim that global warming threatens to cause polar bear extinction and finds little basis for fear. By and large, the study finds that polar bear populations are in good shape.  In the study, Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts , Legates reviewed the claims that global warming is causing an unnatural increase in Arctic temperatures, posing a threat to the thickness and extent of sea ice and thus to the polar bears who rely upon it. In particular, he examined assertions made in the 2004 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (hereafter, the Arctic Assessment ), an international project of the Arctic Council and the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC).
Legates finds that their claims of an impending, human-induced Arctic meltdown are not supported by the evidence. For example, the Arctic Assessment proclaimed that Arctic air temperature trends provide an early and strong indication that global warming is causing polar ice caps and glaciers to melt. However, current research suggests that coastal stations in Greenland are instead experiencing a cooling trend, and average summer air temperatures at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet have decreased at the rate of 4°F per decade since measurements began in 1987.
In addition, the Arctic Assessment ignored a relatively recent long-term analysis of records from coastal stations in Russia. Russian coastal-station records of both the extent of sea ice and the thickness of fast ice (ice fixed to the shoreline or seafloor) extending back 125 years show significant variability over 60- to 80-year periods. Moreover, the maximum air temperature reported for the 20th century was in 1938, when it was nearly 0.4°F warmer than in 2000. The Russian study concludes that actual temperature measurements do not show the increased warming predicted by computer climate models.  (The whole article can be found here:  http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba551 

These are just two articles I pulled up in the short time frame I had.  So you see, DomKen, your claim that the research does not exist is just that...a claim...and not one with veracity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

For you, DomKen...

A new US Senate report says:

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s.  (Hmmm...the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  Now THERE's a radical right-wing organization)
 

This is simply a former Inhofe staffers blog. Inhofe is a fairly well known liar and is definitely not a climate scientist. Morano is a documented liar, he was one of the first swiftboaters.

The studies he cites therefore must be investigated carefully.
#1 polar bears live other places besides Canada.
#2 It is well established that it has not been warmer in the last 10k years so any claim about the last 10k years is irrelevant. Also I can't find the publication of Dr. Crockford where she is supposed to have made this claim.
#3 The previous interglacials were roughly like the present day. It has been more then 100k years since the arctic was ice free.
#4 An interesting paper that relies on the authors previous denial of AGW. Without that a priori position this paper collapses.
#5 Statements are true.
#6 A statement of opinion published in the Daily mail (that's liek believing in bat Boy because you saw it on the cover of a tabloid in the checkout).
#7 The quoted individual is a nut. He doesn't deny AGW but insists it will be good for people and the environment.
#8 Statement of undisputed fact (bear population has rebounded with the controls on hunting in Canada) the rest is opinion
#9 Another statement of fact about present population referencing the population rebound due to the end of uncontrolled hunting.

So A professional right wing liar presents a bunch of claims none of which are both true and relevant except one paper which I can't find.

BTW you know those papers you belittled up thread? This article:
http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/08-1036.1

The athors work for US Fish and Wildlife and US Geological Survey. If the source is good enough when it agrees with you it is good enough when it disagrees with you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

For you, DomKen...

A new US Senate report says:

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s.  (Hmmm...the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  Now THERE's a radical right-wing organization)
 

This is simply a former Inhofe staffers blog. Inhofe is a fairly well known liar and is definitely not a climate scientist. Morano is a documented liar, he was one of the first swiftboaters.

The studies he cites therefore must be investigated carefully.
#1 polar bears live other places besides Canada.
#2 It is well established that it has not been warmer in the last 10k years so any claim about the last 10k years is irrelevant. Also I can't find the publication of Dr. Crockford where she is supposed to have made this claim.
#3 The previous interglacials were roughly like the present day. It has been more then 100k years since the arctic was ice free.
#4 An interesting paper that relies on the authors previous denial of AGW. Without that a priori position this paper collapses.
#5 Statements are true.
#6 A statement of opinion published in the Daily mail (that's liek believing in bat Boy because you saw it on the cover of a tabloid in the checkout).
#7 The quoted individual is a nut. He doesn't deny AGW but insists it will be good for people and the environment.
#8 Statement of undisputed fact (bear population has rebounded with the controls on hunting in Canada) the rest is opinion
#9 Another statement of fact about present population referencing the population rebound due to the end of uncontrolled hunting.

So A professional right wing liar presents a bunch of claims none of which are both true and relevant except one paper which I can't find.

  Hmmmmm, a professional right-wing liar as claimed by...who, exactly?  You?  Other left-leaning folks?

quote:

BTW you know those papers you belittled up thread? This article:
http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/08-1036.1

The athors work for US Fish and Wildlife and US Geological Survey. If the source is good enough when it agrees with you it is good enough when it disagrees with you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

So A professional right wing liar presents a bunch of claims none of which are both true and relevant except one paper which I can't find.

  Hmmmmm, a professional right-wing liar as claimed by...who, exactly?  You?  Other left-leaning folks?

quote:

quote:

BTW you know those papers you belittled up thread? This article:
http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/08-1036.1

The athors work for US Fish and Wildlife and US Geological Survey. If the source is good enough when it agrees with you it is good enough when it disagrees with you.

Hardly.  One big difference, DomKen...those folks that I cite were working for the US Fish and Wildlife Services and the US Geological Survey.  Hardly right-wing groups, they are both divisions of the U.S. Government.  The groups cited in your articles usually, for the most part, tend to represent left-leaning organizations that have very little to do with any sort of official function or capacity.[/blockquote]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

So A professional right wing liar presents a bunch of claims none of which are both true and relevant except one paper which I can't find.

  Hmmmmm, a professional right-wing liar as claimed by...who, exactly?  You?  Other left-leaning folks?

He started the swiftboat lies. Those are proven lies and were proven to be lies back in 2004.

quote:

quote:

BTW you know those papers you belittled up thread? This article:
http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/08-1036.1

The athors work for US Fish and Wildlife and US Geological Survey. If the source is good enough when it agrees with you it is good enough when it disagrees with you.

Hardly.  One big difference, DomKen...those folks that I cite were working for the US Fish and Wildlife Services and the US Geological Survey.  Hardly right-wing groups, they are both divisions of the U.S. Government.  The groups cited in your articles usually, for the most part, tend to represent left-leaning organizations that have very little to do with any sort of official function or capacity.[/blockquote]