quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I've read each IPCC report cover to cover, as well as almost all the referenced works - certainly more than 20,000 pages by this point. I've read the entire dumps from Climate Gate. I've read the (falacious) report on polar bears (record numbers btw), as well as reports on artic sea ice. Antartic snow fall. Radiation levels in ice and mud cores.

Then why repeat so many provable lies?
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/about-polar-bears/what-scientists-say/are-polar-bear-populations-booming
http://www.sejarchive.org/pub/SEJournal_Excerpts_Su08.htm
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/wildlife/polar_bear/population/

Once again, none of your quotes say what you represented them to say.

In fact let me quote your third article:


" Today, polar bears are among the few large carnivores that are still found in roughly their original habitat and range--and in some places, in roughly their natural numbers.
Although most populations have returned to healthy numbers, there are differences between the populations. Some are stable, some seem to be increasing, and some are decreasing due to various pressures."

Which is a statement I concur with. Nowhere do your sources site polar bears dying from lack of sea ice. Let me give you some additional quotes.:..

So you agree this statement is a lie "I've read the (falacious) report on polar bears (record numbers btw),"

Why go on after agreeing with me?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I've read each IPCC report cover to cover, as well as almost all the referenced works - certainly more than 20,000 pages by this point. I've read the entire dumps from Climate Gate. I've read the (falacious) report on polar bears (record numbers btw), as well as reports on artic sea ice. Antartic snow fall. Radiation levels in ice and mud cores.

Then why repeat so many provable lies?
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/about-polar-bears/what-scientists-say/are-polar-bear-populations-booming
http://www.sejarchive.org/pub/SEJournal_Excerpts_Su08.htm
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/wildlife/polar_bear/population/

Once again, none of your quotes say what you represented them to say.

In fact let me quote your third article:


" Today, polar bears are among the few large carnivores that are still found in roughly their original habitat and range--and in some places, in roughly their natural numbers.
Although most populations have returned to healthy numbers, there are differences between the populations. Some are stable, some seem to be increasing, and some are decreasing due to various pressures."

Which is a statement I concur with. Nowhere do your sources site polar bears dying from lack of sea ice. Let me give you some additional quotes.:..

So you agree this statement is a lie "I've read the (falacious) report on polar bears (record numbers btw),"

Why go on after agreeing with me?

I'm not sure what you think I was saying, or what I agreed with. I have read non-creditable reports that said artic sea ice was causing record declines in the populations of polar bears. I have also read multiple reports that say polar bear populations are high and stable.

I view the latter reports (polar bear populations sound) as by far the more creditable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So? Where it was published now makes it invalid? Explicitly what makes research done by scientists and published in the standard manner in which scholarly works are published invalid?

It's not a matter of that, but I'll give you credit for trying the obscure the issue. Research that questions or conflicts with the view adopted by the "consensus" is not going to be a part of the evidence they cite to support it, for the obvious reason that it doesn't. Therefore, if you want to look at climate science studies that question or conflict with IPCC findings, you're not going to find them among the IPCC's citations. That doesn't bother the religious, of course, who are always happy to point out verses from their Bible that "prove" it's the Truth. But it's a tactic that fails to convince.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I've read each IPCC report cover to cover, as well as almost all the referenced works - certainly more than 20,000 pages by this point. I've read the entire dumps from Climate Gate. I've read the (falacious) report on polar bears (record numbers btw), as well as reports on artic sea ice. Antartic snow fall. Radiation levels in ice and mud cores.

Then why repeat so many provable lies?
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/about-polar-bears/what-scientists-say/are-polar-bear-populations-booming
http://www.sejarchive.org/pub/SEJournal_Excerpts_Su08.htm
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/wildlife/polar_bear/population/

Once again, none of your quotes say what you represented them to say.

In fact let me quote your third article:


" Today, polar bears are among the few large carnivores that are still found in roughly their original habitat and range--and in some places, in roughly their natural numbers.
Although most populations have returned to healthy numbers, there are differences between the populations. Some are stable, some seem to be increasing, and some are decreasing due to various pressures."

Which is a statement I concur with. Nowhere do your sources site polar bears dying from lack of sea ice. Let me give you some additional quotes.:..

So you agree this statement is a lie "I've read the (falacious) report on polar bears (record numbers btw),"

Why go on after agreeing with me?

I'm not sure what you think I was saying, or what I agreed with. I have read non-creditable reports that said artic sea ice was causing record declines in the populations of polar bears. I have also read multiple reports that say polar bear populations are high and stable.

I view the latter reports (polar bear populations sound) as by far the more creditable.

The claim was "record numbers" which your own posts disprove. Why not just admit the lie and learn from getting caught?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
If you would prefer that I say - record numbers of polar bears since the 50's - I'll happily restate that.
Hwever, in the overall scheme of what I was talking about - I don't think thats really much of a quibble. The point was there were huge videos out there talking about the extinction of the polar bears. Polar bears led on the evening news even here - a long way from the artic.

And it simply isn't true. Polar bears are doing better than most large predators.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
If you would prefer that I say - record numbers of polar bears since the 50's - I'll happily restate that.
Hwever, in the overall scheme of what I was talking about - I don't think thats really much of a quibble. The point was there were huge videos out there talking about the extinction of the polar bears. Polar bears led on the evening news even here - a long way from the artic.

And it simply isn't true. Polar bears are doing better than most large predators.

So as I said your claim was wrong. At the very best the polar bear is doing ok right now. Actually in most of its habitat range we don't have any good data on population, Russia and most of Europe. In the rest populations are either stable or declining.

And the fact is polar bears are absolutely dependent on arctic sea ice and that sea ice is dwindling very rapidly. Studies show skinnier bears and lots of dead cubs so while the animal is not in crisis as far as population goes it is showing clear signs of stress and since it's habitat is in danger of being wiped away in the next couple of decades it is important to view it as a bell weather species for climate change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
If you would prefer that I say - record numbers of polar bears since the 50's - I'll happily restate that.
Hwever, in the overall scheme of what I was talking about - I don't think thats really much of a quibble. The point was there were huge videos out there talking about the extinction of the polar bears. Polar bears led on the evening news even here - a long way from the artic.

And it simply isn't true. Polar bears are doing better than most large predators.

So as I said your claim was wrong. At the very best the polar bear is doing ok right now. Actually in most of its habitat range we don't have any good data on population, Russia and most of Europe. In the rest populations are either stable or declining.

And the fact is polar bears are absolutely dependent on arctic sea ice and that sea ice is dwindling very rapidly. Studies show skinnier bears and lots of dead cubs so while the animal is not in crisis as far as population goes it is showing clear signs of stress and since it's habitat is in danger of being wiped away in the next couple of decades it is important to view it as a bell weather species for climate change.

No, you gave no figures to show my claim is wrong. Bear populations are at the highest of any recorded numbers since the 50's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So no matter what science that even mentions the IPCC is wrong.

You're making shit up again.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I have read non-creditable reports that said artic sea ice was causing record declines in the populations of polar bears. I have also read multiple reports that say polar bear populations are high and stable.

I view the latter reports (polar bear populations sound) as by far the more creditable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


No, you gave no figures to show my claim is wrong. Bear populations are at the highest of any recorded numbers since the 50's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: leonine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I have read non-creditable reports that said artic sea ice was causing record declines in the populations of polar bears. I have also read multiple reports that say polar bear populations are high and stable.

I view the latter reports (polar bear populations sound) as by far the more creditable.

It's called "confirmation bias," thank you for admitting to it so frankly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: leonine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I have read non-creditable reports that said artic sea ice was causing record declines in the populations of polar bears. I have also read multiple reports that say polar bear populations are high and stable.

I view the latter reports (polar bear populations sound) as by far the more creditable.

It's called "confirmation bias," thank you for admitting to it so frankly.