General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2269240

    Two reports reporting on polar bears and Global Warming.Which one is right?

    Locked

    by sleepin’dawg ·

    http://tinyurl.com/2qavpq

    http://tinyurl.com/2kk9gl

    Time to separate the wheat from the chaff; which report is right??? they can’t both be right nor can both be wrong; so which is it???

    Bet we’re going to hear the tree huggers, or should I say bear huggers, spewing and sputtering about this one. I wonder what Neil’s comments will be?

    [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2516599

      Like all forms

      by michael jay ·

      In reply to Two reports reporting on polar bears and Global Warming.Which one is right?

      of life, the polar bears are doomed. As are we all. But for the meantime I think that they will thrive in an environment rich with food and all the need to survive.

      There are many more spices that have become extinct than are alive right now.

      Which story is right? It is indeed hard to tell.

      For me it is enough to try to care for my family and grandkids and not to worry about things out of my control.

      That global warming is real is a given, what is the cause? Mans contamination of the earth? Solar warming? Outdoor cooking? Auto raceing? Industry? Power production? Methane from cows? Or is it just that climate changes. I am not smart enough to know any of this stuff.

      But while you are waiting for the fallout I just figured I should chime in.

      Best to ya Dawg

      • #2516368

        Really?

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to Like all forms

        [i]There are many more spices that have become extinct than are alive right now.[/i]

        It would take an immensely irresponsible scientist to make such a claim.

        Since there are new species still being discovered, it is impossible to know how many there are.

        • #2516358

          Then Indeed I am an Immensely Irresponsible Scientist

          by michael jay ·

          In reply to Really?

          and I know how to spell it.
          The earth has been here for more than 4 billion years, life has come and gone in many different configurations. In the future many new life forms will develop.

          This is an ever changing ecosystem where they even let TechRebulic members in.

          There is no way to determine just how many life forms have previously existed on earth, but I do stand by my statement that as we humans have only been on the planet for a short time clearly we cannot be sure of what has passed before.

          But without scientific proof, 4 billion years is a lot of time for many creatures to develop and go extinct.

          I do not know, Tony please provide proof positive that there are more living than dead.

          Sorry but I cannot provide proof positive that there are more dead than alive.

          Best to ya

        • #2516328

          That’s all I was saying

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Then Indeed I am an Immensely Irresponsible Scientist

          [i]Sorry but I cannot provide proof positive that there are more dead than alive.[/i]

        • #2516321

          No Problem

          by michael jay ·

          In reply to That’s all I was saying

          We cannot know the unknown.

          But yet we strive to know it.

          Best to ya

    • #2516477

      No idea

      by tony hopkinson ·

      In reply to Two reports reporting on polar bears and Global Warming.Which one is right?

      If you want to buy me a plane ticket. I’ll nip up and count them. However I might not be considered the most unbiased assessor, even though I don’t take bear hugging literally.

      No seals about, I’ll eat this green fing ‘ere. 😀

      One story sea ice is shrinking therefore polar bear populations are. There’s some Mr Miami type logic for you.

      The other polar bear populations are expanding, no reasons as to why. Predators need big ranges, to ensure enough of a food supply. If food becomes more abundant, then they don’t need as far to walk to find some, is one explanation.

      Claims from the innuit have to be taken with one or two grains of salt, the bears compete with them for food, taste nice and make very nice coats. That’s like asking coastal fisherman whether they think over fishing limits are a good idea.

      Both sides politicising the issue for various agendas with sound byte statistics again.

      Proof of global warming is going to be watching your beach chalet float out to sea I think. Hasn’t happened yet.

      • #2534306

        tell that

        by dr dij ·

        In reply to No idea

        to those in New Orleans whose houses washed away.

        and those on the outer islands in BanglaDesh

        and in England are coastal areas that are eroding quickly; a huge guest house was abandoned because cliffs beneath it washed away.

        In general, it isn’t that simple. the waters won’t just rise one night and float the house away. you’ll get more erosion 1st, more storms probably; and other factors in some places; in the Miss. delta, screw ups by corps of engineers mean certain areas are getting no new silt deposits, and as the delta is generally slowly sinking as new silt is deposited elsewhere, erosion will take hold; also because of human activities in oil production and released nutrias eating the protective vegetation.

        In fact it was kind of stupid of bush admin NOT to approve remedial conservation work for the delta outside new orleans as that work would have protected islands, now washing away, that are good oil producing areas.

        • #2533355

          Accepted

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to tell that

          I was more referring to the catastrophic predictions of a six meter rise, than the more localised variety.

          Still nothing to worry about, all happened in the past.

          Lake Missoula, the mediterranean, Albion, not big changes or anything, hardly had an impact at all really. :p

    • #2516426

      Neil’s comments

      by neilb@uk ·

      In reply to Two reports reporting on polar bears and Global Warming.Which one is right?

      Even in the “Polar Bears are doing OK!” article, we had the interesting line: “Besides, polar bears do live on ice and satellite photos show the sea ice is down 7.7% in the last decade. So something is happening up there.”

      Well, we have just come to the end of the “warmest Winter on record” down here in the South and I have been spending the weekend walking across the North Downs in the April sunshine three weeks early. Given that I saw a Brimstone Yellow butterfly [b]in early March[/b], I reckon that something is happening down here, too!

      Neil 😀

      p.s. It would seem that it’s not unusual to see the Brimstone Yellow in February so ignore my panic…

      • #2534206

        Have you though about how those numbers were tabulated

        by support ·

        In reply to Neil’s comments

        Do you really believe that there were exactly 2400 polar bears in 2007 and that they were 1800 a while ago…

        These numbers are statistics (did you know that on average each person on this planet had one testicle!). Also the methods of gathering data have changed. Also who did the report, do you believe everything people say!

        Do you think that one report can disclame thousands of other reports that say that the polar bear are endangered!

    • #2516381

      All the spring bulb growers up north

      by tony hopkinson ·

      In reply to Two reports reporting on polar bears and Global Warming.Which one is right?

      are having a major panic. Daffodils et al flowering while there is still glut from those damn southerner’s efforts. 😀
      Apparently the price is very low, compared to what they expected and they are losing money big style.

    • #2516272

      The one that is right is …

      by drowningnotwaving ·

      In reply to Two reports reporting on polar bears and Global Warming.Which one is right?

      … the one you want to be right.

      And either interpretation could (and of course, no doubt “would”, according to the individual) be correct.

    • #2534194

      This one is right

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Two reports reporting on polar bears and Global Warming.Which one is right?

      If you want to believe it, that is.

      [i]Polar bears are a potentially threatened species living in the circumpolar north. They are animals which know no boundaries. They pad across the ice from Russia to Alaska, from Canada to Greenland and onto Norway’s Svalbard archipelago. No adequate census exists on which to base a worldwide population estimate, but biologists use a working figure of 20,000 to 25,000 bears with about sixty percent of those living in Canada.[/i]

      http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/

      Here’s something else that is right:

      People will form their conclusion, and then work backwards looking for justification and/or wording to support that conclusion.

    • #2534191

      Here’s something else that’s true

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Two reports reporting on polar bears and Global Warming.Which one is right?

      People who study such things are paid to do it.

      But who pays them, and why does it continue? If a person has a financial interest in something, shouldn’t that either disqualify that person and/or place a cloud of suspicion over that person’s motives? After all, nobody believes “big business” or “big oil”, and they discount what they say. Why shouldn’t the same apply across the board?

Viewing 6 reply threads