Comments for More Polar Bears Going Hungry What Can We Do? »
Posted By Newperson 11 months, 2 weeks ago in Science & TechnologyWarmer temperatures and earlier melting of sea ice are causing polar bears to go hungry. The number of undernourished bears has tripled in a 20-year period.
This undated photo provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shows a sow polar bear resting...
This undated photo provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shows a sow polar bear resting with her cubs on the pack ice in the Beaufort Sea in northern Alaska. Warmer temperatures and earlier melting of sea ice are causing polar bears to go hungry. The number of undernourished bears has tripled in a 20-year period.
(Steve Amstrup/U.S. Fish and Wild Life Service/AP Photo)
More PhotosSeth Cherry of the University of Alberta, Canada, and colleagues monitored the health of polar bears in the ice-covered Beaufort Sea region of the Arctic during April and May in 1985, 1986, 2005 and 2006.
They immobilised the bears using tranquilliser darts and measured the ratio of urea to creatinine in their blood. A low ratio means that nitrogenous waste material is being recycled within the body and indicates the animal is fasting - a state which usually only occurs temporarily in males during the spring breeding season.
Read Full Story at abcnews.go.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 316
-
93%
Newperson11 months, 2 weeks ago
-
BronxBomberComment removed: Retracted by user23 Replies
-
0%
normallysilent11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=40=662...
Reply -
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user29 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Where is your data for that assertion?
Reply
Here's mine:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming...
"Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995."
-
-
-
-
-
-
75%
Will131311 months, 2 weeks ago
-
74%
crespi11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm sure the Cons feel the same about people...
Reply
: ) : (
Sorry to be bitter, but on these very pages a year ago, ultra-conservatives were screaming that Polar Bear endagerment and habitat encroachment was a "hoax by the looney left!"
I just wanted to thank them again...-
-
100%
oneironaut42011 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"And especially for the obcenities hurled at commenters concerned for polar bears' future well being."
Reply
As someone who has been concerned about the environment and animal welfare for as long as I can remember, I'm amazed at how hateful the other side gets about these subjects. I think they simply don't want to take any responsibility for the fact that 6 billion human beings and counting may *gasp* actually be altering the planet they live on, in detrimental ways.
After all, if you deny the problems then you won't feel guilty about buying a wasteful, gas-guzzling SUV, or throwing litter out the window.
I think my dad, an ultra-religious and ultra-conservative environmentalist-hater, summed it up best one day when we were debating the subject and he said, "Well, I'm not going to worry about it because by the time these things become a problem, we'll have the technology to fix them."
It was, by far, the most irresponsible thing I ever heard him say. If this attitude is common among right-wingers, then the rest of us just have to work harder to ensure we make up for their lackadaisical attitude towards something as important as the health of planet that is our only home. 8(
-
-
-
-
33%
BB6411 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Will,
Reply
Based upon DNR reports there is an over population of bears. The number went from 5000 to over 20000 in the last 40 years. They have hunting seasons in Canada and Russia. How can you call this species in danger, the numbers simply fail to support your claims?-
-
90%
CRYMTYPHON11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
HI BB64!
Reply
You give no link or reference; but sure, if the bears are starving, there must be too many of them. But I couldn't find where the DNR said how many bears there ought to be .
I did find this great minnesota DNR web page.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/janfeb07/steg...
A researcher goes to the arctic to study polar bear decline.
Hey, the only thing better than reading up, is actualy going and seeing for yourself.
At least, if you actualy want to know.-
20%
BB6411 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My mistake, not the DNR, the U.S. Department of the Interior. I'm having a problem locating the data concerning this but it was a huge increase. When you say 5000 or even 10000 animals of the Polar Bear's size that's a lot of bears. They require miles of space between them.
Reply
As to declines, Professor J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School says, “To list a species that is currently in good health as an endangered species requires valid forecasts that its population would decline to levels that threaten its viability. In fact, the polar bear populations have been increasing rapidly in recent decades due to hunting restrictions. Assuming these restrictions remain, the most appropriate forecast is to assume that the upward trend would continue for a few years, then level off.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/08050...
-
-
100%
wtagg11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, over-population can lead to starvation, which is what the article is about. Your argument supports the premise of the article.
Reply
Top predators are usually the last to feel the effects of a food chain change. Has the food chain changed? Has man allowed the bears to expand beyond their natural ability to exist in their current population? Has habitat changed affecting the food chain below the bears?
There are cycles in all life chains and this could be one of them. There are outside pressures the affect life cycle changes, including habitat, climate, and other intruding species. Is it a isolated event or the harbinger of something much larger in scope. Do you or anyone definitely know the answer? Should the problem be ignored until it becomes overwhelming and catastrophic?
Humans are the first real species to have the ability to understand their impact upon the environment we exist in. We can either impact in good or bad ways. We also have the ability to right the wrongs, which ironically, in and of itself, may adversely impact something else. The problem is much more complicated than either providing a knee jerk reaction to solve a complicated problem or believing that we have no impact at all.
-
-
-
92%
rightfromwrong11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am not an expert but one of the problems is that with diminishing ice to hunt and fish the females are starving and they have to swim too far to other ice....many just drown and
Reply
those that do don't have the body fat to breed properly.
Another 10years and the only ones that will be around with be in a zoo....sadly man doesn't seem concerned enough to demand action and people like Bush and his crew are criminals in more ways that just killing their soldiers for greed and civilians-
90%
Newperson11 months, 2 weeks ago
-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user15 Replies
-
-
-
100%
Cookiestar11 months, 2 weeks ago
-
29%
MajJohn11 months, 2 weeks ago
-
-
92%
Newperson11 months, 2 weeks ago
-
0%
mrreality11 months, 2 weeks ago
-
100%
greenmac11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are the best...man I have never witnessed a person that is so articulate as you.... and such a witty person as well. I imagine your grade eight class looks up to you.... nothing like having a 20 year old in your class for motivation. Yes...you are number one in my book... LMAO
Reply-
0%
mrreality11 months, 2 weeks ago
-
100%
greenmac11 months, 2 weeks ago
-
-
FrauBlucherComment removed: Retracted by user5 Replies
-
-
BronxBomberComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
FrauBlucherComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user4 Replies
-
-
-
Neutral
FredSmilek11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I completely agree.
Reply
Fred Smilek
Email- Fred_Smilek@yahoo.com
Webpage- http://sites.google.com/site/fredjsmilek/
Fred Smilek is the acting president of the Society to Save Endangered Species. It was founded in 2006 by Fred Smilek along with his two best friends Charles and Jonathan. -
Neutral
FredSmilek11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree. More people should get involved.
Reply
Fred Smilek
Email- Fred_Smilek@yahoo.com
Webpage- http://sites.google.com/site/fredjsmilek/
Fred Smilek is the acting president of the Society to Save Endangered Species. It was founded in 2006 by Fred Smilek along with his two best friends Charles and Jonathan.
-
-
100%
greenmac11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
HOW to feed the bears is the problem. Dependency on man providing the food results on the bear becoming dependent on man. The bears will lose there want to forage. This can be seen in several species of bears just not Polar. Where I live we have "dump" bears that feed off what man throws out.... not a good scenario. The loss of sea ice drives the bear inland and towards human contact. This becomes a problem and actions have to take place...relocation is the first step...repetitive returns usually end up with the bear being destroyed (in some locations) Not all the polar bear colonies are starving..but some are.
Reply-
60%
Dionys11 months, 2 weeks ago
-
-
FrauBlucherComment removed: Retracted by user4 Replies
-
-
-
100%
sarahturner11 months, 2 weeks ago
-
80%
rightfromwrong11 months, 2 weeks ago
-
50%
vettenut11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
rfw:
Reply
I have read your "answers" above, but have to ask the following question:
IF we do ALL those things, what difference will that make to polar bears?
I ask that question very sincerely!
The reason I ask that question is that there is NO PROOF that any or all of those actions you list will have any meaningful consequences for polar bears.
I especially and seriously question the effect of "less warfare" on polar bear habitat and nutrition.
There is, however, one common thread in the actions you list: it will make some people THINK that if they do those things, they will be helping IN SOME (unquantifiable) way.
Now, that's not all bad. In most senses, there's nothing wrong with feeling good about your life decisions.
However, the moment that the "feel-good-ism" folks want to dictate to others how they should live THEIR lives simply because they think that everyone should "do as they do" is where I draw the line.
Especially in the light of the fact that we humans DO NOT KNOW how much effect (if any at all) we humans can have upon the ever-changing climate of the imperfect sphere upon which we live.
And that includes the effects, if any, upon the habitat and survival of Ursus maritimus.-
FrauBlucherComment removed: Retracted by user8 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
42%
gwhiddon11 months, 2 weeks ago
-
-
58%
MajJohn11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And 48 below is the current climate there. Only those with tinfoil hats would see a difference in semantics Wrong, most 3rd graders and anyone without an agenda sees no difference. That's why the Gorebasm fanatics do not say global warming any more, it's climate change and no one can deny that the climate changes!!
Reply-
75%
Dionys11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"And 48 below is the current climate there. Only those with tinfoil hats would see a difference in semantics "
Reply
Sorry. I was talking about scientific distinctions, not Biblical semantics. Weather changes represent day to day changes. Climate changes, as defined by scientists (and oddly enough the Dictionary) indicate changes over a period of years, usualy defined as a ten year (or more) period.-
-
100%
Dionys11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Again the ignorance of people like you shines like Christ on the mountain.
Reply
A 100 year flood doesn't mean it only happens every 100 years. Just that you're likely to experience a flood like that at least every 100 years. Just because the second one happens in the third year of the 100 years doesn't mean they're wrong. Though perhaps it does mean that the whole system of long-term climate patterns is messed up, doesn't it.-
Neutral
MotiGui11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hmmm, 'scuse me ... We lost our house in 1965 "Betsy" to a 100 yr flood. We lost a duplex in New Orleans in a 100 yr flood "Katrina". We lost our summer home in Mississippi in a 100 yr flood "Katrina". My son almost flooded out in Gustav's 100 yr flood ... How many 100 yr floods are there in 100 years? Tell all those in the 9th ward and in Lakeview about those 100 yr floods - 20,000+ homes flooded in the 100 yr flood.
Reply
The 100-year flood is more accurately referred to as the 1% flood, since it is a flood that has a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any single year.
Well guess what, that theory applies only to the Sahara.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SandmonsterComment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
-
33%
Klarissa11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So who is looking for money to save the bears?
Reply
It must include grants to count the bears, grants to take blood samples to see if they are healthy, grants to determine if they can forage off of the land instead of the sea, grants to determine if the bears can have babies in caves instead of on ice, grants to build huts to observe the bears for two years.
$$$$$$$$$
-
-
Republicrat1844Comment removed: Retracted by user3 Replies
-
-
-
lovemorgulComment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned9 Replies
-
82%
Spadecaller11 months, 2 weeks ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
CRYMTYPHON11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cowardice on the internet is expressed in saying, what you would not say
Reply
if you faced your audience.
.
You are a coward, mr. reality; insulting people from the safety of your screen.
You are not a conservative.
You express no values; you argue no position.
You have nothing to say, except to tell us there are some very small souls
in front of keyboards.
Get a new soul, reality.
I wouldn't give the one you have to a dog.
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The advent of industry is a novel development in the entire history of the Earth. Carbon that used to be sequestered for hundreds of millions of years is suddenly (relatively speaking) being pumped or dug up and burned at an unprecedented rate. Humans are churning 100s of billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year. In addition, carbon mitigation mechanisms like forests are being clear-cut at an alarming rate. It seems to me the height of hubris to think this would somehow NOT have an effect.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
Newperson11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I dont know if there is hope for this planet I would like to think there is. We see change every year. I think alot of folks say it's not my problem. You are right it's the future generations that will sufer. So what if our great grandchildren kids never see Polar Bears and alot of other things from our time it will be history. They can live on houseboats and talk about the good old days.
Reply -
-
-
-
FrauBlucherComment removed: Retracted by user5 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
100%
lvrofwolves11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If it happens because of natural order, that would be one thing, if it happens because of human beings, that would be a shame.
Reply
for you religious folks, God gave us dominion over the animals, I don't think that means to help destroy Gods creations.
If the polar bear goes, with it will go other things eventually, they are a link in the chain. We should care about every link, and even more so if we can prevent loss, or if we are the cause.-
100%
lvrofwolves11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dominion doesn't mean destroy it, to use, not use all up, and who said anything about not cutting anything down? , not killing for food???there is using and there is abusing. You don't think human beings have any self control? Well obviously many don't, but we can work on that, and the ones who don't want to take any responsibility for anything, probably won't work on it.
Reply
-
-
20%
mrreality11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
funny how man thinks he can control everything, or can be responsible for everything,,,god gave us dominion over the all living creatures to use. nature has a funny way of proving its bigger than man,,,can you say aids,,or ebola, avian flu, man is not the do all end all for the earth,,,time and natural selection are,,,you want to see life end,, dont cut anything down,,down kill any animals for food,,,dont do anything and watch what happens,,
Reply-
-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"...god gave us dominion over the all living creatures..."
Reply
Depends on the religious tradition. When I was growing up, it was 'stewardship' not 'dominion'. That's quite a distinction. But even 'dominion' doesn't imply exploitation. A king has dominion over his people, but whether or not that king is a good king depends on the how well he treats his subjects.-
-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That still does not affect my second point about being a good king.
Reply
Besides:
Lev. 25:23-24. The land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants.
Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the
redemption of the land.
Ezekiel 34:17-18. As for you, my flock... Is it not enough for you to feed on
good pasture? Must you also trample the rest of your pasture with your feet? Is
it not enough for you to drink clear water? Must you also muddy the rest with
your feet?
Jer. 2:7. I brought you into a fertile land to eat its fruit and rich produce. But
you came and defiled my land and you made my inheritance detestable.
Mark 4:19. ...and the worries of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches and
the desires for other things enter in and choke the word and it becomes
unfruitful.
-
-
-
-
-
40%
Georgia5011 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The study says a higher percentage of polar bear are in "fasting" mode when they would otherwise be in feasting mode.
Reply
Those who perform the study believe this has or will result in fewer polar bears. No census of polar bears has been or is apparently planned to "bear" this out. Hmmm...actually counting the bears...seems kinda basic, but oh well...
They further believe, but provide no evidence, that the increase in bears fasting is the result reduced ice mass.
They further believe, but provide no evidence, that the reduced ice mass is the result of global warming.
They further believe, but provide no evidence, that the global warming is the result of human activity.
Conclusion by global warming alarmists: "See...we toldja. Now we have to tax you so that polar bears will survive."-
17%
normallysilent11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/europ...
Reply
-
-
-
56%
THOMNH6211 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
here is a good read on the population of polar bears. This is not an endangered specie. With estimates of 25000 bears the numbers are growing not declining. Also during the last climate change they managed just fine.
Reply
http://american.com/archive/2008/may-05-08/are-pol...-
-
75%
THOMNH6211 months, 2 weeks ago
-
-
-
33%
THOMNH6211 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
nice try tang but the facts are that there is no problem with bear populations polar, black, grizzly or otherwise. The Canadians as a whole are not clubbing seals it is the Inuit tribes that are allowed to take a certain amount of animals. Clubbing while disturbing preserves the pelt which is how they make a living. I for one could not see myself clubbing anything but a liberal. Having spent time on the Canadian cost this winter I saw many baby seals on the beach and they are fantastic animals.
Reply
-
-
-
90%
Eagle_Eye11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is not a natural cycle, but one "influenced" by humans actions with the environment.
Reply
What will happen is the Polar Bears instinct to survive will wander further east/south intruding on Black Bear, Kodiak and Grisly territory in order to survive. They will also wander into human developed areas but with a lot of Northern Canada being unpopulated with humans they may find themselves a new home in the melting North Pole. There is a lot of "virgin" land being defrosted up there so if nature takes over they will find a new home in the new frontier.
But for the ones living nearest the sea, they will die of starvation. I am still amazed how "ignorant and arrogant" some posters are to consider this a "natural" occurrence. Those that do show their stupidity and are the dumbest humans on the face of the earth and on this site.-
0%
mrreality11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
what will happen is people like you will be eaten because you will be stupid enough to think you can befriend, defend, and make sense with them,,,,the dummies are the ones who think that this spinning planet in the middle of infinity is gonna live or die according to one species,,
Reply-
-
100%
Eagle_Eye11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"what will happen is people like you will be eaten because you will be stupid enough to think you can befriend, defend, and make sense with them," WTF??????????
Reply
Your comment is really stupid, IMHO don't make comments so that you can hide your stupidity.-
BronxBomberComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
100%
Spadecaller11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Eagle_Eye
Reply
It is astounding; isn't it? The flat-earthers are too arrogant to consider the possibility that change is necessary for adaptation; that human beings are sentient creatures who have learned to alter the course of nature, have learned to destroy life by splitting the atom, and have been failing to respect the life giving resources on this earth.
Introducing synthetic chemical compounds into the atmosphere, the oceans, and our drinking water has changed the course of nature and the natural process of evolution and has left many species without the time necessary to adapt. The results are conclusive; human beings are responsible for killing off many species and for polluting the planet. From the honey bee to the polar bear, life as we once knew it is rapidly disappearing.
When I drive down the street and watch people toss out their filter cigarettes butts and their Jack in the Box wrappers from their moving cars, I can only conclude one thing: these are ignorant ill-mannered people lacking the respect for the sacred earth that we all share.-
88%
Eagle_Eye11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Spadecaller,
Reply
It is more than astounding, it is frightful to think that there are people out there contributing to the Chaos that is harming the planet, and they don't give a shiz. They obviously make their living off of something that is harmful and feel the need to justify it, I hope that they hit rock bottom this year so that they can't continue to contribute to earths decline.
"these are ignorant ill-mannered people lacking the respect for the sacred earth that we all share." that they are, we would be better off with out them....
-
-
30%
BB6411 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Defrosted? Have you been to the arctic? There isn't a warming at all. I supply mining groups and have been up there. There is no warming. What you guys get fixated on are weather cycles. You will have seasons warmer and cooler. Chicken little the sky is not falling.
Reply
As to bears, there is an over population. The surveys conducted in the 60's claimed to have around 5000 bears. Today there are over 20,000. That's a species that is in danger of over population. That would explain why Canada and Russia hunt Polar Bears. Of course in the USA we couldn't do that because of our environmental nuts. You will find some reason to tax us and "solve" the problem.-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The surveys conducted in the 60's claimed to have around 5000 bears." That wasn't a survey, it was a guess. A formal survey wasn't performed until decades later. Yes, the population had been showing growth during the past few decades, but that is largely due to measures put in place to prevent overharvesting. Recent surveys indicate the polar bear population in decline around the Hudson Bay area.
Reply
-
-
-
-
50%
antibrainwasher11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The earth is not warming, its colder, I checked the thermometer today.
Reply
The earth is not round, I can see it is flat, and I don't need a bunch of ungodly statistical analysis over decades to prove otherwise.
Let us pray.....baby jew jesus, help me deny the careful statistical analysis over decades by ungodly professionals who devote their ungodly life to ungodly science and ungodly mathmatical computer modeling, baby god/human hybrid, come down from the invisible walmart in the sky and gather me, the faithful, in the end times rapture, so that the ungodly will suffer and die, so that I might have the sunday tee times in the baby jew jesus golf and country club in the sky.
Invisible Charleton Heston penis/head in the sky, we ask this in the name of your only human/god hybrid jew son, the baby jew jesus. -
-
100%
greenmac11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There are several places to get info on this subject... I perfer to look at the input provided by the Inuit. Now some of the Inuits do depend on sport hunting of the polar bear and the info provided by them can be a bit biased. I spent a week with the Inuit on Ungava Bay... they are great people and one with their environment.
Reply
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/story.html?i... -
25%
ningyo11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
global warming isnt science..its politics--or more like the religion of the goracle--who wont debate anyone on his doctrine..only speak to the rabid throngs..these cylcles have come and gone since forever and will continue long after we're gone--it only takes a miniscule hiccup in that thermonuclear ball in the sky to make a significant difference in our climate--to think that the sun is a totally orderly and regular fireball is just ridiculous--its a raging inferno controlled only by its own gravity and radiation--but im sure the climate change loonies have a plan for that as well--maybe tax it when it burns too much fuel
Reply -
50%
BB6411 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You know I keep hearing about all of the experts certain that the planet is warming up and it's exclusively cause by man and his damn cars. Well, I don't buy it. I've tried studying the "facts" and there simply isn't enough evidence of any warming, in fact from the last dozen or so years, we're seeing a cooling. If we use their computer models showing warming, we have other problems with their "facts", they're wrong. Milwaukee and the midwest should be having warmer weather. Last summer corn crops failed because we never broke 100. Now we're over 20 inches ahead in snow fall. None of the models showed this. I suspect that's why Rev Al came out with his claims we would see 40 years of cooling before we melt. I think this is simply a case of snake oil selling. This is a total scam. A way for a washed up politician to sell books, get awards and make a ton of money selling "carbon credits". What a scam.
Reply
Now I know there will be those attacking me but show me your studies. Have you ever heard of the scientific process or method? You have a planet between 4 and 5 billion years old. You have less than 100 years of data. Ice cores and archeological digs are inaccurate. 5,000,000,000 years old with 100 years of evidence is simply not enough data to form any theories or hypotheses much less draw any conclusions.-
100%
CRYMTYPHON11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
HI bb64!
Reply
Hey, you wandered away from the CIA nominee forum yesterday, after that remark about my alleged wife, dogs, a bicycle and what day it was.
I asked you clarify; it was a bit confusing.
Let me know!
As for your careful examination of global warming:
Science doesn't care what you think about Al Gore.
Scientists and researchers, - not a minority; not half; but a vast and consistent
majority, say that climate change is occurring. The data is presented, it is clear.
Your description of weird local weather is in line with it.
But you don't have to admit it if you don't want.
We don't really expect everyone to.
That is how evolution is supposed to work.-
50%
BB6411 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually not at all. In the 1940's & 1950's we had almost as wet and snowy conditions. Global warming didn't exist them. Weather goes in cycles. We're seeing a weather cycle and that's about it. As far as science, there are far more scientists and meteorologists that disagree with your side.
Reply
For a list please see the following: http://www.petitionproject.org/-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Um, only 154 of the 31,000+ signatories are Atmospheric Scientists or Climatologists.
Reply
Here is a list of worldwide science organizations in concurrance with Anthropogenic Global Warming:
* 1.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
* 1.2 InterAcademy Council
* 1.3 Joint science academies' statement 2008
* 1.4 Joint science academies’ statement 2007
* 1.5 Joint science academies’ statement 2005
* 1.6 Joint science academies’ statement 2001
* 1.7 International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
* 1.8 European Academy of Sciences and Arts
* 1.9 Network of African Science Academies
* 1.10 Royal Society of New Zealand
* 1.11 National Research Council (US)
* 1.12 European Science Foundation
* 1.13 American Association for the Advancement of Science
* 1.14 Federation of American Scientists
* 1.15 World Meteorological Organization
* 1.16 American Meteorological Society
* 1.17 Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
* 1.18 Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* 1.19 Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* 1.20 Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
* 1.21 International Union for Quaternary Research
* 1.22 American Quaternary Association
* 1.23 Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
* 1.24 International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
* 1.25 International Union of Geological Sciences
* 1.26 European Geosciences Union
* 1.27 Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
* 1.28 Geological Society of America
* 1.29 American Geophysical Union
* 1.30 American Astronomical Society
* 1.31 American Institute of Physics
* 1.32 American Physical Society
* 1.33 American Chemical Society
* 1.34 American Society for Microbiology
* 1.35 Institute of Biology (UK)
* 1.36 World Federation of Public Health Associations
* 1.37 American Public Health Association
* 1.38 American Medical Association
* 1.39 American College of Preventive Medicine
* 1.40 American Statistical Association
* 1.41 Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
* 1.42 Water Environment Federation
* 1.43 Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
* 1.44 Wildlife Society
* 1.45 Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
This list represents 10s of thousands of scientists-
-
25%
BB6411 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nice list but where is your proof. Where are your tests conclusively proving the case of Global Warming? Again I've seen a lot of names but most, like yours listed have other political motives behind the scenes. This is strictly a political game being played by the left. I remember the new ice age when Nixon was in the White House. Then Reagan, it was acid rain, now with Bush, Global Warming. Notice a problem? We never have a global "crisis" when a Democrat is in the big chair. This is all hype. If I'm wrong, show me the proof. Show me where I can actually verify your findings.
Reply-
80%
CRYMTYPHON11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Notice a problem? " you ask.
Reply
Yep.
The problem is you think if you deny seeing proof, there is no proof.
The other side will have to prove that the proof IS proof, - to which you can demand to see the proof for that. .
Yawn.
I don't remember an ice age under Nixon; don't really care either.
Acid rain was a big deal when we had lots of sulphur in our gas; but we cleaned up and it went away. Genius.
But I love your theory that the mere science of climate is actualy ruled by the Presidency!
We will test your theory; if Global Warming disappears as an issue under Obama, then you will have proof you are right!
But, will we admit it?-
50%
BB6411 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What did we do globally to clean up the acid rain? India, China and Russia use more coal the the United States. None of those nations went to clean coal systems. All three use soft coal. In China most of the cooking and heating of homes is done with a coal dust "cake". The average home can be heated for under $50.00 per year.
Reply
As to the new ice age, that was a big deal in Milwaukee & Chicago. My school participated in a living scene of the new ice age. We thought it was great fun actually. But the MPS system was selling the new ice age. The whole promotion of this ended about the time Carter came into office. I think this was during Ford's presidency.
On my theories, why didn't Gore talk about Global Warming when he was VP? Why didn't he talk about this during his campaign? I remember him talking about the dangers of Iraq and Hussein but climate wasn't his worry. Lock box and how to give away projected surpluses were all he really discussed.
-
-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, the 'New Ice Age' melodrama played out in the late 70s when --wait for it-- Jimmy Carter was President.
Reply
The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1998 when --hold on-- Bill Clinton was President.
So don't tell me these issues are manufactured for Republican Presidents.
BTW, the New Ice Age claptrap was NEVER an accepted theory by the vast majority of climatologists (who were, by and large, already warning about anthropogenic warming). It was a view held by a few scientists, but was picked up by some high profile magazines which whipped up fervor.
Acid rain was a real phenomenon, but was largely curbed in the US by EPA regulation. It is an ongoing problem in China, Russia, and former Soviet Bloc countries.-
50%
BB6411 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't think so. Again in Milwaukee, that was one of the areas changed in the Milwaukee Museum. The Ice Age went away for the Bicentennial display. Fake Liberty bell, Declaration of Independence, Constitution and the like. Other cities and states might have done it further but in Milwaukee, 1776 sold tickets, a bunch of kids living in fake igloos didn't.
Reply
-
-
-
-
80%
CRYMTYPHON11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks for the basic facts!
Reply
I assume they come from climate scientists and meteorologists?
The majority of whom say that man-made global climate change is occurring?.
I am kinda puzzled about you saying otherwise;
has it got anything to do with the bike and the dog?
Here is the best site if you like mere authority and numbers:
http://www.ipcc.ch/
I like this extract:
the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. Global warming in this case is indicated by an increase of 0.75 degrees in average global temperatures over the last 100 years.
The New York Times reports on the report:
The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, ... . The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame.
-
-
-
-
43%
Hhussk11 months, 2 weeks ago
-
100%
greenmac11 months, 2 weeks ago
-
100%
lvrofwolves11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh I think they agree greenmac, they just don't think it makes any impact or they don't care.
Reply
It's funny how some of the nay sayers always bring up Al Gore, if Al Gore was never born, we would still be having these problems, why can't they get it through their heads Al gore is only a messenger, maybe not a great one, and strange in other ways, it still doesn't change any facts that he presents from scientists. If Al Gore never got on the band wagon, would people listen to scientists all over the globe???-
100%
greenmac11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This thread reminded me of a National Geographic article I had read regarding water. I found an article...not the one I wanted though, and have posted it. To me water will become a bigger issue than oil in the future. We are consuming it and polluting it at a very fast rate. Through in climate change and the distant future gets that much closer.
Reply-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes. Much fresh water is held in ancient glaciers which have recently been retreating or wholesale disappearing at an alarming rate.
Reply
Here's an analysis of the retreat of the Gangotri glacier that is the primary source for the Ganges:
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/earth/pictures/20020...
There used to be 150 or so glaciers in Glacier National Park. Now there are 26.-
25%
BB6411 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You may want to read up on this topic a little. That article from NASA caused some problems because not everyone agreed prior to publishing.
Reply
http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm -
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Eagle_Eye11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I think Gore may have made some of us aware and turned others off as well. Global Warming to me was the wrong choice of words. If we focus on pollution we also wage war on any contribution that may have on climate change.'
Reply
BINGO!!!!!! Well said gm, it is the pollution and overpopulation that will get us long before the climate change. All it will take is another decade or two of continuing like we are and then all water sources will be contaminated.
Right now we are fighting another company trying to come in and bottle our water from all the springs in our area. Coca Cola has a plant here and another company and corporations see big dollars in the future for bottled water. Our water comes from one of the deepest richest sources and not only provides water to Florida but also Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana. If we allow another company to come in and bottle our water for profit every one losses.
-
-
-
50%
BB6411 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The problem that most on the right had with Al Gore was how he became the all knowing climate expert. For 8 years he sat on his butt as VP and never once did he mention warming or climate change or whatever you guys are calling it today. He comes out with this idea, claims to have all of these experts supporting him and stated that all discussion is over. Well, his movie has been pretty much disproved. His book has even more errors. When people tried to ask him questions it was clear he didn't know what was in his own book or at least he couldn't defend what he was supposed to have written. Perhaps the most condemning for me was this own conduct. Telling Joe 6-pack to switch to the tube lighting or cut back when he races across the country in a G4 or his own energy usage.
Reply
As to listening to the science, please show me the actual proof. I've seen a bunch of models and pretty papers making claims but most fail to stand up to the standards most scientists work with.-
100%
lvrofwolves11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, just keep this in mind, Al Gore did NOT invent nor discover global warming/climate change issues. Some people seem to think Al is in kahoots with scientists, he and they were very busy photoshopping many pictures all around the world lol. And I agree Al could cut down on his usage but what do you expect him to do when he makes appearances? ride a bike across the oceans, across America? I mean he may very well be a hypocrite in ways about the cause, but it doesn't change the facts. I myself don't listen to what Al Gore says, I may have in the beginning, but still never thought of him as the know it all of these problems, just a messenger with a name behind him.
Reply
-
-
-
-
100%
CRYMTYPHON11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hhussk said: "Every day more scientists and meteorologists are rebuking the notion of "global warming". "
Reply
Link, please.
Unlessit is that web page that allows anyone to enter in their name and what degree they have. Amazing, the number of climatologists who can't spell climitolgist. Climataogist.
And no podiatrists either.
-
-
20%
BravoSierra11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bear meat is a good source of calories as bears are related to pigs. With millions of humans starving in Africa I recommend harvesting the bears and feeding humans with them. Make it profitable and some company will set up a polar bear preserve and farming operation. Humans and bears will survive.
Reply -
mackiemesserComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
83%
Poulenc11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's astounding--the inability of posters like mrreality [sic] to even countenance the possibility of human-caused species extinction.
Reply
This has to do with a fundamental inability/refusal to empathize with other living things; with the refusal to acknowledge one's own vulnerability, thus occasioning an entirely defensive-aggressive response to the suggestion that others are equally susceptible.
A spurious religious "rationale" is also sometimes offered.
Amazing!-
100%
CRYMTYPHON11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
mrreality is not expressing any opinion.
Reply
There are good and sensible people who don't believe in global climate change,
- and many confuse acknowledging it exists, with agreeing about what to do.
But some people are just availing of the internet opportunity to be annonymously evil.
Ignore.-
-
-
100%
Poulenc11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thus it has always been--and thus it will forever be (amen): Those who don't care to look within will always mock those who have and recommend that others do likewise.
Reply
Thus they prove themselves to be as defensive as claimed.
PS, Cry, I thought Plato was a modeling toy, no?
-
-
-
-
BronxBomberComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Eagle_Eye11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"so, did humans wipe out the dinosaurs??" No, it was either a large meteor hitting earth along with large volcanic eruptions that blacked out the sun for an entire ice age that wiped them out. Only the roaches survived.
Reply
"Do you believe in survival of the fittest?? Yes, it is the law of nature
"ie evolution??" Yes, it is how nature survives.
I also believe in the mutated bacteria and virus that are spreading and killing humans. It is just a matter of time and Humans will follow in the extinction.
-
-
-
100%
greenmac11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The sad part about all of this is we are also animals and we are on our way to extinction as well. How will it happen....does the plight of the Polar Bear or another species give us a clue... or will it be just a sudden whack from outer space. We can control some processes...others will just follow their course.
Reply -
-
-
-
BronxBomberComment removed: Retracted by user4 Replies
-
-
100%
Eagle_Eye11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What gm says is very true in the real world: "The sad part about all of this is we are also animals and we are on our way to extinction as well. How will it happen....does the plight of the Polar Bear or another species give us a clue... or will it be just a sudden whack from outer space. We can control some processes...others will just follow their course.""
Reply
Nature is all ready attacking and killing us in the forms of mutated antibiotic resistance bacteria, new virus are mutating and spreading around the world, our air and water is becoming contaminated, over population is decimating our planets natural resources, etc.
We are part of the "Web of Life" and the wildlife that inhabits our planet Earth are barometers of how our planet is doing. When animal species go extinct it is not long before we follow. And to be honest, I don't care any more, I am grateful for living during Earths finest days. I have seen so much destruction to the environment and wildlife caused by humans that IMHO they deserve to be wiped off the planet along with the other animals.
Sometimes God just cleans the slate and starts over.......interesting that God promised not to destroy the world again, this time man is doing it, I wonder if God for saw our poor care taking?? -
-
BronxBomberComment removed: Retracted by user
-
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.