The Environment Thread

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:

If that's all it took to "derail honest discussion", then it wasn't very honest to begin with.  How about injecting some "sensible realism" into the chicken little hysterics?  Is that too "derailing"?  What do sensible realists do?

Sensible realists understand the likelihood of today's science accurately establishing year-by-year global temperatures in the distant past, and refuse to buy into the notion we must take drastic action to address purported problems supported primarily by "hottest year" hyperbole and failed predictive modelling.

Sensible realists also recognize the disturbing similarities between skepticalscience.com and the Heartland Institute and other agenda-driven sources of information, and question their willingness to accept these sources without serious consideration of those shortcomings, along with the shortcomings of wikipedia as a source for facts upon which to base costly public policy.

Sensible realists tend to prefer we use our resources to address pressing issues with solutions where the effects are measurably effective in addressing the stated problem. Which is why we are entirely happy to support genuine pollution reduction initiatives, but unwilling to support efforts with the purported intent of controlling the global climate.

You are not a sensible realist- you just parrot misinformation and spread lies (inadvertently it seems). You make erroneous equivalences between fact and disinformation. I am not sure if you are trying to muddy the waters here- but you should use credible sources if you want to discuss this serious issue. 

[Mark F]

7 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Yup, and soon enough, like all the other threads- he will get this one locked down. it's his M.O.

 

I know you think it's worthwhile to respond, but it is not returned in kind. So why bother.

once again we are no longer discussing the subject of the thread.

Simple solution:   if we all stop responding, the thread will not get locked.

 

Edited March 12, 2019 by Mark F

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

11 minutes ago, Mark F said:

1. Deny or Defend Your Inconsistencies

2. Evade Questions,\Hedge What You Say (do not respond to questions about the article)

3. Ignore the Evidence (The article is completely wrong)

4. Ignore the Main Point 

5. Insist Loudly on a Minor Point (people won't listen to the other side)

6. Make (Sweeping) Glittering Generalization(subject is still open)

7. Shift the Ground (no longer talking about climate)

8. Talk in Vague Generalities

9. Always claim the high ground  (open minded, optimistic.

10. Your job is to prevent the presentation and spread of Liberal viewpoints.

 

This is the conservative playbook- I remember seeing something like this from a conservative think tank... I wanna say... Rove?

 

Anyways- it's funny, because this isn't a liberal viewpoint- it's ******* science. Not sure why this needs to be political. 

 

Hmmm, looks like I was wrong about the Karl Rove penned tactics- it seems it's unknown:

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-karl-rove-write-tactics-conservative-blogging/

 

But it pretty much what you are talking about:

 

Edited March 12, 2019 by wanna-b-fanboy

[pigseye]

Despite getting side tracked, you inadvertently got to the meat of the issue, it's about politics, Liberals want to save the planet and Conservatives want to burn it down in the name of profits. Until a person can get past their biases, nothing will change.  

[TrueBlue4ever]

47 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Yup, and soon enough, like all the other threads- he will get this one locked down. it's his M.O.

Well folks, the solution is to rise above any name calling and sidetracking arguments designed to derail the topic and move on. KBF and pigseye have an opinion, and they are entitled to it. They even try to offer studies to back up their opinions. So let them. The simple answer to those studies is to challenge their veracity, which actually gets to be kind of fun if you want it to be. Like Jon Stewart said on his final show about sniffing out bull ****. It took a few minutes to determine that the Taylor study was debunked and his slanted peer review process was a sham. KBF conveniently forgot about the actual study and said the counter-argument "didn't prove what it proved". We called out the Heartland Institute he worked at, and again, he shifts the narrative saying we are sheep who follow big brother rather than addressing the issue of a flawed study. Pigseye to his credit points out a flawed study on the other side, one that the authors copped to when their math did not add up. That is what science is supposed to be about - withstanding disprovability. He then posts the hurricane study, which basically does not say anything conclusive one way or another if you take a read at it. It simply says we cannot definitively tie an increase in hurricane intensity to human involvement, It is interesting that the same study does accept as a premise that mankind is responsible for the rising sea temperatures and that some models show a correlation with hurricane intensity (one shows the opposite, and others are non-conclusive). Hopefully he is not holding up this study as "proof" that climate change is a hoax, but rather the idea that this particular hypothesis is not yet proven and further study is needed.

But let's get past the baiting and accusations of "climate deniers" and "chicken littles". Such inflammatory rhetoric serves only to create division - a staple of internet discussion boards. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, just be prepared to back it up with facts, and if called on it, use those facts to bolster your point, or, if your argument falls, have the simple dignity to acknowledge that you were wrong (a real toughy for so many). And if you find yourself proving the other side wrong, spare everyone the gloating - that is no better in terms of keeping peace on the boards.

MY OPINION, and it is only mine, is that KBF mentions the "politicization" of climate science because, as he put it himself "It's all about power and nothing about science". Well, that may or may not be true, or is partially true, but wouldn't that apply to both sides of the argument, and not just one? It seems that big oil and big gas have a lot of sway (power) in politics and would like to keep the status quo, and could do so by thwarting efforts to decry their system as one that is destroying the planet. I have a motivation for accepting the 97% who say climate change is real, strongly influenced by mankind, and that significant changes are needed to avoid dire consequences - I am concerned about the future planet I leave for my kids. I am no scientist, but I have noticed an increase in extreme weather, and when I am told the last ten years have all been the hottest ever record (or 9 out of 10, if I have misquoted the result I admit my mistake - it is not meant to deceive). I wonder KBF, what is your motivation, beyond offering a counterpoint? You call it a scam, one designed to take your money and take power. Power from whom? Those who have it now? Would they not be equally motivated to post studies to keep them in power? And is your personal money more important than having an inhabitable planet, when 97% of the consensus says this is the crisis we are facing?

Anyway, we can see where the thread has gone, and I enjoy a healthy debate and don't want to see another thread locked down, so let's get back to tackling the issue and not each other. If someone tries to switch the topic when questioned, and one re-asking of the question does not elicit a desired response, let's all just move on.

 

By the way, here is a counter piece on Karl Zeller. Seems he and his co-researcher used false names when publishing their study, and when outed, pulled the study. They offer an explanation for why they did, which fits KBF's explanation that they had to use false names because of the perceived bias of their work as contrarians. Sadly, their explanation talks about the rejection of their earlier works and manuscripts because of bias, yet we don't have those earlier works to determine if their findings were flawed or not, so we'll never know (from Zeller, anyway) if that rejection was based solely on his stance, or some flaw in his research. One would hope his work would stand on its own with provable scientific merit. The piece offers other examples of where this pseudonym practice was done, and I think it is important to recognize the rationale and not just dismiss it, and the value of double-blind studies. I also note that a NASA researcher also points out the flaw in the study itself, not just the questionable (to them) tactics of hiding behind a different name. THAT is what science should be - ignore the author, challenge the findings. This NASA researcher claims that a too simplistic mathematical model with too few data points is used, and fudged some numbers regarding Mars to make it fit the model. So I can appreciate that the article is not just an attack on the man but points out flaws in his scientific model (at least according to the researcher). Would have preferred a more thorough rebuttal if there were grounds to do so

Here is the entire article, a good read to give some perspective on both sides:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/09/19/scientists-published-climate-research-under-fake-names-then-they-were-caught/?utm_term=.86d3367f1826

So let's all be vigilant, and challenge the findings and not just each other, and be clear on our motives when asked. Galileo was imprisoned for his belief that the world was round and revolved around the sun, but did not back down from his scientific claims in the face of establishment religious and political pressure. Maybe we can all aspire to the same conviction and back up our beliefs with solid evidence and not derail topics with simple rhetoric.

 Namaste!

Edited March 12, 2019 by TrueBlue4ever

[pigseye]

1 hour ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

It simply says we cannot definitively tie an increase in hurricane intensity to human involvement,

That's a pretty important statement considering it's contrary to AGW theory and what we hear in the mainstream media. Until the data supports the theory, it's still just a theory. 

I enjoyed your post btw. 

 

[Mark F]

2 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Anyways- it's funny, because this isn't a liberal viewpoint- it's ******* science. Not sure why this needs to be political. 

Agree, and I deleted the "liberal"   (just change word liberal to "warmist") ....   Science should not be political, but unfortunately, when there are big money involved, it is made political.

yes it is the Rove playbook, Rove was asked about it, (I read) and was non committal.

Whoever came up with it, it's in play on this and other threads.

[Mark F]

 

Still not discussion the subject.

[kelownabomberfan]

2 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Yup, and soon enough, like all the other threads- he will get this one locked down. it's his M.O.

oh good grief.  It's YOUR MO!  It's all because you guys can't ever handle anything that enters these threads that might just cause questions to be asked.  It's always just one narrative that is allowed, and anything that remotely challenges it is responded to with extreme prejudice.  It's always the same, no matter what the topic - a big gang up occurs, the thread gets locked, and I get blamed.  Of course.  It's always the same.  Take some responsibility for your own actions WBFB.  That's a start.

[kelownabomberfan]

2 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

You are not a sensible realist-

yes, I am.

2 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

 

you just parrot misinformation and spread lies (inadvertently it seems). 

Oh good grief.  You post this garbage, and then blame me for getting threads locked down.  For shame.

[kelownabomberfan]

For well over two decades now, people who are not scientists and people who are not responsible for public policy have been using the theories of scientists to drive public policy. These people have persisted in using doomsday scenarios and fear mongering to convince the public to pressure policy makers.

It is up to us to decide how much weight to give the information provided by any of the agencies promoting apocalyptic narratives.

Even the IPCC operates from a position of bias. The cadre of volunteers devoting time to the IPCC is unlikely to include scientists who do not believe we are in a position to control the climate. It is not up to them to question the assumption that climate change is disastrous and must be addressed:

Quote

The IPCC is divided into three Working Groups and a Task Force. Working Group I deals with The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, Working Group II with Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and Working Group III with Mitigation of Climate Change. The main objective of the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories is to develop and refine a methodology for the calculation and reporting of national greenhouse gas emissions and removals.

Their fact sheets show they are like any other UN organization. It is important to them that they represent a diversity of gender, countries, cultures, etc. The further they lean in the direction of meeting warm and fuzzy image-driven objectives, the more emphasis the take away from operating from a position of "cold hard facts".

Any organization with a sole focus on determining what we must to to prevent an unfolding disaster will be very slow to change direction when it is becoming apparent the particular disaster they focused on has been dramatically overstated (or may not even be unfolding after all). Apocalyptic global climate change is the sole raison d'etre for the IPCC. Some of us keep this firmly in mind when we are considering their pronouncements, just as we would with the Fraser Institute or the Heartland Institute or any other group with a stated agenda.

That, coupled with the continued insistence of heightening the alarm even though the have predicted disasters that have failed to materialize, has led many of us to believe the resources they have encouraged us to expend could have been put to good use.

We sensible realists would like public policy to shift away from "imminent disaster mode" to a more measured and practical application of our resources.

Instead, our government has chosen to conflate two separate issues, pollution and climate change, to ensure this waste of resources will continue.  Sensible realists the world over would like this waste to stop.

[kelownabomberfan]

17 minutes ago, pigseye said:

That's a pretty important statement considering it's contrary to AGW theory and what we hear in the mainstream media. Until the data supports the theory, it's still just a theory. 

I enjoyed your post btw. 

 

I enjoyed it too.  Well said.  

[Mark F]

2 hours ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

By the way, here is a counter piece on Karl Zeller. Seems he and his co-researcher used false names when publishing their study, and when outed, pulled the study. They offer an explanation for why they did, which fits KBF's explanation that they had to use false names because of the perceived bias of their work as contrarians. Sadly, their explanation talks about the rejection of their earlier works and manuscripts because of bias, yet we don't have those earlier works to determine if their findings were flawed or not, so we'll never know (from Zeller, anyway) i

Your information is wrong. 

Your scientists found that the warming was due to the sun. The sun has been at solar minimum, and yet the planet continues to heat. No wonder he couldn't get published, and used fake identity.

skeptic favourite Watt:

Quote

"There’s a lot of evidence mounting that solar cycle 25 will usher in a new grand solar minimum. Since about October 2005, when the sun’s magnetic activity went into a sharp fall, solar activity has been markedly lower, with solar cycle 24 being the lowest in over 100 years.

Yet the planet is hotter every year, and each year sets new records. (Of course Watt predicted global cooling)

also

Quote

 

"there’s a slim chance that the 2–3% minority is correct and the 97% climate consensus is wrong.

To evaluate that possibility, a new paper published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology examines a selection of contrarian climate science research and attempts to replicate their results. The idea is that accurate scientific research should be replicable, 

This new study was authored by Rasmus Benestad, myself (Dana Nuccitelli), Stephan Lewandowsky, Katharine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorland, and John Cook. Benestad (who did the lion’s share of the work for this paper) created a tool using the R programming language to replicate the results and methods used in a number of frequently-referenced research papers that reject the expert consensus on human-caused global warming. In using this tool, we discovered some common themes among the contrarian research papers.

Cherry picking was the most common characteristic they shared. We found that many contrarian research papers omitted important contextual information or ignored key data that did not fit the research conclusions"

 

also..... NASA research has shown that Hurricanes are increasing in intensity and developing more rapidly as predicted through climate change. The hurricane that hit the Florida panhandle went from a one to a five in something like 24 hours, at a location close to shore. The entire area of Panama beach was levelled.

We corrected this earlier last year, when it was wrongly posted by pigeye.

So we spend all our time correcting things posted by the people who never respond to anything, and arguing about "what's fair and reasonable" when they have no intention of being either.

You should have noticed that these people NEVER respond directly to a question put to them about their sources. Or maybe you are new to this thread.

anyway, carry on.  I'm out here for a while.

 

 

Edited March 12, 2019 by Mark F

[kelownabomberfan]

Tuvalu - 11 years ago:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/environment-tuvalu-dc/tuvalu-about-to-disappear-into-the-ocean-idUKSEO11194920070913

Doom!  Gloom!!!  Certain death!!! Imminent catastrophe!!  Man-made climate change!! AHHHHH!!!!

Tuvalu - present day:
 

Quote

 

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html

But it argues the study should prompt a rethink on how such countries respond to the problem.

Rather than accepting their homes are doomed and looking to migrate to countries such as Australia and New Zealand, the researchers say they should start planning for a long-term future.

"On the basis of this research we project a markedly different trajectory for Tuvalu's islands over the next century than is commonly envisaged," Kench said.

"While we recognise that habitability rests on a number of factors, loss of land is unlikely to be a factor in forcing depopulation of Tuvalu."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html#jCp

 

But hey, it's always more fun to say that the sky is falling.  And much more profitable too.

[kelownabomberfan]

3 hours ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

 I wonder KBF, what is your motivation, beyond offering a counterpoint? You call it a scam, one designed to take your money and take power. Power from whom? Those who have it now? Would they not be equally motivated to post studies to keep them in power? And is your personal money more important than having an inhabitable planet, when 97% of the consensus says this is the crisis we are facing?

 

Valid questions that deserve a response.  My motivation is that I don't like it when we are told that an apocalypse is coming.  I have seen this scam far too many times, and it always has the same motivation behind it.  This is about grabbing your wallet, and make you do their bidding.  That's it.  The people behind this man-made climate change movement are for the most part one-world globalists (which is why they are using an unelected body like the UN to do their dirty work) - they want to initiate giant wealth transfers from the western world.  That's what this is really about.  In another century, these people were also known as communists, but they don't call themselves that anymore.  Whenever fear is used as a motivator, there's someone behind it, either on the far right or far left, who is using it to control people.  That's what is going on here.

And that 97% thing you've been fed...it's a completely manufactured lie.  Look it up.  It was created by a guy named Cook, who cherry-picked stats from a survey he sent out.  That 97% number has been debunked repeatedly, but unfortunately its now entered the human lexicon as a "truth", even though it's not.  Just like DDT, or tax and spend.  You are being played my good sir.

Also, I saw someone mention solar minimums.  I've been doing some reading. Fascinating stuff.  And from what I have read, much more of a threat to our way of life than any CO2 issues.  The problem?  Democrats and Liberals haven't figured out a way to tax cold air yet.  Or sunshine.  Just wait for it though, I am sure they are thinking about it.

https://abruptearthchanges.com/2018/01/14/climate-change-grand-solar-minimum-and-cosmic-rays/

Quote

 

A solar maximum is the period within the 11-year solar cycle of high solar magnetic field and high sunspot count. Sunspots are highly magnetic and visually dark spots or ‘holes’ in the photosphere of the sun, where solar flares can erupt.

A solar minimum is the low activity trough of the 11-year solar cycle (Schwabe Cycle). A Grand Solar Minimum is a period of several successive very low Schwabe Cycles, usually coinciding with phases of climate disruption and – in the long run -cooling. An example is the Maunder Minimum (c. 1645 and 1715) that coincided with the coldest phase of the Little Ice Age. The Little Ice Age, from which we have been emerging since c. 1850, was the coldest period of at least the last 8,000 years, possibly the entire Holocene. Grand Solar Minima recur in clusters roughly every 200-400 years. 27 Grand Minima have been identified during the Holocene (Usoskin et al. 2007). Thus, we were in Grand Solar Minimum about 1/6 of the total time.

 

Winnipeg is going to get a lot colder in the coming years, look out!

Edited March 13, 2019 by kelownabomberfan

[kelownabomberfan]

https://www.theblaze.com/climate-skeptic-app-removed-by-apple

[pigseye]

https://www.popsci.com/ARkStorm-megastorm-california

 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

4 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

https://www.theblaze.com/climate-skeptic-app-removed-by-apple

Good for Apple, now if only Google play would follow suit. 

No need to help the app author profit off of ignorance and spread lies. 

[kelownabomberfan]

3 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Good for Apple, now if only Google play would follow suit. 

No need to help the app author profit off of ignorance and spread lies. 

LOL

And now you see the problem, on a silver platter.  This app is based in actual science, it's just science that doesn't support the apocalyptic storyline, so therefore it is useless to pressing the panic-induced narrative.  Must shut down any information, even if it is science-based, that conflicts with the narrative.  Shame on Apple.  Shame on Al Gore.  He is so afraid that his golden goose will be cut off.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

44 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

LOL

And now you see the problem, on a silver platter.  This app is based in actual science, it's just science that doesn't support the apocalyptic storyline, so therefore it is useless to pressing the panic-induced narrative.  Must shut down any information, even if it is science-based, that conflicts with the narrative.  Shame on Apple.  Shame on Al Gore.  He is so afraid that his golden goose will be cut off.

LOL

the app is all junk science. Here is an excerpt:

Kevin Mooney shared some of the facts presented in the Inconvenient Facts app, noting they run counter to much of what was presented in Gore's documentary films:

● Inconvenient Fact No. 10: "Cites 'Recent Inconvenient Pause of 18 years in warming, despite rise in CO2.'"

● Inconvenient Fact No. 12: "Modern warming began long before SUVs or coal-fired plants."

● Inconvenient Fact No. 21: "The current warming trend is neither unusual nor unprecedented."

● Inconvenient Fact No. 53: "There are more polar bears now than we've had for 50 years."

 

Each one of those "points" have been disproved. "Actual science" my aunt Fanny. A simple google search and it's easy to see how silly and transparent these lies are (if one were so inclined to learn the facts). I could literally post multiple links disproving each one of these junk pseudo-science "points" but from your history, you won't read any of them so I am not going to bother. I will simply implore you to stop spreading lies. 

The information you provided here is bunk- it's not science-based- it doesn't conflict with "the narrative" it conflicts with facts. they are disingenuous lies. Good on Apple and Good on Al Gore. I don't think he's too worried about his "golden goose" being cut off- his expertise is based in actual facts and science, so he's golden. 

Shame on Gregory Wrightstone for spreading lies and misinformation and shame on those promoting his lies. Shame on the heartland institute for promoting these lies- very reminiscent of their trying to sow doubt about the correlation between tobacco and cancer.  

 

Edited March 15, 2019 by wanna-b-fanboy

[kelownabomberfan]

12 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

 

 

Each one of those "points" have been disproved. 

 

Disproved by whom?  Those with a vested interest in trying to push an apocalyptic agenda.  Both sides have "science" to back up their claims, and both lob the term "junk science" at each other like tennis balls.  Both sides make good points, and both sides also have holes in their arguments that you could drive trucks through. That's a result of the "science" surrounding this hypothesis still being far from settled, despite what Michael "Hide the Decline" Mann wants to say to his followers. Lots more work required. As for polar bears, are you saying that there aren't more polar bears now?  It seems this was pretty irrefutable.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/healthy-polar-bear-count-confounds-doomsayers/article4099460/

[blue_gold_84]

It looks like there's stability in much of Canada. That's good news but I think it's reasonable to assert the future remains uncertain. And the lack of data for the rest of the Arctic only muddies the waters further.

Of course there are more bears now when compared to the previous 50 years. Populations were decimated by hunting/trapping prior to 1973 when regulations were put in place (http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/agreements/agreement1973.html) to ensure conservation of the species. The population has stabilized thanks to those regulations. However, that doesn't mean they're not a vulnerable species* or that a changing climate in the Arctic isn't a real thing. The coverage area and density of sea ice has declined over the last few decades, so animals in the region will be affected as those changes persist. That is particularly important for a species like the polar bear that relies heavily on sea ice for hunting/feeding. (https://arcticwwf.org/places/last-ice-area/)

It seems awfully disingenuous to use stabilized polar bear populations to refute climate change. Populations have stabilized because they're no longer being recklessly hunted on a large scale.

You wouldn't look at bison populations today and apply such similarly shaky logic. Like the polar bear, they've recovered impressively thanks to conservation efforts after being nearly hunted to extinction.

* the polar bear's conservation status remains vulnerable (https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22823/14871490)

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

2 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Disproved by whom? 

Almost all reputable scientists and researchers. Not the hacks and corporate shills- those people are propping up the junk science. 

2 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Both sides have "science" to back up their claims, and both lob the term "junk science" at each other like tennis balls.

No. No they don't. one side has science and uses it responsibly and keeps working at the problems to refine the data, the other side cherry picks data- spreads lies and supports the misinformation. 

2 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Both sides make good points, and both sides also have holes in their arguments that you could drive trucks through.

No, no they don't- one side makes good points, supported by sound science with a very robust conclusion backed by the scientific community. The other... well is just **** , that can not be supported and is easily disproved with a cursory glance. Sorry KBF, but you are wrong about this point too. 

 

2 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

That's a result of the "science" surrounding this hypothesis still being far from settled, despite what Michael "Hide the Decline" Mann wants to say to his followers. Lots more work required.

Well- it's pretty much settled, it's now the nuances that they are trying to figure out and continue to refine their findings. Yes there is much work that needs to be done, but the conclusion that the IPCC have reached with a HIGH DEGREE of confidence is not not wrong. 

 

2 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

As for polar bears, are you saying that there aren't more polar bears now?  It seems this was pretty irrefutable.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/healthy-polar-bear-count-confounds-doomsayers/article4099460/

No. no it doesn't seem irrefutable. 

Refuted:

56 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

It looks like there's stability in much of Canada. That's good news but I think it's reasonable to assert the future remains uncertain. And the lack of data for the rest of the Arctic only muddies the waters further.

Of course there are more bears now when compared to the previous 50 years. Populations were decimated by hunting/trapping prior to 1973 when regulations were put in place (http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/agreements/agreement1973.html) to ensure conservation of the species. The population has stabilized thanks to those regulations. However, that doesn't mean they're not a vulnerable species* or that a changing climate in the Arctic isn't a real thing. The coverage area and density of sea ice has declined over the last few decades, so animals in the region will be affected as those changes persist. That is particularly important for a species like the polar bear that relies heavily on sea ice for hunting/feeding. (https://arcticwwf.org/places/last-ice-area/)

It seems awfully disingenuous to use stabilized polar bear populations to refute climate change. Populations have stabilized because they're no longer being recklessly hunted on a large scale.

You wouldn't look at bison populations today and apply such similarly shaky logic. Like the polar bear, they've recovered impressively thanks to conservation efforts after being nearly hunted to extinction.

* the polar bear's conservation status remains vulnerable (https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22823/14871490)

 

Edited March 15, 2019 by wanna-b-fanboy

[pigseye]

15 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

● Inconvenient Fact No. 10: "Cites 'Recent Inconvenient Pause of 18 years in warming, despite rise in CO2.'"

This is actually true for land surface temperatures, nobody disputes that. The oceans continued to warm which kept global temperatures creeping up. 

 

15 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

● Inconvenient Fact No. 12: "Modern warming began long before SUVs or coal-fired plants."

Some truth to this statement too, Central England Temperature Record for the 40 years 1694-1733, long before SUVs, during which the temperature in most of England rose at a rate equivalent to 4.33 C°/century, compared with just 1.7 C°/century equivalent in the 40 years 1979-2018. Therefore, the current rate of warming is not unprecedented.

15 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

● Inconvenient Fact No. 21: "The current warming trend is neither unusual nor unprecedented."

See above.

15 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

● Inconvenient Fact No. 53: "There are more polar bears now than we've had for 50 years."

You guy already answered this one.

Not hard evidence by any stretch but enough that further research is warranted imo. 

[pigseye]

Now this has absolutely huge implications if what they are theorizing is correct, their paper is in the peer review stage. 

Quote

If we’re right, Charney sensitivity (equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO₂) will be 1.2 [1.1, 1.3] C°, far too little to matter, and not, as the models currently imagine, 3.4 [2.1, 4.7] C°, and that, scientifically speaking, will be the end of the climate scam.

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Edited March 15, 2019 by pigseye
r