Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"could lose" is the main word. So it's no 100% certainty.
Do you actually have a point, or are you just producing therapeutic noise to make up for past stupidity that you've posted here?
Quote:
And even if it were the case, it wouldn't be such a bad thing : there would be less Polar Bears and more Grizzlies, that's a process called Evolution (ever heard of it?
If you are saying that the loss of glaciers has an effect on bear populations, I would like to hear how you think that would be!
More therapeutic noise... but no substance.
Quote:
if not, read "The Voyage of The Beagle" of Darwin, it's a better read i(n the scientific & litterary sense) than the "hockeycross curves" of the IPCC!
The IPCC puts out much better science that the writings of Darwin.
Quote:
And also the 20 billion human inhabitants of the next century will need room , a lot of room : better get ready from now on for a geometrical increase of Alaska's population!
So just how do you recommend we do that? Not much point in making pointless statements...
@ Floyd Davidson : how easy to answer "where is the beef, stupid" to wholly valid statements! You're the one making "therapeutic noise"! you have no argument to expound, save the undemonstrated affirmation that "the IPCC makes better science than Darwin", are you a Creationist maybe?
For one, it's not me, it's the media who flood us with news that the Arctic ice is melting and that as a consequence Polar Bears will disappear!
And I recommend nothing for Alaska to take its part in the future demographic growth of the Planet ...it will happen progressively, and one day in the A laskan bush instead of the wild there will be all over cabins, then houses, then roads, pipelines, buildings...IPCC spin doctors or not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe if you are lucky you will be able to preserve in 2110 a few thousand acres of wildness as National Park around Denali....
@ Floyd Davidson : how easy to answer "where is the beef, stupid" to wholly valid statements! You're the one making "therapeutic noise"! you have no argument to expound, save the undemonstrated affirmation that "the IPCC makes better science than Darwin", are you a Creationist maybe?
It's a well known fact that Darwin's science wasn't great by today's standards.
Quote:
For one, it's not me, it's the media who flood us with news that the Arctic ice is melting and that as a consequence Polar Bears will disappear!
The media talks about ice in the Arctic Ocean melting, but only you said that glaciers melting would affect bear populations. Apparently you don't know what the difference is.
Quote:
And I recommend nothing for Alaska to take its part in the future demographic growth of the Planet ...it will happen progressively, and one day in the A laskan bush instead of the wild there will be all over cabins, then houses, then roads, pipelines, buildings...IPCC spin doctors or not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe if you are lucky you will be able to preserve in 2110 a few thousand acres of wildness as National Park around Denali....
You are clueless, so what you recommend, or think, is of no significance to anyone.
I would just like to contribute something. For pigeonhole, when you were confused about the difference between weather and climate you said thats like saying "a meal is not food". That isnt what floyd said at all. to use your type of analogy what floyd actually said was "calories are not food" even though calories and weather contribute to food and climate (respectively) they are only a small part. it take many many years of consistant weather change for that weather to be considered climate. many many years. climate change is happening, it just takes a long time to properly document the long term affects.
about your somewhat nasty comments regarding the glacial melting. the UAF said Alaska "could" lose half its glaciers by 2100 and you harped on the fact that it said could. But that could was not referring to whether or not there was ANY loss, it was referring to the fact that no amount of science can completely predict the outcome of glacial melting over the next 90 years. Its not a question of whether or not there will be loss, just how much will be lost.
And it truly is a sad day that people cant even talk about climate or the weather at any given time without someone attacking his or her religious beliefs. I personally am just about half and half, evolution and creationist but that doesnt make me 100% RIGHT OR WRONG. And it doesnt make you right either. So leave the politics and religion out of it and you might be able to have a civil discussion.
@ Floyd Davidson : you probably ride a guzzler and then advocate the crap science of people (Mr Pachaudri) chauffered in limo to their office instead of walking 3 blocks . Because when the warmist crowd fart, they don't emit gas.
@pigeonhole. im really confused...do you or dont you believe in global warming/climate change or not? science is pretty much in agreement that people contribute to climate change and your comment to floyd about driving a guzzler would indicate that you believe that people should reduce their carbon emissions in order to keep our planet healthy. so which is it?
@pigeonhole. im really confused...do you or dont you believe in global warming/climate change or not? science is pretty much in agreement that people contribute to climate change and your comment to floyd about driving a guzzler would indicate that you believe that people should reduce their carbon emissions in order to keep our planet healthy. so which is it?
First of all, thank you for asking , it's a change from people who arrogantly dismiss my opinion without even putting forward the shadow of an argument ("you're clueless",he says, but wouldn't step so low as to explain why).....
Climate change, you'll agree, and the Environment in general, is an awfully complicated thing for people who didnt do scientific studies, but who try to keep up to date with all the odds and ends.
I have no definitive opinion on Global Warming, but I agree, if only to reduce air pollution and our dependency on Big Oil,, that it's anyway better to limit C02 emissions.
But what I 'm saying is : even if "climate change" does happen, the way politicians like Al Gore and the IPCC are dealing with it is wrong.
They try to stifle public debate in an authoritative manner, instilling fear in people, and themselves don't live in accordance with their beliefs, jetsettting and organizing every year expensive and C02 emitting international conferences in Kopenhagen and Cancun, besides, while the general public are brainwashed with climate change, other very pressing issues like the destruction of Biodiversity (Nagoya conference) or world population explosion ,-both playing a very important role in influencing on C02-are neglected.
I hope I shed some light, however awkwardly, in a very complex debate....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem goes beyond Global Warming
