Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-22-2019, 06:50 PM
 
27,307 posts, read 16,237,091 times
Reputation: 12102

Advertisements

The bears are fine.

The earth will continue to heat and cool periodically.

Nothing to worry about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-22-2019, 06:53 PM
 
Location: Planet earth
3,617 posts, read 1,823,349 times
Reputation: 1258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrie22 View Post
I said she's a polar bear scientist..and she is....a scientist is someone that studies something
..does she study polar bears?...absolutely

Now rather that attack her title...which is lame....show where her science is wrong

They CANNOT and they WILL NOT because... "the science is settled" and "scientific consensus".


Even the once useful idiots of CAGW/CACC are becoming less useful at running resistance to the science coming out daily. Science which refutes the claims of their religious leaders.


I still argue that one need look no further than the email communications between the principal drivers of the CAGW/CACC scare to see the willful collusion and intent to defraud to push their political narrative. It's not even a scientific narrative, it's 100% political.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2019, 06:54 PM
 
18,469 posts, read 8,298,361 times
Reputation: 13791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemsis View Post
I responded to the above quote.

No she is not one of the top polar bear scientists in the world.


Do you see how much you have attempted to move the goal posts since I called you out for stating misinformation?

I see that you can't prove her science is wrong...why not?

Is she one of the top polar bear scientists?...absolutely she is
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2019, 07:07 PM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
30,976 posts, read 21,655,075 times
Reputation: 9676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
The Left has to LIE to advanced their agenda. Always.
So you pretty strongly feel that we're far better off paying for the destruction of global warning as it comes, if it's real, than taking a chance by paying billion$ in taxes and prohibitive regulations to stop it, which may end up proving unnecessary? Indeed, it may beyond mankind's ability to stop any perceived undesired climate changes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2019, 07:11 PM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
30,976 posts, read 21,655,075 times
Reputation: 9676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samiamnh View Post
Man made global warming...…..just another scam from the loonies.Can you say "carbon tax" on everything that runs?
If global warming and it's massive damages come about, I'll look forward to you quite strongly insisting that the taxpayers should not be held responsible for it in any way to clean it up and restore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2019, 07:18 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,559 posts, read 37,160,046 times
Reputation: 14017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrie22 View Post
fairy tale...
No matter who's numbers you believe...polar bears are at a record high
....ice went down....polar bear population went up...that's fact

The only people not celebrating the great polar bear recovery are the hypochondriac bed wetters
Either somebody lied to you, or you just made that up......Sorry, but it's not a fact....Bear populations are increasing in two small areas, decreasing in one larger area and stable in several others....In most of the rest their range there in not enough info.

http://awsassets.wwf.ca/img/original...ns_2017_06.png
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2019, 07:28 PM
 
18,469 posts, read 8,298,361 times
Reputation: 13791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemsis View Post
What science? Counting? Counting is not science.
.
You don't know any of her science at all do you?.....but you know she's wrong
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2019, 07:29 PM
 
18,469 posts, read 8,298,361 times
Reputation: 13791
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Either somebody lied to you, or you just made that up......Sorry, but it's not a fact....Bear populations are increasing in two small areas, decreasing in one larger area and stable in several others....In most of the rest their range there in not enough info.

http://awsassets.wwf.ca/img/original...ns_2017_06.png
bears are listed as vulnerable by the IUCN....that classification has not changed...because their population has not decreased
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2019, 07:36 PM
 
Location: Central NJ and PA
5,069 posts, read 2,281,856 times
Reputation: 3932
Okay, here's something interesting I didn't know. There's some argument in the Hudson Bay area about the number of polar bears that are allowed to be harvested (hunted). Some Inuit say the increased number of attacks on humans by polar bears is an indication that there are too many bear (despite the population decreasing slightly in recent years). Then you have environmental groups who are critical of the Canadian government for not decreasing the number of bears that are allowed to be harvested because the numbers of bears are declining. Towns have had to implement various methods to deter bears, including moving them to other locations.


So how much of the population decline in that specific area is due to ice loss? We do know that that has an impact. But how many are removed and placed elsewhere, and how many are hunted? Do we know whether those numbers are included or removed when the total population for the area is counted?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2019, 07:39 PM
 
10,513 posts, read 5,171,947 times
Reputation: 14056
So this article appeared in the (snicker, heh heh) No Tricks Zone website, eh?

Which do I believe? Studies published in Nature or Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society that man-made climate change is proven and happening now, or do I believe what the climate deniers put out in the (ahem) No Tricks Zone?

LOL.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:12 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top