Dr StrangeHarpper or: How I Learned to Stopped Worrying (About Global Warming) and Love CO2

[DJL 232]

brenthutch

Given their population growth it only makes sense that they expand their range.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/22/polar-bear-population-is-rising-despite-green-fears/

By the way the author of that article spreads his legs for anyone willing to pay him for GW skepticism articles. His stuff has been pasted here before and he lacks any credible sources. Please do actually look at his sources. The website he quotes is run by someone (Susan Crockford) who is on payroll with the Heartland Institute. The other sources are other articles regurgitating the same BS, not scientific sources. It's a blueprint fake-news cyclical sourcing method.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[brenthutch 388]

https://polarbearscience.com/2017/02/23/global-polar-bear-population-larger-than-previous-thought-almost-30000/

How about these guys?

[DJL 232]

brenthutch

https://polarbearscience.com/2017/02/23/global-polar-bear-population-larger-than-previous-thought-almost-30000/

How about these guys?

That is literally the website I quoted run by the woman who is on payroll from the Heartland Institute.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[brenthutch 388]

So if you don't agree with the politics of a think tank, organization or individual, they are automatically full of shit and their speech must be ignored, marginalized or, better yet, silenced?

[gowlerk 1,923]

brenthutch

Given their population growth it only makes sense that they expand their range.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/22/polar-bear-population-is-rising-despite-green-fears/

Generally, at this time of year they are on the pack ice hunting. These are inland sightings. I'm not sure why they are not on the ice, but it can't be good for them.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[gowlerk 1,923]

brenthutch

So if you don't agree with the politics of a think tank, organization or individual, they are automatically full of shit and their speech must be ignored, marginalized or, better yet, silenced?

It must be vetted by a credible source. Or it can't be trusted. Like cigarette companies claim knowledge of cancer. But you know that.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[brenthutch 388]

DJL

***https://polarbearscience.com/2017/02/23/global-polar-bear-population-larger-than-previous-thought-almost-30000/

How about these guys?

That is literally the website I quoted run by the woman who is on payroll from the Heartland Institute.

How about this?

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/international-polar-bear-day-sees-population-pops-27-despite-warming

[gowlerk 1,923]

brenthutch

******https://polarbearscience.com/2017/02/23/global-polar-bear-population-larger-than-previous-thought-almost-30000/

How about these guys?

That is literally the website I quoted run by the woman who is on payroll from the Heartland Institute.

How about this?

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/international-polar-bear-day-sees-population-pops-27-despite-warming

Uhgg.... no, that is a propaganda site.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[kallend 1,644]

brenthutch

Given their population growth it only makes sense that they expand their range.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/22/polar-bear-population-is-rising-despite-green-fears/

.

Ah, the Daily Caller; called out just yesterday by a scientist it claimed to have quoted, only he never said the things they claimed he said.

Another fake news site.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DJL 232]

brenthutch

So if you don't agree with the politics of a think tank, organization or individual, they are automatically full of shit and their speech must be ignored, marginalized or, better yet, silenced?

I also looked into her life and activities. She has a degree in canine evolution and archaeology, is a part-time professor and receives $750 dollars per month to publish material and give lectures for the Heartland Institute on her professional opinion that global warming is not man-made, etc, etc. Yes, I think she's full of shit. She's tied in with what we could call the GW Skeptic Industrial Complex. She by no means conducts independent research or publishes peer reviewed papers within any scientific community. Look at her books, they're laughable. One is a facts and fiction (and that's fine), the other is a coloring book, the other is something she calls Jaws featuring a Polar Bear.

https://susancrockford.com/non-fiction-titles/

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,426]

Quote

So if you don't agree with the politics of a think tank, organization or individual, they are automatically full of shit and their speech must be ignored, marginalized or, better yet, silenced?

Not at all! We shall take her as seriously as you take Al Gore.

[DJL 232]

brenthutch

******https://polarbearscience.com/2017/02/23/global-polar-bear-population-larger-than-previous-thought-almost-30000/

How about these guys?

That is literally the website I quoted run by the woman who is on payroll from the Heartland Institute.

How about this?

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/international-polar-bear-day-sees-population-pops-27-despite-warming


Um....did you even read it. It's quoting her as the source for the information. You couldn't have done worse to provide another article.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[brenthutch 388]

Ok how about NPR?

"My humble plan was to become a hero of the environmental movement. I was going to go up to the Canadian Arctic, I was going to write this mournful elegy for the polar bears, at which point I'd be hailed as the next coming of John Muir and borne aloft on the shoulders of my environmental compatriots ...

"So when I got up there, I started realizing polar bears were not in as bad a shape as the conventional wisdom had led me to believe, which was actually very heartening, but didn't fit well with the book I'd been planning to write.

"... There are far more polar bears alive today than there were 40 years ago. ..."

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/02/170779528/the-inconvenient-truth-about-polar-bears

[airdvr 198]

On a related note...

Tesla Model 3 average sale price and budget to be closer to $50,000 based on latest data from reservation holders

https://electrek.co/2017/04/06/tesla-model-3-average-sale-price-data/

Wonder who much it will be once he's kicked off the government tit.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[DJL 232]

brenthutch

Ok how about NPR?

"My humble plan was to become a hero of the environmental movement. I was going to go up to the Canadian Arctic, I was going to write this mournful elegy for the polar bears, at which point I'd be hailed as the next coming of John Muir and borne aloft on the shoulders of my environmental compatriots ...

"So when I got up there, I started realizing polar bears were not in as bad a shape as the conventional wisdom had led me to believe, which was actually very heartening, but didn't fit well with the book I'd been planning to write.

"... There are far more polar bears alive today than there were 40 years ago. ..."

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/02/170779528/the-inconvenient-truth-about-polar-bears

Yes! There are more bears alive today than there were 40 years ago.......when the Marine Mammal Protection Act and and the 1973 Internation Agreement on the Conservation of Polar bears went into affect. Go figure. Looks like we're getting somewhere.

What's the next question?

As posed in your article " This is not to say that global warming is not real or is not a problem for the polar bears. But polar bear populations are large, and the truth is that we can't look at it as a monolithic population that is all going one way or another."

This is consistent with the Endandered Species Act which lists them as "Threatened" because of the loss of sea ice. But who knows maybe that woman's shitty book will come true where the polar bears leave the arctic and thrive by feeding on humans.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[gowlerk 1,923]

OK, polar bears are not thermometers and their population levels do not rise and fall with the temperature OR co2 levels. This whole thing with them comes from the fact that the ones living in and around Hudson Bay are having a hard time. This IS due to a shorter feeding period on the bay due to a shorter ice period. This is the most accessible population of them, and it's where you go to see them if you are a tourist and have money you want to blow on doing so.

The overall population of polar bears is not currently in danger. The ones near Churchill MB suck up all the attention.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[brenthutch 388]

There are more polar bears today then there were ten years ago.

You guys crack me up. You deny the facts until I cite a left leaning source.

You attack the messager because you can't refute the message.

[gowlerk 1,923]

brenthutch

There are more polar bears today then ther were ten years ago.

Yeah? So what?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[SkyDekker 1,141]

brenthutch

There are more polar bears today then there were ten years ago.

You guys crack me up. You deny the facts until I cite a left leaning source.

You attack the messager because you can't refute the message.

Who is denying there are more polar bears now than 10 years ago?

There are more Somalis than 10 years ago too. Somalia must be in great shape.

[DJL 232]

brenthutch

There are more polar bears today then there were ten years ago.

You guys crack me up. You deny the facts until I cite a left leaning source.

You attack the messager because you can't refute the message.

I'm not sure what point we're trying to get to. The polar bear population has been on a rise for the last 40 years, they are considered a threatened species and may begin to lose numbers because of the loss of sea ice. That's where that lays.

As for sources, you start posting articles about Polar Bears concentrated in a certain area written by someone promoting a book about Polar Bears attacking people who is a paid propagandist again global warming and yes...we're going to have something to say about that. You then post from a source that is trusted (oh, god forbid, it's NPR -we knew where you were going with that, btw) and it's in line with scientific consensus and you're not going to get any push back.

Just stop posting from garbage sources. You kept posting stuff that literally was only using its self as a source.

And what the fuck with that lady anyway, the author of Jaws is very vocal that he wish he never wrote that book because it created a paranoia against sharks resulting in widespread shark fishing and hunting. Why would anyone who has supposedly spent their life studying an animal want to create the same atmosphere for that animal?

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[airdvr 198]

Quote

The polar bear population has been on a rise for the last 40 years, they are considered a threatened species and may begin to lose numbers because of the loss of sea ice. That's where that lays.

This is why alot of people don't trust AGW. Your statement could be said about any subject. Human population has been on the rise but we are considered a threatened species because of Global Thermonuclear War.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Phil1111 913]

DJL

***There are more polar bears today then there were ten years ago.

You guys crack me up. You deny the facts until I cite a left leaning source.

You attack the messager because you can't refute the message.

I'm not sure what point we're trying to get to. The polar bear population has been on a rise for the last 40 years, they are considered a threatened species and may begin to lose numbers because of the loss of sea ice. That's where that lays.

As for sources, you start posting articles about Polar Bears concentrated in a certain area written by someone promoting a book about Polar Bears attacking people who is a paid propagandist again global warming and yes...we're going to have something to say about that. You then post from a source that is trusted (oh, god forbid, it's NPR -we knew where you were going with that, btw) and it's in line with scientific consensus and you're not going to get any push back.

Just stop posting from garbage sources. You kept posting stuff that literally was only using its self as a source.

And what the fuck with that lady anyway, the author of Jaws is very vocal that he wish he never wrote that book because it created a paranoia against sharks resulting in widespread shark fishing and hunting. Why would anyone who has supposedly spent their life studying an animal want to create the same atmosphere for that animal?

Completely correct. Brent is down to grasping at straws from the far corners of the interwebs. He sours every website for any scrap of false-fact or statement that can help him. I even applaud his enthusiasm. But as usual his posts and references miss the mark.

"No means no, a federal appeals court has decided. No pelts. No heads. No claws. No fur rugs. Polar bear trophies may not be imported to the United States from Canada, even if hunted there legally.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided on June 18 that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) correctly enforced provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) when it denied hunters the necessary import permits for polar bear trophies from Canada to the U.S."
http://www.care2.com/causes/no-polar-bear-trophy-imports-to-u-s-says-federal-court.html

US hunters are the only substantial hunting force on the populations of polar bears. The northern Canadian Eskimo(Inuit) communities have been devastated by this ruling. Ten thousand dollars flowed to each community for every bear hunted by a US hunter, prior to this ruling.

[DJL 232]

airdvr

Quote

The polar bear population has been on a rise for the last 40 years, they are considered a threatened species and may begin to lose numbers because of the loss of sea ice. That's where that lays.

This is why alot of people don't trust AGW. Your statement could be said about any subject. Human population has been on the rise but we are considered a threatened species because of Global Thermonuclear War.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, that's a fairly disjointed statement. Most professionals in the field of polar bear study state that they risk habitat loss because of the loss of sea ice which may cause their numbers to dwindle. Polar Bears ARE listed as threatened because of that. Loss of Artic sea ice isn't theoretical, it's already happened. The discussion of global warming vs AGW has nothing to do with that reality.

As a nuke war, well, at least when I woke up yesterday I didn't see that as a real threat.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[brenthutch 388]

The increase in the polar bear population is just one of a long list of failed predictions by global warming alarmist.
They predicted fewer polar bears, we have more. They predicted more hurricanes, we have fewer. They predicted less food production, we have more. They predicted desertification, we got global greening. They predicted more floods, droughts, wildfires, tropical disease, tornadoes, severe storms... there is no statistically significant change. I could go on and on but you get. The point....I hope.

[Phil1111 913]

brenthutch

The increase in the polar bear population is just one of a long list of failed predictions by global warming alarmist.
They predicted fewer polar bears, we have more. They predicted more hurricanes, we have fewer. They predicted less food production, we have more. They predicted desertification, we got global greening. They predicted more floods, droughts, wildfires, tropical disease, tornadoes, severe storms... there is no statistically significant change. I could go on and on but you get. The point....I hope.

"We are seeing similar warning signals as in 2011 when more than 260,000 people died during the famine in Somalia," said Karl-Otto Zentel, secretary general of the relief organization CARE (Germany-Luxemburg). At the time, aid workers raised the alarm months in advance but the international community failed to act.

"We must not wait again until we see pictures of dying children," he added.

From the Horn of Africa to the Cape of Good Hope, drought continues to impact the east coast of Africa. According to the United Nations, at least 12 million people in the region are now dependent on humanitarian aid. In Kenya, Somalia and Ethiopia, the drought has been particularly severe mainly because of the El Nino weather phenomenon. It has caused extreme weather meaning that rainy seasons did not materialize which devastated crops.

According to the UN World Food Program's Chief Economist Arif Husain, the global humanitarian system is already struggling with a historic surge in migration plus huge operations in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. It also faces precarious situations in Ukraine, Burundi, Libya and Zimbabwe.

"It's almost overwhelming to comprehend that in the 21st century people are still experiencing famines of such magnitude. We're talking about 20 million people, and all this within the next six months, or now," he told Reuters.
http://www.dw.com/en/up-to-20-million-threatened-by-drought-in-eastern-africa/a-37580220