Xtra Smileys
Flame Damnation
May 24, 2024, 01:57:57 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Login Register  
Post reply
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Message icon:
BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough|GlowShadowMarquee|Preformatted TextLeft AlignCenteredRight Align|Horizontal Rule|Font SizeFont Face
Insert FlashInsert ImageInsert HyperlinkInsert EmailInsert FTP Link|Insert TableInsert Table RowInsert Table Column|SuperscriptSubscriptTeletype|Insert CodeInsert Quote|Insert List
Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh? Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry Evil Azn Afro [more]
+ Additional Options...

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Topic Summary
Posted on: July 02, 2009, 12:00:32 am
Posted by: caskur
Can this global warming horseshit get any more farcical than this?

Mitchell Taylor, who has studied the animals for 30 years, was told his views 'are extremely unhelpful’ , reveals Christopher Booker.

According to the world?s leading expert on polar bears, their numbers are higher than they were 30 years ago Photo: AP
Over the coming days a curiously revealing event will be taking place in Copenhagen. Top of the agenda at a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission) will be the need to produce a suitably scary report on how polar bears are being threatened with extinction by man-made global warming.

This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN's major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December. But one of the world's leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week's meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group.

Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.

Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.

He has also observed, however, how the melting of Arctic ice, supposedly threatening the survival of the bears, has rocketed to the top of the warmists' agenda as their most iconic single cause. The famous photograph of two bears standing forlornly on a melting iceberg was produced thousands of times by Al Gore, the WWF and others as an emblem of how the bears faced extinction – until last year the photographer, Amanda Byrd, revealed that the bears, just off the Alaska coast, were in no danger. Her picture had nothing to do with global warming and was only taken because the wind-sculpted ice they were standing on made such a striking image.

Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week's meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor's, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: "it was the position you've taken on global warming that brought opposition".

Dr Taylor was told that his views running "counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful". His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents – was "inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG".

So, as the great Copenhagen bandwagon rolls on, stand by this week for reports along the lines of "scientists say polar bears are threatened with extinction by vanishing Arctic ice". But also check out Anthony Watt's Watts Up With That website for the latest news of what is actually happening in the Arctic. The average temperature at midsummer is still below zero, the latest date that this has happened in 50 years of record-keeping. After last year's recovery from its September 2007 low, this year's ice melt is likely to be substantially less than for some time. The bears are doing fine.

Posted on: June 21, 2009, 10:12:33 am
Posted by: caskur
...says caskur

Says your posts to caskur.

Have you thought of trying another hobby Icy?

You could always try pinning dead insects on display boards.

Posted on: June 19, 2009, 02:20:16 am
Posted by: icy
...says caskur
Posted on: June 18, 2009, 03:25:18 pm
Posted by: caskur
That's what I'm talkin about!

No one can decipher what you are talking about, your nose is always sniffing around caskur’s butt.
Posted on: June 18, 2009, 01:58:55 am
Posted by: icy
That's what I'm talkin about!
Posted on: June 17, 2009, 03:29:08 pm
Posted by: caskur
The land drops and the sea level stays the same.

What most folks aren't told is that melting ice will not cause the sea levels to rise and they're misinformed.

If you fill a glass with water and ice, and the ice melts, the water stays at the same level. It doesn't rise at all.

Good points made from that opinionist. That should be posted around. People want information. They don't want to be ignorant about what is happening and the governments are sending mixed messages.

Too bad this section on debate hasn't taken off.

We should get some more posters in this section.
Posted on: June 17, 2009, 02:45:02 pm
Posted by: Outlawed
I found this comment on a site and thought it needed sharing.

17 Jun 2009 3:37:27pm

Kellie, you need to do more of your own research, especially where you quote other sources.

The "rising sea and eroding beaches caused the recent forced displacement of the people of the Carteret Islands, about 70 miles northeast of Papua New Guinea" that you quote from the Washington Times is not correct.

The Carteret Islanders are economic refugees. They occupied a low-lying atoll long subjected to tropical cyclones and storm surges. They experienced overcrowding in the 1930s, and severe food shortages since the 1960s. The food shortages were a result, in part, of international fishers occupying their traditional fishing grounds, and the practice of dynamite fishing, which destroys the fringing coral reefs that help protect the atoll from sea erosion. The erosion allowed salty seawater to penetrate the freshwater-based gardens in which they once grew taro, their staple crop. To counteract this the islanders attempted to build a sea wall and plant mangroves, to little effect. In other words they could no longer support themselves on the atoll and have been moved to the PNG mainland, not through rising sea levels but as a result of their own actions.

The sea level rise in the vicinity of the Carterets is measured in mere millimetres, and may well be a result of slow atoll subsidence (a known dynamic of atoll systems). The Carteret Islands example has been used many times before as an example of rising sea levels and is wrong.

Ditto, the Maldives in the Indian Ocean. On overcrowded atolls, such as the Maldives, the only building material is coral, dynamited from the coral reefs that protect the atoll from sea erosion, resulting in inundation and seawater flooding.
Bookmark this site!
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy