Oh, please do read whatever tripe krellin posted this time... I have little doubt I've given the discerning audience all the tools it needs to ask the right questions.

YJ - when you want to behave like a mature adult, PM me. Until then I won't waste anyone's time feeding you. There isn't a person around here that respects you at the moment, so I won't do anything to further your presence here and subject the WebDIp community to your vulgarity and intellectually dishonest buffoonery.

See you later, coward.

Anyway, from the article:

"News like this leaves climate-change deniers crowing from the rooftops. But a closer look reveals that everything may not be quite so sunny. “Some populations appear to be doing OK now, but what’s frightening is what might happen in the very near future,” says wildlife biologist Lily Peacock, who has worked with polar bears for the Government of Nunavut and the U.S. Geological Survey. “All indications are that the future does not look bright.” While population trends might appear stable, she says, “we’re picking up declines in body condition that are really frightening.” Scientists have shown a direct correlation between warm years and skinny bears. Even more distressing, one study predicted that 40 to 73 percent of pregnant females could fail to deliver healthy cubs if ice breakup happens one month earlier than in the 1990s. Polar bears are long-lived animals that reproduce slowly; counting the number of animals that are alive today might not paint an accurate picture."

I think that about sums it up. Night.

ROFL read the discussion/conclusion section of what he just posted... haha +1 krellin, +1 old chum. One would have to be intensely stupid to think that this article supports anything but a consensus. But at least he got the peer review part right... read on... I posted the highlights


4. Discussion

Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situations where scientists '...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees'..... [] the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved to other topics.


5. conclusion:

The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).


In other words, we can safely establish that krellin is one of the 57% of ignoramuses this paper is talking about... Well played sir, well played.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWjeITmDmmo

Oh, and if that doesn't convince you, this should...

Now I want you all to realize exactly what just happened here....

after all the posturing....
after all the bullshitting....
after all the declamations and declarations...

you've just seen absolute proof that the man not only has no fucking clue what he's talking about, and not only is he even too stupid to identify an argument for the opposing side, but in fact is so overwhelmingly idiotic as to post it up *as if it were supporting his argument.*

What brilliance.

and, in conclusion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcC_fUnU9MM

Did I shame the fool into silence? Twice? On the same topic?

I'd +1 myself AGAIN if I could!

So, no response to the part of the article I quoted krellin? Lost interest?

A shame.

krellin deals with all kinds of adversity with a stiff upper lip, Thucy, never backing down no matter how obviously wrong he is. However, when he boners this big he totally implodes to hilarious effect.

I call it "kittenland-collapse," and it's a product of the cognitive dissonance produced when krellin is forced to reconcile particularly stupid actions with what he considers his perfect intellect.

Hey krellin just curious what you make of this part of the article, it's at the bottom of page 2 I believe:

"News like this leaves climate-change deniers crowing from the rooftops. But a closer look reveals that everything may not be quite so sunny. “Some populations appear to be doing OK now, but what’s frightening is what might happen in the very near future,” says wildlife biologist Lily Peacock, who has worked with polar bears for the Government of Nunavut and the U.S. Geological Survey. “All indications are that the future does not look bright.” While population trends might appear stable, she says, “we’re picking up declines in body condition that are really frightening.” Scientists have shown a direct correlation between warm years and skinny bears. Even more distressing, one study predicted that 40 to 73 percent of pregnant females could fail to deliver healthy cubs if ice breakup happens one month earlier than in the 1990s. Polar bears are long-lived animals that reproduce slowly; counting the number of animals that are alive today might not paint an accurate picture."

Thoughts?

doesn't that mean that the future IS sunny though

http://img.pandawhale.com/post-7669-Sliding-Larry-Bird-DEAL-WITH-I-8w0B.gif

Thucy -- first, in a story about *polar bears*, I accept the view of the polar bear expert, as admitted by the author, who says the polar bears will be just fine.

Polar bear expert: Polar bears will be just fine
Climate crisis pushers: Polar bears are doomed
Climate data: Global trend is *cooling* over the last 10 years
Climate crisis pushers: (ignore data...) Polar bears are doomed
Climate data: CO2 lags temp changes - your theory was wrong
Climate Crisis pushers: (ignore facts) Polar bears are doomed.

Does that answer your question, Thucy? I know you are a true believer, as well, and are impervious to facts and data, and will *always* fall victim to the hysterical hype...

So polar bears are affected by *cyclical* weather...no surprise there. What you fools fail to realize is that weather is cyclical...climate is cyclical...and the data demonstrates it, and history proves it.....but for some reason you have this near-religious belief in all thing chaos and doom...it's just another example of your entire mental make-up. There isnt' a topic discussed in which you don't cry that the sky is falling. You must truly be a miserable person, livinging terror...

ask him, Thucy, ask him how he knows these facts... it's better than laughing gas I swear.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

By the way, here's what actual SCIENTISTS have to say when presented with krellin's argument... I'll just pull the conclusion here..

To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:

- Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
- CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
- CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet


it's a good website that puts things into words even krellin could understand. Many (but sadly not all) of the links cite the research from which they are

---------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

addresses both false claims made above by herr Genius himself, that

a) the global trend is cooling, and that
b) C02 lags temperature changes.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

and also found a great quote applicable here, that addresses (b) quite well...

"Chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from them."

Still think you are qualified to have an opinion on this matter, old krelly?

@Krellin 'Polar bear expert: Polar bears will be just fine'

I think the expert said 'Polar bears are fine' - that they are NOT currently an endangered species. That is not the same as 'they will be fine, regardless of human activities'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL8x7LcA-Y4

To take the sting out of it, here is a video of a grizzly cub playing with a wolf pup.

@ORthaic -- he also said that in 2050 (or whatever date he used - I didn't go back and check) they will be fine.

The "the polar bears are dying" crowd says that during the warm season, this is when the polar bears have issues....implying, of course, that the continued, dire threat of global warming is going to kill the polar bears.

Well....since the last 10 years have shown global *cooling*, and there is no reason to suggest that we are suddenly going to reverse into global warming again, this claim - that the bears will and must die - is based upon a false assumption using a defunct and dying theory.

As for the other commentaries by various morons ... I pay them no credence, because their reading skills are sub-par, and their ability to offer any useful input is negligible. But if you wish to discuss, Orth, have at it....but again, since the whole premise (the bears are dying) is tied to the the idea of global warming, there probably isn't much point, as you will hold fast to your belief, I will hold fast to currently available data.

@Krellin, you said "he also said that in 2050 (or whatever date he used - I didn't go back and check) they will be fine."

I'm going on memory here, but i beleive he said that the 'the will be extinct by 2050' claim was bullcrap - and i guess you can derive that from, 'they're fine right now' -

The alternative view is, 'they are going extinct right now, and will be gone by 2050'.

Smartly he doesn't claim that they will be fine in 2050, because it's pretty hard to backup that claim.

I'm only picking you up on specifics (nit-picking) because that's all i can backup.

Also, on the 'bears are dying', what i got from the article was, 'we don't know' - our measures are fallible, our predictions suck (because we don't know what changing sea ice will do to their prey, if they will manage to relocate, or how they survived in the past - if that data is accurate)

That is, and let me be specific, even assuming the worst from global warming, we're not sure that the polar bears will go extinct - which isn't that surprising considering how frakking complex the relationship between life and environment it. (and i'd like to link a video about reintroducing wolves to yellowstone, and how it helped the river banks... but i can't for the life of me recall where it is)

And YES, the use of 'Polar Bears are Dying' on behalf of global warming politics is pure PR. Which doesn't mean it's bad science, it means we've got bad science communication. (and i suspect this article is an example of good science communication, so thanks for sharing)

hey krellin remember when you held fast to the currently available data of which your comprehension is sadly limited?

Orth, the expert **in no way** said polar bears are going extinct.

And again, I will reiterate (for the last time) that the *article* comes to a conclusion that is different than the conclusion of the individual the article points out as the foremost expert.

Thus...I choose ot believe the expert, particularly in light of the "they are going to die" claim being based *solely* on global warming trends...which have stopped...and reversed. It's difficult to make an assertion based upon a false claim - wouldn't you agree with that? ....just sayin'...

The Global Warming hysteria crowd is fabulous at making wild ass claims of doom and gloom...this is how they keep up the hysteria and...wait for it....keep the money rolling in (which they need to fly around the globe speaking at high dollar conferences on their CO2 emitting private jets....but that's another discussion altogether...) I have yet to see any claims of doom and gloom come to fruition, or else they would be being heralded from the tree tops. They aren't....coming true, or being heralded.

"Consider Mitch Taylor’s story. He spent more than two decades as a polar bear researcher and manager for the Nunavut government and has published around 50 peer-reviewed papers. That should garner widespread respect. But Taylor has been highly vocal about his belief that polar bears are mostly doing fine, that cub mortality varies from year to year and that the much ballyhooed predictions of extinction by 2050 are “a joke.” He also alleges that a lot of the “exaggerated decline” is just a way to keep certain scientists well funded and to transfer control of the polar bear issue from territorial to federal hands. In response, Taylor’s critics disinvited him from meetings of polar bear specialists that he’d been attending since 1978. They also like to point out that he’s a signatory of the Manhattan Declaration, which questions the very existence of climate change. But amidst all the heated charges and countercharges, it’s hard to argue the fact that few people know polar bears the way Taylor does. And while it might be inconvenient for current political posturing, there’s no denying that certain subpopulations of polar bears are managing to survive, even thrive."

@ Krellin:

I know I said I wouldn't return to this thread, but I just have to pick you up on something here. You said in response to Thucy's question:

"First, in a story about *polar bears*, I accept the view of the polar bear expert."

So, when it comes to polar bears, you're willing to accept the view of polar bear experts. BUT when it comes to climate science, you're not willing to accept the view of the vast majority of climate science experts?

Seems strange you'd apply the opposite logic in one case to the other.

Perhaps you are more willing accept the view of this particular expert because it suits your worldview to do so?

Just sayin' ...

@Krellin: you said: 'Orth, the expert **in no way** said polar bears are going extinct.'

I didn't imply he did.