thoughts on global warming

Guys, let's stay on topic please.

Quote from: Uncle Nasty on July 20, 2009, 01:37:24 PM

Quote from: Raist on July 19, 2009, 05:04:39 AM

Quote from: divito the truthist on July 19, 2009, 04:59:12 AM

I think Raist has gotten his hands on some Sokarul juice lately.

Raist is 10x better than sokarul in every way and has done it since sokarul was still attempting to troll youtube.

Uncle Nasty asks why Raist is speaking in third person.

Hello sokarul, how was your vacassion?

So now you think I'm this Sokarul dude? God Damnit.

Jack has already warned you to drop this and stay on topic from now on. Anymore off-topic posting and I'll lock the thread and possibly suspend you.

Jack has already warned you to drop this and stay on topic from now on. Anymore off-topic posting and I'll lock the thread and possibly suspend you.

well I didn't see jack's post. Anyways, the topic of Global Warming has gotten very twistred around. Did you know that the last year that the earth was actually recorded as having a higher than normal temperature was 1999? If you listen to the media now they call it "Climate Change". I saw a commercial the other day that called for the protection of Polar Bears because they're supposedly becoming an endangered species, when in fact their numbers have never been higher. People also claim that the ice at the polar caps is melting. Also not true. It is spreading. Everybody treats the media as fact, which leads to disinformation and sometimes panic over nothing.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 21, 2009, 08:49:02 AM

Jack has already warned you to drop this and stay on topic from now on. Anymore off-topic posting and I'll lock the thread and possibly suspend you.

well I didn't see jack's post. Anyways, the topic of Global Warming has gotten very twistred around. Did you know that the last year that the earth was actually recorded as having a higher than normal temperature was 1999? If you listen to the media now they call it "Climate Change". I saw a commercial the other day that called for the protection of Polar Bears because they're supposedly becoming an endangered species, when in fact their numbers have never been higher. People also claim that the ice at the polar caps is melting. Also not true. It is spreading. Everybody treats the media as fact, which leads to disinformation and sometimes panic over nothing.

What's your source for this information about polar bears?

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/

The main threat to polar bears today is the loss of their icy habitat due to climate change. Polar bears depend on the sea ice for hunting, breeding, and in some cases to den. The summer ice loss in the Arctic is now equal to an area the size of Alaska, Texas, and the state of Washington combined.

In areas where long-term studies are available, populations are showing signs of stress due to shrinking sea ice. Canada's Western Hudson Bay population has dropped 22% since the early 1980s. The declines have been directly linked to an earlier ice break-up on Hudson Bay.

A long-term study of the Southern Beaufort Sea population, which spans the northern coast of Alaska and western Canada, has revealed a decline in cub survival rates and in the weight and skull size of adult males. Such declines were observed in Western Hudson Bay bears prior to the population drop there.

Another population listed as declining is Baffin Bay. According to the most recent report from the Polar Bear Specialist Group, this population, shared by Greenland and Canada, may simultaneously be suffering from significant sea ice loss and substantial over-harvesting, putting the population at great risk of a serious decline.

Similarly, the Chukchi Sea population, which is shared by Russia and the United States, is likely declining due to illegal harvest in Russia and one of the highest rates of sea ice loss in the Arctic.

Some Native communities in Canada have been reporting increasing numbers of polar bears on land. Traditional hunters believe this indicates an increased population, although the increased presence on land may, in fact, be related to shrinking sea ice and changes in the bears' distribution patterns. Data is needed to understand the change. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service states, "In the declining polar bear population of Canada's Western Hudson Bay, extensive scientific studies have indicated that the increased observation of bears on land is a result of changing distribution patterns and a result of changes in the accessibility of sea ice habitat."

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/numbers/

The Western Hudson Bay population has dropped by 22% since 1987. The Southern Beaufort Sea bears are showing the same signs of stress the Western Hudson Bay bears did before they crashed, including smaller adults and fewer yearling bears.

At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision. (The number of declining populations has increased from five at the group's 2005 meeting.)

Some members of the press take advantage of the complexity by stating that "polar bears are not in trouble?their numbers have doubled since the 1960s." That's a disingenuous statement, of course. It is true that polar bear populations rebounded after over-hunting was restricted, but that situation has nothing to do with the threat polar bears now face: the loss of the sea ice habitat essential to their survival.

that website is probably run by some tree hugging vegans. You don't think their information is biased?

that website is probably run by some tree hugging vegans. You don't think their information is biased?

Well, that's why I started my post by asking what your source is.  Mine seems reputable enough, although it's clearly liberal; it's hard to deny facts though.  Is yours politically neutral?  What facts are cited to back their conclusions up?

Quote from: Uncle Nasty on July 21, 2009, 11:09:35 AM

that website is probably run by some tree hugging vegans. You don't think their information is biased?

Well, that's why I started my post by asking what your source is.  Mine seems reputable enough, although it's clearly liberal; it's hard to deny facts though.  Is yours politically neutral?  What facts are cited to back their conclusions up?

Politically neutral? When it comes to people, you have two types. you have the extremist vegetarian tree-huggers who would rather see people die than animals. And you have everyone else who don't care whether or not animals die. Which group do you think is most likely to over exaggerate? the truth is that when it comes to people who just don't care, they have no reason to lie. i am a part of group 2, and  i have no bias. i'm not against tree huggers. I'm not against polar bears. I'm not against anything in this area. But i am against people lying about shit.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 21, 2009, 11:14:48 AM

Quote from: Uncle Nasty on July 21, 2009, 11:09:35 AM

that website is probably run by some tree hugging vegans. You don't think their information is biased?

Well, that's why I started my post by asking what your source is.  Mine seems reputable enough, although it's clearly liberal; it's hard to deny facts though.  Is yours politically neutral?  What facts are cited to back their conclusions up?

Politically neutral? When it comes to people, you have two types. you have the extremist vegetarian tree-huggers who would rather see people die than animals. And you have everyone else who don't care whether or not animals die. Which group do you think is most likely to over exaggerate?

I take it you can't back up your opinions with facts then?  Oh well; can't say I'm surprised.  It was nice "debating" with you.

Quote from: Uncle Nasty on July 21, 2009, 12:00:03 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 21, 2009, 11:14:48 AM

Quote from: Uncle Nasty on July 21, 2009, 11:09:35 AM

that website is probably run by some tree hugging vegans. You don't think their information is biased?

Well, that's why I started my post by asking what your source is.  Mine seems reputable enough, although it's clearly liberal; it's hard to deny facts though.  Is yours politically neutral?  What facts are cited to back their conclusions up?

Politically neutral? When it comes to people, you have two types. you have the extremist vegetarian tree-huggers who would rather see people die than animals. And you have everyone else who don't care whether or not animals die. Which group do you think is most likely to over exaggerate?

I take it you can't back up your opinions with facts then?  Oh well; can't say I'm surprised.  It was nice "debating" with you.

WE ARE ON A WEBSITE CALLED THE FLAT EARTH SOCIETY. Are you so stupid as to want to debate here? haha!

Politically neutral? When it comes to people, you have two types. you have the extremist vegetarian tree-huggers who would rather see people die than animals. And you have everyone else who don't care whether or not animals die. Which group do you think is most likely to over exaggerate? the truth is that when it comes to people who just don't care, they have no reason to lie. i am a part of group 2, and  i have no bias. i'm not against tree huggers. I'm not against polar bears. I'm not against anything in this area. But i am against people lying about shit.

You just hit a nerve with me, because I see this all too often.
They are only labeled as tree-hugging extremists by the uninformed, and the public that lives in denial twists the perception of their views so that they don't have to consider them reliable. It works too because the rest of the public wants to hear exactly that so convincing others as well as themselves is easy. Facts are facts, and the people who actually investigate them hold an almost perfect consensus.
Saying that they all don't give a shit about humans and they unconditionally care about animals is a blatant lie that was purported and repeated as if it was a reality. I know over 7 professors at my college who work in the field studying these problems firsthand and not one of them comes close to fitting that description. Giving them that description is just a way to ignore their message. Denying global warming is a lot easier and less stressful than trying to fix it.

You cannot exaggerate the things like the surface area of glacial landmasses without your numbers being closely examined and nitpicked. Lastly, it is in mankind's best interest to report these startling facts about global warming, not necessarily local animals.

I agree with soze it is in our best interest to stop global warming. believe it our not we have a few city's near the coast. if the water level goes up enough because of global warming a lot of people will be forced out of there homes. and frankly I don't want to deal with a bunch of refugees in my area.

According to some Harvard scientists, if we painted the highways and our roofs white, it would be the same as taking all the cars off the road for 10 years. Basically it would buy us some time, something we need very much. It would have 0 cost if we just did it as normal roof replacement.