Skip to comments.
Thin Polar Bears Called Sign of Global Warming
Environmental News Service ^
| 05/16/2002
Posted on 05/17/2002 8:45:25 AM PDT by cogitator
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-196 next last
To: VRWC_minion
21
posted on
05/17/2002 9:18:06 AM PDT
by
mikrofon
To: cogitator
For all of the doom & gloom I suggest that the tree huggers & peta people just have a "Jim Jones" koolaid party & end it for them. It's just toooo much stress on them.
22
posted on
05/17/2002 9:26:16 AM PDT
by
Digger
To: cogitator
Were talking 18 years a few bears and no alternatives considered like the body fat changes with the severity of winters, family traits, type of food eaten etc. How do we know his first sample weren't from a particulary fat family that could not run very fast and his initial sample was just ones that moved slower ?
Too many factors other than global warming.
To: cogitator
I just read in here yesterday that a chunk of ice named C-19 had broken off, and was a little smaller than the size of the Chesapeake Bay.
anyway...
Also in the article was a claim that the average temperature in the Arctic has never been lower than it is right now.
I'm so confused...
24
posted on
05/17/2002 9:27:37 AM PDT
by
SGCOS
To: cogitator
Maybe Liberals could go to court and force all of the fast food chains to air drop burgers and fries to the hungry Polar Bears!
To: cogitator
The difference between these claims and parody is now too small to measure.
26
posted on
05/17/2002 9:28:32 AM PDT
by
boris
To: cogitator
So a fatty diet of seals is good for bears, but if we want a double bacon cheeseburger at Wendy's our body-monitor NGOs are outraged. Will they ever make up their mind?
To: cogitator
"Eighty per cent of the adult bears in the Churchill area have been tranquillized, handled, tagged, tattooed, weighed and measured, had blood drawn, teeth checked, their behaviour and life history recorded, many more than once." Perhaps this tranquillizing and handling has hurt the bears health? You can't make measurements without effecting what is being measured.
28
posted on
05/17/2002 9:34:36 AM PDT
by
DrDavid
To: Jonah Hex
I'd like to see about 500 PETA-ites go to the Artic Circle with fresh veggies and feed the thin polar bears.
To: cogitator
"The WWF report shows that polar bears in Hudson Bay are being impacted by climate change," said Lynn Rosentrater Whose to argue with the World Wrestling Federation?
To: *Global Warming Hoax
Check the
Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.
To: cogitator
Increasing CO2 emissions have caused Arctic temperatures to rise by five degrees Celsius over the past 100 yearsIt boils my blood when they repeat such statements as proven facts. Maybe increased solar activity caused the increase. Maybe inaccurate thermometers caused the increase. Maybe the stove in their research station caused the increase. Maybe their imaginations caused the increase.
By around 2050, scientists now predict a 60 percent loss of summer sea ice
What kinds of scientists? How many scientists? What of the political agenda of these scientists? I'm a scientist of sorts and I predict a 60 percent increase of summer sea ice. I need one other scientist to agree with me so I can issue the opposite statement of theirs. Any takers?
To: boris
The difference between these claims and parody is now too small to measure.I hope you're planning on being around in a decade. I know I expect to be.
I predict that by 2012 a lot of these suggested trends will turn out to have been quite accurate predictors. It's kinda like the current situation about the harbingers of the September 11 attacks: there was a lot of suggestive evidence of what might happen, but nobody was able to put it together because it was too diverse. Nonetheless, when examined in retrospect, the potential for a major attack of some kind was obvious (despite the difficulty of recognizing the actual mode of attack and the targets).
There are a lot of indicators right now in the environment that do not tell us what is going to happen, but they all bode toward a worsening of the current situation. Borderline populations of organisms, i.e., those living closest to the "edge" of the conditions to which they are adapted, will be the most stressed by environmental change. Therefore, trends in those populations will be most indicative.
Thus, we shall see.
To: VRWC_minion
It is always possible to critique on the basis of incomplete knowledge of the data. I don't know the answers to your questions and whether or not the data is accurate or not. I only find information which pertains to the question you asked.
To: smokinleroy
Sure. Personally, I predict widespread glaciers in the lower 48. Why not go all the way?
These 'scientists' use computer modeling to predict the weather. They can't accurately and reliably tell me what the temperature will be in my hometown tomorrow...but they use the same computer modeling to predict the temperature on a global scale 100 years from now? Come on.
Just because 'everybody' thinks a certain way, doesn't make it true. Everybody thought that the world was flat, at one point in time.
Don't get me going on Global Warming.
35
posted on
05/17/2002 10:02:49 AM PDT
by
wbill
To: wbill
The proof of global warming is the finding of giraffes growing longer necks. This proves that trees are growing faster and all the good leaves are higher up which "selects the taller" (or fatter or whatever) giraffes for survival.
Tomorrow we will show how global warming makes turtle eggs hatch early and they miss the out going tide. /sarcasm
To: cogitator
I predict that by 2012 a lot of these suggested trends will turn out to have been quite accurate predictors. Oh please take me up on that. I have at least $10K I would put down against the wacko-environmentalist worst-worst-worst case computer similations being anywhere close to correct.
To: cogitator
Increasing CO2 emissions have caused Arctic temperatures to rise by five degrees Celsius over the past 100 years What is the sourse on that claim? That sounds like an outright lie.
To: cogitator
Next they will be reading sheep entrails...
39
posted on
05/17/2002 11:14:25 AM PDT
by
JasonC
To: wbill
Sure. Personally, I predict widespread glaciers in the lower 48. Why not go all the way? The "Lost Squadron" that ditched in southern Greenland in 1942 was found buried under 268 feet of ice in 1992. How can the glaciers be advancing even as the globe is warming? Hmmmmmmm?!?!?!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-196 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson