More Misleading From ExxonMobil

Status
Not open for further replies.
Has anyone in this thread actually said the climate mean surface temperatures haven't increased in the last 50 years or so?

No I don't think so.

The debate is really:

1) How much? 1° or 3°F seems to be the range.
2) What is the cause? Ranges from the USA is the only cause to all natural. Likely ChinaIndia growth combined with native fires and natural cycles.
3) What to do about it? From Al Gore turning us communist to actually have the Chinese make changes.
 
Quote:


MarkC - you are my friend and you try to come off as a friend of animals and knowledgeable on the subject. Fine. But have you read all the facts on the polar bears vs. what is in the popular press? Do the research, you might be surprised that they are not dieing off.




1. I'd love to observe a dinner table conversation between Pablo and Mark.
grin.gif


2. I think we all can confidently agree that nobody and nothing is "dieing off."
 
Tyrant,
I believe you are exactly correct. We have only been accurately measuring the earth temperature and weather for maybe the last two hundred years. Well, whats been happening for the previous million years? Ice ages, warming and cooling cycles, grapes in Greenland. Heck, there was a warming cycle about 500 years ago that brought Europe out of the dark ages.

A little bit of knowlege is a dangerous thing. We don't know nearly enough about this planet to say what exactly is happening and why.
 
Ice core studies have been done that give us temperature data for much more than two hundred years. These studies have also show a positive correlation between atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/

If scientists were only performing climate research in order to get funding, they would certainly be postulating that global warming is not occurring, as that would be the most likely hypothesis to receive funding under the current administration.
 
Congress provides the funds. I didn't say only - because researchers are driven by ideology and bias as much as money. My point is that what the press picks up as science is about the weight of a soup can and not even as large in circumference.
 
If this old planet is warming up......

future generations in the temperate zones better prepare for the expansion of disease vectors and the diseases those vectors spread to other critters and plants.

Look at the multitude of deadly diseases as one nears the equator. Prepare for those diseases to infest your neck o' the woods.

Malaria will be a threat along with a horde of other nasties just waiting to molest thee.

Gotta' expect various protozoa, bacteria, viri, parasites of all types and a bunch of other yucky things knocking at your door, wanting to feast upon and within you.

You, dear BITOGER, may be dinner for who knows what will come creeping northwar or southward, depending upon if ye atand upright upon the Earth (northern hemisphere) or are dangling from the bottom of the planet (southern hemisphere).

Oh.... okay, so thos crotchety old coot is "north-centric." Whatcha' gonna' do about it? Meet me at the bike rack after school and beat me up?

Nyah nyah nyah nah nah.... neener neener neener.

Whatever the case...... this writer, the Mighty Obbop, shanty-dwelling corpulent admirer of food, will assuredly cease cellular reproduction long before the apparent global warming leads to the spread of the horrors mentioned above.

Let the future worry about it I wail. Besides, with Murphy's Law always lurking upon the horizon, akin to a Pablo-type rock or a Rex-type lizard thing crawling through the pipe work, just as things really begin to "heat up" (note deft pun, kinda' clever in a juvenile way, right? RIGHT?!!!) I, the Mighty Obbop, would expect the sudden appearance of a 30-mile-wide nickel-iron meteor to impact the planet at 30,000 miles-per-second, thus rendering all concern about global warming null and void, along with the human species that could conceivably also become null and void.
 
Pablito,
If I'm biased in one direction, you're just as biased in the other. But that's okay. (At least I posted Fox's rebuttal)
I can't find any evidence that polar bear populations are increasing.
"According to a newly-published report by the World Conservation Union’s (IUCN) Polar Bear Specialist Group, the two best studied polar bear sub-populations in the world, the western Hudson Bay population in Canada, and the southern Beaufort Sea population (USA/Canada), have declined by 22 per cent and 17 per cent respectively over the past two decades" Of course, data from a group that actually studies bears is probably false, right?
I hope they are increasing, that would make me happy.
At least you're not denying that things are warming.
I don't know why Al Gore should be considered a Communist, but it's funny that people still bother to take swipes at him.
I stand by my agreement with data that Arctic ice has decreased drastically. Part of the warming may indeed be part of a natural cycle, but common sense should tell you that spweing forht all that we do isn't helping things.
I agree that India and China are poised to throw out even more in the near future unless things change.
 
I hope I have that article when I arrive in my domicile this evening. However, I'll need to exit shortly after arrival so maybe I can't post it until later PM. The writer guy was a Canadian researcher largely poo-pooing folks such as yourself and the newfound "love" for polar bears. I believe he mentions WHY those specific populations are declining percentagewise and why the overall number of polar bears is increasing. You need to watch your sources. The publishers of some of those websites are about as scientific as the research on the tiny men on Uranus.

Al Gore wants us to think one way, his way. And when we do, all our environmental (and other) problems will be solved. Pretty much ala communism. He sickens me with his slow monotone "talking down to us" speech and attitude. It seems to come part and parcel with the "solve global warming" crowd.
 
So, Al is different from other politicians in what way?
The Canadian government believes their population of polar bears is fairly stable. I believe the Alaska F&WF service has a similar opinion. But I still find nothing claiming the there are more bears being born than dying.
If the publisher of websites from people who are actually studying bears are not being scientific, what makes you assume the ones you find are, other than that they agree with what you wish to believe is true? This attitude has extended(not just, or even mainly from you)to pretty much anything from the theory of evolution, global climate change,religous beliefs, reasons for going to war or not, you name it. It's a trait that seems to be endemic to either side of any given discussion, and makes such discussions futile. If you can show me sources of actual studies( plural) with real numbers showing that can prove polar bears are getting more numerous, that will be great.
If you can likewise show satellite images, or other data that shows Arctic icecaps increasing in area, that'll also be great. Al has previously posted images showing a marked decrease. Maybe sea level isn't actually rising either?
Getting off on tangents about polar bears doesn't address those things. As for bears, data shows, unless you have some to the contrary, that they are not as large as they were a few decades ago. If Arctic ice packs break up and reced as they now appear to be doing, the bears will either adapt, finding new ways to make a living, or they will diminish.
BTW this bit about calling everybody who isn't a Republican a communist is tiresome.

Communism is:
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively.
Now what does Al Gore say about global warming that would fit into this?
Just the usual trick of namecalling to blow smoke and discredit a reputation, rather than address the issue.
 
I never said "everybody who isn't a Republican a communist" - Where did you pull that out of? Please find my quote on this.

As for Al he advocates 1a if factories/cars/people don't tow the line. and 1b with energy resources. Since you seem to be blind to his ways I just don't the way he talks down to people and the way he uses global warming as a platform for Al Gore.

As for Polar bears I didn't get an email of any type from the periodical, and have sent them another one.

Most of the sites don't actually do any real research at all. Borrow and concoct is not research. I agree this is not limited to one side of any argument.
 
That's not making him a commie. It's making him just like GWB, but on another topic.
As for data, I'll choose to consider that from actual wildlife biologists, climate scientists, geologists, etc. to be more reliable than that of people who havn't done any studies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom