Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread

PsychicSykes wrote:Guarantee Cal ignores both of those posts.

Far from it. If Outrunner hoped to debunk my claims that Polar Bears and Emperor Penguins are 'doing just fine' then, regrettably, he has failed; his own evidence proves that not to be the case. In many ways his posts confirm my earlier statement that both Polar Bears and Emperor Penguin populations seem to be far healthier than previously claimed, if not yet proven to be on the up-and-up. I've yet to see any evidence that contradicts this. So, it was very helpful of him to gather the data (I thank him) and most satisfying to see it bears out the scenarios I had suggested. I know such factual data annoys climate zealots at the WWF intent on spreading on a message of doom and catastrophe, but if they can't use photos of sad-eyed Polar Bears to rattle the tin what can they use?

And btw I've certainly never claimed Polar Bear or Emperor Penguin population counts are 'settled science', so I'm not sure where he's coming from with that...

I'm on my way out so don't have the time to get into this in detail (and don't feel the need to as it'll be like banging my head against a wall) but I will make this point (requoting what I've already posted)

Prof. Derocher also said some details in the survey pointed to a bear population in trouble. For example, the survey identified 50 cubs, which are usually less than 10 months old, and 22 yearlings, roughly 22 months old. That’s nearly one-third the number required for a healthy population, he said. “This is a clear indication that this population is not sustaining itself in any way, shape, or form.”

A reduction in sea ice has been statistically linked to reduced stature and weight in polar bears and to lower survival rates of cubs

How can there being a third of the required numbers of cubs and yearlings needed to sustain a viable population mean that the polar bear situation is ok?

How can reduced stature and weight (and thereby overall health) and lower survival rates in cubs caused by a reduction in sea ice, mean that polar bears are ok?

Cal wrote:

PsychicSykes wrote:Guarantee Cal ignores both of those posts.

Far from it. If Outrunner hoped to debunk my claims that Polar Bears and Emperor Penguins are 'doing just fine' then, regrettably, he has failed; his own evidence proves that not to be the case. In many ways his posts confirm my earlier statement that both Polar Bears and Emperor Penguin populations seem to be far healthier than previously claimed, if not yet proven to be on the up-and-up. I've yet to see any evidence that contradicts this. So, it was very helpful of him to gather the data (I thank him) and most satisfying to see it bears out the scenarios I had suggested. I know such factual data annoys climate zealots at the WWF intent on spreading on a message of doom and catastrophe, but if they can't use photos of sad-eyed Polar Bears to rattle the tin what can they use?

And btw I've certainly never claimed Polar Bear or Emperor Penguin population counts are 'settled science', so I'm not sure where he's coming from with that...

Oh come off it Cal, simple stuff here. Essentially what has happened here is junk in = junk out, there was no clear indication of populations in the past so an accurate figure now still means there is no way of saying whether a accurate population figure is a positive or negative since you can't plot a trend from one data point (and previous data points have very wide error bars).

The only honest conclusion is we don't know based purely on population figures. Experts - as was highlighted on the previous page - are looking at other indicators like sub-populations and cub health and they are not wholly positive.

Slartibartfast wrote:Oh come off it Cal, simple stuff here.... The only honest conclusion is we don't know based purely on population figures.

Right, and I agree with that. But what we do know, beyond any doubt thanks to the excellent data now being used, is that earlier scare stories about 'endangered' Polar Bears was simply not true then and certainly not true now.

WWF wrote:Polar bears are classified as marine mammals because they spend most of their lives on the frozen Arctic sea ice. Males can weigh up to 1,430 pounds and grow as long as 10 feet in length. But only 20,000-25,000 of these powerful animals remain in the wild, and their survival is in jeopardy.

Ah, the WWF, and its careful use of alarmist language where absolutely no alarm is called for. That figure of 25,000 is an all-time high according to most experts. Far from being in jeopardy, Polar Bear numbers are amazingly robust.

WWF wrote:Climate change, which leads to the loss of Arctic sea ice, is the leading threat to polar bears. The survival of polar bears and the protection of their marine habitat are urgent issues for WWF and other conservationists.

Nowhere do they post any supporting evidence for this ridiculous claim. Just saying something is so seems to be enough for them to make it so. Why let the facts get in the way of a nice bit of pointless propaganda?

http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/fi ... rbear.html

Oh, and -

This year's ice extent is the highest since 2006 at this point in the year.

Temperatures in the Arctic remain well below freezing and should remain there through March. So, more ice should be added in the next few weeks. We are nearing the peak of sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere. Once April roles around, warmer temperatures will move north from the equator. That's when ice extent will begin its yearly decline toward mid-summer.

I bet you didn't expect to hear that, especially after the record melt a few years ago. Back in 2007, sea ice extent dropped to its lowest point in the satellite history. Since then, Arctic ice extent has increased.

Read more: http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/wea ... z1tjjOGjR5

Wow. You've completely missunderstood or ignored O's points, while at the same time cherry picking your missunderstood facts as evidence to support your initial unsubstansiated comments and holding others to a different burden of proof?

How very surprising.

Don't you ever get tired of being a ignorant c**t?

Hexx wrote:Don't you ever get tired of being a ignorant c**t?

No, but I'm fairly sure you must be exhausted.

I find your insessent vacuous wittering tiring, but your dealing with your inability to learn even small facts is hardly taxing.

It's far more draining watching you rudely and offensively ignore people's points to repost your debunked drival. Hopefully everyone else reports it as trolling too.

That's your problem. You think you're making a complex, challenging and detailed arguement - when it's less robust than a house of cards. As shown on every page of this thread.

Hexx, don't call people a banana split and stop abusing the report function.

Stop the repeated trolling and I'll stop reporting it.

Seems ideal.

Of course you could try and explain why Cal's repeated posts/content while ignoring all other counterpoints doesn't break something like this

Do not POST with the intention of drawing another USER into an argument, either overtly ("BAITING") or facetiously ("TROLLING").

Do not POST in a manner designed to wear down a USER, either aggressively ("SNIPING") or passive-aggressively ("STEALTH-TROLLING").

It's not trolling, it's a different opinion to your own. (and my own btw)

Please stop abusing the Report function and put Cal on ignore if he annoys you this much.

Seems ideal.

It's clearly 'Stealth Trolling' by Terms of Membership (Editted in above)

A difference in opinion isn't trolling or breaking your ToM.

But repeatidly fanatically repeating the same stuff again and again, ignoring all other posts disproving the repeated assertions (Check out this page) clearly is.

If you'd like to explain convincingly why that's wrong, I'll happily stop reporting.

And I won't ignore. Preaching reverence in ignorance and championing a closed minded approach should always been opposed. And I'm not the only one who does so in this thread.

It's not because he disagrees with my (or others) opinion - other people share his conclusion (in this thread), and everyone leaves them alone. Presenting I, or anyone else who thinks his a prize chump, as such isn't fair.

It's the manner of the message, not the message.

Albear wrote:Hexx, don't call people a banana split and stop abusing the report function.

Actually the "settled science" at the moment is that calling somebody a "banana split" is a term of endearment.

Moggy wrote:

Albear wrote:Hexx, don't call people a banana split and stop abusing the report function.

Actually the "settled science" at the moment is that calling somebody a "banana split" is a term of endearment.

I could have meant coot.

I guess you'll have to remain 'sceptical'.

Hexx wrote:It's clearly 'Stealth Trolling' by Terms of Membership (Editted in above)

A difference in opinion once is trolling. But repeatidly fanatically repeating the same stuff again and again ignoring all other posts disproving the repeated assertions (Check out this page). Clearly is.

If you'd like to explain why, I'll happily stop reporting.

Other's may agree, but I disagree. The above is up to everyone's own interpretation of what is trolling. Calling someone a banana split or reporting every message another member makes unfortunatly isn't.

Hexx wrote:And I won't ignore. Preaching reverence in ignorance and a closed minded approach should always been opposed. And I'm not the only one who does so

No issue with opposing, but you are the only one who is calling him a banana split and reporting all his posts. hence why I am asking you nicely to stop.

It's not because he disagrees with my opinion - other people share his conclusion (in this thread), and everryone leaves them alone. Presenting I, or anyone else who thinks his a prize chump, as such isn't fair.

It's the manner of the message, not the message.

I do not think anyone opposing Cal's opinion is a prize chump at all, as I also oppose his views. I do think people (you) calling him a banana split and reporting every message he posts are breaking multiple Forum rules though.

Hexx wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Albear wrote:Hexx, don't call people a banana split and stop abusing the report function.

Actually the "settled science" at the moment is that calling somebody a "banana split" is a term of endearment.

I could have meant coot.

I guess you'll have to remain 'sceptical'.

Reported.

Cal's persistent failure to take in any of the sound information thrown at him over the course of this thread may not break any rules, but by gum is it incredibly irritating.

Albear wrote:

Hexx wrote:It's clearly 'Stealth Trolling' by Terms of Membership (Editted in above)

A difference in opinion once is trolling. But repeatidly fanatically repeating the same stuff again and again ignoring all other posts disproving the repeated assertions (Check out this page). Clearly is.

If you'd like to explain why, I'll happily stop reporting.

I disagree. The above is up to everyone's own interpretation of what is trolling. Calling someone a banana split or reporting every message another member makes unfortunatly isn't.

How is repeating the message again and again depsite all opposing arguments anything other than:

"Do not POST in a manner designed to wear down a USER, either aggressively ("SNIPING") or passive-aggressively ("STEALTH-TROLLING")."

Go back and read the thread. Hell go back and read this very page from Outrunner and PsychicSykes.. Others describe the behaviour exactly the same. To pinch Moggy's joke, you could describe it as 'settled science'.

Tell you what how about we just get everyone to start reporting it rather than stubborn old me?

Alvin Flummux wrote:Cal's persistent failure to take in any of the sound information thrown at him over the course of this thread may not break any rules, but by gum is it incredibly irritating.

You're an incredible disappointment to me.

Hexx wrote:

Alvin Flummux wrote:Cal's persistent failure to take in any of the sound information thrown at him over the course of this thread may not break any rules, but by gum is it incredibly irritating.

You're an incredible disappointment to me.

I was going to report Cal, but now I won't.

Moggy wrote:

Hexx wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Albear wrote:Hexx, don't call people a banana split and stop abusing the report function.

Actually the "settled science" at the moment is that calling somebody a "banana split" is a term of endearment.

I could have meant coot.

I guess you'll have to remain 'sceptical'.

Reported.

Upheld, 2 month Ban.