• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Snowfalls Are Now Just A Thing Of The Past

LOL, to be unaware must be terrific. The bears are starving, as their sea ice continues to shrink every year.

Evidence of warming can be even be found locally, as the glaciers of Oregon and Washington's Cascade mountain ranges, continue to shrink (other glaciers globally, as well ) https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/big-thaw/.

No, the bears are not starving.


[h=1]Starving polar bears are the fake news face of climate change[/h]By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website. Summary: Climate activists have made polar bears “the face of climate change.” This week we see how they have done so: with fake news. That they do so instead of relying on science tells us much about them — and why they have achieved so few policy…

December 11, 2017 in Polarbeargate.


About polar bears and science on the front lines of the global warming debate.

By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website, . Summary: Today’s post reviews a book about applied climate science, discussing polar bears — poster animals for the effects of global warming. It tells the rest of the story, the good news seldom mentioned by the news media. It’s well worth reading. Review of Susan Crockford’s…

October 10, 2017 in Climate News.
Fat polar bears [and lots of them] drive public confidence in future of the species

From Polar Bear Science What is causing the death of the polar bear as a climate change icon? Fat bears are part of it, but mostly it’s the fact that polar bear numbers haven’t declined as predicted. Western Hudson Bay polar bears around Churchill, Manitoba appear mostly in good shape this summer despite the very…
 
No, the bears are not starving.


[h=1]Starving polar bears are the fake news face of climate change[/h]By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website. Summary: Climate activists have made polar bears “the face of climate change.” This week we see how they have done so: with fake news. That they do so instead of relying on science tells us much about them — and why they have achieved so few policy…

December 11, 2017 in Polarbeargate.


About polar bears and science on the front lines of the global warming debate.

By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website, . Summary: Today’s post reviews a book about applied climate science, discussing polar bears — poster animals for the effects of global warming. It tells the rest of the story, the good news seldom mentioned by the news media. It’s well worth reading. Review of Susan Crockford’s…

October 10, 2017 in Climate News.
Fat polar bears [and lots of them] drive public confidence in future of the species

From Polar Bear Science What is causing the death of the polar bear as a climate change icon? Fat bears are part of it, but mostly it’s the fact that polar bear numbers haven’t declined as predicted. Western Hudson Bay polar bears around Churchill, Manitoba appear mostly in good shape this summer despite the very…

According to scientists who actually study them (as opposed to ones that just write blogs about them), they're in trouble.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6375/568

Abstract
Regional declines in polar bear (Ursus maritimus) populations have been attributed to changing sea ice conditions, but with limited information on the causative mechanisms. By simultaneously measuring field metabolic rates, daily activity patterns, body condition, and foraging success of polar bears moving on the spring sea ice, we found that high metabolic rates (1.6 times greater than previously assumed) coupled with low intake of fat-rich marine mammal prey resulted in an energy deficit for more than half of the bears examined. Activity and movement on the sea ice strongly influenced metabolic demands. Consequently, increases in mobility resulting from ongoing and forecasted declines in and fragmentation of sea ice are likely to increase energy demands and may be an important factor explaining observed declines in body condition and survival.


Since I know science isnt your thing, though, heres a USA today story.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...polar-bears-go-hungry-study-finds/1087662001/
 
Last edited:
According to scientists who actually study them (as opposed to ones that just write blogs about them), they're in trouble.

High-energy, high-fat lifestyle challenges an Arctic apex predator, the polar bear | Science

Since I know science isnt your thing, though, heres a USA today story.

Climate change is making polar bears go hungry, study finds

From the abstract, just a bunch of suppositions. Trying to keep an unsubstantiated thesis alive to protect their reputations.


Polar bear alarmists double-down on message of future starving bears

It seems thicker sea ice in the region was the cause, but they ignore that fact. By Dr. Susan Crockford The really significant content of a new paper being heavily-hyped by the media1 is what wasn’t said rather than what the authors discovered about metabolic rates and weight maintenance of a small sample of nine Southern…


 
Last edited:
LOL, to be unaware must be terrific. The bears are starving, as their sea ice continues to shrink every year.

Evidence of warming can be even be found locally, as the glaciers of Oregon and Washington's Cascade mountain ranges, continue to shrink (other glaciers globally, as well ) https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/big-thaw/.

Let begin by dispelling trainloads of ignorance.

1) Ursus is the species. Polar Bears are not a separate breeding species anymore than African humans are from European humans. Polar bears, Grizzly bears, and Brown bears are simply regional adaptations of the same breeding species; like humans, bears prefer to mate with their own kind.

2) Until the enviro-wackos adopted the cuddly polar bear (possibly drinking a coca-cola) as their "global warming" icon. The US, Canadian, and Siberian population were hunted without limit. This changed when one eco-freak touring ship (running on lot of oil) visited the arctic to find ONE dead polar bear floating in the water (hint: bears die of natural causes too). It was then theorized by a eco-freak tour guide crackpot "scientist" that global warming is killing the polar bears. Upon checking with both the US and Canadian polar bear monitoring officials I found that both polar populations were on the increase at the time "global warming" was now presumably "destroying" them. Nonetheless, in order to make the theory sound plausible, these dishonest politicians decided that they really had to make the polar bear sound "threatened" even though it wasn't and isn't

3) Now "Europeans" can only kill polar bears for fun after paying Inuits for the privilege of doing so. Pay and shoot away is the operative mode now

Hunting Polar Bear in The Arctic - Canada North Outfitting


4) Mountain glaciers have been steadily and slowly shrinking since end of the last glacial maximum about 12,000 years ago. (SUVs did not cause this). Captain James Cook visited Glacier Bay in Alaska in 1778 and mapped the extent of the glaciers whom the native Inuits had told him had used to reach the entrance to the bay in their grandparents memory. At the time Captain Cook visited in 1778 it had already retreated some 40 miles from the bay's entrance . The naturalist John Muir revisited Glacier Bay 110 years later in 1888 and noted that the glaciers had retreated an additional 44 miles from the time Captain Cook mapped them. Neither Captain Cook nor John Muir were driving SUVs and glacial retreat is NOT caused by "man's evil doings"

5) Antarctica contains 93.2% of the world's ice. Greenland's ice holds another 6.2% and the rest of the worlds glaciers less them 0.6%. (ie almost meaningless) Both Antarctica and Greenland have POSITIVE Surface Mass Budgets or SMBs (SMB is positive when annual snow and ice accumulation exceeds annual melt)


Seek deprogramming, you have been brainwashed.
 
Last edited:
Let begin by dispelling trainloads of ignorance.

1) Ursus is the species. Polar Bears are not a separate breeding species anymore than African humans are from European humans. Polar bears, Grizzly bears, and Brown bears are simply regional adaptations of the same breeding species; like humans, bears prefer to mate with their own kind.

2) Until the enviro-wackos adopted the cuddly polar bear (possibly drinking a coca-cola) as their "global warming" icon. The US, Canadian, and Siberian population were hunted without limit. This changed when one eco-freak touring ship (running on lot of oil) visited the arctic to find ONE dead polar bear floating in the water (hint: bears die of natural causes too). It was then theorized by a eco-freak tour guide crackpot "scientist" that global warming is killing the polar bears. Upon checking with both the US and Canadian polar bear monitoring officials I found that both polar populations were on the increase at the time "global warming" was presumably was somehow now destroying them. Nonetheless in order to make the theory sound plausible, the dishonest politicians decided that they really had to make the polar bear sound "threatened" even though it isn't

3) Now "Europeans" can only kill polar bears for fun after paying Inuits for the privilege of doing so. Pay and shoot away is the operative mode now

Hunting Polar Bear in The Arctic - Canada North Outfitting


4) Mountain glaciers have been steadily and slowly shrinking since end of

5) The last glacial maximum ended about 12,000 years ago. (SUVs did not cause this) Captain James Cook visited Glacier Bay in Alaska in 1778 and mapped the extent of the glaciers whom the native Inuits had told him had used to reach the entrance to the bay in their grandparents memory. At the time Captain Cook visited in 1778 it had already retreated some 40 miles from the bay's entrance . The naturalist John Muir revisited Glacier Bay 110 years later in 1888 and noted that the glaciers had retreated an additional 44 miles from the time Captain Cook mapped them. Neither Captain Cook nor John Muir were driving SUVs and glacial retreat is NOT caused by "man's evil doings"

6) Antarctica contains 93.4% of the world's ice. Greenland's ice holds another 6.2% and the rest of the worlds glaciers less them 0.6%. (ie almost meaningless) Both Antarctica and Greenland have POSITIVE Surface Mass Budgets or SMBs (SMB is positive when annual snow and ice accumulation exceeds annual melt)


Seek deprogramming, you have been brainwashed.

Yet another brilliant demonstration!

Bravo!


9a57ce0b64d9ac8f11e63696539b5f6d.jpg
 
And we all know manufactured political data trumps National Geographic's scientific data on the subject, lol.
 
Erie, Pennsylvania, Has Broken Its All-Time Snow Season Record

And there are lots of other examples of increased snowfall this winter from all over the world.

But bona fide climate science predictions about the end of snow have been pushed off into the future.

A group of government climate scientists in Hawaii predict an end of snow on peaks of Hawaiian volcanos (it's normal for snow to fall there) by the end of this century.

Another group at UCLA predicts a reduction of snow in the Sierras by the end of the century. Link

Also, an Irish group of government climate scientists makes a similar claim.

We no longer seem to have these moments where scientists and advocates predict the end of snow in 5 years. That sort of thing hasn't been working out for them.

It's safe enough for them to predict that there will be no snow in 70 years. They'll all probably be retired by them.

More energy in the atmosphere means that it will hold more water and therefore increase precipitation.
 
LOL, to be unaware must be terrific. The bears are starving, as their sea ice continues to shrink every year.

Evidence of warming can be even be found locally, as the glaciers of Oregon and Washington's Cascade mountain ranges, continue to shrink (other glaciers globally, as well ) https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/big-thaw/.

Not exactly. Polar bear populations are up sixfold since Roosevelt became concerned back in the '30's. So much so that they are moving into grizzly territory creating territorial disputes and some interbreeding.

Glaciers and icebergs come and go as the season and temperature varies. But in general ice has been receding since the end of the ice age and prior to that there was a long period of cooling, warming, cooling, warming since the big hot known as the big bang.
 
More energy in the atmosphere means that it will hold more water and therefore increase precipitation.

Yes, they are good at coming up with these explanations after the fact.
 
Congratulations on this outstanding example of the Dunning Kruger effect.

You sure know stuff!

You can't refute anything that I teach these gullible superstitious nitwits so you come up with some sloppy BS instead, nice try.

Here is what the real "Dunning Kruger effect" looks like:

"forget what those ignorant engineers who built the damn thing say when they promised us it will blow up on launch, our NASA "scientists" tell us its so safe even a school marm and mother can ride this baby.....wheee"



Let's not tell these suckers that we murdered them, as long as there is a tiny chance that we didn't" - NASA "scientists"



This is the inevitable results when government handout budgets replace real science and real engineering.
 
Last edited:
Who cares if it snows in Erie, or any flat area land already flush with water. Snow in the mountains, and glaciers, are vital to many places, supplying year round water from snow melt to replenish reserviors. The entire West of the US (other than northwest) would be uninhabitable without water from snow melt. And this is the case for many other places in the world, snow melt provides waters for os many living in arid places that don't get a lot of rainfall.

Anyway, this is the typical stupidity of anti-reality people, the point to a localized event and then act like that represents the world. Fact is, it may be record cold in one place, but overall the average global temps are increasing. Glaciers are melting, snowfall in places is slowing, climate is changing (which is why you see phenomon like record rain in some place, record droughts in others.

Why does this have to be explained over and over? How stupid does a person have to be to continue to idiotic so called "argument"?
 
Yes, they are good at coming up with these explanations after the fact.

Nope, that was always true. Look it up, they've known that warm air holds more moisture for decades if not centuries.
 
Who cares if it snows in Erie, or any flat area land already flush with water. Snow in the mountains, and glaciers, are vital to many places, supplying year round water from snow melt to replenish reserviors. The entire West of the US (other than northwest) would be uninhabitable without water from snow melt. And this is the case for many other places in the world, snow melt provides waters for os many living in arid places that don't get a lot of rainfall.

Anyway, this is the typical stupidity of anti-reality people, the point to a localized event and then act like that represents the world. Fact is, it may be record cold in one place, but overall the average global temps are increasing.

Have increased a little bit.

Glaciers are melting, snowfall in places is slowing,

A tiny bit.

climate is changing (which is why you see phenomon like record rain in some place, record droughts in others.

Where has had a record drought?

Why does this have to be explained over and over? How stupid does a person have to be to continue to idiotic so called "argument"?

Because we use actual facts not the word of the chosen priests of doom?
 
LOL, to be unaware must be terrific. The bears are starving, as their sea ice continues to shrink every year.

Evidence of warming can be even be found locally, as the glaciers of Oregon and Washington's Cascade mountain ranges, continue to shrink (other glaciers globally, as well ) https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/big-thaw/.

National Geographic long ago turned itself into enviro-porn, it was a better magazine when it showed us pictures of topless dark native girls. They did know their native breasts, not so good on science.
 
Yet another brilliant demonstration!

Bravo!


9a57ce0b64d9ac8f11e63696539b5f6d.jpg

How pathetic, you cannot refute anything I have said so this is what you Marxists offer instead of intelligence?
 
Duplicate
 
Last edited:
Who cares if it snows in Erie, or any flat area land already flush with water. Snow in the mountains, and glaciers, are vital to many places, supplying year round water from snow melt to replenish reserviors. The entire West of the US (other than northwest) would be uninhabitable without water from snow melt. And this is the case for many other places in the world, snow melt provides waters for os many living in arid places that don't get a lot of rainfall.

Anyway, this is the typical stupidity of anti-reality people, the point to a localized event and then act like that represents the world. Fact is, it may be record cold in one place, but overall the average global temps are increasing. Glaciers are melting, snowfall in places is slowing, climate is changing (which is why you see phenomon like record rain in some place, record droughts in others.

Why does this have to be explained over and over? How stupid does a person have to be to continue to idiotic so called "argument"?

So exactly which locations are getting "globally" warmer, which areas are getting "globally" cooler, and which areas are pretty much "globally" the same?

How do you know this is so?
 
So exactly which locations are getting "globally" warmer, which areas are getting "globally" cooler, and which areas are pretty much "globally" the same?

How do you know this is so?

Science. Jesus christ, stop trolling with this stupid nonsense
 
You're citing "government panels" as something remotely connected with expertise on anything other that bilking taxpayers ?

Now that't truly pathetic.

Here, argue with yourself

How pathetic, you cannot refute anything I have said so this is what you Marxists offer instead of intelligence?
 
The two favorite Y2K glitches happened way around the different, Back in 1999, the state of Vermont issued titles for year 2000 cars, and the titles labeled the cars as 'horseless carriages'.

In 2016, a bunch of people who were deceased, and WOULD have been 118 in 2018 got notices to remember to sign up for selective services when they were 18.

105 year old man got a notice in the mail because he hadn't been signed up for kindergarten.
 
So exactly which locations are getting "globally" warmer, which areas are getting "globally" cooler, and which areas are pretty much "globally" the same?

How do you know this is so?

I think you're misunderstanding the definition of the words "global" and "average."

If you want a bit of regional data, here's an image that will give you a bit of it.

figure-ts-6-l.png
 
Back
Top Bottom