• 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

Jack Hays said:
The Beaufort sea outcome is well known. It's just not important. The anti-Crockford screed is shameful misogyny.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. Her gender has nothing to do with her inaccuracy. BUt, do keep with your insane sources.
 
RAMOSS said:
No, it's not. Her gender has nothing to do with her inaccuracy. BUt, do keep with your insane sources.
Click to expand...

Don't take my word for it.


Putting lipstick on Lewandowsky’s pig, er, polar bear

Guest essay by Dr. Richard Tol In their eagerness to discredit a colleague[1] Harvey et al. (2017) got ahead of themselves. The write-up shows signs of haste – typographical errors (“principle component analysis”, “refereces cited”) and nonsensical statements (“95% normal probability”) escaped the attention of the 14 authors, 3 referees and editor – but so does…

December 26, 2017 in Polarbeargate.

. . . They show that there is disagreement on the vulnerability of polar bears to climate change, but offer no new evidence who is right or wrong – apart from a fallacious argument from authority, with a “majority view” taken from an unrepresentative sample.
Once the substandard statistical application to poor data is removed, what remains is a not-so-veiled attempt at a colleague’s reputation.
 
Jack Hays said:
Don't take my word for it.


Putting lipstick on Lewandowsky’s pig, er, polar bear

Guest essay by Dr. Richard Tol In their eagerness to discredit a colleague[1] Harvey et al. (2017) got ahead of themselves. The write-up shows signs of haste – typographical errors (“principle component analysis”, “refereces cited”) and nonsensical statements (“95% normal probability”) escaped the attention of the 14 authors, 3 referees and editor – but so does…

December 26, 2017 in Polarbeargate.

. . . They show that there is disagreement on the vulnerability of polar bears to climate change, but offer no new evidence who is right or wrong – apart from a fallacious argument from authority, with a “majority view” taken from an unrepresentative sample.
Once the substandard statistical application to poor data is removed, what remains is a not-so-veiled attempt at a colleague’s reputation.
Click to expand...


Yes, that is the common smear tactic of the nutballs at watts up.. Divert the attention from the fact they are doing bad science with accusations of misogyny. Sorry, but your use of that blog is not something that does you credit.
 
RAMOSS said:
Yes, that is the common smear tactic of the nutballs at watts up.. Divert the attention from the fact they are doing bad science with accusations of misogyny. Sorry, but your use of that blog is not something that does you credit.
Click to expand...

I suggest you look up Richard Tol before you embarrass yourself further. Misogyny is actually not at the center of his critique. He focuses on the shoddy work and unethical personal attack.
 
If snow is a thing of the past, why is it snowing in Portland today, since 7 AM, when we usually get rain, not snow, in the winter?
 
Lord of Planar said:
If snow is a thing of the past, why is it snowing in Portland today, since 7 AM, when we usually get rain, not snow, in the winter?
Click to expand...

Years of this, and you still can’t understand the ****ing difference between climate and weather.
 
Threegoofs said:
Climate myths: Polar bear numbers are increasing | New Scientist

Are polar bear populations increasing? - Polar Bears International

The truth about polar bears | Canadian Geographic
Click to expand...

You're really going with those? The first link is from 2007 and obviously out of date. The second avoids any answer on polar bear numbers. The third is barely current enough (2012) but more interesting, it largely comes down on the side of a growing polar bear population. I especially like this passage.

". . . Consider Mitch Taylor’s story. He spent more than two decades as a polar bear researcher and manager for the Nunavut government and has published around 50 peer-reviewed papers. That should garner widespread respect. But Taylor has been highly vocal about his belief that polar bears are mostly doing fine, that cub mortality varies from year to year and that the much ballyhooed predictions of extinction by 2050 are “a joke.” He also alleges that a lot of the “exaggerated decline” is just a way to keep certain scientists well funded and to transfer control of the polar bear issue from territorial to federal hands. In response, Taylor’s critics disinvited him from meetings of polar bear specialists that he’d been attending since 1978. They also like to point out that he’s a signatory of the Manhattan Declaration, which questions the very existence of climate change. But amidst all the heated charges and countercharges, it’s hard to argue the fact that few people know polar bears the way Taylor does. And while it might be inconvenient for current political posturing, there’s no denying that certain subpopulations of polar bears are managing to survive, even thrive. . . ."
 
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post

If you had ran the study collecting the test data for a new drug would you consider that you would be one of the world's foremost experts in saying if it worked? Even though you have never designed a drug?
Click to expand...

Threegoofs said:
Your question shows you understand about as much about drug development as you do climate change.
Click to expand...

You say you do research in pharmacology.

If so do you design the drugs and send them off to be tested, after you have done your own initial testing of course? Or do you do the testing, double blind etc?

Either way if you did the testing would you regard yourself as qualified to have a good opinion on the strength of a drug that you had tested?

Or would it be the person who compiled the data and sifted through it to look at it with statistical maths to see if the thing worked?

Pleas, just answer the questions.
 
Threegoofs said:
Wait. What?

Where are those ‘mountains of data’ she collected?

Or do you mean she used other people’s data...which generally means she didn’t have access to all the data, or even understand the methods of collection.
Click to expand...

I serriously doubt that you have any connection with science at all.

You have just shown yourself utterly ignorant of any science. That you are capable of saying that means that you have never read any scientific paper at all. That you have never discussed generally scientific papers with undergraduates in a general social sense, the sort of conversations you would have at university etc.

You again show yourself to be utterly clueless.
 
RAMOSS said:
Well, according to some actual scientific studies, the last time the Arctic has been almost of complete ice free in the past was 120,000 years ago.
Click to expand...

Actually, no ... ˜6000 years ago.

Recent mapping of a number of raised beach ridges on the north coast of Greenland suggests that the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean was greatly reduced some 6000-7000 years ago. The Arctic Ocean may have been periodically ice free.
[snip]
However, the scientists are very careful about drawing parallels with the present-day trend in the Arctic Ocean where the cover of sea ice seems to be decreasing.
"Changes that took place 6000-7000 years ago were controlled by other climatic forces than those which seem to dominate today,” Astrid Lyså believes.
​

The polar bear lives on.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081020095850.htm
 
bubbabgone said:
Actually, no ... ˜6000 years ago.

Recent mapping of a number of raised beach ridges on the north coast of Greenland suggests that the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean was greatly reduced some 6000-7000 years ago. The Arctic Ocean may have been periodically ice free.
[snip]
However, the scientists are very careful about drawing parallels with the present-day trend in the Arctic Ocean where the cover of sea ice seems to be decreasing.
"Changes that took place 6000-7000 years ago were controlled by other climatic forces than those which seem to dominate today,” Astrid Lyså believes.
​

The polar bear lives on.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081020095850.htm
Click to expand...

”The climate in the northern regions has never been milder since the last Ice Age than it was about 6000-7000 years ago. We still don’t know whether the Arctic Ocean was completely ice free, but there was more open water in the area north of Greenland than there is today,” says Astrid Lyså, a geologist and researcher at the Geological Survey of Norway
 
RAMOSS said:
”The climate in the northern regions has never been milder since the last Ice Age than it was about 6000-7000 years ago. We still don’t know whether the Arctic Ocean was completely ice free, but there was more open water in the area north of Greenland than there is today,” says Astrid Lyså, a geologist and researcher at the Geological Survey of Norway
Click to expand...

Bubba doesn’t believe those paleoclimate people anyway.

Their data usually makes him agitated and stuttering about ‘climategate’.
 
Threegoofs said:
Bubba doesn’t believe those paleoclimate people anyway.

Their data usually makes him agitated and stuttering about ‘climategate’.
Click to expand...

You've won me over, I now realize that polar bears have a tough life and they can actually die from nature. We have to do everything possible to make polar bears more comfortable, that's for sure.

If we could only force people to be less greedy and share more with other beings we could solve this problem, but I don't see how we can do it with capitalism.

Could you give us some insights as to alternate methods of organizing our world so that each being is treated more equally?

 
RAMOSS said:
”The climate in the northern regions has never been milder since the last Ice Age than it was about 6000-7000 years ago. We still don’t know whether the Arctic Ocean was completely ice free, but there was more open water in the area north of Greenland than there is today,” says Astrid Lyså, a geologist and researcher at the Geological Survey of Norway
Click to expand...

Thanks. That was indeed the point and it came from my link.
I have a suspicion that when you read "We still don’t know whether the Arctic Ocean was completely ice free" you think they were casting doubt on a great Arctic ice-melt 6000 years ago.
I don't want to melt your snowflake but they were merely suggesting it was either "completely ice-free" or "greatly reduced" ... not that it didn't happen.
Is that what you think the article said? ... That it didn't happen?
Such a misread would be the only reason anyone would quote from the article the way you did.
 
bubbabgone said:
Thanks. That was indeed the point and it came from my link.
I have a suspicion that when you read "We still don’t know whether the Arctic Ocean was completely ice free" you think they were casting doubt on a great Arctic ice-melt 6000 years ago.
I don't want to melt your snowflake but they were merely suggesting it was either "completely ice-free" or "greatly reduced" ... not that it didn't happen.
Is that what you think the article said? ... That it didn't happen?
Such a misread would be the only reason anyone would quote from the article the way you did.
Click to expand...

I am saying your conclusions are vastly over rated. They can say 'North of Greenland, but that's very different that in alaska you know.
 
RAMOSS said:
I am saying your conclusions are vastly over rated. They can say 'North of Greenland, but that's very different that in alaska you know.
Click to expand...

The Arctic Ocean encompasses the north pole.
Greenland is closer to the north pole than Alaska ... I don't know why you would even mention Alaska.
Greenland is considered entirely in the Arctic Region ... Alaska is not.
That's why the study was done in Greenland, as is typical of studies like this.

It's not my conclusion. It's the conclusion of the study ... the Arctic was "completely ice-free" or "greatly reduced".
 
bubbabgone said:
The Arctic Ocean encompasses the north pole.
Greenland is closer to the north pole than Alaska ... I don't know why you would even mention Alaska.
Greenland is considered entirely in the Arctic Region ... Alaska is not.
That's why the study was done in Greenland, as is typical of studies like this.

It's not my conclusion. It's the conclusion of the study ... the Arctic was "completely ice-free" or "greatly reduced".
Click to expand...

Just as it is today.
 
SirGareth said:
If we get enough guesses at what the past was really like would these guesses then be "data?"
Click to expand...

LOL...

Data of guesses. It can't be any less accurate than the types of proxy samples used for so many things.
 

[h=1]The Coming Polar Bear Battle In Toronto[/h]From Dr. Benny Peiser GWPF details on the upcoming battle. Coming next Tuesday to Toronto’s swanky Yorkville district, it’s the 2018 Polar Bear Showdown, an international display of conflicting views on the state of polar-bear science. At one corner in Yorkville, in the ballroom of the upmarket Four Seasons Hotel, Polar Bears International (PBI) will stage a grand, $15,000-a-table gala to raise funds to protect…

4 days ago February 22, 2018 in Polarbeargate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom