Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
Good for you and I quite agree - it's hard to have high confidence in GCM estimates of climate sensitivity to increasing GHGs so I would never say there are no grounds for scepticism that scientists know for sure what the magic number is, but uncertainty runs in both directions of course.
The climate sensitivity range that hasn't been narrowed even after 30 years of IPCC reporting? The range that goes from 1.5 (the "no problem" theoretical expected value without any positive feedback from H2O) to 4.5 (we'll all going to die from boiling oceans as the H2O feedback starts to feed itself) that is obviously incorrect as the temperature data shows no such response in the last 100 years?That's the range that is only hard to have confidence in? I have confidence that the ball on a roulette wheel will land on numbers 00 to 36 and whilst my modeled roulette wheel keeps landing on 32 to 36 I'm don't have much confidence in its predictive abilities......
Mr Whippy said:
The physics isn't simple if you're doing it properly.
Unless we now believe that there is no cause and effect of a butterfly's wing flapping causing a typhoon on the other side of the planet?
The models are approximations.
They're clearly bad ones because I've yet to see any evidence of a modern model being fed historical data and arriving at today's conditions.
Yet apparently that is 'ok' they don't work, and not a fair test of a model.
It is mainly basic thermodynamics and spectral absorbtion/emission, though the fluid dynamics would get hairy if it wasn't apparently ignored. The application/system is complex so climate science isn't simple particulatly when you start adding materials and statistics.Unless we now believe that there is no cause and effect of a butterfly's wing flapping causing a typhoon on the other side of the planet?
The models are approximations.
They're clearly bad ones because I've yet to see any evidence of a modern model being fed historical data and arriving at today's conditions.
Yet apparently that is 'ok' they don't work, and not a fair test of a model.
kerplunk said:
Not sure what your point is Jinx. You are one who claims to know the outcome I think - clouds will come to our rescue and climate sensitivity is low, maybe even lower than the IPCC's low-end figure. Is that right?
Rescue from what? - this isn't a delicately balanced system at a tipping point, it is an evolutionary stable system that uses energy as a heat pump (energy from the surface is transported to the upper reaches of the atmosphere via the H2O cycle). The more energy the quicker the transfer (with absolute temperature staying relatively stable) . The composition of the transport layer gases is irrelevant unless they can do something with the energy that H2O can't (hence CO2 is not relevant until you reach the upper layers that H2O cannot reach) . There is only one tipping point - the point at which there isn't enough energy from the sun to power the water cycle ergo more energy = faster cycle, too little energy = snowball earth.Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
Not sure what your point is Jinx. You are one who claims to know the outcome I think - clouds will come to our rescue and climate sensitivity is low, maybe even lower than the IPCC's low-end figure. Is that right?
Rescue from what? - this isn't a delicately balanced system at a tipping point, it is an evolutionary stable system that uses energy as a heat pump (energy from the surface is transported to the upper reaches of the atmosphere via the H2O cycle). The more energy the quicker the transfer (with absolute temperature staying relatively stable) . The composition of the transport layer gases is irrelevant unless they can do something with the energy that H2O can't (hence CO2 is not relevant until you reach the upper layers that H2O cannot reach) . There is only one tipping point - the point at which there isn't enough energy from the sun to power the water cycle ergo more energy = faster cycle, too little energy = snowball earth.System not at tipping point - check.
Energy transfer from surface via H20 heat pump - check
Heat pump speeds up when there's more energy - check
CO2 most relevent at high altitude where it's dry - check
You need a certain amount of energy to have liquid water - check (duh)
Beebs AGW disaster story today
Warmer Arctic is the 'new normal'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4233...
A warming, rapidly changing Arctic is the "new normal" and shows no signs of returning to the reliably frozen region of the past.
This is according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Arctic Report Card.
Director of the administration's Arctic Researcher Program, Dr Jeremy Mathis, said the region did a great service to the planet - acting as a refrigerator.
"We've now left that refrigerator door open," he added.
Dr Mathis was speaking at the annual American Geophysical Union meeting in New Orleans, where Noaa presented its annual summation of Arctic science.
This is the 12th report the administration has produced. And although it pointed to "a few anomalies" in a recent pattern of warming in the Arctic region, Dr Mathis said: "We can confirm, it will not stay in its reliably frozen state."
"The thing I took that had the most resonance for me was we're able to use some really long-term records to put the Arctic change into context - going back more than 1,500 years.
"What's really alarming for me is that we're seeing the Arctic is changing faster than at any rate in recorded history."
The speed of change, Dr Mathis added, was making it very hard for people to adapt.
"Villages are being washed away, particularly in the North American Arctic - creating some of the first climate refugees," he said.
"And pace of sea level rise is increasing because the Arctic is warming faster than we anticipated even a decade ago." ................continues
So they've looked back 1,500yrs. WOW! Really reliable data then, obviously !!
Warmer Arctic is the 'new normal'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4233...
A warming, rapidly changing Arctic is the "new normal" and shows no signs of returning to the reliably frozen region of the past.
This is according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Arctic Report Card.
Director of the administration's Arctic Researcher Program, Dr Jeremy Mathis, said the region did a great service to the planet - acting as a refrigerator.
"We've now left that refrigerator door open," he added.
Dr Mathis was speaking at the annual American Geophysical Union meeting in New Orleans, where Noaa presented its annual summation of Arctic science.
This is the 12th report the administration has produced. And although it pointed to "a few anomalies" in a recent pattern of warming in the Arctic region, Dr Mathis said: "We can confirm, it will not stay in its reliably frozen state."
"The thing I took that had the most resonance for me was we're able to use some really long-term records to put the Arctic change into context - going back more than 1,500 years.
"What's really alarming for me is that we're seeing the Arctic is changing faster than at any rate in recorded history."
The speed of change, Dr Mathis added, was making it very hard for people to adapt.
"Villages are being washed away, particularly in the North American Arctic - creating some of the first climate refugees," he said.
"And pace of sea level rise is increasing because the Arctic is warming faster than we anticipated even a decade ago." ................continues
So they've looked back 1,500yrs. WOW! Really reliable data then, obviously !!
Beebs complete b
ks CC story, with headline a complete lie
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42322346
Polar bear video: Is it really the 'face of climate change'?
It is harrowing footage. An emaciated polar bear searches for food on Baffin Island, north-eastern Canada.
Exhausted, it drags one leg slowly behind it, eventually trying to eat some discarded seating foam among rubbish humans have left.
Polar bears hunt from the sea ice, which is diminishing every year, and the photography team are certain the unfortunate animal died within days.
"This is what starvation looks like," wrote one of the photographers, Paul Nicklen. "The muscles atrophy. No energy. It's a slow, painful death."
Mr Nicklen's colleague, Cristina Mittermeier, said: "We cried as we filmed this dying bear. This is the face of climate change."
However, read on through the story, and we get
This particular animal could also simply have been sick. Biologist Jeff Higdon, writing on Twitter, speculated that it could have some form of aggressive cancer. "It's not starving because the ice suddenly disappeared and it could no longer hunt seals," he said. "The east Baffin coast is ice free in summer. It's far more likely that it is starving due to health issues."
Impartiality eh !!
ks CC story, with headline a complete liehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42322346
Polar bear video: Is it really the 'face of climate change'?
It is harrowing footage. An emaciated polar bear searches for food on Baffin Island, north-eastern Canada.
Exhausted, it drags one leg slowly behind it, eventually trying to eat some discarded seating foam among rubbish humans have left.
Polar bears hunt from the sea ice, which is diminishing every year, and the photography team are certain the unfortunate animal died within days.
"This is what starvation looks like," wrote one of the photographers, Paul Nicklen. "The muscles atrophy. No energy. It's a slow, painful death."
Mr Nicklen's colleague, Cristina Mittermeier, said: "We cried as we filmed this dying bear. This is the face of climate change."
However, read on through the story, and we get
This particular animal could also simply have been sick. Biologist Jeff Higdon, writing on Twitter, speculated that it could have some form of aggressive cancer. "It's not starving because the ice suddenly disappeared and it could no longer hunt seals," he said. "The east Baffin coast is ice free in summer. It's far more likely that it is starving due to health issues."
Impartiality eh !!
robinessex said:
Beebs complete bks CC story, with headline a complete lie
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42322346
Polar bear video: Is it really the 'face of climate change'?
"We cried as we filmed this dying bear. This is the face of climate change."
Does Canada have laws saying you cannot help a dying bear?ks CC story, with headline a complete liehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42322346
Polar bear video: Is it really the 'face of climate change'?
"We cried as we filmed this dying bear. This is the face of climate change."
https://www.ec.gc.ca/nature/default.asp?lang=En&am...
Did they just stand there thinkng 'poor bear' someone must do something, let's film it so other people know they need to do something?
b
ds.robinessex said:
Beebs complete bks CC story, with headline a complete lie
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42322346
Polar bear video: Is it really the 'face of climate change'?
It is harrowing footage. An emaciated polar bear searches for food on Baffin Island, north-eastern Canada.
Exhausted, it drags one leg slowly behind it, eventually trying to eat some discarded seating foam among rubbish humans have left.
Polar bears hunt from the sea ice, which is diminishing every year, and the photography team are certain the unfortunate animal died within days.
"This is what starvation looks like," wrote one of the photographers, Paul Nicklen. "The muscles atrophy. No energy. It's a slow, painful death."
Mr Nicklen's colleague, Cristina Mittermeier, said: "We cried as we filmed this dying bear. This is the face of climate change."
However, read on through the story, and we get
This particular animal could also simply have been sick. Biologist Jeff Higdon, writing on Twitter, speculated that it could have some form of aggressive cancer. "It's not starving because the ice suddenly disappeared and it could no longer hunt seals," he said. "The east Baffin coast is ice free in summer. It's far more likely that it is starving due to health issues."
Impartiality eh !!
It occurred to me that some useful research, having found the bear in such a state, would have been to call in the research team that. presumably, exists to monitor the health of polar bears so that the whole question of PB life cycles could be better understood. ks CC story, with headline a complete liehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42322346
Polar bear video: Is it really the 'face of climate change'?
It is harrowing footage. An emaciated polar bear searches for food on Baffin Island, north-eastern Canada.
Exhausted, it drags one leg slowly behind it, eventually trying to eat some discarded seating foam among rubbish humans have left.
Polar bears hunt from the sea ice, which is diminishing every year, and the photography team are certain the unfortunate animal died within days.
"This is what starvation looks like," wrote one of the photographers, Paul Nicklen. "The muscles atrophy. No energy. It's a slow, painful death."
Mr Nicklen's colleague, Cristina Mittermeier, said: "We cried as we filmed this dying bear. This is the face of climate change."
However, read on through the story, and we get
This particular animal could also simply have been sick. Biologist Jeff Higdon, writing on Twitter, speculated that it could have some form of aggressive cancer. "It's not starving because the ice suddenly disappeared and it could no longer hunt seals," he said. "The east Baffin coast is ice free in summer. It's far more likely that it is starving due to health issues."
Impartiality eh !!
I would have thought that it would be a reasonable thing to suggest that the bear should be put down and an autopsy performed - partly to prevent any further suffering and partly for research purposes. That is probably whet we we do for a pet dog at a much earlier stage of degeneration so why not for a polar bear?
On the other hand perhaps we think of them more in terms of humans than dogs or cats. In which case of course any ideas of euthenasia would be unthinkable for any reason at all.
Meanwhile here#s a nice photo of a PB and a seal.
robinessex said:
Beebs complete bks CC story, with headline a complete lie
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42322346
Polar bear video: Is it really the 'face of climate change'?
It is harrowing footage. An emaciated polar bear searches for food on Baffin Island, north-eastern Canada.
Exhausted, it drags one leg slowly behind it, eventually trying to eat some discarded seating foam among rubbish humans have left.
Polar bears hunt from the sea ice, which is diminishing every year, and the photography team are certain the unfortunate animal died within days.
"This is what starvation looks like," wrote one of the photographers, Paul Nicklen. "The muscles atrophy. No energy. It's a slow, painful death."
Mr Nicklen's colleague, Cristina Mittermeier, said: "We cried as we filmed this dying bear. This is the face of climate change."
However, read on through the story, and we get
This particular animal could also simply have been sick. Biologist Jeff Higdon, writing on Twitter, speculated that it could have some form of aggressive cancer. "It's not starving because the ice suddenly disappeared and it could no longer hunt seals," he said. "The east Baffin coast is ice free in summer. It's far more likely that it is starving due to health issues."
Impartiality eh !!
Why are you complaining? The article is basically questioning the veracity of something that has been ascribed to climate change. IME the answer to headlines that end in a question mark is usually no.ks CC story, with headline a complete liehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42322346
Polar bear video: Is it really the 'face of climate change'?
It is harrowing footage. An emaciated polar bear searches for food on Baffin Island, north-eastern Canada.
Exhausted, it drags one leg slowly behind it, eventually trying to eat some discarded seating foam among rubbish humans have left.
Polar bears hunt from the sea ice, which is diminishing every year, and the photography team are certain the unfortunate animal died within days.
"This is what starvation looks like," wrote one of the photographers, Paul Nicklen. "The muscles atrophy. No energy. It's a slow, painful death."
Mr Nicklen's colleague, Cristina Mittermeier, said: "We cried as we filmed this dying bear. This is the face of climate change."
However, read on through the story, and we get
This particular animal could also simply have been sick. Biologist Jeff Higdon, writing on Twitter, speculated that it could have some form of aggressive cancer. "It's not starving because the ice suddenly disappeared and it could no longer hunt seals," he said. "The east Baffin coast is ice free in summer. It's far more likely that it is starving due to health issues."
Impartiality eh !!
kerplunk said:
robinessex said:
Beebs complete bks CC story, with headline a complete lie
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42322346
Polar bear video: Is it really the 'face of climate change'?
It is harrowing footage. An emaciated polar bear searches for food on Baffin Island, north-eastern Canada.
Exhausted, it drags one leg slowly behind it, eventually trying to eat some discarded seating foam among rubbish humans have left.
Polar bears hunt from the sea ice, which is diminishing every year, and the photography team are certain the unfortunate animal died within days.
"This is what starvation looks like," wrote one of the photographers, Paul Nicklen. "The muscles atrophy. No energy. It's a slow, painful death."
Mr Nicklen's colleague, Cristina Mittermeier, said: "We cried as we filmed this dying bear. This is the face of climate change."
However, read on through the story, and we get
This particular animal could also simply have been sick. Biologist Jeff Higdon, writing on Twitter, speculated that it could have some form of aggressive cancer. "It's not starving because the ice suddenly disappeared and it could no longer hunt seals," he said. "The east Baffin coast is ice free in summer. It's far more likely that it is starving due to health issues."
Impartiality eh !!
Why are you complaining? The article is basically questioning the veracity of something that has been ascribed to climate change. IME the answer to headlines that end in a question mark is usually no.ks CC story, with headline a complete liehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42322346
Polar bear video: Is it really the 'face of climate change'?
It is harrowing footage. An emaciated polar bear searches for food on Baffin Island, north-eastern Canada.
Exhausted, it drags one leg slowly behind it, eventually trying to eat some discarded seating foam among rubbish humans have left.
Polar bears hunt from the sea ice, which is diminishing every year, and the photography team are certain the unfortunate animal died within days.
"This is what starvation looks like," wrote one of the photographers, Paul Nicklen. "The muscles atrophy. No energy. It's a slow, painful death."
Mr Nicklen's colleague, Cristina Mittermeier, said: "We cried as we filmed this dying bear. This is the face of climate change."
However, read on through the story, and we get
This particular animal could also simply have been sick. Biologist Jeff Higdon, writing on Twitter, speculated that it could have some form of aggressive cancer. "It's not starving because the ice suddenly disappeared and it could no longer hunt seals," he said. "The east Baffin coast is ice free in summer. It's far more likely that it is starving due to health issues."
Impartiality eh !!
At the bottom of the article
Video Polar bear cam to show bears' response to declining sea ice
11 January 2017
Polar bears travel further as Arctic sea-ice drifts
16 December 2015
Polar bears fail to adapt to lack of food in warmer Arctic
16 July 2015
'Polar bear hybrid' shot in Canada
25 May 2016
'Shame and anger' at plastic ocean pollution
4 December 2017
Blue Planet 2: How plastic is slowly killing our sea creatures, fish and birds
19 November 2017
XM5ER said:
kerplunk said:
robinessex said:
Beebs complete bks CC story, with headline a complete lie
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42322346
Polar bear video: Is it really the 'face of climate change'?
It is harrowing footage. An emaciated polar bear searches for food on Baffin Island, north-eastern Canada.
Exhausted, it drags one leg slowly behind it, eventually trying to eat some discarded seating foam among rubbish humans have left.
Polar bears hunt from the sea ice, which is diminishing every year, and the photography team are certain the unfortunate animal died within days.
"This is what starvation looks like," wrote one of the photographers, Paul Nicklen. "The muscles atrophy. No energy. It's a slow, painful death."
Mr Nicklen's colleague, Cristina Mittermeier, said: "We cried as we filmed this dying bear. This is the face of climate change."
However, read on through the story, and we get
This particular animal could also simply have been sick. Biologist Jeff Higdon, writing on Twitter, speculated that it could have some form of aggressive cancer. "It's not starving because the ice suddenly disappeared and it could no longer hunt seals," he said. "The east Baffin coast is ice free in summer. It's far more likely that it is starving due to health issues."
Impartiality eh !!
Why are you complaining? The article is basically questioning the veracity of something that has been ascribed to climate change. IME the answer to headlines that end in a question mark is usually no.ks CC story, with headline a complete liehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42322346
Polar bear video: Is it really the 'face of climate change'?
It is harrowing footage. An emaciated polar bear searches for food on Baffin Island, north-eastern Canada.
Exhausted, it drags one leg slowly behind it, eventually trying to eat some discarded seating foam among rubbish humans have left.
Polar bears hunt from the sea ice, which is diminishing every year, and the photography team are certain the unfortunate animal died within days.
"This is what starvation looks like," wrote one of the photographers, Paul Nicklen. "The muscles atrophy. No energy. It's a slow, painful death."
Mr Nicklen's colleague, Cristina Mittermeier, said: "We cried as we filmed this dying bear. This is the face of climate change."
However, read on through the story, and we get
This particular animal could also simply have been sick. Biologist Jeff Higdon, writing on Twitter, speculated that it could have some form of aggressive cancer. "It's not starving because the ice suddenly disappeared and it could no longer hunt seals," he said. "The east Baffin coast is ice free in summer. It's far more likely that it is starving due to health issues."
Impartiality eh !!
At the bottom of the article
Video Polar bear cam to show bears' response to declining sea ice
11 January 2017
Polar bears travel further as Arctic sea-ice drifts
16 December 2015
Polar bears fail to adapt to lack of food in warmer Arctic
16 July 2015
'Polar bear hybrid' shot in Canada
25 May 2016
'Shame and anger' at plastic ocean pollution
4 December 2017
Blue Planet 2: How plastic is slowly killing our sea creatures, fish and birds
19 November 2017
Not sure why you've posted the list of related stories from the bottom of the article.
kerplunk said:
Yes it's ambiguous - nobody really knows why the bear was starving. Maybe it just made some bad life choices.
Not sure why you've posted the list of related stories from the bottom of the article.
Really? You must me a salesman's dream.Not sure why you've posted the list of related stories from the bottom of the article.
An interesting aside from that list of related stories about plastic.
"Investigation finds Swedish scientists committed scientific misconduct" https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-08321-2
Noble cause corruption again?
kerplunk said:
Yes it's ambiguous - nobody really knows why the bear was starving. Maybe it just made some bad life choices.
Not sure why you've posted the list of related stories from the bottom of the article.
Know many Polar bears, do you ?Not sure why you've posted the list of related stories from the bottom of the article.
Wild animals don't make 'life choices'. They eat, sleep, reproduce, or they die.
It's *people* who play tricks on themselves whilst trying to absolve themselves of any responsibility or guilt from the damage being done to wild animals and kid themselves that the human race (or more precisely, them as an individual), had anything to do with it, or *could have* done anything about it.
On the balance of probability, the Polar bear starved because of lack of sea ice, which, on the balance of probabilities, is being caused by humans.
But don't let me stop you denying that.
gavsdavs said:
kerplunk said:
Yes it's ambiguous - nobody really knows why the bear was starving. Maybe it just made some bad life choices.
Not sure why you've posted the list of related stories from the bottom of the article.
Know many Polar bears, do you ?Not sure why you've posted the list of related stories from the bottom of the article.
Wild animals don't make 'life choices'. They eat, sleep, reproduce, or they die.
It's *people* who play tricks on themselves whilst trying to absolve themselves of any responsibility or guilt from the damage being done to wild animals and kid themselves that the human race (or more precisely, them as an individual), had anything to do with it, or *could have* done anything about it.
On the balance of probability, the Polar bear starved because of lack of sea ice, which, on the balance of probabilities, is being caused by humans.
But don't let me stop you denying that.
It's ironic really Kerplunk, the chap here who is criticizing you has done what most people will do on reading the article and that is, blindly blame humans.
XM5ER said:
I think you need to follow this story far more carefully Gav, baffin island is usually ice free in summer, read the article, that's what it says.
It's ironic really Kerplunk, the chap here who is criticizing you has done what most people will do on reading the article and that is, blindly blame humans.
Erm, I think you and robinessex have got yourselves completely confused here.It's ironic really Kerplunk, the chap here who is criticizing you has done what most people will do on reading the article and that is, blindly blame humans.
gavsdavs said:
kerplunk said:
Yes it's ambiguous - nobody really knows why the bear was starving. Maybe it just made some bad life choices.
Not sure why you've posted the list of related stories from the bottom of the article.
Know many Polar bears, do you ?Not sure why you've posted the list of related stories from the bottom of the article.
Wild animals don't make 'life choices'. They eat, sleep, reproduce, or they die.
It's *people* who play tricks on themselves whilst trying to absolve themselves of any responsibility or guilt from the damage being done to wild animals and kid themselves that the human race (or more precisely, them as an individual), had anything to do with it, or *could have* done anything about it.
On the balance of probability, the Polar bear starved because of lack of sea ice, which, on the balance of probabilities, is being caused by humans.
But don't let me stop you denying that.
This is a science forum matey. You have no business making probablity claims without evidence. It's a single observation of a starving bear - age, history and whereabouts now all unknown, no medical examination and no autopsy. But don't let me stop you leaping to conclusions.
As to your other comments, you're obviously unaware that I spend most of my time here arguing with people who think man-made global warming isn't happening or is exaggerated. People rushing to conclusions on scant evidence like you only confirms their prejudices.
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 13th December 14:01
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 13th December 14:03
XM5ER said:
gavsdavs said:
kerplunk said:
Yes it's ambiguous - nobody really knows why the bear was starving. Maybe it just made some bad life choices.
Not sure why you've posted the list of related stories from the bottom of the article.
Know many Polar bears, do you ?Not sure why you've posted the list of related stories from the bottom of the article.
Wild animals don't make 'life choices'. They eat, sleep, reproduce, or they die.
It's *people* who play tricks on themselves whilst trying to absolve themselves of any responsibility or guilt from the damage being done to wild animals and kid themselves that the human race (or more precisely, them as an individual), had anything to do with it, or *could have* done anything about it.
On the balance of probability, the Polar bear starved because of lack of sea ice, which, on the balance of probabilities, is being caused by humans.
But don't let me stop you denying that.
It's ironic really Kerplunk, the chap here who is criticizing you has done what most people will do on reading the article and that is, blindly blame humans.
Ironically you appear the most confuddled of all.
kerplunk said:
gavsdavs said:
kerplunk said:
Yes it's ambiguous - nobody really knows why the bear was starving. Maybe it just made some bad life choices.
Not sure why you've posted the list of related stories from the bottom of the article.
Know many Polar bears, do you ?Not sure why you've posted the list of related stories from the bottom of the article.
Wild animals don't make 'life choices'. They eat, sleep, reproduce, or they die.
It's *people* who play tricks on themselves whilst trying to absolve themselves of any responsibility or guilt from the damage being done to wild animals and kid themselves that the human race (or more precisely, them as an individual), had anything to do with it, or *could have* done anything about it.
On the balance of probability, the Polar bear starved because of lack of sea ice, which, on the balance of probabilities, is being caused by humans.
But don't let me stop you denying that.
This is a science forum matey. You have no business making probablity claims without evidence. It's a single observation of a starving bear - age, history and whereabouts now all unknown, no medical examination and no autopsy. But don't let me stop you leaping to conclusions.
As to your other comments, you're obviously unaware that I spend most of my time here arguing with people who think man-made global warming isn't happening or is exaggerated. People rushing to conclusions on scant evidence like you only confirms their prejudices.
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 13th December 14:01
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 13th December 14:03
There are people (like me) who believe humans are causing this and are sceptical of people trying to provide evidence that we aren't responsible.
There are people who believe humans *aren't* responsible for the reduction in polar ice mass/global warming (whatever you'd like to call it) and are always going to be sceptical of people providing evidence that we *are* the cause.
We are almost all ideologically wedding to a particular side, and whatever the other side presents is not trusted. I don't know anyone who's switched belief, you may have different experience to me.
Furthermore, we all know where we stand on this, we believe humans are causing it, or we don't.
Your post read like you didn't believe in humans causing climate change.. If that was some form of subtle ironic language you were using to express something to someone else, then I apoloigise,
Polar bears making life choices, I ask you. What sort of evidence based argument is that ?
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff