Subscribe: Comments on Althouse: The polar-bears-on-the-melting-ice-cap photo.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/feeds/1311995778329585347/comments/default
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
Tags:
animals  bears  change  climate  global warming  global  ice  people  photo  polar bear  polar bears  polar  science  warming 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on Althouse: The polar-bears-on-the-melting-ice-cap photo.

Comments on Althouse: The polar-bears-on-the-melting-ice-cap photo.





Updated: 2018-01-16T06:03:31.651-06:00

 



I just have one thing to say; all of you are compl...

2009-11-27T22:01:18.101-06:00

I just have one thing to say; all of you are completely ignorants, please read the news or scientific reports and stop saying the most ignorant and stupid arguments I have ever read.

Polar bears must eat "cute baby seals" it is part of the life cycle. Polar bears eat them because they need them, that is their basic and almost only source of food, however, men kill them in horrible ways just to get their so beautiful sking !!!!!!!!!!
The fact is we are destroying our planet, the one that we need in order to survive, if we destroy oue planet where are we going to live??????

STOP BEING SO IGNORANT PEOPLE AND OPEN YOUR EYES AND MINDS PLEASE



This isn't about the photographer, or the angl...

2009-10-01T16:37:21.638-05:00

This isn't about the photographer, or the angle in which he or she took that photo. YES Polar bears CAN swim. But if you had to swim over 60 miles to find one ice cap to sit on, don't you think you'd get a little tired as well? THAT'S why they're dying. They don't only depend on those ice caps to rest, but to get their food. When there are no ice caps, there are no seals. Polar bears weren't built to hunt under water.
It's pretty sad that some of you are being so apathetic because polar bears eat seals. I'm not a member of PETA, and I'm not vegetarian, vegan or anything of the sort, but last I checked, we kill cows and lamb for protein, and wear the fur of already extinct animals.
Take a look in your own backyard.
They have to survive just like we do. and WE are jeopardizing their way of life. Polar bears were put on the Endangered Species act, yet the Administration said they would take no steps to stop massive oil and gas development in their habitats. so yes, WE, US HUMANS, are helping the extinction of Polar bears.
And because of the climate change, Grizzly Bears are moving farther North into Polar bear territory, as well as the other way around. Grizzly bears were built to hunt and kill, Polar bears were built to swim, it's obvious who will come out on top in a fight to the death.

We treat our earth like crap, That picture being taken in August has little to do with that picture. I doubt those polar bears would be sitting on that ice cap if there was one 2 miles away that was in better condition.
Call it global warming, call it climate change, call it whatever you want. We're affecting the state of our planet. Quit being so ignorant.



Good one!

2008-08-31T14:35:00.000-05:00

Good one!



1. Global warming is NOT a HOAX. Listen to world ...

2008-01-17T22:17:00.000-06:00

1. Global warming is NOT a HOAX. Listen to world news instead of local news and you'd see that floods are happening at historic levels. Most people who believe it is a hoax is indifferent, ignorant, and basically uneducated. Not only that, watch out for those 'Exxon' scientist.

2. Polar bears are NOT 'things'. They are living creatures who deserve a chance at life.

3. Why don't we drown people and see how they like it.

4. Without animals to bring our compassion forward - humans would never lift a finger. Humans are selfish and what's one picture to help them do the right thing? After all, our politicians can lie to us night and day and get away with it.



According to the photographer, Amanda Byrd, the ph...

2007-12-08T06:59:00.000-06:00

According to the photographer, Amanda Byrd, the photo was taken in August...seem the global alarmists forgot to tell us that...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=500424&in_page_id=1811



The photo is contrived as all photos are but it do...

2007-12-05T21:28:00.000-06:00

The photo is contrived as all photos are but it doesn't change the fact that the polar bears are indeed in crisis. I would ask those who choose to think this is just a "picture" and they are just animals that "can swim"...what if these were people? What if instead of the mammal facing the most threat from global warming were not polar bears but were the native people of the artic? Would we then say, "well they can swim" and ignore the facts? No! Because animals are imaged it becomes easier not to change our thinking because they can't show emotions like we do. If a polar bear could cry and beg us humans to please stop our polluting ways to save their lives, I know it would be hard not to. Animals are worth just as much as us.



The photo is contrived as all photos are but it do...

2007-12-05T21:26:00.001-06:00

The photo is contrived as all photos are but it doesn't change the fact that the polar bears are indeed in crisis. I would ask those who choose to think this is just a "picture" and they are just animals that "can swim"...what if these were people? What if instead of the mammal facing the most threat from global warming were not polar bears but were the native people of the artic? Would we then say, "well they can swim" and ignore the facts? No! Because animals are imaged it becomes easier not to change our thinking because they can't show emotions like we do. If a polar bear could cry and beg us humans to please stop our polluting ways to save their lives, I know it would be hard not to. Animals are worth just as much as us.



The photo is contrived as all photos are but it do...

2007-12-05T21:26:00.000-06:00

The photo is contrived as all photos are but it doesn't change the fact that the polar bears are indeed in crisis. I would ask those who choose to think this is just a "picture" and they are just animals that "can swim"...what if these were people? What if instead of the mammal facing the most threat from global warming were not polar bears but were the native people of the artic? Would we then say, "well they can swim" and ignore the facts? No! Because animals are imaged it becomes easier not to change our thinking because they can't show emotions like we do. If a polar bear could cry and beg us humans to please stop our polluting ways to save their lives, I know it would be hard not to. Animals are worth just as much as us.



The picture has not been photoshopped but it still...

2007-04-07T17:56:00.000-05:00

The picture has not been photoshopped but it still doesn't portray what it is claimed to portray. In fact, the photograph was taken by an Australian photographer in summer and there is no indication that the bears were in any danger. The photo turned into a game of "Chinese whispers" as the story behind it was lost.

"They did not appear to be in danger…I did not see the bears get on the ice, and I did not see them get off. I cannot say either way if they were stranded or not."

— Email from Amanda Byrd to Media Watch

Sappho
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1887890.htm



From Freder Frederson: "So I bet I know a lot more...

2007-02-14T18:41:00.000-06:00

From Freder Frederson: "So I bet I know a lot more about science and the environment than most of you posting on this site."

But not about greenhouses, apparently.



I move we nominate Freder as either proxie or post...

2007-02-11T12:57:00.000-06:00

I move we nominate Freder as either proxie or poster boy for the Global Warming Alarmists. Or we could just take Piltdown Man.



Tully ,thanks. I loved this at JunkScience: " As ...

2007-02-07T01:28:00.000-06:00

Tully ,thanks.

I loved this at JunkScience:
" As everyone is probably by now aware, Friday, February 2, 2007 marks the release of the IPCC's political document: Assessment Report 4, Summary for Policymakers. The media seem to be operating under the misapprehension this is equivalent to the release of IPCC Working Group I Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis -- this is regrettably neither true nor even close to the truth.

Bizarrely, the actual report will be retained for another three months to facilitate editing -- to suit the summary! IPCC procedures state that: Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter (Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work, p4/15) -- this is surely unacceptable and would not be tolerated in virtually any other field (witness the media frenzy because language was allegedly altered in some US climate reports). "


Perfect illustration of what we've been discussing this entire thread.



Actually, there was no such concensus, but don't l...

2007-02-06T13:17:00.000-06:00

Actually, there was no such concensus, but don't let that get in the way of your Truthiness.

Not until late Greek culture, apprx. around the time of Pythagoras, did the spherical earth come to prominence. Until then (and for a couple of centuries after) the Babylonian/Hebraic flat earth model was the "consensus" view. But, of course, science isn't about "consensus." That's a logical fallacy, the argumentum ad populum. Science is about evidence and testability.

Likewise, it took Kepler and Copernicus to kill off the "consensus" Ptolemaic view of circular orbits and geocentrism, ridding us of all those pesky epicycles.

Uhh, Galileo did keep his head, at least until he died of old age.

Yep. Kept his head, but was tried and convicted of heresy by the Inquisition for advocating heliocentrism, his works banned, and sentenced to house arrest for the remainder of his life. It was a century after his death before he was "rehabilitated" by the Church, and his remains allowed to be interned on hallowed ground.

I've had my review copy of the IPCC draft report since last May, when it was opened for commentary to qualified reviewers. (Yes, they required professional credentials and references--mine are sufficient, thank you.) All several thousand pages of it. Much of the referenced research is excellent, it's the political re-write and obfuscation and dismissal of the limitations of that research that goes entirely overboard. The "meta-report" and the "Policymaker's Summary" significantly misrepresent the state of the research and the associated probabilities and limitations of same. The authors of the individual studies and models are much more forthcoming about those--but that part doesn't get into the summary.

I was required to agree to not release any details of the draft report prior to official publication before I received my copy. I have scrupulously adhered to that agreement, and will continue to do so. I do note, however, that there is a copy posted online, for all those who would like to peruse same. Professional researchers and statisticians will get a good laugh out of it.



Kirk (and others) my bad on Galileo. Condemned, y...

2007-02-06T10:38:00.000-06:00

Kirk (and others)

my bad on Galileo. Condemned, yes, beheaded, totally wrong.



Global warming is clearly a problem. Like all pro...

2007-02-06T10:37:00.000-06:00

Global warming is clearly a problem.

Like all problems the answer is Socialism.



More thoughts on this one: ”Freder: arent you a CP...

2007-02-06T03:14:00.000-06:00

More thoughts on this one:
”Freder: arent you a CPA?

Uhh, no I'm not. I'm a chemist who has spent most of my career as an environmental scientist. Currently I'm working on a masters in environmental engineering. So I bet I know a lot more about science and the environment than most of you posting on this site.”


As a chemist working in environmental science, I'm sure you could tell us a great deal about what pollution does to air and water, but is that really any background from which to claim expertise in global climate change? It strikes me as being a tangetial connection, at best. Sure, you might be more familiar with methods and standards than most, but beyond that...?

Oh, and I also wanted to say sorry about suggesting you might be lying about the 50mpg diesel Jetta thing. I'll have to consider one next time.



Tully, "Several centuries ago, there was a firm '...

2007-02-06T02:35:00.000-06:00

Tully,

"Several centuries ago, there was a firm 'scientific' consensus on the flatness of the earth"

Actually, there was no such concensus, but don't let that get in the way of your Truthiness.

Trantor,

"Galileo might have kept his head had he remembered that."

Uhh, Galileo did keep his head, at least until he died of old age. What the heck is going on with the imaginative histories today???



”What I object to is the reflexive dismissal of gl...

2007-02-06T00:16:00.000-06:00

”What I object to is the reflexive dismissal of global warming theories”

Not reflexive, Freder, reflective.

I know what I thought when I first heard about the theory of runaway greenhouse warming (I took notes and saved them), and at first it seemed plausible.

Upon reflection, though, I wondered how anybody knew what the temperature of the globe had been 100 years before. And the answer, of course, was that they didn't know.

They were just making crap up.



”Simply looking at another planet with a much thin...

2007-02-05T23:19:00.000-06:00

”Simply looking at another planet with a much thinner atmosphere and saying solar radiation is responsible for the melting of the ice caps (which aren't even water ice)…”Water or dry ice, why is that relevant?“… on Mars (which of course is a huge leap in and of itself), therefore it must be primarily responsible for the retreat of ice caps on earth is ridiculous.”And you’re not making huge leaps? By the way, the thinner atmosphere would reduce the sum of the solar effects on warming, so I’m not seeing how pointing that out helps your argument. Why it’s ridiculous that if the same star that irradiates Mars and Jupiter at greater distances is warming them, then it is likely warming us (unless the atmosphere is somehow shielding us entirely from it’s effects, but we know that’s not the case). How much may be up for debate, but to ‘reflexively dismiss’ it in such a manner doesn’t indicate an openmindedness to competing theories that every scientist should have.”That being said, increased radiation may be responsible for a portion of the global temperature rise. But just because it accounts for a portion of the rise, it doesn't mean that greenhouse gases are not the primary agent.”Great. Now, since you are making the positive assertion, burden of proof is on you. Besides your conviction on the topic (which you’ve demonstrated quite sufficiently), what have you got? What does any scientist have, really? Interesting theories, but unfortunately, little else. That you take those theories and ideas as gospel speaks more of you than of we, the critics. I must say though, that you are tenacious, and I’ll be first to admit that it’s much easier being the skeptic than the one making the proof.”Freder: arent you a CPA?Uhh, no I'm not. I'm a chemist who has spent most of my career as an environmental scientist. Currently I'm working on a masters in environmental engineering. So I bet I know a lot more about science and the environment than most of you posting on this site.”I’m more interested in arguments and the actual data in studies than in opinions, which is about all you’ve offered us, unfortunately.”What I object to is the reflexive dismissal of global warming theories”Freder, what we object to is propaganda instead of science; theology in lieu of analysis and honest debate; and those who are making the positive assertions not bearing the burden of proof, as is their responsibility. I think most here are not ‘reflexively dismissive’ of global warming theories, but unbacked claims of veracity based on half-knowledge (and in my opinion, a healthy dose of hubris) isn’t winning us over. We’re not quite ready to toss out centuries of human technological advancement that have made our lives safer and more secure for insufficiently substantiated theories. I admire your tenacity, but it does have the echo of the zealot. The good scientist would consider such skepticisms and address them through study, and see what the results bring- whether affirming the original theory, or not. We test theories, we don’t ‘prove’ them; unless you have an agenda.”Are we really supposed to believe that the advocates of global warming (whoever this nefarious group is) are really better funded than those who would present alternative theories. Exxon-Mobil made $36 billion last year!” -Freder”The US government funded global warming advocates to the tune of 60 billion dollars in recent years. That is a lot of incentive to keep this issue going.” –TrantorBetter funded is irrelevant, the point [...]



Please, just one Lefty, point me to the computer m...

2007-02-05T22:18:00.000-06:00

Please, just one Lefty, point me to the computer model that can take information available in 1900 and produce the weather we actually got in 2000.

Until then, please check your assuredness at the door.



THE GLACIER IS COMING!! RUN!!!! 01/29/2007 | 12:13...

2007-02-05T20:19:00.000-06:00

THE GLACIER IS COMING!! RUN!!!!
01/29/2007 | 12:13

Pack ice in Iceland’s Westfjords

“Iceland’s ancient enemy” (Landsins forni fjandi), or pack ice, has returned. The fjord of Dýrafjördur is almost blocked by ice, and inhabitants say they have never seen anything like it.

“This is a very impressive sight,” Helgi Árnason, farmer at Alvidra in Dýrafjördur, told Fréttabladid. “I have lived here my whole life, but I have never seen so much pack ice before. Forty years ago large ice bergs drifted onto beaches [in Dýrafjördur], but it was nothing compared to this.”

A helicopter from the Icelandic Coast Guard flew over the Westfjords yesterday to investigate the situation. The crew concluded that it is not safe to sail in Dýrafjördur, except for very experienced sailors, but said the ice is melting quickly due to high ocean temperatures and warm air temperatures.

Árnason said the pack ice has not affected the lives of the people who live in the area. “Smaller wooden boats will have to stay ashore,” he said, “but bigger boats can make it out to sea. Only during the day, though. It is dangerous in the dark,” Árnason added.

Árnason is not worried by the situation. “This [pack ice] used to be Iceland’s ancient enemy, but we stay calm while the situation doesn’t worsen. This is just to remind us where we live,” he said.

The winter of 1967-68 was known as the “Great Winter of Pack Ice” when ice blocked sailing routes, damaged ships and fishing gear and caused profit loss in the fishing industry and a shortage of supplies.

When pack ice was more common, polar bears were known to migrate to Iceland from Greenland on drifting ice floes. The last time a polar bear was spotted and shot in Iceland was in Haganesvík, north Iceland, in February 1988.
© Copyright icelandreview.com (Heimur hf)
Iceland Review • Borgartúni 23 • 105 Reykjavik • Iceland • Tel.(354) 512 7575 • Fax.(354) 561 8646 • icelandreview@icelandreview.com



I was shocked to see the photo of the polar bear s...

2007-02-05T20:17:00.000-06:00

I was shocked to see the photo of the polar bear standing over the seal on the blood-red ice floe.
Nuke the polar bears, those brutes.
Wait. At least he didn't use a club.
Wait. See what (hannah)-barbarity global warming is causing?
Wait. Just a degree or two more Celsius and the seals will have the upper hand.Er, flipper.
Wait. If we all drive our SUVs into the ocean, will the resulting decrease in pollution outweigh the effect of the higher sea level?
Wait. Doesn't bear pee melt ice?
Wait. Can we lower the ocean level, one seal at a time?



Freder, I bet the majority of people commenting ...

2007-02-05T18:18:00.000-06:00

Freder,
I bet the majority of people commenting here don't have science or engineering degrees.

What is your point? Only a consensus of qualified opinion holds any water for you? So if only one person here had expertise and disagreed with you, that opinion is worthless?



Why is this GW cycle anthropological? Blame the b...

2007-02-05T17:58:00.000-06:00

Why is this GW cycle anthropological?

Blame the boomers.

The Sun has shown out of their collective arse for the last sixty years, and now that their lives are winding down they have to face the fact that they have realistially accomplished nothing.

But they MUST have had SOME impact on the Earth- and it turns out it was driving big cars, heating and cooling their massive homes and using fossil fuels. Now that they are about to become fossils themselves, its time to ban all that good stuff.

Hence they have a two fold impact- they have caused the Earth to warm by their actions, and they have caused a retrograde motion in the American economy.

I don't know how the world will survive with out them.



Oops, I guess science is about consensus. Galileo ...

2007-02-05T16:53:00.000-06:00

Oops, I guess science is about consensus. Galileo might have kept his head had he remembered that.

No global warming promoter can or will answer the question about how, if CO2 is such a powerful warming agent, could the earth have withstood levels of 3,000PPM and higher, with recurring ice ages, no less. And the end-carboniferous, with a climate similar to todays, was one of the exceptions, with an atmosphere starved of CO2, by historic levels. Did mankind also cause the great Permian warm-up?

CO2 doomsayers conveniently forget to mention that the average CO2 level in geologic history is nearer 3,000 PPM, than 380. (although the last 150 million years show a steady reduction in CO2 levels.) In 600 million years of geologic history, atmospheric CO2 levels have never been lower. And, the earths temperature is essentially at a 600 million year low. Higher levels of both are inevitable at some point, one would suspect. But that negates the GW agenda, doesn't it?

For mankind to be provably altering the climate, it means that a climactic cycle is being interrupted, according to an established theory.

What theory would that be? What theory predicts climatological trends, without human influence? There is none.

How can a person of science claim "anthropological global warming", when they, and every other AGW advocate, have absolutely no idea what the climate trends would be otherwise?

I know, you don't, Freder, but you are absolutely *certain* that humanity must be doing something to adversely affect the climate, right?