Climate change fraud

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

seriously.. think about how riddiculous it is to make judgements and comments on a video you haven't watched...

So how about addressing the comments themselves? What have I said thus far that is inaccurate? Do you actually have anything to contribute to the discussion?

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

So how about addressing the comments themselves? What have I said thus far that is inaccurate? Do you actually have anything to contribute to the discussion?

since I haven't viewed the video, as I can't here in work...
I have about as much thoughtful contibutions as you have...

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

djpbarry wrote: »

Do you actually have anything to contribute to the discussion?

I have about as much thoughtful contibutions as you have...

I’ll take that as a ‘no’, in which case I’ll ask you to refrain from posting further.

If my contributions are so lacking in thought, then you should have had no trouble countering them.

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

I’ll take that as a ‘no’, in which case I’ll ask you to refrain from posting further.

If my contributions are so lacking in thought, then you should have had no trouble countering them.

make up your mind!! either you want me refrain from posting or you want me to counter your arguments...

not a well thought out post...

I will refrain, I only was making a point at the start about comments being made without watching the video, which seems riddiculous to me..

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

make up your mind!! either you want me refrain from posting or you want me to counter your arguments...

not a well thought out post...

Either post on the subject of the thread (i.e. the video or some point raised therein) or don’t post at all – I fail to see how that could confuse, given it’s a general rule on all boards fora.

If your next post contains any more of this nonsense, you will be infracted. Either post on-topic or don’t post – it’s not difficult to understand.

robtri wrote: »

I will refrain, I only was making a point at the start about comments being made without watching the video, which seems riddiculous to me..

I’m going to repeat this one last time – I only commented (and raised questions) on the segment of the video I watched (unless of course I somehow managed to guess the names of the contributors and points they made?). I really don’t know how I can possibly make that any clearer.

This thread is an excellent example of why the charter contains the following statement:

Posting a link to a video (or anything else for that matter) does not constitute discussion. It's OK to link to a video, but it should be accompanied by a summary of its contents and arguments, and you must be prepared to discuss it.

I’ll give the OP one last chance to put forward for discussion a point or issue raised in the video. Otherwise, the thread gets locked – it’s going nowhere at the moment.

ConsiderThis

djpbarry wrote: »

I give up. Why? I only watched about 3 minutes of your video – I stopped when it was implied that polar bears are not at all threatened but are in fact thriving. I’d love to see their source for such a claim.

" A survey of the animals' numbers in Canada's eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining, because of mankind's interference in the environment. In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today.
"There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears," said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals.
His findings back the claims of Inuit hunters who have long claimed that they were seeing more bears..."

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1545036/Polar-bears-thriving-as-the-Arctic-warms-up.html)

"
Polar bears have become the poster children of global warming. The bears spend most or all of the year living and hunting on sea ice, and the accelerating shrinking of this ice appears to pose a serious threat. The issue has even become politically sensitive.
Yet recently there have been claims that polar bear populations are increasing. So what's going on? There are thought to be between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears in 19 population groups around the Arctic. While polar bear numbers are increasing in two of these populations, two others are definitely in decline. We don't really know how the rest of the populations are faring, so the truth is that no one can say for sure how overall numbers are changing."

(http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11656-climate-myths-polar-bear-numbers-are-increasing.html)


"No one can say for sure how overall numbers are changing" seems to sum it up, although both sides will claim to know. Also, polar bears have been extensively hunted in the past which has reduced their numbers, an dlets hope this has not been misinterpreted by those who want to ascribe any reductino in numbers to "man made Climate Change".

djpbarry

ConsiderThis wrote: »

"No one can say for sure how overall numbers are changing" seems to sum it up...

Yes, that was essentially going to be my point. The implication in the video, that polar bears are thriving, is highly disingenuous, given the lack of evidence to support such a position.

octo

SLUSK wrote: »

Remember the time when they talked about "global warming", since the earth has not been getting warmer the last 10 years they talk about "climate change" instead.

That would be why the IPCC, convened in 1988, is called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change then, would it? It was always called climate change.

lostinsuperfunk

Current or past polar bear population numbers or distribution are very poor proxies for climate and anyone who talks about them in connection with climate change (on either side of the debate) is on shaky ground.
Polar bears and DDT are straw man arguments, employed to distract people from the core issue.

djpbarry

I'm closing this until such time as the OP is prepared to discuss the video they have posted.