Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change
Options
Comments
-
Does anyone else want to take a crack at this lolGaoth Laidir wrote: »You still don't get it. First you say they're always rubbishing the idea, then you post evidence to the contrary. My point was that I've never seen anyone on TV strenuously denying that this event or that can be attributed to agw. Their watery statements are always qualified by a "but that's what we expect to see more of in future".
We got it with the Australian fires, we get it with the US hurricanes, yet there is not one shred of evidence to support it. I heard it this week about the floods in the UK. All immediate automatic attribution. No judge or jury. Now whether some group subsequently denies that this is the case never sees the light of say. Sky News are not going to issue a correction a month later to state that a false statement was made a month ago. To the public the message gas already been absorbed. Another ugly face of anthro GW has been shown as far as they're concerned.
0 -
No sense of irony.. at all:
The quest to find water on the moon. Of such importance to mankind.New Moon
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Watched this disheartening video last night that might be of interest to others:
Seems that the much respected David Attenbourogh has no problem with using deceptive talk and gross imagery to push the idea of climate change. Quite disgusting in fact that they use the real suffering of animals (which he and his camera crew seem to get off on filming) to cause as much distress to his audience, many of which are children and young adults, as possible. In my opinion, these 'nature documentary' types seem to enjoy filming the suffering of animals to an obscene degree, because nobody in their right mind could stand there with a camera and be so utterly detached to the horror of what they are filming as to be able to keep that camera pin point focused on it.New Moon
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Watched this disheartening video last night that might be of interest to others:
Seems that the much respected David Attenbourogh has no problem with using deceptive talk and gross imagery to push the idea of climate change. Quite disgusting in fact that they use the real suffering of animals (which he and his camera crew seem to get off on filming) to cause as much distress to his audience, many of which are children and young adults, as possible. In my opinion, these 'nature documentary' types seem to enjoy filming the suffering of animals to an obscene degree, because nobody in their right mind could stand there with a camera and be so utterly detached to the horror of what they are filming as to be able to keep that camera pin point focused on it.
Examples of where they 'get off' please. Also, please show some examples of where they 'enjoy' the suffering of animals. There are none of either in the video you link - just a load of insults directed at Mr Attenborough.
How could Mr Attenborough save such animals as the walrus falling of cliffs?
Do you criticise those who report war for not taking up guns themselves? How do you think they can watch suffering and not intervene?
The answer is that reporters report.0 -
-
Watched this disheartening video last night that might be of interest to others:
Seems that the much respected David Attenbourogh has no problem with using deceptive talk and gross imagery to push the idea of climate change. Quite disgusting in fact that they use the real suffering of animals (which he and his camera crew seem to get off on filming) to cause as much distress to his audience, many of which are children and young adults, as possible. In my opinion, these 'nature documentary' types seem to enjoy filming the suffering of animals to an obscene degree, because nobody in their right mind could stand there with a camera and be so utterly detached to the horror of what they are filming as to be able to keep that camera pin point focused on it.
A few posts ago you said you don't go seeking out climate change skeptics.....
Will you show your open mind by reading what actual experts have to say on the likes of Crockford and other pseudo experts under the pay of groups like the GWPF and the Heartland Institute?
From the paperApproximately 80% of the denier blogs cited here referred
to one particular denier blog, Polar Bear Science, by Susan
Crockford, as their primary source of discussion and debate
on the status of polar bears. Notably, as of this writing,
Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor
published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on
the effects of sea ice on the population dynamics of polar
bears. However, she has published notes and “briefings”
through a conservative think tank, the Global Warming
Policy Foundation (GWPF), and is described by them as
“an expert on polar bear evolution.” Similarly, the Heartland
Institute, another conservative think tank that downplays
AGW, describes her as “one of the world’s foremost experts
on polar bears.” Prominent among blogs giving Crockford’s
blog disproportionate attention are WUWT and CD, suggesting that her blog reaches a large audience.
The GWPF articles by Crockford claim that contrary
to available scientific and empirical evidence, polar bears
will easily adapt to any changes that Arctic ecosystems may
experience in coming decades (Crockford 2014, 2015).
Crockford’s blog frequently extracts partial research outcomes and portrays them as contrary to the documented
effects of AGW on sea ice or polar bears—supporting a “scientific uncertainty” frame. For example, when alleging sea
ice recovered after 2012, Crockford downplayed the contribution of sea-ice loss to polar-bear population declines
in the Beaufort Sea. Similarly, in GWPF reports and on
her blog, Crockford vigorously criticizes, without supporting evidence, the findings of several leading researchers
who have studied polar bears in the field for decades. In
this manner, her blogs highlight a second frame, “public
accountability of science,” evidenced by her claims that
scientists overstate their findings. For example, Crockford
recently called the findings of a new peer-reviewed and vetted paper by USGS scientists (Durner et al. 2017) “bogus,”
“lame,” and “dangerous.” (Crockford 2017). Rhetorical
devices to evoke fear and other emotions, such as implying
that the public is under threat from deceitful scientists, are
common tactics employed by science-denier groups (Barry
et al. 2008).
A primary approach of Crockford’s and other denier
blogs is to frame uncertainty by focusing on the present and
to question the accuracy of future predictions—implying
that the rapid loss of Arctic ice recorded over the past 40
years induced by AGW cannot serve as a guide to future
conditions. This contrasts with the scientific consensus
that polar bears will ultimately disappear if Arctic sea-ice
declines continue unabated (Amstrup et al. 2010). Despite
the roughly linear relationship between observed sea-ice
decline and global mean temperature (Amstrup et al. 2010),
biological responses are often nonlinear. As in other ecosystems, when critical thresholds in habitat availability are
passed, tipping points occur, and species dependent on that
habitat suddenly experience sharp declines (Dai et al. 2012).
Moreover, habitat loss is not always immediately followed
by abundance declines of species dependent on that habitat.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article-abstract/68/4/281/4644513 by guest on 20 February 2020
Forum
284 BioScience • April 2018 / Vol. 68 No. 4 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience
Instead, the phenomenon of “extinction debt” can create
temporal gaps between the two processes (Kuussaari et al.
2009). These important aspects, vital to our understanding
of future prospects for species in shrinking habitats, including polar bears, are ignored by Crockford’s and other AGWdenying blogs.
Denier blogs
"Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and
Climate-Change Denial by Proxy" by
JEFFREY A. HARVEY, DAPHNE VAN DEN BERG, JACINTHA ELLERS, REMKO KAMPEN, THOMAS W. CROWTHER,
PETER ROESSINGH, BART VERHEGGEN, RASCHA J. M. NUIJTEN, ERIC POST, STEPHAN LEWANDOWSKY,
IAN STIRLING, MEENA BALGOPAL, STEVEN C. AMSTRUP, AND MICHAEL E. MANN0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P0EUBrWh50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Rkv-ItznBE![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement