|
What gets me about all this is that everyone rationalizes this BS as OK. The ends “cap and trade” justify the means “convincing people about global warming.”
As James Delingpole reveals, that polar bear image is fake. It’s been Photoshopped. Science subsequently admitted:
“The image associated with this article was selected by the editors. We did not realize that it was not an original photograph but a collage, and it was a mistake to have used it.”
Found by Jason Price.
Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN had portions that were based on a memo written by a grad student.
IPCC report had portions based on a paper written up as input to a peer-reviewed conference, and was at odds with the output of the conference, regarding hurricane damages.
OK, So they replaced the image with a real one.
http://tinyurl.com/2556ezu
Would one of you skeptics please explain how this affects the science one iota? Is the photoshopped image materially different in your mind than the real one that stands there now?
#22, I have no problem with the photo. Every similar cause needs a poster boy. But when the underlying science is questionable, then i have a problem with appealing to public sensitivities before the truth is established. It’s deceptive.
Of course it was Photoshopped. Does a bear s**t in the woods
on the ice?
#23 – Skeptic,
#22, I have no problem with the photo. Every similar cause needs a poster boy. But when the underlying science is questionable, then i have a problem with appealing to public sensitivities before the truth is established. It’s deceptive.
Yes. But, this post has it backwards. The photo is wrong and the science is quite solid. That you are unwilling to read the raw science does not change that fact.
I can’t believe any of you were ‘stimulated’ into posting based on the topic matter. I wouldn’t have bothered reading it myself, but 24 comments peaked my curiosity.
First, some of you guys really got to get a life – Photoshopped or not, big deal!
Second who the hell cares about climate change at this point. If it does exsist, nothing can be done. What difference does it make if man contributed to it, if nothing can be done? None!
Plenty of more pressing concerns, right here, right now, right here, right now, right here, right now, right here, right now, right here, right now.
Sorry, I was listening to Fat Boy Slim.
#18–QuibbleMaster==indeed, that is a disturbing link. I’d like to see more detail on why this guy was excluded. Does show a possible bias or equally that when the science is settled, who wants a crackpot to gum up the works?
But to the main point, why do you, and why should the IPCC, or anyone else take advice about the causes and mechanics of AGW from a guy that spends his time counting Polar Bears????
Polar Bear Studies as the indicator species is “understandable” to us non-climate scientists. I’d love to see this guys charts and read more of his analysis. Right off the bat, I wonder if Polar Bears in the wild, living as they have for 1000′s of years off ice flows in the winter, are now living off of garbage dumps on the edge of town? What about the tv shows documenting Polar Bears mating with Brown Bears because of the “changing” weather patterns.
Glass Half Full at #13 has stated it well. I want to throw up when Hannity crows and preens denying AGW by saying the “Earth will be here forever.” Glass clearly states his error.
QuibbleMaster–its good to be skeptical. Now be skeptical on both sides of the issue. When you are only skeptical on one side of a question, you aren’t really being skeptical. Its some other word. Not quibbling.
Could be Perfidious Apologist, but I want to think and observe on that for a while.
#26 – amodedoma,
Is that the new right wing chant? From climate change is not happening to climate change is not human caused to we can’t fix it anyway?
Well, here’s the thing. We may not be able to fix it. If not, we’re in for a Permian/Triassic level extinction.
Since we just might be able to fix it, we owe it to ourselves and most of the other complex life forms on the planet to do everything we can to avoid another P/T extinction.
Read Under A Green Sky if you really want some interesting information.
http://tinyurl.com/32r7uvc
Ha, Ha.
Scott–its clear to the rest of us that Amodeadingdong, smart as he is, is just waiting for the rupture.
Odd for a christian not to care about all gods creatures including his own kiddies. “Right here, Right now!!!!” That was a catchy phrase used by some other group as well.
Re: Big Picture Bobbo: “But to the main point, why do you, and why should the IPCC, or anyone else take advice about the causes and mechanics of AGW from a guy that spends his time counting Polar Bears????”
Bobbo, he wanted to talk about Polar Bears, his expertise, not his views on Arctic water temperature. Anyone with an alternate explanation to anything AGW is silenced in any way possible. That’s the MO.
Re MScott, “That you are unwilling to read the raw science does not change that fact.”
Show me the conclusive raw science on Polar bears then.
…and why aren’t you questing the alarmist statements regarding climate change in the mid west or the excessive money spent on skepticism? Better just to let them do their magic for you?
I’m happy to see climate change deniers roost here and share jokes while scientists and world governments are doing something about it.
Dvorak serves a good function in keeping the riffraff out of the way.
Skeptic–well, we really STILL don’t know why he was refused attendance. Behind the sparse reporting, does he double-dip at the hors d’oeuvres? ((How can you look up a word if you can’t spell it?)) Does he spit when he talks? Has he presented enough times all ready as to be boringly repetitious and already refuted? Does he pass around Polar Bear Porn?
In short, does he emBEARass himself and the august proceedings?
Much more needs to be known before conclusions are drawn.
I decided to google (Dr Mitchell Taylor) to find his original research/published articles. Nothing pops up immediately and then I found this blog entry:
“Pete, who is Mitch Taylor? Usually I read what you’ve posted and then look for independent verification and credentials on the web…but I cannot confirm who this guy is exactly. He is nowhere to be found on the Government of Nunavut’s various websites; his email (which I got off one of the other web-postings) was returned invalid; I emailed the director of Nunavut’s media services and am waiting to hear back; otherwise this guy does not seem to exist except on alarmist blogs which post this article and another article on Taylor one which claims that he was banned from some mysterious climate warming meeting by evil alarmists.
Are you 100% sure this guy is even real? I will post back if I find anything.”
http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2007/09/truth-about-polar-bears-vs-global.html
So, I think I’ll stop looking. Sure did look good up front though. I’ll bet even you and I could write articles debunking gravity. Why are denier articles published without a thorough review of the author’s credentials and LINKS to his 30 year studies (with footnotes)?
Poor Skeptic. Confusing political and media self interest with science.
Come on Bobbo, are you really that bad at research? Maybe you misspelled his name? maybe you are just a Denier like MScott? My first Google, top of the list…
http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/2571
“Mitchell Taylor has worked on polar bears for the past 30 years, and was involved in research and management of polar bears for the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Territory, Canada for 22 years. Dr. Taylor was a member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission (IUCN/SSC) Polar Bear Specialists Group and Canada’s Federal Provincial Polar Bear Technical Committee until 2008. Dr. Taylor has published over 50 scientific papers on polar bear related topics, has worked in the field on most of the world’s polar bear populations. Most recently he and colleagues completed the Davis Strait population inventory (one of the most southern of all polar bear populations) and is a co-author on Canada’s Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) polar bear draft status report. From 2004 to 2008, he was also manager of the decentralized and relocated Wildlife Research Section. Dr. Taylor maintains a private consulting practice in the Thunder Bay area. “
Wikipedia…
“Taylor was uninvited to an international meeting of polar biologists held 29 Jun – 3 Jul 2009 in Copenhagen. The chairman of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG), Dr Andy Derocher explained that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: “it was the position you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition”. Dr Taylor was told that his views running “counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful”. His signing of the Manhattan Declaration was “inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG”.[4]
Taylor was a participant in all the previous PBSG meetings between 1981 and 2005.[5]
In their press release after the meeting, “The PBSG renewed the conclusion from previous meetings that the greatest challenge to conservation of polar bears is ecological change in the Arctic resulting from climatic warming.[6]“
Skeptic–again, thanks. Good link. With over 50 scientific publications, you’d think one would show up on google? I guess their spiders don’t crawl over scientific publications?
Still, I don’t like other people drawing my conclusions. He talks out of both sides of his mouth. Count the number of weasels here: “Polar bears, as a species, do not appear to be threatened or in decline based on the data that I’ve seen at the present time, although some populations do seem to be experiencing deleterious effects from climate change.”
I say give me numbers charted over time or STFU. But thats our Lame Stream Media for ya.
As I said, or at least intimated==the number and LOCATION of Polar Bears going up or down may be consistent with or inconsistent with GW and says nothing at all about AGW.
Another red herring. At worst==an irrelevant tempest in a tea pot.
Second thought: yes, I think the why’s and wherefore’s of a qualified researcher being barred from participation on an IPCC sub-committee DIRECTLY RELATED to this guy’s expertise needs to be better explained than what we’ve seen so far.
But as Tristan just said in response to the question of who killed him “Its in the Past.” (Movie: Tristan and Isolde. Pure crap)
So Skeptic, I don’t recall asking or seeing your view on: Are we in GW and its just the Anthro you are quibbling about, or does it go epistemologically deeper in some manner than would be informative?
Skeptic–good work is appreciated where ever it gets posted. Might be “missed” when posted to the wrong thread, but no harm, no foul.
So, going to your “skepticism” how does the media hysteria falsely linking a decline in Polar Bears affect your evaluation of all the other predictive models?
I admit I don’t spend a lot of time on issues I don’t think are core to the main idea. Here, the issue is can we dump trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere for centuries and expect what from the process?
No 100% guaranteed answers, only best guesses. The best guess is that over a long time there will be ocean acidification, increased atmospheric and oceanic temperature rise, decreased ice, increased drought, rise in ocean levels, shifts in weather patterns including rainfall and droughts, increased tropical diseases, alteration of deep ocean currents===all kinds of stuff.
But, its all “wrong” because polar bears on covers of magazines sell more copy?
Is that the basis of your skepticism bunky?
When you find errors on both sides of an analysis, where do you draw your skepticism???
Bobbo, re: So, going to your “skepticism” how does the media hysteria falsely linking a decline in Polar Bears affect your evaluation of all the other predictive models?
It adds to my dismay of course, because Dr. Taylor is far from the only one this has happened to.
The warming earth is still speculative according to a recent paper on upper atmospheric water vapor… a 10% decline, which has speculated to be responsible for cooling the earth these past 10 years. How long will that last? Will it offset CO2 emissions? Is it a result of CO2 emissions? Those are just a few of the unanswered questions.
As for your list of catastrophes, you can list off all the bad things that might happen, and I could easily list all the good things. None of them are relevant at this point because the science is not settled by any stretch.
I’ve really run out of steam Bobbo. Perhaps, another day I’ll talk with you about radiative forcing. G’night.
Oh, heres a list of Dr. Taylor’s papers on Google Scholar.
http://bit.ly/aFrNlQ
Here’s another important angle to this that I think needs to get pointed out.
The White House Elena Kagan Infomercial. Free Press?! Har…
The Facts just don’t matter anymore. But anyone even thinks about lording it over make no mistake you can thank Fox News for destroying the free press in the First Amendment.