"The biggest scandal in modern science"

[Drake]

Bringing this discussion back to my original point. The OP is based on a logical fallacy, NOT facts. You cannot dismiss an entire argument because part of the argument is wrong.

A few climate scientists being wrong does mean ALL climate scientists are wrong.

A few black people comitting crimes does not mean all black people commit crimes.

All pigeons are doves but not all doves are pigeons.

Redqueen... also, remember, this is the same person who said that polar bears are increasing, because one population out 19 are increasing, while many many more are decreasing...

[redqueenar]

Redqueen... also, remember, this is the same person who said that polar bears are increasing, because one population out 19 are increasing, while many many more are decreasing...

And that's an absolute lie. Polar bears have resorted to out an out cannibalism to survive. Their situation is desperate.

[redqueenar]

http://nifplay.org/polar-husky.html

[Drake]

And that's an absolute lie. Polar bears have resorted to out an out cannibalism to survive. Their situation is desperate.

I like you, Redqueen

But at any rate, it's tragic that people are not only ignorant to this, but they foolishly try to convince others that there is no problem, ignoring data in exchange for bringing up nonsense. You'd think if you were going to say that Polar Bears are increasing, you'd at least go through the effort to check your facts before lying to people in an effort to push a big oil agenda.

[ALLHAILMEGATRON]

Redqueen... also, remember, this is the same person who said that polar bears are increasing, because one population out 19 are increasing, while many many more are decreasing...

Drake, out of 19 sub-populations of Polar Bears, you yourself said that "seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision." Therefore, YOUR conclusion that "many more are decreasing" as compared to "one population out 19 are increasing," is wrong. 36% of your "data" is insufficient! It's impossible to base a conclusion on such a survey.

Also, you keep writing that I either don't provide facts, or I don't provide sources. Yes I do! In many of my posts I've included either facts, or sources. Read them!

Here's an inconvenient truth for ya, Polar Bear expert "Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.

Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea."

[ALLHAILMEGATRON]

And that's an absolute lie. Polar bears have resorted to out an out cannibalism to survive. Their situation is desperate.

Got any facts to back up that claim?

[ALLHAILMEGATRON]

Incorrect information is not layman's terms.

Incorrect information, eh? Like your claim that "Oxygen is a compound of two elements?" Ya see, however, that IS actually incorrect information. Naming Oxygen a chemical, on the other hand, isn't. Chemical elements are still chemicals.

[Drake]

Drake, out of 19 sub-populations of Polar Bears, you yourself said that "seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision." Therefore, YOUR conclusion that "many more are decreasing" as compared to "one population out 19 are increasing," is wrong. 36% of your "data" is insufficient! It's impossible to base a conclusion on such a survey.

Also, you keep writing that I either don't provide facts, or I don't provide sources. Yes I do! In many of my posts I've included either facts, or sources. Read them!

Here's an inconvenient truth for ya, Polar Bear expert "Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.

Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea."

I notice how you completely ignored the decreasing populations.

As for your Dr Taylor...

"There are thought to be between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears in the world, and all but one member of the PBSG believe global warming poses a critical threat to their long-term survival. The exception, quoted by contrarian writers, is Dr Mitchell Taylor from the Government of Nunavut, who remains sceptical about the climate modelling projections and their impact. 'I'm not sure I understand his logic,' Stirling says. 'However, at the last meeting of the IUCN PBSG in Seattle in June 2005 the group [including Dr Taylor] unanimously agreed to classify the polar bear as vulnerable.'"

So what is he saying? He seems to be a bit contrary, yes? That and his views run contrary to every single one of his peers. From a logical perspective, it would seem he is not in agreement with the rest of his community. However, he agrees that polar bears are vulnerable. What does that say about him?

And since you want to quote him, I sugegst researching him a bit further, BECAUSE HE COMPLETELY DEBUNKS WHAT YOU'VE SAID.

"BUT I do believe that human produced increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is the primary driver of the climate changes we are seeing now. And if we look at the whole picture, not just limited areas of the globe and short spans of time, I would say that humans are changing climate in dramatic, and sometimes catastrophic ways.”" Dr. Mitchell Taylor

And if you bothered to read further, you'd notice how he is attempting to support the Inuit rights to hunt polar bears? Conflict of interest here? YUP.

[ALLHAILMEGATRON]

Please keep the "chemical element" debate out of this thread, go here - http://www.shootfortheedit.com/forum...449#post115449

[Drake]

Let's play a little game called "spot the conflict of interest".

Mitchell Taylor, a polar bear researcher for the Canadian province of Nunavut, where many natives hunt polar bears legally, agrees and submitted a petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service opposing listing polar bears as threatened. He stated that only two populations of bears are decreasing because of climate change and “it’s not clear how polar bears…will be impacted.” Along the Davis Strait in Nunavit, Taylor said he found fat bears “pigging out on blueberries” and “catching seals in open water.”
In fact, the decline in polar bears has not been uniform across the arctic; the overall population has increased since the 1970’s, when most hunting was banned by treaty. More recent trends, however, have been troubling. Of the 19 separate polar populations, five are declining, two are increasing, five are stable, and there is insufficient data for seven more, according to the Polar Bear Specialist Group, a team of scientists dedicated to preserving the bears. "

Now...let's see... a polar bear expert working for a tribe that hunts them, being virtually the sole voice saying that their numbers are increasing, despite massive evidence to the contrary. Hmm.. let's see... listing the Polar Bears as threatened would be a devastating blow to the tribe, as they hunt a lot of Polar Bears.

Am I the only one who sees a certain chance of this guy being swayed?

[ALLHAILMEGATRON]

I notice how you completely ignored the decreasing populations.

What?

As for your Dr Taylor...

"There are thought to be between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears in the world, and all but one member of the PBSG believe global warming poses a critical threat to their long-term survival. The exception, quoted by contrarian writers, is Dr Mitchell Taylor from the Government of Nunavut, who remains sceptical about the climate modelling projections and their impact. 'I'm not sure I understand his logic,' Stirling says. 'However, at the last meeting of the IUCN PBSG in Seattle in June 2005 the group [including Dr Taylor] unanimously agreed to classify the polar bear as vulnerable.'"

Notice he said, "2005," 4 years ago. A lot of things can change in 4 years.

So what is he saying? He seems to be a bit contrary, yes? That and his views run contrary to every single one of his peers. From a logical perspective, it would seem he is not in agreement with the rest of his community. However, he agrees that polar bears are vulnerable. What does that say about him?

And since you want to quote him, I sugegst researching him a bit further, BECAUSE HE COMPLETELY DEBUNKS WHAT YOU'VE SAID.


"BUT I do believe that human produced increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is the primary driver of the climate changes we are seeing now. And if we look at the whole picture, not just limited areas of the globe and short spans of time, I would say that humans are changing climate in dramatic, and sometimes catastrophic ways.”" Dr. Mitchell Taylor

Where are your sources, Drake? When and where did Dr. Taylor say that?

And if you bothered to read further, you'd notice how he is attempting to support the Inuit rights to hunt polar bears? Conflict of interest here? YUP.

Ah, conflict of interest. Like the Copenhagen group that is solely out for obtaining a global Cap and Trade? They have preconceived notions!

...

[littleman794]

[Swift]

It certainly is. Unfortunately, some members of the forum are getting unnecessarily angry at facts that they disagree with, resorting to "personal attacks." If my memory serves me correctly, I've refrained from personally insulting any of the forums members in this discussion, yes?

I see you took no note of my sarcasm.

[Trailbreaker]

If you got a problem with this thread then just friggen ignore it.