Global warming sees polar bears stranded on melting ice

Daily Mail (UK) ^ | Feb 1, 2007 | BILL MOULAND

[John Semmens]

Ice bergs at the North Pole can come from ice already floating on the water.

We don't have to prove the Earth isn't warming in order to counter the absurd "solutions" posed by the left.

The Earth goes through cycles of warmer and colder. We now have the technology to influence global temperatures. Nobel Prize-winning scientist Paul Crutzen is the latest scientist to advocate the release of sulfur dioxide particles in the upper atmosphere should we ever wish to cool the Earth in response to anthropogenic global warming.

climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels says "the real issue for the twenty-first century is not how much will the planet warm, which we can fairly confidently say will be at the low end of IPCC estimates, but "what do we want the temperature to be?"

"We really do have, in a crude manner, the ability to set the surface temperature of the Earth to within 1 or 2 degrees Celsius of where we want it to be. The debate should be, Where do we want to set it?"

[John Semmens]

You said: "You're wrong."

I recommend you delete this phrase from your vocabulary. It only makes you look bad.

In the matter of climate there are so many variables that no one can be certain of what future temperatures might be. They might be warmer. They might be cooler. We don't know. We observe the data and make our best forecast. It is too early for you to announce that you are right.

My point is that we don't have to prove that global warming isn't occurring in order to debunk the left's proposed remedies. EVEN IF GLOBAL WARMING IS OCCURRING IT CAN BE OFFSET WITHOUT DESTROYING THE ECONOMY OR EMPOWERING A NANNY STATE.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Poar bears drive SUV's?

[DustyMoment]

The whole thing looks photoshopped to me.

You have a good eye. I took a second look and I think you're right. It DOES look photoshopped.

[ml/nj]

You said: "You're wrong." I recommend you delete this phrase from your vocabulary. It only makes you look bad. In the matter of climate there are so many variables that no one can be certain of what future temperatures might be.

Obviously, it makes me look bad in your eyes. Maybe some others in the Peanut Gallery will put forth their opinions on this matter?

Now you are implying that I made some comment about "future temperatures." You're wrong about this too. It is the globalwarmingcrowd that speaks with certainty about what the future temperatures will be just as they predicted global cooling 30 years ago. (and also the calamities these temperatures will bring). In fact my comments really were about temperatures in the recent past which must have declined during these years for there to be more ice in more places than there had formerly been. I pointed out that they declined because the globalwarmingcrowd has suggested like a magician waving his hand, that more ice in the ocean somehow indicates that temperatures have been rising. They're wrong too. You have company.

ML/NJ

[AaronInCarolina]

I just can't buy that thousands upon thousands of scientists from every corner of the world are part of some liberal conspiracy to stir up panic about global warming.

Most of them aren't. Most of them are bandwagon jumpers-on. It will not be the first time in the history of science that large numbers of scientists jumped on a bandwagon opinion, not wanting to be left off the wagon. In those times, it was usually the mavericks that ended up being correct. Copernicus is an example, but there are many others. The one thing that all bandwagon-mentality scientific positions have in common is their incestuous relationships with public policy (politics). Michael Crighton gave a lecture at CalTech in 2003 where he addressed the unhealthy relationship between governments and scientists, and how brave, bold scientists bucked the conventional wisdom to be proven right, but in their lifetime were scorned. Here is a link to the lecture: "Alians Caused Global Warming." It is a REALLY long read, but extremely enlightening about how science by consensus has led us down the wrong path in the past.

I see no downside in reducing or even ending our dependence on fossil fuels. This should have been done years ago.

Valid points, which I find no argument with. I would add that those few scientists which are the ones really pushing the global warming alarmism are too associated with the IPCC of the UN. In fact without the UN pushing this topic so forcefully (and we know why it is... world socialism), I have my doubts that it would have so many people jumping "on the wagon".

[AaronInCarolina]

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had."

Michael Crighton, CalTech, January 17, 2003

[dforest]

Notice the bears are facing the same direction. Posing? I don't think so. Do people really think these bears are that dumb? Or should I say as dumb and gullible as all of us sheeple? It is very easy to take photos and place them in this position. Also , part of the photo is cropped off. Why?

[RightWhale]

Like a cat climbing the drapes

[DustyMoment]

Or should I say as dumb and gullible as all of us sheeple?

Yes. Unfortunately, I was one of them. What struck me as odd about the fuaxto was that it looked as though the right side was cut off to keep from revealing that the story was total BS. It honestly wasn't until I saw your comment that I went back and took a closer look and started noticing the other suspicious parts of that fauxto. As I said, you have a good eye. That was a good catch!

[Nathan Zachary]

""We really do have, in a crude manner, the ability to set the surface temperature of the Earth to within 1 or 2 degrees Celsius of where we want it to be. The debate should be, Where do we want to set it?"

That depends on who you ask.

If you ask me, I'd like to see the Arctic become the tropical paradise it once was.

If you ask someone who already lives in one, then they would probably like to have a winter wonderland available for a ski trip or a snowmoble safari.

I don't think man should mess with nature at all however. Just let it do what it wants to do. We know it was once a tropical paradise, the whole world was one at one time. Sounds good to me.

[dforest]

I am no expert, but I have played around with pictures. An amateur would find it easy to place those bears in that position. A total amateur like me could pull that off. Did you look at the rest of the pix at the Daily Mail? They looked like normal photos of polar bears in a natural environment. I think they were trying to create pity, not because the bears were being compromised by warming, but because they were cold and helpless and looking stranded.

[Binghamton_native]

Don't get me wrong. I'm on your side on this issue. But the media is now in full-court press, and GW doesn't seem to have sufficient political capital to offer any resistance. The pessimism in me says that the eco-nuts are going to get their way.

[DustyMoment]

Did you look at the rest of the pix at the Daily Mail?

No, I only saw the one. It doesn't surprise me that they might try to bury this fauxtograph among a group of real ones. There's an old axiom that goes "Hide in plain sight". It appears that's what they were trying to do.

[USS Alaska]

I just can't buy that thousands upon thousands of scientists from every corner of the world are part of some liberal conspiracy to stir up panic about global warming.

I see no downside in reducing or even ending our dependence on fossil fuels. This should have been done years ago.

Your inability to discern fact from fable is something I can't change. You deal in beliefs and feelings not logic.

Get out your bike and skates and you will be doing your part. Man's use of fossil fuels is goodness, not evil and ending our use of them isn't going to happen until there is a more efficient way to provide energy.

The downside is higher costs and less productivity and since you can't understand that, that puts you in the company of your fellow travelers, marx, lenin and hillary.

[RavenATB]

"Looks like a hard climb for a bear. Did the bears stand there till the ice melted around them?"

Ever seen the claws on a polar bear? Believe me, climbing that ice would be a cakewalk...

[iceguy20878]

There is a lot of misinformation and really stupid stuff on this thread.
First, it is ice floe, not ice flow.
Also, there are no icebergs off the northslope of Alaska. Forget the 90% below water stuff. The piece of ice the bears are on is a remnant of a pressure ridge formed in winter sea ice(frozen sea water). These large pressure ridges form in the marginal ice zone between landfast ice and the moving sea ice pack. The crushing forces in the marginal zone can cause thick ridge zones that often are grounded in relatively shallow waters. Wave action and summer melt often give the ridge remnants unusual form and appearance. This piece of ice is not going to tip over when a bear climbs on it because the ice is grounded on the sea floor. Notice the discoloration at the bottom of the ice - where do you suppose that came from?
There is no indication of where the photo was taken but from the story one is lead to believe it was far north in the Beaufort Sea. My experience tells me it was close to shore and the bears could WADE to land if they wanted to.
These wackos will do anything to create an "Oprah photo moment"...

[CottShop]

oh ya suuuuure and just what do you know about ice may I ask? Oh wait- you're iceguy- nm carry on

[beaversmom]

BTTT for post #137

[ml/nj]

This piece of ice is not going to tip over when a bear climbs on it because the ice is grounded on the sea floor.

What are you smoking?

ML/NJ