Check out Study: Warming turns bears into cannibals
For the first time, polar bears are known to eat each other as food becomes scarcer in the warmer Artic.

For those that have Dick Chaney's point of view on this, posts like this would make me a certified environmental wacko.

 

My point was there are differing opinions on how to reduce greehouse gas emissions. The AP6 includes the US, India and China, who aren't in the Kyoto treaty. Maybe another attempt may be more effective, Kyoto isn't the only attempt. The inability of the Kyoto countries to achieve their goals can't be applauded. The trading scheme is proving to be a big joke, house of cards where each country stacks it's deck. Poor UK, the only honest ones in the bunch, and they've actually reduced.

http://www.euractiv.com/en/sustainab...article-155349

"For environmental groups, the data brings confirmation that EU member states have "abused the Emissions Trading System" by granting their industries "far too generous carbon emission allowances in the period 2005-07".

One key issue highlighted by the WWF is that emission allowances for that period were not determined based on real "historic" emissions but on assumed future emissions, giving big polluters an incentive to exaggerate projections. Another is that about 90% of CO2 pollution permits were given away to businesses free-of-charge, allowing them to accumulate windfall profits from selling their permits. The way the permits were distributed was also not transparent, they say, and the actual emissions were not verified independently."


Sounds is solid as the "lock box".

 

My reading leaves things less clear cut. 24 and 34 years worth of data? It was warmer in the arctic circle in the last century, but more than 34 years ago, in the 30's, could killing for food be relatively common historically, this study doesn't know.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/cool/cool13.htm

We have no idea whether other killings went on but weren't noteworthy in the last 34 years. Evidence searching for a reason?

My general problem with analyses like this one is that it really isn't evidence that it is the results of warming or unusual. It may just be searching for more money for global warming research. Who ever got more funding because they said 3 bears killed by other bears didn't mean GW. The majority of the article appears to be spin by interest groups, always looking for a smoking gun for the perpetual fundraiser.

 

I thought the first sentence of my response should have answered your first question.

None of the scientists quoted were denying global warming, rather they dispute the conclusions made by Gore.

Seems if you believe in the science of GW but don't believe every worst case speculation it flat earth time. Hitler and **** next?

 

I see a very consistent pattern of any link suggesting that Global Warming as a problem as being dismissed. Who cares if there is a case for a warming trend over the last 150 years and you can find it on Wikipedia? (try and publish something biased there) There must be a very vast left-wing conspiracy on this. Inject Hitler and ****'s - how intellutual! Have I just met the Michael Moore of the right? Discussion is futile. (see post #34 below...)

 

I see you missed the point that calling me a flat earther is as intellectual as calling me a Hitler or ****. With winks a plenty I though the humor was mutual and obvious.

So it's not possible that polar bears killing polar bears for food has ever happened before in a region that's been warmer in the last 100 years because of one speculation that the current warmth is the cause of something that may not be unusual, based on very limited data? My doubts prove I'm Pol Pot.

Okay I'll respond to your stereotyping.
1. I don't agree with Al Gore - he is a left-winger

I don't agree with most politicians right and left, Ron Paul from Texas stands out as trustworthy.

2.....therefore anything he says I'll probably reject

I reject most everyting politicians say.

3. Global Warming is a urban myth perputated by environmentalists to promote socialism. This is the undeniable assertion of talk radio hosts and others.

I listen to NPR, rush Limbaugh is inflammatory, haven't heard him in 10 years, don't know how O'Reilly stands. I already said at least twice that I believe that co2 and other greenhouse gases have increased the temperature of the earth.

4. Virtually every study confirms the Earth is warming by scientists world-wide. It must be a natural cyclical pattern, even if this jump is 5Xs larger than any other in human memory and still spiking....

Agreed as far as warming is happening, but 5X larger than any other in human memory, that would require ignoring the 1920-1940 period which has a similar jump. Memory isn't so good, data says 5X aint so.

5. Margaret Thatcher concerned about Global Warming? Must be going senile. John McCain worried about Global Warming? He's not a real Republican - and neither is anyone else that believes this....back to point #1.

Didn't Margaret Thatcher dream up global warming as a means to crush the coal labor unions? Despicable politicians.

Is discussion really futile.

 

Have to take a break when things go from discussion to shouting matches.

I have read dozens of articles on Global Warming in recent years. No, I don't believe everything I hear or read. Also tried to edit some articles on Wikapedia and they stress a neutral point of view. They have a number of good articles on this topic...

• Effects of global warming
• Climate change
• Global warming
• Mitigation of global warming
• Adaptation to global warming
• Greenhouse gases
• Global warming controversy

I read stuff like this before seeing the movie. Links such as Effects of global warming(Wikipedia) is pretty much what is covered in the movie if you don't want to see it.

Maybe I was bit short last night, but I saw post after post attempting to say we are only experiencing a natural cyclical change. I've read too much and observed too many seasons recently to believe that. I'm well aware that there are plenty of hack jobs on the net. For instance, some of PETA's stuff is not correct. The articles on global warming are so numerous I just can't dismiss them all to ignorance or hack jobs.

When I saw a number posts asserting "no way is this more than a climatic hiccup" - it struck a nerve. I saw denial and "select your reality". If I every get to to point of being empowered to make the world what I wish it to be, I'm going to say we are all living large in New Zealand.

 

Were you shouting, I never noticed, and assure you I wasn't?

Yeah, I've read most of this as well, I go to www.realclimate.org for the most current discussions.

You didn't seem as short to me as you apparently feel, no problem, I just figured you missunderstood my Hitler/**** reference.



For clarity, my comments on past temperatures specifically 1930-40 arctic weren't to say that global warming doesn't exist, but to say there's a flaw in a study that only goes back to 1972 but claims that polar bears have never cannablized before.


And as well, the wikipedia report Global Warming you linked confirms that from 1910 to 1940 the 5 year running average temperature rise seems identical to the 1980 to 2000 trend, not 5X greater than before as you stated. All debate requires nitpicking.



A problem I have with a lot of the discussion of consequences assumes only bad and worst case scenarios, even though the language is peppered with may, could, might, possibly, etc. leaving lots of speculation about the future. When there is a range of temperature increase or sea level rise, only the high predictions consequences are trumpeted. Back to my lack of trust in motives I guess, as everything can be spun to someone's advantage including scientists, charitable organizations and governments. Fear sells. Everything seems OK doesn't get grants. The raw science is sound and solid, the predictions are just that. The energy companies aren't the only ones with financial interests.


I was serious about Thatcher and the Coal Unions. She softened on her stance after the Union was busted.


In her book Statecraft (2002), she described her later regret in supporting the concept of human-induced global warming, outlining the negative effects she perceived it had upon the policy-making process. "Whatever international action we agree upon to deal with environmental problems, we must enable our economies to grow and develop, because without growth you cannot generate the wealth required to pay for the protection of the environment"


From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher

 

Hi,
I actually saw the movie, and in it, Gore references 928 scientific journal reports on global warming from the last several years. Not one SCIENTIFIC journal discounted the reality of global warming as created by an increase in human carbon emissions. The only place you will find dissent is in the popular, corporate owned media. As Gore states so succinctly and eloquently, this is NOT a POLITICAL issue, it is a moral one. I would ask that people go see the film first, and then post on this thread. There is nothing more outrageous than message board screaming matches. No one wins. Let's try to stay on-topic and not feed the trolls.
Respectfully,
Joan

 

I'm confused, who's the troll here, Delta Flyer for getting off topic with the polar bears?, or me with the article including scientists critical of Gore's data picking?, or neither of us? Maybe AZcivic or the Super Moderator for suspecting political motives as well. Is no criticism allowed until after I see the movie, even though criticism is already out there? Like many here, most of the information he presents is already familiar, the 928 Concensus is not really evidence of global warming either.

Here's a survey of 530 climate scientists from 2003. Asked to rate from 1-strongly agree to 7-strongly disagree to the question "To what extent do you agree or disagree that global warming is mostly the results of anthropogenic causes" the results are as follows.

1 9.4% Strongly Agree
2 25.3%
3 21.1%
4 14.2%
5 8.5%
6 10.8%
7 9.7% Strongly Disagree

What does it prove, nothing about whether GW exists. It proves in this survey more climate scientists voted strongly disagree than strongly agree, and if you split the 4s in half could say that 36.1% disagree. Concensus?, maybe, maybe not, but concensus is politics not science.

http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/bra...s/Science2.pdf