Polar Bears Are Thriving

And yet the secret ballot is a foundation of democracy. Wave your arms all you want; the facts remain.

 

But never by anyone but a liar. As no one denies that climate changes, anyone who accuses anyone else of "climate change denial" is always known with 100% certainty to be lying. There has never been an exception to that law, and there never will be.

Thus proving itself to be the biggest breaker of those rules...

Your source is WilliamConnolleypedia???

Garbage. I guess you missed this:
"We do not accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company."

https://www.thegwpf.org/

Oh? Then who funds Michael Mann's unanimously unsuccessful lawsuits against scientists who question his methods and results?

< crickets >

First the anti-fossil-fuel hysteria campaign makes it career-suicidal for climate scientists and educators to express skepticism about AGW nonscience, then it makes it financially suicidal for companies to do so and even socially suicidal for private citizens to do so. And then it claims those who do not wish to have their support for genuine climate science publicly known must be concealing their support for nefarious reasons.

Despicable beyond the rich resources of the English language to express.

 

What a silly load of fact-free nonscience. Read and learn:

https://polarbearscience.com/2021/0...-iucn-declared-them-vulnerable-to-extinction/

 

All you democrat voters go to where they are and pet them. they are cute. Go ahead.

 

Those that scream about "deniers" are in my belief generally liars, who decades ago would have likely been applauding as people fired fire hoses at those marching for civil rights.

It really is the same kind of tactics. Shout all kinds of nonsense about those who you see as your enemy, refuse to actually converse with them in a logical manner, and call them every name you can think of.

I often have people scream I am a "denier", even though I knew that Global Warming was true back in the 1970s. And even ironically, back then many that are screaming :Global Warming" were screaming "Man Made Ice Age", because many regions were experiencing colder than normal winters.

I recognize that you can not track such trends annually, and not even by ten year blocks. You have to literally tack them over centuries and longer. The best way to track past climate changes is actually through geology, either from studying the rocks or what is found in them. And there is nowhere near enough detail in that to find real details of how fast or slow a climate event happened.

But we do know of the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period, as we actually have written accounts of each of them. And there are even tree rings of still living trees that record the MWP. It is that recent in history. And while I hear all kinds of crazy convolutions to try and explain how those are not "man made", nobody seems to be able to explain why this warm period is different than the MWP. In fact, most who try to claim AGW is real will completely ignore that if asked.

And most do not even seem to realize that when dealing with projections of things like climate, CO2 levels, and the like past around 150 years they are really dealing with estimates. Not cold, hard facts. Estimates are all well and good, but you can not take them as a gospel truth. Much as events like the global cooling during the time of "The Year Without a Summer" do not even appear on a graph that covers that era. Or that we knew the planet has been warming for centuries, as proven by the Thames Frost Fairs.

Celebrated annually in London for centuries, the last one was in 1814. That was when the river in London froze over, and the people would essentially party on the ice. Or that American rivers used to freeze regularly, as seen in the Leutz painting "Washington Crossing the Delaware". That river has not frozen like that since the late 1700s, which in itself screams that "Global Warming" started long before the time that most try to shove it into.

 

Susan Crockford runs the website “Polar Bear Science”. Crockford, who has also said that has not published in any peer-reviewed journals on polar bears.

In 2012, a confidential document leak, dubbed Denialgate, revealed that Crockford had also been receiving payments of $750 per month from the notorious climate change denial think tank, the Heartland Institute.. (That's a Koch funded propaganda machine)

Ian Stirling, who has spent more than four decades studying polar bears and publishing over 150 papers and five books on the topic, says Crockford has “zero” authority on the subject. [2], [7]

“If you tell a lie big enough, often enough, people will begin to believe it,” said Ian Stirling. “The denier websites have been using her and building her up as an expert.”
https://www.desmog.com/susan-crockford/

Fake science run by the corrupt...

 

Stirling and his old boy network friends have never forgiven Crockford for publicly refuting their forecast that polar bear populations would decline as Arctic ice diminished.
Crockford, S.J. 2017. Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30% decline in population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus). PeerJ Preprints 2 March 2017. Doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2737v3 https://peerj.com/preprints/2737/

 

Still fake, still corrupt..

 

Nope. Merely accurate research, which remains unchallenged.
From the Heartland web page:
". . . Neither Charles Koch nor David Koch — nor any Koch family charitable foundation — is a current or regular contributor to The Heartland Institute. Koch Industries has never funded The Heartland Institute.

The Charles G. Koch Foundation in 2012 donated $25,000 to Heartland to support our work promoting free-market health care solutions, not climate issues. That is a paltry sum (0.36 percent) in our organization’s $7 million budget. That single donation — to support our work on health care issues — was the only Koch-connected contribution to Heartland in nearly two decades. [Important note: Heartland didn’t begin to support and promote scientists who are skeptical of human-caused climate catastrophe until 2008.]

The “Koch Brothers” generously support many nonprofit organizations that promote free markets and individual liberty. The Heartland Institute is not among them. . . ."

 

You don't get to make that determination, in fact, all you get to do is parrot the corrupted.

Heartland is mostly the Mercers, but the Kochs were contributors most years.

"Hundreds of millions of dollars from corporations such as ExxonMobil and wealthy individuals such as the billionaires Charles and David Koch have supported the development of a sprawling network, which includes Heartland and other think tanks, advocacy groups and political operatives."
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...ormation-campaign-koch-api-trump-infographic/

In addition, they work hand in hand on climate denier propaganda campaigns with Koch organistations (there are dozens) creating something like propaganda war..

Let me put it differently, as whoppers go, that one is the size of a small planet.

 

A journal devoted specifically to polar bears would probably not publish anything but alarmist drek.

Hardly the kind of money that buys much in the way of propaganda...

Stirling was humiliated by Crockford's facts and has never forgiven her.

He kindly just identified himself as a liar.

When the rest are all lying, just telling the truth makes you the expert.

That describes polar bear hysteria to a T.

 

The entire community of sciences threw their support behind climate change decades ago.

What's left is kooks and Big Oil propagandists.

The arctic is melting, that means the clock is ticking, and not just for bears. Here in Maine, the caribou have gone, Right whales have left the Gulf of Maine, species go extinct every year, unable to adapt to the warming climate.

People used to harvest lobster hundreds of miles south of here, the lobster are slowly migrating north, eventually we won't have lobster, either.

What's bizarre is that this is happening most everywhere, places so hot people are abandoning them, glaciers millions need for their water are disappearing, the cost of weather caused disasters goes up nearly every year. Insurance companies are screaming about that.

And there you are, pretending you can gaslight the planet while the disaster unfolds.

Unbelievable, literally.

 

The real irony is that the Polar Bear is really not all that old. It only evolved around 130kya. That is roughly contemporary to when modern humans first left Africa. The species is that new, evolving during that period from the Brown Bear. And that significant changes in the species only occurred within the last 15ky or so, at about the time the height of the last ice age passed and the planet started to warm again. And they are not even native to North America. They evolved in Siberia from a population of brown bears that were likely cut off by advancing ice sheets, but are still close enough genetically that they can still breed equally with either males or female brown and black bears.

And genetics is now telling us that this likely happened over and over again, as the genome is so complex that the species likely would revert to being like large brown bears during interglacials, then revert to white when a new ice age hits. Funny, how even evolution shows this, and they claim we do not understand science.

 

Is there really anybody that denies that there's climate change? Climate change is a natural phenomenon it's been happening for at least 450,000 years.

Next I deny the thought that it's all the fault of man this one time and not part of a natural phenomenon that has been established for decades now.

Is that what you mean by climate change denial denial of this particular religious belief that is completely unsupported?

 

My thoughts on it on the ecology of the world would probably be better if this animal was extinct. It's an epic predator sharing the Apex with other endangered predators. If it wasn't there the other endangered apex predators would be less endangered.

 

Of course it is. I knew this over 4 decades ago.

The ice age (which we are still technically in) is drawing to a close, and that means that the ice cap at the North Pole is going away. That is a fact, and there is not a damned thing you or I or anybody else can do to make that happen any faster or slower.

And guess what, bubba. Things are going to get a hell of a lot warmer in the future.

During the last interglacial, sea levels were over 10 meters higher than they are today. Global temperatures were 5-8c warmer than they are today. In North America, there were palm trees growing in central Canada and Northern Alaska. To give an idea today, the farthest north that palm trees can thrive without assistance form humans is around Central California. That means that during the last interglacial, the climate of Anchorage was about the same as San Francisco today.

And what about the extinctions? Do you not believe in Darwin? That species will always go extinct whenever conditions change that they are no longer suited for? That has been going on for billions of years, what is so magical this time? Most of the megafauna died out when the current ice age reversed and things warmed again. North Africa then was a lush wetland area, with a thriving ecosystem. But I know that "global warming" about 80 kya brought that to a close, and it is now a barren wasteland.

This is what you alarmists fail to recognize, that most like me know the planet is warming. It has been warming for over 50,000 years, and that has been accelerating for the last 30,000 years. If not for that warming, most of New York north would still be under a giant ice sheet. But feel free to look at the geological record, each time this happened (and this is hardly the first ice age), huge numbers of species died off. Both when the ice age started, and when it ended.

And just as Darwin wrote, when the species can not adapt, they die. That is just how things are. Or is believing in Darwin and evolution "junk science"?

Or are you one of those that foolishly believe that the first humans to arrive in North America around 30 kya fell in love with the San Francisco Bay and settled there?

 

Notice that you always have to falsely claim that the proved-false hypothesis that CO2 controls global temperature is the same as "climate change." This terminological inexactitude is so uniform and consistent that one can only conclude you are being paid to commit it. Also, your oft-repeated claim that the "entire community of sciences" bought into the proved-false CO2 hypothesis is of course a bald fabrication.

That's the Poisoning the Well and ad hominem fallacies.

Because it is spring in the Northern Hemisphere, and it's also less than 200 years since the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years ended. Duh.

There is no factual basis for claims of a climate emergency or crisis, for bears or anyone else. None.

Just as they moved in when the climate cooled, they move out when it warms again. Same cycle has happened a million times.

<sigh> Do you really think that by demonizing fossil fuels, you can stop climate from ever changing again?

Nope.

Nope. The melting of glaciers has exposed the remains of villages, proving that it must have been warmer before the glaciers formed. Which proves the 20th century warming was not "unprecedented," and those who claim it was are liars.

Because there is more stuff to be destroyed. Duh. Meanwhile, deaths from weather caused disasters have plummeted.

No they aren't.

I'm not the one telling people not to believe the evidence of their own senses. You are.

Would that people really were that skeptical, but they aren't: they believe your nonscience.

 

They know there isn't. It is a deliberate, consistent lie.

4.5Gy.

You won't get an honest answer to that question, 100% guaranteed.

 

Oh, it has been going on for much longer than that. Ranging from the "Snowball Earth" of the Cryogenian Period around 650 mya, to the mid-Pliocene around 3 mya where Antarctica was a semitropical oasis with animals evolved to thrive in the long summer days and equally long winter nights. In fact, it was during that period that marsupials first migrated through Antarctica from South America to reach Australia and New Zealand.

450 kya? That barely covers the last 3 ice ages. And we know of at least 7 of them.

 

I agree with you it's probably been going on for 5 billion years because that's how long the Earth has been around and magnetic fields and solar radiation being what it is that's going to have effects on climate.

 

And even more. Heck, the first "mass extinction" came about around 2 gya because cyanobacteria changed the earliest atmosphere of the planet from hydride sulfides to oxygen, killing off most other life on the planet at the time.

Magnetic fields likely had little to no impact on the climate, but asteroid impacts, massive volcanic events, and the Milankovitch Cycles surely have. And most of these occur very infrequently, or in cycles of millions of years until they happen in conjunction with others to affect major climate change.

The difference between me and what I call the "Chicken Little" nuts is that I look at things with a very long frame of reference, composed of hundreds of thousands or millions of years. They will look at each and every single year, and scream their heads off if there is a 0/2% change in one year, then be amazingly silent if there is no change (or it actually swings the other way). To me, that is the most sloppy form of "science", and is called "chasing the data". Instead of following the true scientific method, they have a hypothesis they believe in as if they are old school Catholics that believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and will twist and contort anything they can find to match what they believe should be the fact.

And to be honest, I am much more concerned with the rapid deforestation of the planet than I am of CO2 levels. That is because I am very aware that that is the "lungs of our planet", and are superb natural carbon sinks. I see the rise of CO2 more as being caused by deforestation than anything else. As the ice age is drawing to a close, our rainforests should be growing, not shrinking. And eventually, the planet will be so hot and humid that it will make New York eventually seem like Alabama. And if not for humans, most of the equatorial belt would be rainforest, humidity levels will rise, as will sea levels. And if this follows the path of all previous interglacials, the Arctic will be ice free.

That has been the case every single time, so why should anybody expect this one to be any different?

In fact, I laugh whenever I mention that Al Gore predicted many times in the early 2000's that the "Arctic would be ice free within 5-7 years). Which means there should be no more ice cap there by... 9 years ago. But we still have an Arctic Ice Cap, and the Chicken Little's still scream the same thing ad nauseum. And as they did over 2 decades ago, scream at people like me that we are "deniers", "shills for big oil", and "do not understand science".

To me, this is because we dare to refute the "Gospel of Climate Change". Yet even more funny, I have lived most of my life as "green" as I could, even before it was a thing. But I am an apostate that must be destroyed. However, I dare most to live how I have. I often laughed as I drove my motorcycle in the car pool lane in San Francisco, passing cars with Greenpeace and other such bumper stickers, stuck in traffic as I knew my vehicle tool less than 1/4 of the raw materials and was much more fuel efficient than their cars were. And I actually spend a lot of time in nature, not praying to it from the luxury of my air conditioned home and to be avoided whenever possible.

They think "camping" is taking a huge motorhome to a Thousand Trails resort. To me, it is taking my tent to a remote area and roughing it for real.

 

Project much?

Scientists determine what their science says, not you.

You parrot the corrupt.

 

Sorry, but the claim is a lie.

 

Ahh, the greatest genius that ever lived is back.

 

A litany of falsehoods.