WUWT, again, you do seem to spend an awful lot of time reading it considering you hate it so much!
Despite the loud shouty posts, the polar bear thing still seems rather a poor choice for a global warming icon.
It's not proven any Arctic warming/ice loss is a direct consequence of CO2 and it's not certain whether the long term population is declining or not (see your link, they weren't monitored even 30 years ago and even now are no doubt very hard to count in the vast frozen wildrness which is supposed to be shrinking alarmingly.)
Then it's not proven that they can't cope perfectly well with warmer conditions.
It's known there have been periods at least similarly 'less cold' in the past, and they are still here.
Then the alarmist pressure groups won't listen to anything which does not suit their agenda so best to take their propagandalf with a pinch of salt I think.
Mitchell Taylor, who has studied the animals for 30 years, was told his views 'are extremely unhelpful
The picture from WWF does not convince in the slightest, as they are obsessed with warming and will bend anything to suit their views.
I do find it interesting how the WWF and Greenpeace for that matter have now allowed themselves to become the voice of their chosen climate scientists/researchers.
Their total acceptance of and lack of questioning on the issue of AGW effects astounds me.
I sense the sceptic in you trying to impose itself - come back Jekyll and Hyde...
Seriously, does it not cross your mind that perhaps the evidence is strong enough for WWF and Greenpeace to be responding in the only logical way?
Amazing as it may be, out in the real world and away from the Internet bubble AGW has long been accepted by the mainstream as fact.
If it looks like a polar bear, growls like a polar bear, swims like a polar bear....... perhaps it is indeed a polar bear....
No Jekyll and Hyde here Gandalf.(could be a perception).Do you admire Aldous Huxley perchance?.
Presented? I have no problem with.
Promoted?.causes me a problem.
I accept science as much as you do I am sure.
Neither of us are scientists.We do form an opinion on the subject in question though, based upon information supplied by the scientific community.
I think the broad range of complicated studies involved in climate research are not yet amalgamated enough despite the efforts of the IPCC. to give a definitive forward account or forecast for the future climate on this planet.This imo is blatantly evident.
Some organisations, I believe are more than ready though, to exploit and magnify this uncertainty to suit their own needs and will promote this uncertainty and fear of the future which is naturally inherent in most of us to their own ends.
Their total unsceptical acceptance of science when it seems to suit their needs is not progressive or positive.In fact I believe it might have a detrimental effect(as has already become evident through unscientific promotions)(bio ethanol being one)upon the developement of humankind.
I hope this basic tad of a rant will sufffice as the view of a sceptic and not a denier.
Edited by user
02 April 2011 15:38:41
|
Reason: Not specified