If not global warming, how would one explain 500K Sq. Kilometers of Sea Ice gone?

[hillbillyreefer]

Didn't this pile of BS backfire on Coke and they quietly discounted and blew out those cans, and dropped their advertising campaign? IIRC I bought 24packs of those cans for $3.98 just before Christmas 2011.

http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/10/31/w...lar-bear-myths

Printer-friendlyEmail to friend
For years Coca-Cola has given millions of dollars to eco-extreme group World Wildlife Fund, whose alarmism and perpetration of falsehoods are unmatched among its cohorts in climate activism. Now Coke has initiated a new campaign with WWF that features its iconic advertising species in an effort to drive more funding to the international nonprofit group to “protect the polar bears’ Arctic home.”

The promotion will include new packaging for Coke over the holiday season, changing its familiar red cans to white, and featuring an image of a mother polar bear and her cubs on the side. Coke says it will donate $2 million over five years to WWF for “polar bear conservation efforts,” and will also match donations made at iCoke.ca. Last year Coke gave WWF $1.64 million for its various activities globally.



“The planet is changing very quickly, and nowhere more quickly than in the Arctic,” says Gerald Butts, president of WWF-Canada.

“It’s really important that we all understand that they need our help,” he added. “Climate change is changing livelihoods, it’s changing migration patterns for species, and we want to plan ahead. We want a future for the Arctic where the communities of people who live there are vibrant and sustainable, and the iconic species – in particular the polar bear – has a long-term future on the planet.”

Butts speaks so little truth. First with the easy part: more human beings die in cold weather than in heat. As for the Arctic, temperatures in the 1930s increased at a rate of .5 degrees per year, so the idea that any possible current warming is unprecedented is silly. And a recent Canadian study found evidence that an Arctic ice shelf fractured 1,400 years ago, “long before industrialization had any impact on the planet.” Meanwhile Arctic ice is growing at a record rate, and more than 30 percent of the missing ice area in the western Arctic has recovered since 2007. Arctic climate patterns, which have shown warming in recent years, are attributable to solar changes and ocean currents, not increases in human-produced carbon dioxide.

And then there are the precious polar bears. Their estimated numbers – according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – have increased by somewhere between double and quintuple (that is, growing from between 5,000 and 10,000 to 20,000-25,000) from the 1950s until now. They are also known to be tremendously resilient, and in some areas where they have declined, the reason has been attributed to too much ice. As far as healthy populations, according to officials in the extreme northern territory of Nunavut in Canada, polar bears “have not declined.”*

“Based on hunter observations, polar bears are presently still healthy and abundant across Nunavut,” said territorial Environment Minister Daniel Shewchuk, “and for that reason, not a species of special concern.”

Meanwhile a study often cited as proof of the dangers of global warming to polar bears was “filled with baseless assumptions.” The report, by biologist Charles Monnett, discussed the discovery of four bear carcasses in the sea, and implied that the deaths were attributed to loss of ice. Monnett was placed on administrative leave and he and a collaborator are being investigated for scientific misconduct.

As for advocacy-oriented WWF and the “sound science” of proven global warming, it is a fantasy. Alarmists have long held up the reports of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as the authoritative attestation by scholarly researchers that the planet is warming because of human-produced emissions through the burning of fossil fuels for energy. But thanks to revelations from the Climategate scandal and other discoveries (like the debunked Hockey Stick chart), the IPCC reports were sourced in many parts with non-peer reviewed literature like boot-cleaning guides, student dissertations, climbing magazines, and even (drum roll please)…WWF pamphlets!

Such is the shaky foundation upon which the catastrophic global warming edifice has been constructed, and now WWF (net assets as of Fiscal Year 2009: $238 million) hopes its ongoing relationship with Coca-Cola will continue to provide millions of dollars for its anti-fossil fuels campaign. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, WWF – a truly international organization – spent $1.6 million on lobbying in 2009, just in the United States. Its stated agenda items for lobbying purposes included:*

·***** Development of climate legislation including mitigation, adaptation, reduced tropical deforestation*

·***** Energy efficiency provisions in stimulus, budget and energy legislation (Crony capitalistic slush funding for illusionary “Green jobs”)

·***** International financing for clean technology transfer and cooperation (like funding for overseas “Solyndras”)

Meanwhile WWF officials, like so many climate crusaders, fail to abide by the practices they admonish others to follow. The organization wants limits placed upon aviation because of its significant contribution to carbon dioxide emissions, but WWF president Carter Roberts (total 2009 compensation: $455,147) fails to lead by example, and routinely flies to remote locales as though it helps call attention to the planet’s plight. According to its tax returns WWF spent $5.1 million in 2009 on travel, which included a flight by Roberts as “one of several passengers on a roundtrip charter flight from Winnipeg to Churchill, (Manitoba).” Claiming there were no commercial flights available, WWF reported, “this trip was part of a field visit by staff and donors to see WWF’s work in the Arctic and the impacts of climate change.”

As for political inclinations, WWF’s managing director of climate change, Lou Leonard, was environmental policy analyst and field organizer for President Obama’s presidential campaign. His bio on the WWF Web site states, “As an environmental lawyer and climate policy expert, you can imagine the list of ‘to-do’s’ he has for the new administration.”

So each purchase of a white Coca-Cola can supports: false testimony on global warming; perpetration of the myth about endangered polar bears; ongoing distortion of the UN IPCC process; activism to fight the development of affordable coal, oil and natural gas; hypocrites who won’t follow their own recommendations; and expansion of already excessive environmental regulations.

Doesn’t it make your heart all fizzy?*

Paul Chesser is an associate fellow for the National Legal and Policy Center and is director of communications and research for American Tradition Institute.

[TreeGuy]

I believe I now have a new favourite 'hillbilly'. Good stuff.


Anyone else notice how seldom the sun gets mentioned in these discussions? Just sayin'...........

[rogo]

Check this one out:

http://www.friendsofscience.org/

It actually has normal information about what is happening.

[BlackHeart]

Originally Posted by avb3

Where do you get the 1850's info from? I don't believe that there were sufficient data points with good thermometers back then, but if you can educate me on that, I'm all ears.

I do believe your all ears when it comes to hearing evidence that supports your, long solidified conclusions, but deaf to anything that disputes those findings. On here, you have continual dismissed any information that counters your entrenched ideologue (yes I said ideologue) and avoided the issue of what current studies ate finding.....including the fact that many of these warming studies have been corrupted, either at the beginning or by political agents, to further an AGENDA.

I think you should look closer at motivations, when it comes to determining the credibility of, so called studies, and especially at who and how they were funded...........there's an old saying in the consulting world, "if you don't know what the recommendations are before you start, your going to starve"......applys just as much to climate studies.

[TreeGuy]

So glad to have ya back, Black. Although I may be in the minority on that one. Be sure to give that diminutive Irish neighbour of yours a smack for me next time you see him too.

[leo]

I'm too lazy to look it up and don't know how to post a link, but when Krakatoa erupted (1886 I think) it effected global weather paterns and temperatures for close to 10 years or more. Someone who is computer smarter than me can post the link. Same goes for any major volcanic eruption.

[BlackHeart]

Originally Posted by TreeGuy

So glad to have ya back, Black. Although I may be in the minority on that one. Be sure to give that diminutive Irish neighbour of yours a smack for me next time you see him too.

If your not ruffling feathers or messing hair up, your not trying hard enough. And the scot's going to love when I call him a Irish sprig(n).....I think he might be pinned under his truck....he's been fixing that diesel for a while now and I haven't heard from him in a week.

[insurgus]

I always found it interesting how the guys pushing global warming the most, were the same guys flying around in their private jets and driving their oversized SUV's from function to function. I guess they're exempt from they change they try to spread.

Kinda sounds like most organized religions over the past few thousand years.

[TreeGuy]

Originally Posted by BlackHeart

If your not ruffling feathers or messing hair up, your not trying hard enough. And the scot's going to love when I call him a Irish sprig(n).....I think he might be pinned under his truck....he's been fixing that diesel for a while now and I haven't heard from him in a week.

*Snicker*

Obviously neither one of 'em is a 'Hot Rod'.

Cheaping out by twisting his own wrenches is his way of cooling the planet.

Calling him Irish is my way of warming it up.

[silver]

Originally Posted by leo

I'm too lazy to look it up and don't know how to post a link, but when Krakatoa erupted (1886 I think) it effected global weather paterns and temperatures for close to 10 years or more. Someone who is computer smarter than me can post the link. Same goes for any major volcanic eruption.

I think the year was 1815, called the year with no summer, central US states had frost or snow every month. As volcanoes go, I believe Tambora was even bigger.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

June 1933 : Hottest June In US History – And The Worst Spring*Drought
Posted on July 2, 2012


30 Jun 1933 – THE WHEAT OUTLOOK. Drought in the States. NEW YO…

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2...be-much-worse/

Heatwaves In The Midwest Used To Be Much*Worse
Posted on July 1, 2012
Des Moines has had only one 100 degree day during the last nine years, but in 1934 they had 31 days over 100 degrees, including three days in May.



U.S. Historical Climatology Network

It reached 101 on June 27 this year, and alarmists went hysterical. One hundred degree days used to happen on a regular basis in Des Moines. Now they are extremely rare.



Alarmists blame CO2 for heatwaves, because they are ignorant of history and science.

errr... that is site specific or, regional weather, not global climate indicators.

You DO know the difference between weather and climate, don't you? Posting weather incidences under the guise of arguing climate issues and thinking they are the same would indicate some further education may be required.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by BlackHeart

I do believe your all ears when it comes to hearing evidence that supports your, long solidified conclusions, but deaf to anything that disputes those findings. On here, you have continual dismissed any information that counters your entrenched ideologue (yes I said ideologue) and avoided the issue of what current studies ate finding.....including the fact that many of these warming studies have been corrupted, either at the beginning or by political agents, to further an AGENDA.

I will gladly look at credible information, as I indicated in this post.

As I said, science is agnostic as to results. But it has to be science, not a Al Gore on hand or a Heartland foundation on the other making their comments. They have different points of view, but neither are credible.

I think you should look closer at motivations, when it comes to determining the credibility of, so called studies, and especially at who and how they were funded...........

Like the Heartland foundation, right?

there's an old saying in the consulting world, "if you don't know what the recommendations are before you start, your going to starve"......applys just as much to climate studies.

I've read many consultant reports, as well as many scientific ones and made decisions based on them.

There is a HUGE difference between the two. I somewhat concur with your viewpoint on consultants, but they are not presenting science.

There is a difference.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by TreeGuy

....

Anyone else notice how seldom the sun gets mentioned in these discussions? Just sayin'...........

Sure it has:

[avb3]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

Didn't this pile of BS backfire on Coke and they quietly discounted and blew out those cans, and dropped their advertising campaign? IIRC I bought 24packs of those cans for $3.98 just before Christmas 2011.

http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/10/31/w...lar-bear-myths
................

Maybe rather then going to a denier site, why don't you go to the source.

Which is here, IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group.

You know, the science guys. Unless, of course, you have something against the IUCN?

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by avb3

Maybe rather then going to a denier site, why don't you go to the source.

Which is here, IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group.

You know, the science guys. Unless, of course, you have something against the IUCN?

Why not go to a science site instead of one of those "believers propaganda" sites?

The whole man made AGW thing has become a sad joke.

By the way, you never told me what happened to all the ice before man got here in their Escalades. Just saying. And for the record, IF we had a km of ice over Edmonton right now (like we did in the not so distant past) and it was melting, would you be panicking as much as you are now?

[dgl1948]

These fellows seem to think we are cooling and have the data to back it up.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=10783

[avb3]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Why not go to a science site instead of one of those "believers propaganda" sites?

The whole man made AGW thing has become a sad joke.

By the way, you never told me what happened to all the ice before man got here in their Escalades. Just saying. And for the record, IF we had a km of ice over Edmonton right now (like we did in the not so distant past) and it was melting, would you be panicking as much as you are now?

Because the science that exists is fully disclosed. Your welcome to look at the studies, methodology and analysis, without the prism of a pro or con perspective. There is no spin at the IUCN site. There is at WUWT or Al Gore's.

Do you have a problem at looking at the data or is it more to your liking to look at non-scientific information?

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by avb3

Because the science that exists is fully disclosed. Your welcome to look at the studies, methodology and analysis, without the prism of a pro or con perspective. There is no spin at the IUCN site. There is at WUWT or Al Gore's.

Do you have a problem at looking at the data or is it more to your liking to look at non-scientific information?

So why did the ice melt before man got here?

[RussellZ]

Originally Posted by rugatika

So why did the ice melt before man got here?

Dinosaur farts. Obviously!

[jungleboy]

The city of Edmonton is 9,418.62 sq km (I looked it up) so that would make 500 sq km = to about 20% of the land mass of Edmonton . 500 sq km is not a lot in the big scheme of things .

As a reference , Antarctica is about 14 million km2 .

500 sq km of sea ice is a tear drop in the wind ,but it does sound impressive if you don't have it in context.

[pophouseman]

AVB.....why has every decade been cooler then 1850?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by jungleboy

The city of Edmonton is 9,418.62 sq km (I looked it up) so that would make 500 sq km = to about 20% of the land mass of Edmonton . 500 sq km is not a lot in the big scheme of things .

As a reference , Antarctica is about 14 million km2 .

500 sq km of sea ice is a tear drop in the wind ,but it does sound impressive if you don't have it in context.

It is 500K, meaning 500,000 sq km.

That is over 53 times the size of Edmonton.

Alberta is 640,081 km2 (yeah, I looked it up too). In other words, over 78% of the size of Alberta was affected.

Does that change the context?

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by avb3

It is 500K, meaning 500,000 sq km.

That is over 53 times the size of Edmonton.

Alberta is 640,081 km2 (yeah, I looked it up too). In other words, over 78% of the size of Alberta was affected.

Does that change the context?

What happened to all the ice well over 2 MILLION sq km's...if not more...1km thick, BS (before SUV'S)???

Watch this leaked UN video regarding the climate change fraud...(harsh language warning!!)....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC2rotlX9Js




And on a more serious note...The movie "The Great Global Warming Swindle" should be required viewing for anyone that has been brainwashed by Al Gore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf32P...feature=relmfu

[jungleboy]

Originally Posted by avb3

It is 500K, meaning 500,000 sq km.

That is over 53 times the size of Edmonton.

Alberta is 640,081 km2 (yeah, I looked it up too). In other words, over 78% of the size of Alberta was affected.

Does that change the context?

My bad AVB3.... now, what are you going to do about it? hmmm?

I find that most of the people screaming and yelling for the world to change it's ways because we are "destroying the planet" are doing so with computers made of plastic powered by electricity supplied by coal . They wear synthetic clothes ,eat processed foods , smoke , drink bottled water or bottled anything.Live indoors,have heat , drive cars ,( or like mr Suzuki , jet around the world regularly )

Always preaching but rarely practicing that which they preach.


Way to much do as I say and not enough do as I do.

[billie]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

Is that like: "CCW may or may not reduce crime.......

Originally Posted by Rocky7

This has become an obsession. Maybe you need your meds adjusted?

You introduce CCW into an environmental discussion and you think AVB needs to adjust HIS meds???

[TreeGuy]

Originally Posted by avb3

Sure it has:

It never ceases to amaze me how numbers/scale can be manipulated. You graph is crap.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by pophouseman

AVB.....why has every decade been cooler then 1850?

Has it?

I did a bit more digging on your proposition of 1850-1860 and the last ten years being the warmest. Most charts only go back to 1880, however, what I found was:



And long term:

[avb3]

Originally Posted by TreeGuy

It never ceases to amaze me how numbers/scale can be manipulated. You graph is crap.

Well, apparently you feel that way. Why don't you tell us why you think so. Is it because it doesn't concur with your previous held ideas, or is there some science that you know about that is misrepresented or is there another reason?

My mind can be changed with facts. Regardless of scale, the divergence is obvious. Give me some facts that show this to "crap". Not opinion, but facts.

[rugatika]

So you agree that the current melting ice trend is just a continuation of a natural trend that started 15000yrs ago. Glad to hear it. Science always wins out.

[TreeGuy]

Originally Posted by avb3

Regardless of scale, the divergence is obvious.

LOL! That statement is akin to saying THE FACTS ARE IN AND THE DEBATE IS OVER.

In the past month I've logged approximately 8000 meters of downhole gamma readings every 20cm or less. Believe me, I know full well how graphs can be manipulated to show what the creator wants and yours does just that.

What exactly are you attempting to accomplish here, Andy? Got a little bet going with Duffman on who can be the bigger troll? Do tell.