COP27 climate summit

[Grrr...]

Some hungry polar bears attacked some humans? Well then, we better keep a billion or so people in grinding poverty.

Strawman.

If you didnt have logical fallacies, you would have nothing at all to talk about.

 

[3to1]

Strawman.

If you didnt have logical fallacies, you would have nothing at all to talk about.

true, or you could just call him a scumbag and a cunt.

 

[sparau]

A simple google search yields a whole bunch of people posting graphs like this. Where is your data showing that the polar bear population is such a problem that we need to divest from fossil fuel and prevent a billion people from rising out of poverty? Really, the burden is on you.

View attachment 570690

I wonder if how you google search to get that data.
I searched "polar bear estimated population over time"
Get: https://polarbearsinternational.org/polar-bears-changing-arctic/polar-bear-facts/status/

But those with long-term data sets allow scientists to track changes over time. For example:

Canada's Western Hudson Bay population:

Based on an aerial survey in 2021, the population dropped by 27 percent in just five years, from 842 bears to 618, continuing the declining trend of the past 30 years. Previous aerial surveys showed a drop of 11 percent from 2011 to 2016. The population estimate is now roughly half of what it was in the 1980s, when studies using a different technique showed 1,200 bears.

 

[Dog 2.0]

I wonder if how you google search to get that data.
I searched "polar bear estimated population over time"
Get: https://polarbearsinternational.org/polar-bears-changing-arctic/polar-bear-facts/status/

And you picked a result that reported a decline in the population in a specific area.
I entered the very same search parameters and got this:

"The number of polar bears has been generally increasing for decades. As author Bjorn Lomborg detailed recently, the world polar bear population went from around 12,000 in 1965 to an estimated 26,000 last year. The trend is unmistakably positive".

 

[Goodvibes]

"The number of polar bears has been generally increasing for decades. As author Bjorn Lomborg detailed

He's a dirty fucking shill for Exxon. Political Science ? Really? WTF would he know about Polar Bears?

"Bjørn Lomborg is a political scientist, economist, and the founder and president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center (CCC).2 Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus Center (CCC) was founded in 2006 in Denmark and registered as a non-profit organization in the United States in 2008.3 The Center has attracted more than $4 million in funding since 2008. A DeSmog investigation found that the CCC received at least $200,000 in 2013 from “vulture capitalist” Paul Singer’s charitable foundation.4"

Can't you do better than that?

 

[Goodvibes]

Both JerkZ and Dog pushing Lomborg?

Do we see a connection here?

 

[Dog 2.0]

He's a dirty fucking shill for Exxon. Political Science ? Really? WTF would he know about Polar Bears?

"Bjørn Lomborg is a political scientist, economist, and the founder and president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center (CCC).2 Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus Center (CCC) was founded in 2006 in Denmark and registered as a non-profit organization in the United States in 2008.3 The Center has attracted more than $4 million in funding since 2008. A DeSmog investigation found that the CCC received at least $200,000 in 2013 from “vulture capitalist” Paul Singer’s charitable foundation.4"

Can't you do better than that?

I just used Sparau's search terms. That said, I would be more impressed if you refuted his findings than call him names.

 

[BeSafe]

The arctic is a harsh place populated largely by migratory species. That the creatures that live there, including the apex predator, would find it easier going with local warming would seem pretty unremarkable. "Adapted" to a harsh environment doesn't mean those species like a harsh environment. That's anthropomorphizing. Polar Bear count has always been a dorky metric - it just made for good pictures.

Areas of negative disruption due to climate change are places with stable ecosystems where the creatures aren't adapted to migrate with changing conditions.

In the US, the places that are most likely to see extreme changes are actually from the gulf states north, particularly the western ones such as Texas, Louisana, Oklahoma and Arkansas and the Pacific northwest (i.e, Washington, Oregon, down into Northern California).

 

[sparau]

And you picked a result that reported a decline in the population in a specific area.
I entered the very same search parameters and got this:

"The number of polar bears has been generally increasing for decades. As author Bjorn Lomborg detailed recently, the world polar bear population went from around 12,000 in 1965 to an estimated 26,000 last year. The trend is unmistakably positive".

Actually I looked for what seemed like the most likely to be factual and based on observations, rather than an editorial.
I could have cited WWF arctic. Likewise I also copied pasted the section for Canada due to what I could gather was more complete data going back longer.

 

[Dog 2.0]

Actually I looked for what seemed like the most likely to be factual and based on observations, rather than an editorial.
I could have cited WWF arctic. Likewise I also copied pasted the section for Canada due to what I could gather was more complete data going back longer.

And is it your conclusion that Polar Bear populations are declining?

 

[jzk]

I wonder if how you google search to get that data.
I searched "polar bear estimated population over time"
Get: https://polarbearsinternational.org/polar-bears-changing-arctic/polar-bear-facts/status/

I am familiar with this organization. Krista Wright pays herself $88k to run it.

"The IUCN estimates there are currently about 26,000 polar bears worldwide. But without action on climate change, we could lose all but a few polar bear populations by the end of the century."

 

[sparau]

And is it your conclusion that Polar Bear populations are declining?

Best guess as a layman I can make is their range contracts and they will interbreed back with grizzlies and then why would you be white in a forest?
It would be unwise imo to concentrate on one species when the whole point about mass extinction is the reliance of species on each other.

 

[Dog 2.0]

Best guess as a layman I can make is their range contracts and they will interbreed back with grizzlies and then why would you be white in a forest?
It would be unwise imo to concentrate on one species when the whole point about mass extinction is the reliance of species on each other.

Duck

 

[Not for nothing]

Here is an interesting view on people flying on private planes, him, the elite people going to cop27, Hope you comment good or bad without name calling.

 

[Goodvibes]

I just used Sparau's search terms. That said, I would be more impressed if you refuted his findings than call him names.

I would be more impressed if you used a scientist who studies Polar Bear populations to quote figures from instead of one of the planet's best known Climate Change deniers.

I would also be more impressed if you didn't use Climate Change denial tactics that ask others to refute their bullshit claims. It's old. Some people actually are dumb enough to do that disappointingly. Me? I just tell you do go fuck youself you lying lowlife cunt. How the fuck do you sleep at night, lying for a living like Lomborg? Have you heard about Kama? How do you think you will go with the deaths of millions for far? Starting to stack up against you mate.

You obviously have no fucking idea how sick you make Exxon/Lomborg/The Hearland Institute and all the other shelf bullshit think Tanks look.

All you are doing now is steeling the resolve of people who understand what is happening and why you are there. Big money has already moved on, Oil companies are the new Dinosaurs, but they want to totally fuck the planet for every last $ before they go.

So, you terrorist cunt ...

 

[Dog 2.0]

I would be more impressed if you used a scientist who studies Polar Bear populations to quote figures from instead of one of the planet's best known Climate Change deniers.

I would also be more impressed if you didn't use Climate Change denial tactics that ask others to refute their bullshit claims. It's old. Some people actually are dumb enough to do that disappointingly. Me? I just tell you do go fuck youself you lying lowlife cunt. How the fuck do you sleep at night, lying for a living like Lomborg? Have you heard about Kama? How do you think you will go with the deaths of millions for far? Starting to stack up against you mate.

You obviously have no fucking idea how sick you make Exxon/Lomborg/The Hearland Institute and all the other shelf bullshit think Tanks look.

All you are doing now is steeling the resolve of people who understand what is happening and why you are there. Big money has already moved on, Oil companies are the new Dinosaurs, but they want to totally fuck the planet for every last $ before they go.

So, you terrorist cunt ...

Are Polar Bear populations declining or not?

 

[Goodvibes]

Are shill still Climate Change Denying?

YES!

This is what one looks like! This is Dog's hero!

 

[Dog 2.0]

Are shill still Climate Change Denying?

YES!

This is what one looks like! This is Dog's hero!

The climate is always changing, and atmospheric CO2 will have some effect. However, none of the alarmist's catastrophic predictions has come true. And the Polar Bears are doing fine.

 

[Goodvibes]

Despite Bjorn Lomborg getting factchecked on his lies, Fox and WSJ invite him to air them anyway​

By Climate Denier Roundup

For example, earlier this month, in response to the IPCC report, the New York Post published an op-ed by Bjorn Lomborg in which he claimed that climate change is saving 166,000 lives a year because fewer people are dying of cold than of heat.

Well, ClimateFeedback talked to real scientists, including some who Lomborg has cited, and unsurprisingly, finds his claim incorrect and “based on a misinterpretation of a study and interpretation of data that doesn’t support” his conclusions.

“The issue with Lomborg’s argument,” said Aaron Bernstein of Harvard, “is that he is using cherry-picked data.” A shocker, we know…

And indeed, Lomborg, who has a history of making this argument, cites studies that specifically don’t do the comparison, and ignores the ones that do. Why? Well, probably because, as one such study author, Antonio Gasparrini of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine explained,

“In many countries, especially in highly populated tropical areas, the increase in heat-related deaths is much higher than the reduction in cold-related deaths, with an increase in net mortality, especially under more extreme scenarios of global warming. A separate analysis led by other research groups has confirmed these results in both the US and Europe.”

The ClimateFeedback post also addresses something Lomborg claimed on social media, that the reason why heat deaths have appeared to go up by 54% is that there’s simply more old people, and that population change is behind the results.

 

[BeSafe]

Here is an interesting view on people flying on private planes, him, the elite people going to cop27, Hope you comment good or bad without name calling.

It's fundamentally true. Basically, that's why I watch what people do far more intently than what they say.

Maher brings up an interesting dichotomy for example. Can you be in favor of tough climate change measures AND be in favor of things like child tax credits? If you believe humans ARE the problem, then doing anything that makes it easier to raise them seems, at best, counter productive. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out between the Climate Solutions Caucus and the new DADS caucus.

As a more base point, it's really hard for capitalism to solve a problem fundamentally centered on not doing something.