• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Climate Change(d)?

"science"

Right out of the gate, the first illustration tells me I am dealing with propaganda. A picture of a forlorn polar bear standing on a floating piece of ice, the caption "A view of the partially melting glaciers as a polar bears, one of the species most affected by climate change, walk in Svalbard and Jan Mayen, on July 15, 2023."

This isn't science. It's an essay written by a climate activist.
The photo is just an example of how much ice has melted in the polar bear's habitat.
The picture is a prop for the propaganda. Polar bears are actually thriving.
Thriving???

Source, please.

Polar bears are marine predators, not land predators. They need ice.
 
Here's another source that describes the threat that climate change has to polar bears. It won't change a certain person's irrational beliefs, but perhaps someone else might learn something from it and it backs up the previous source posted.

https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/polar-bears-and-climate-change

Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) are the poster child for the impacts of climate change on species, and justifiably so. To date, global warming has been most pronounced in the Arctic, and this trend is projected to continue. There are suggestions that before mid-century we could have a nearly ice-free Arctic in the summer. This increases the urgency with which we must act to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to delay or avoid some of the worst consequences of climate change.
Polar bears have relatively high genetic diversity within the species and can disperse over very long distances, suggesting that they may have some capacity to adapt to the ongoing changes in the Arctic.
However, their dependence on sea ice makes them highly vulnerable to a changing climate. Polar bears rely heavily on the sea ice environment for traveling, hunting, mating, resting, and in some areas, maternal dens. In particular, they depend heavily on sea ice-dependent prey, such as ringed and bearded seals. Additionally, their long generation time and low reproductive rate may limit their ability to adapt to changes in the environment.
Priorities for climate-informed polar bear conservation should include identifying and protecting the “last ice areas,” the parts of the Arctic that are projected to retain sea ice farthest into the future. It is also important to increase monitoring of polar bear populations, particularly their responses to declining sea ice. And as polar bears spend more time on land, we need to be prepared to manage for increased human-polar bear conflict.

Determining species vulnerability​

The study identified the key vulnerabilities of a species based on four factors:
Sensitivity: the inability of the species to persist, as is, under changing climatic conditions.
Adaptive capacity: the ability of the species to respond to changes in climate.
Exposure: the extent of climatic change and variation that the species encounters and is projected to encounter.
Other threats: any other relevant threats, as well as the human responses to climate change that exacerbate these threats.
polar bear range map

But, the link I posted wasn't really about polar bears. It mentioned all the indigenous people who are being badly impacted by what's happening in the Arctic. But, all Twiz saw was a photo of a polar bear on some melting ice and reached the conclusion that some climate activist was behind the article. WTF!
 
Last edited:
like a broken record here. That’s your favorite strawman argument. Climate scientists aren’t saying it doesn’t change. The only reason you know that has changed in the past is because the scientists have told you. And now they are telling you that anthropogenic sources are changing it far more rapidly than any natural process can account for. You believe them for the former but not for the latter. Yet you have given no good reason for that; you just are unhappy with the non-scientists, so you project that on the scientists too.

If you had a good argument to support your position you wouldn’t need to rely on petty pedantry.
Only reason we know it has?? I've seen the growing season change in the time we have lived in this house. A fraction of a degree translates into considerable shifts in when to grow what.
I agree that climate changes are happening now and are obvious in some places in the world (with the possible exception of the oft mentioned Santa Monica) without needing to hear from the scientists.

However, I was presuming that the context of his mentioning climate changing was a long term historical one and that he would conclude that the current bout of change is consistent with past changes.

He makes a big deal about him not denying climate change itself but decrying the so-called “apocalyptic” predictions by politicians.

To be fair, I do think phrases like “boiling ocean” don’t help because actual boiling (T=100C) is not the kind of climate effect we are currently concerned with.
 
The picture is a prop for the propaganda. Polar bears are actually thriving.

Wrong again. Yawn.
Maybe it’s the Santa Monica polar bears that are thriving?
Good point. I haven’t heard of them losing any lately.
San Diego lost one in 2017. That's only about 130 miles away.
They have a plan.
 
The picture is a prop for the propaganda. Polar bears are actually thriving.

Wrong again. Yawn.
Maybe it’s the Santa Monica polar bears that are thriving?
Good point. I haven’t heard of them losing any lately.
San Diego lost one in 2017. That's only about 130 miles away.
They have a plan.
I think they might prefer to be called "Grolar", which sounds kind of growly and macho, rather than "Pizzly", which really doesn't.
 
The picture is a prop for the propaganda. Polar bears are actually thriving.

Wrong again. Yawn.
Maybe it’s the Santa Monica polar bears that are thriving?
Good point. I haven’t heard of them losing any lately.
San Diego lost one in 2017. That's only about 130 miles away.
130 miles and seven years ago - they can't all live forever!
 
The picture is a prop for the propaganda. Polar bears are actually thriving.

Wrong again. Yawn.
Maybe it’s the Santa Monica polar bears that are thriving?
Good point. I haven’t heard of them losing any lately.
San Diego lost one in 2017. That's only about 130 miles away.
They have a plan.
I think they might prefer to be called "Grolar", which sounds kind of growly and macho, rather than "Pizzly", which really doesn't.
Technically Grizzly is a lesser 48 bear. Browns are northern. So, Polown would be better.
 
The picture is a prop for the propaganda. Polar bears are actually thriving.

Wrong again. Yawn.
Maybe it’s the Santa Monica polar bears that are thriving?
Good point. I haven’t heard of them losing any lately.
San Diego lost one in 2017. That's only about 130 miles away.
They have a plan.
I think they might prefer to be called "Grolar", which sounds kind of growly and macho, rather than "Pizzly", which really doesn't.
Technically Grizzly is a lesser 48 bear. Browns are northern. So, Polown would be better.
Brolar.

He's my bro, from the polar region.
 
So now it has been conclusively demonstrated to Swizzle that contrary to his statement, “the polar bears are thriving,” they in fact are NOT thriving, and are in serious trouble because of man-made climate change. What will he say? Sure, Jan? Or will he just ignore the whole thing and move on to something else?

By now it should be obvious that deniers of human-induced climate change are just being willfully ignorant. It’s happening everywhere, right in front of us, and they are denying it, because denial of this phenomenon is a tribal marker, it’s virtue signaling to the MAGAt crowd.

I’m afraid what we have here, ladies and gentleman, is another epic Swizzle Fizzle. :confused:
 
What will he say? Sure, Jan?
If he ever bothered to learn about polar bears and still wanted to advance his lame excuse for an argument, he would point out that polar bears aren't disappearing (from some places), they're just moving to Russia because there are more resources available to them on Russia's North coast than in Alaska.
 
I agree that climate changes are happening now and are obvious in some places in the world {snip} without needing to hear from the scientists.
Oh really? Such as?

To be fair, I do think phrases like “boiling ocean” don’t help because actual boiling (T=100C) is not the kind of climate effect we are currently concerned with.

Gotta scare the masses to comply with the authoritarian agenda.
 
The climate deniers deny the science behind it, yet implicitly trust the science of a flying jet without any undertaking of how it works. Ditto with computers and cell phones.

A climate denier hears a weather report of heavy snow when planning on driving through mountain passes, and would probably take precautions or postpone the trip, yet deny the same kind of science no which cellmate chge predictions are based.

A climate denier on the Florida coast is not likely to ignore the prediction of a hurricane.

Hurricane forecasts may not exactly predict what wind speeds may be ad exactingly where it makes landfall,but certainly accurate enough to know how bad it will be.

Probably no different than climate predictions.
 
Back
Top Bottom