Global Warming is a Good Thing: Polar Bear Population Stable, Whales

TheDanold

TheDanold

Unimatrix
"According to the World Wildlife Fund, about 20 distinct polar bear populations currently exist, accounting for approximately 22,000 polar bears worldwide. Of those distinct populations only two, representing about 16.4 percent of the total population, are decreasing. At the same time, 10 populations representing approximately 45.4 percent of the total population are stable, and 2 populations representing about 13.6 percent of the total number of polar bears are increasing. The status of the remaining populations is unknown."
http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/are-polar-bears-dying

The good part of more global warming and less ice is that whale population should and has increased because fewer are getting trapped in ice and we can hopefully see less incidences like this:

Six killer whales die, trapped by ice
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20250997/from/id/7088744/

Three Gray Whales Trapped in Alaskan Ice
http://www.geocities.com/frankie_meehan/WhalesQuiz1.htm

Hunters may have to shoot Belugas trapped by ice
http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/govrel/news.cfm?story=51889

Also oceans are safer for people to travel as there is less chance of hitting an iceberg and more passages open up for trade.


More to think about and just another of many, many reasons why global warming has been in the past and will be better for us.
:)
 
"will be better for us."

Have you determined that by weighing all of the potential negative effects of global warming against the perceived benefits?

I think all I've seen from you are posts highlighting the few positives. You don't seem aware of the negatives. Have you read anything about what climate change can do to the oceanic food chain, for instance?
 
:)
If having nostrils on our butts was a republican issue, Dano would find all kinds of positive things about it .
 
TheDanold said:
Red Herring, deal with the issue for once. Global warming has resulted in a stable polar bear population along with an easier life for the many different kinds of whales.
Click to expand...

Where does it say that global warming "has resulted in a stable polar bear population" in the article you posted?
 
Onceler said:
"will be better for us."

Have you determined that by weighing all of the potential negative effects of global warming against the perceived benefits?
Click to expand...
Yes

Onceler said:
I think all I've seen from you are posts highlighting the few positives. You don't seem aware of the negatives. Have you read anything about what climate change can do to the oceanic food chain, for instance?
Click to expand...
Yes, I've also noted that most fishing takes place in warmer waters and that the temperature differences in colder waters with more warming is so little it would make next to no difference.
 
TheDanold said:
Yes


Yes, I've also noted that most fishing takes place in warmer waters and that the temperature differences in colder waters with more warming is so little it would make next to no difference.
Click to expand...


And you understand that this layman's assessment ignores ALL of the science about ocean currents & how the oceanic food chain works, right?
 
Onceler said:
Where does it say that global warming "has resulted in a stable polar bear population" in the article you posted?
Click to expand...
"According to the World Wildlife Fund, about 20 distinct polar bear populations currently exist, accounting for approximately 22,000 polar bears worldwide. Of those distinct populations only two, representing about 16.4 percent of the total population, are decreasing. At the same time, 10 populations representing approximately 45.4 percent of the total population are stable, and 2 populations representing about 13.6 percent of the total number of polar bears are increasing. The status of the remaining populations is unknown."
http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/a...ar-bears-dying

2 populations are increasing, 2 are decreasing and both groups are roughly the same size, while the majority are staying the same.

To me the WWF report makes logical sense anyway, polar bears exist and live fine in Northern Ontario which is well below the latitude of the arctic where all the concern over melting ice is being reported. If they can live there, sea ice is not as huge a factor to their survival as thought to be by enviroleftist alarmists.
 
TheDanold said:
"According to the World Wildlife Fund, about 20 distinct polar bear populations currently exist, accounting for approximately 22,000 polar bears worldwide. Of those distinct populations only two, representing about 16.4 percent of the total population, are decreasing. At the same time, 10 populations representing approximately 45.4 percent of the total population are stable, and 2 populations representing about 13.6 percent of the total number of polar bears are increasing. The status of the remaining populations is unknown."
http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/a...ar-bears-dying

2 populations are increasing, 2 are decreasing and both groups are roughly the same size, while the majority are staying the same.

To me the WWF report makes logical sense anyway, polar bears exist and live fine in Northern Ontario which is well below the latitude of the arctic where all the concern over melting ice is being reported. If they can live there, sea ice is not as huge a factor to their survival as thought to be by enviroleftist alarmists.
Click to expand...


You don't understand. You basically said & implied that warming is HELPING keep the polar bear population stable...that as a direct result of the warming, their #'s are not decreasing. I didn't really see that in the article.

Were you dishonestly trying to portray that as one of global warming's "benefits"?
 
Were you dishonestly trying to portray that as one of global warming's "benefits"?

//

GASP! would Dano do something like that ?
 
Onceliar said:
You don't understand. You basically said & implied that warming is HELPING keep the polar bear population stable...that as a direct result of the warming, their #'s are not decreasing. I didn't really see that in the article.

Were you dishonestly trying to portray that as one of global warming's "benefits"?
Click to expand...
No this is a lie, reread what I wrote, after posting the polar bear bit in my opening paragraph, I then said:
"The good part of more global warming and less ice is that whale population should and has increased because fewer are getting trapped in ice and we can hopefully see less incidences like this:"

I never said global warming helped polar bear population do anything, I only said that for the whales, I just dismissed the common lefty concern that it is devastating the polar bear population, which is false and shown so by the stats.
 
TheDanold said:
I never said global warming helped polar bear population do anything, .
Click to expand...

Hahahahaha.....you mean you didn't say this?

"Global warming has resulted in a stable polar bear population "

Oops!

Dano's true agenda & "liberty" with the facts revealed. I love these threads...
 
Also, you pathetic rube, global warming HURTS some whale populations. You pick out isolated incidents of whales getting trapped in the ice, which are very few in #.

Here's a study on the Minke whale, whose #'s have gone from 760,000 to 380,000 since the 90's. Scientists think that global warming is limiting the icy habitat of the krill they feed on:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/08/0801_wirewhales2.html

Idiot. So, out of 2 things that you list as "benefitting" from global warming, neither does. Nice work.
 
Onceliar said:
Hahahahaha.....you mean you didn't say this?

"Global warming has resulted in a stable polar bear population "

Oops!

Dano's true agenda & "liberty" with the facts revealed. I love these threads...
Click to expand...
Well it's true, it hasn't helped it but the results show the polar bear population as stable, the temperature changes from global warming have resulted in a stable polar bear population, in other words they are largely not affecting it.

Always trying to find a pedantic grammatical irrelevant error huh Lierax? It's very ironic that you rant on and on against Republican "gotchas", yet that is pretty much all your "debate" is - trying (and failing I might add) to find "gotchas". Kind of sad, well if I gave a shit about you it would be anyway.

So to sum up, the results after global warming show a stable polar bear population and an increasing whale population for all the many different kinds of whales. Global warming is largely a good thing.
:)
 
TheDanold said:
Well it's true, it hasn't helped it but the results show the polar bear population as stable, the temperature changes from global warming have resulted in a stable polar bear population, in other words they are largely not affecting it.

Always trying to find a pedantic grammatical irrelevant error huh Lierax? It's very ironic that you rant on and on against Republican "gotchas", yet that is pretty much all your "debate" is - trying (and failing I might add) to find "gotchas". Kind of sad, well if I gave a shit about you it would be anyway.

So to sum up, the results after global warming show a stable polar bear population and an increasing whale population for all the many different kinds of whales. Global warming is largely a good thing.
:)
Click to expand...

Um.....it was the TITLE OF YOUR THREAD. Sorry if it backfired on you...again!

I'm sure you'll ignore the whale study I posted above. Where is your study that shows that global warming is actually INCREASING the whale population? Are you just inferring that from the fact that a few don't get caught in the ice every year, even though many more are starving from depleted krill?

Also...any apology for calling me a liar for correctly pointing out something you actually said? (in a very dishonest way, I might add...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top