uscitizen
Villified User
glad I could brighten your day Dano .
Miserable loser bastards like you need all the chuckles they can get.
winning is admitting defeat ?
Hmm have to think about that a while.
What the? Could global warming actually be BAD for polar bears?
- Thread starter Onceler
- Start date
glad I could brighten your day Dano .
Miserable loser bastards like you need all the chuckles they can get.
winning is admitting defeat ?
Hmm have to think about that a while.
TheDanold
Unimatrix
Again STUPID, read closely:
"WITH global warming the result is that their population is stable, in other words it either has a neglible effect or no effect at all."
and you can pump out as much THEORIES as you want on global warming declining whales populations but the absolute INESCAPABLE fact is that the earth has already been warming and we have seen population INCREASE.
Do you deny that?
"My beliefs have changed very little and have changed by science, they are not dogmatically held based on what I'd like to see."
This is the opposite of the truth. If I was a psychologist, I'd say it's a perfect example of psychological projection.
Your agenda dictates your use & misuse of the facts, on an almost daily basis. We saw it Friday with your immediate, causation-free "analysis" that the minimum wage hike, most of which hasn't even been implemented yet, was responsbible for the jobs report, which virtually no economist who I read agreed with or even mentioned.
And you did it w/ global warming & the whales/polar bears, trying to dishonestly give credit to the actual warming for what looks like a temporary stabilization of the polar bear population, and trying to dishonestly/unscientifically connect a similar stabilization among whales to global warming, which scientists in the field say is already hurting whale health & population.
This is the opposite of the truth. If I was a psychologist, I'd say it's a perfect example of psychological projection.
Your agenda dictates your use & misuse of the facts, on an almost daily basis. We saw it Friday with your immediate, causation-free "analysis" that the minimum wage hike, most of which hasn't even been implemented yet, was responsbible for the jobs report, which virtually no economist who I read agreed with or even mentioned.
And you did it w/ global warming & the whales/polar bears, trying to dishonestly give credit to the actual warming for what looks like a temporary stabilization of the polar bear population, and trying to dishonestly/unscientifically connect a similar stabilization among whales to global warming, which scientists in the field say is already hurting whale health & population.
Is that what that is?
Do we really have to have this kind of shit on this board? Leave it to a righty to foul up the neighborhood. Always the way. Always.
TheDanold
Unimatrix
HAHAHAHA, you are so owned, this thread is a classic.
1. Uscitizen fucks up what we are talking about
2. Uscitizen mentions some completely irrelevant fact and ends up being wrong on that anyway.
3. Uscitizen decides to pull out the ol' Iraq war card like that has anything to do with anything in this discussion.
Your senile elephant ass is beyond owned, I know you are a little shithead posting addict but do try and give up where you have no hope, ok kiddo?
The sentence above is NOT the sentence you wrote, or what you were trying to imply with that thread. How can you be such a liar?
And again, science in the field explains the population stabilizations, and also the effects we are already seeing with regard to climate change & the health & population of each species. Your "shoot from the hip", ideological conclusions are no match for actual causation & science.
Sorry....
TheDanold
Unimatrix
Yes I do have a very good memory, especially with facts, you'd do well to remember that.
You are the only really devious Liberal on here cypriss and I don't forget all the times you've been devious.
TheDanold
Unimatrix
I wrote it in this thread.
Ok so you can't refute the facts. More global warming, whale population going up and not down.
Thank you Lorax.
Would you mind explaining to the board, how you tracked down my name, why you did it, and why years later you still remember it? Did you write it down in a log somewhere? That's wierd, dude.
We don't threaten other posters around here Dano.
You were obviously raised by mentally disturbed wolves, but that's not what we do around here.
TheDanold
Unimatrix
LameIf so Please send support check Dano
Or are you not responsible for things you own ?
I wrote it in this thread.
Ok so you can't refute the facts. More global warming, whale population going up and not down.
Thank you Lorax.
Yes...you RE-wrote it in this thread, because in the other thread, you clearly gave credit to global warming.
I don't have to refute any facts. I have posted them. Global warming is reducing the krill population and will continue to do so, which will head the wonderful strides we've made with PROTECTIONS & enforcement, which were just starting to yield positive results, off at the pass.
As for polar bears - up to 2/3 gone by 2050, because of dramatically reduced habitat. If you accept global warming (which you seem to, every other day or so), and the fact that warming melts ice, which seems logical - how could you possibly argue this?
TheDanold
Unimatrix
Um no, I didn't track down anything, in fact YOU entered it on politics.com for all to see. I don't need to write down anything, I have a good memory.
So, why would you even remember it, three years later. Did you write it down, and why?
TheDanold
Unimatrix
No, wrong. You misinterpreted it and I've explained it too many times to keep refuting your lie.
Whales need to eat all the time and starving whales would die in a year and not lead to an increase in population. The predictions you cite would see IMMEDIATE decline and they do not.
Either their theory is wrong or their numbers are wrong or the animal is evolving to deal with that.
Moreover, most whale population decreased by over 90% due to hunting, do you really think their food sources decreased by over 90% too? Clearly there is plenty of room for increase.
Finally krill like a lot of small animals survives in evolution primarily by increasing the number of offspring, which will go up with more pressure from hungrier whales.
Again because it's a prediction. When I hear a doomsday prediction, I don't have knee jerk reaction of panic by instinct nor trust by authority. I think about it relevant to current facts.
We have already seen some warming and we have seen no decline in polar bear numbers. The facts so far do not match the prediction.
As mentioned before the polar bear evolved from the brown (grizzly) bear as the climate naturally got colder, why would you assume the opposite would NOT happen as the climate naturally gets warmer?
Also as mentioned before in another thread, polar bears exist in Northern Ontario which is well below the arctic circle and much warmer than in the deep arctic where the concern is. That also destroys the theory.
There is simply no way to misinterpret this:
""Global warming has resulted in a stable polar bear population along with an easier life for the many different kinds of whales"
And again, the conclusions that you pull from the top of your head, based on Danologic, are no match for people who study whales & whale health, and people who understand what warming means for polar bear habitat. It's amazing how you talk about evolution in particular; you clearly have no grasp on the topic, or of the lengths of time generally required for a species to adapt to slowly changing conditions (the kind of conditions that we're not talking about here).
It's tiring talking to a wall...
""Global warming has resulted in a stable polar bear population along with an easier life for the many different kinds of whales"
And again, the conclusions that you pull from the top of your head, based on Danologic, are no match for people who study whales & whale health, and people who understand what warming means for polar bear habitat. It's amazing how you talk about evolution in particular; you clearly have no grasp on the topic, or of the lengths of time generally required for a species to adapt to slowly changing conditions (the kind of conditions that we're not talking about here).
It's tiring talking to a wall...
TheDanold
Unimatrix
I already said I didn't write it down just 2 posts ago, maybe you should have a better memory.
I remember it because I have a good memory, I can remember names from people I went to school with for only a few months. It's a genetic thing probably, my brother's memory is the best I've ever seen of anybody, he can pull out specific conversations from decades ago.
You're nothing special and I'm not doing anything freaky if that's what you're wondering.
