What the? Could global warming actually be BAD for polar bears?

Let me correct your errors:

ib1liisguy said:
Danologic:

<ib1liisguy logic>
Poop is brown.
Your car is brown.
Your car is made of poop.
</ib1liisguy logic>

<Danologic>
Oceans are warming.
Whale populations are going up partly because global warming means less ice and less whales trapped in ice .
Warming oceans means more whales.
</Danologic>

Or, one could say this and be just as accurate:

<ib1liisguy logic>Oceans are warming.
US gained 8 million jobs.
Warming oceans creates jobs for Americans.</ib1liisguy logic>
Click to expand...

Happy to help dumbass!
 
TheDanold said:
This is such a bunch of sick lies, I very clearly stated the facts which is that

"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

The reason I called it a good thing was because of the positive impact for whales while having no overall negative effect for polar bears.

Also it should be known by ignorant doofus Liberals that the polar bear evolved from the grizzly bear as the climate got NATURALLY colder:
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~candela/pbevol.html
Now as the climate gets NATURALLY warmer they would again perhaps evolve back to be more accustomed to deal with that.

I know Liberals are against change or regard any manmade change (which this is not anyway) as sacreligious to their primitive Gaia mindset but boohoo get used to it, the earth is warming naturally and animals do evolve to deal with that.
Click to expand...

QFT

Dano, I was going to go through the whole WWF stats once again, but I decided it's no longer worth the effort. The true believers will continue to believe. Global warming must be the easiest science to break into in all of history. You can blame anything on global warming. There's no way diseases could be killing off the populations...It's global warming!
 
tinfoil said:
QFT

Dano, I was going to go through the whole WWF stats once again, but I decided it's no longer worth the effort. The true believers will continue to believe. Global warming must be the easiest science to break into in all of history. You can blame anything on global warming. There's no way diseases could be killing off the populations...It's global warming!
Click to expand...
It's true, it's kind of sad too, weather used to be one of the very few things you could talk about without it turning into politics.
 
Hey, stir - why don't you give that ol' ice core study a go, again?

You know...that one that you kept posting on FP, until I responded that most of its authors believe in AGW, and that there actually can be more than ONE cause of global warming throughout history, but that C02 is clearly an accelerator, no matter what the circumstances?

It was funny; when I responded to you with some facts & details, you bailed on the thread. Very strange...
 
Why are whale populations growing Dano? Global warming or the results of years of the greenpeace save the whales efforts ?
 
TheDanold said:
Ok times up, time to mention the Iraq war again, Squawk!

Sorry who's the parrot?
Click to expand...
Thanks for Bringing it up Pollydano. I am sure you will remember that I was against the war even before the invasion, When most of the rest of America was in a fear driven frenzy and for it. You actively supported the war until when ?
Sorry I am not a porrot, just smarter than you and still against the war.
You were the parrot, calling me unamerican, etc...

I am just me.
You are just a parrot.
 
Superfreak said:
Lorax so adamant about AGW....

:good4u:
Click to expand...

Oh, my - what an extreme loser you are to dig up a thread from 2007. How long did this take you? Did you search for an hour or 2?

What a LOSER.

Anyhoo, my statement was that I haven't argued AGW in YEARS. Know what that means? It means that, at one time, I argued AGW.

So, thanks for digging this up, and confirming what I already stated.
 
For any of you other losers who want to spend an hour searching like the grand loser Superfreak, and who might even get lucky and find some statement where I seem to indicate I supported the idea of AGW, I would urge you to be intellectually honest, and also list the dozen or so comments I make where I say that I don't believe AGW can be proven either way anymore, and is not worth arguing, for every 1 comment where I seem to be believing in AGW.

For the record, I HAVE NOT DISMISSED THE IDEA OF AGW. I just don't really argue it anymore, which is what I have said repeatedly, and I don't. When I argue for alts, I argue economics & national security.

Freak, you are such a loser.
 
Onceler said:
Oh, my - what an extreme loser you are to dig up a thread from 2007. How long did this take you? Did you search for an hour or 2?

What a LOSER.

Anyhoo, my statement was that I haven't argued AGW in YEARS. Know what that means? It means that, at one time, I argued AGW.

So, thanks for digging this up, and confirming what I already stated.
Click to expand...

Nope... it took about 5 seconds.... quick search using Oncelor and 'denialist'

Just jerking your chain a bit... you see ... that goes both ways....

so don't get your panties in a bunch...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top