Har Har Har Global warming crap

[Warren Dew]

Of course, apart from over-claiming on the ice loss in the Arctic, the alarmists also constantly ignore the LACK of melting in the Antarctic. This could mean that the Arctic ice loss could me more the result of local factors, than global warming.

The Arctic is likely to be more influenced by ocean currents, than the Antarctic, because it doesn't have a huge great continent at it's centre.

The arctic is more influenced by albedo decreases due to diesel particulates from Europe.

That said, there is some evidence for retreating ice shelves on Antarctica as well.

http://www.wwfblogs.org/climate/sites/d ... in-800.jpg

[Tero]

You get your science from politicians now? No wonder no one believes the warming alarmists any more.

You can poll the public on pretty much any science issue. You will find out 50% HAVE a very fuzzy idea what the issue even is.

[mistermack]

If the thinning of the Arctic Ice was reversed, surely that would be bad for the Polar Bears too?

I mean, seals can only live where it's possible to find a hole in the ice to breathe through. And the bears eat practically nothing but seals. So if the ice gets too thick, the seals, and the bears, would be restricted to the edges of the ice-mass.

Surely the thinning will have opened up new areas that seals can exploit? It will make life harder for mother polar bears with new cubs, because the ice will have retreated north. But other bears, who went north with the ice, should find lots more seals to eat.

Maybe they should anaesthetise the mothers with new cubs, and fly them out to the ice packs.
Or maybe mother bears will eventually come out of hibernation earlier, and get on the ice, before it disappears.

[Tero]

OK so you know nothing about polar bears. Think! Why do they need ice?

[mistermack]

OK so you know nothing about polar bears. Think! Why do they need ice?

You can do better than that. I'm not your pupil.

[Tero]

There are numerous documentaries, even Disney ones. See Youtube.

[mistermack]

There are numerous documentaries, even Disney ones. See Youtube.

I don't know why you bothered posting, if you can't say what you mean.

Are you trying to be the international man of mystery?

[laklak]

I don't know why y'all are still arguing about bears. If you jangle car keys at a brown bear it turns into a polar bear. Beyers told us this. Beyers doesn't lie. If you need more polar bears just give cars to grizzlies, they'll self-speciate.

[Tero]

What, polar bears ice and seals are still a mystery to you?

[mistermack]

What, polar bears ice and seals are still a mystery to you?

No, what is a mystery to me, is what on earth you are talking about.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but when I post, I try to make clear what I'm trying to say.
You seem to want to talk in mysterious riddles.

It's very simple, if you want to say something, type it in the little box. You seem to be intimating that I know fuck-all about polar bears, well the logical thing would be to point out where I'm lacking, and if it's right, I'll be grateful for the information.
I don't claim to be an authority on bears or anything else, but I know a few titbits, and I'm always happy to find out more.

[Tero]

OK, you did not want me to lecture you and yet you are too lazy to google habitat requirements for polar bears. A relative of the grizzly, nothing to do with brown bears.

Can't help you then.

[mistermack]

OK, you did not want me to lecture you and yet you are too lazy to google habitat requirements for polar bears. A relative of the grizzly, nothing to do with brown bears.

Can't help you then.

No you can't. If you insist on talking in riddles. I haven't got the patience to work out what the fuck you are talking about, from your cryptic clues.
That's why I don't read the bible. Or poetry. If someone has something to say, then I like them to say it, in a clear and easy-to-digest manner.
Which is a skill that I admire in people. That's why I like Dawkins, rather than bishops.

Grizzlies ARE brown bears, by the way. If that's the level of your knowledge, then I'm apparently not missing much.

[macdoc]

mistermack wrote:
Of course, apart from over-claiming on the ice loss in the Arctic, the alarmists also constantly ignore the LACK of melting in the Antarctic. This could mean that the Arctic ice loss could me more the result of local factors, than global warming.

The Arctic is likely to be more influenced by ocean currents, than the Antarctic, because it doesn't have a huge great continent at it's centre.

you just crack me up ........blind man and the elephant.

No one "ignores" the Antarctic ice pack...we just recognize how much fucking ice the glaciers are kicking out into the ocean.
Try some science instead of being blitheringly stupid about geophysics.

Learn something


http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarct ... ng-ice.htm

[mistermack]

Learn something

The only thing to learn from your juvenile posts, is that there is nothing to be learned from you.
I learned that a long time ago.

When people post interesting stuff, I like to read it.
All you do is post links to rabid blog sites.
Don't waste your time, because I certainly won't waste mine on it.

[mistermack]

Double post again. Fuck this poxy mouse.