ronwagn + 6,290 October 28, 2019 8 minutes ago, Enthalpic said: Old people with a lot of money who want to live next to the pretty ocean. They will be long dead before any of this becomes a real problem. Geological time is very slow, but current changes appear to be happening much faster (but yes, still slow compared to a human lifespan). I would say a little faster but that does not prove it has anything to do with mankind. That input would be minor IMHO. There are plenty of other inputs. GIGO. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
remake it + 288 October 28, 2019 11 hours ago, PE Scott said: She never said that reductions in ice weren't evident or that climate changes weren't occurring. Instead, she said that collective census data indicated that populations of polar bears were thriving in the majority of locations studied. 2 minutes ago, Enthalpic said: Of course nobody knows the exact numbers but they (biologists) certainly do field work every year and many are tagged and/or recaptured. The reality is that polar bear numbers are best guesses, and depending which subpopulation is being studied can yield different results over time for some of the reasons already covered in this thread. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enthalpic + 1,496 October 28, 2019 8 minutes ago, remake it said: The reality is that polar bear numbers are best guesses, and depending which subpopulation is being studied can yield different results over time for some of the reasons already covered in this thread. Certainly complicated by the fact that bear populations are measured by several different organizations / nations - each probably with their own methodology and agenda. Even "Indigenous knowledge" is given lip service. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
El Nikko + 2,145 nb October 28, 2019 1 hour ago, Enthalpic said: Geological time is very slow, but current changes appear to be happening much faster LOL Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PE Scott + 563 SC October 29, 2019 21 hours ago, remake it said: The reality is that polar bear numbers are best guesses, and depending which subpopulation is being studied can yield different results over time for some of the reasons already covered in this thread. 21 hours ago, Enthalpic said: Certainly complicated by the fact that bear populations are measured by several different organizations / nations - each probably with their own methodology and agenda. Even "Indigenous knowledge" is given lip service. In my mind, its analogous to reservoir estimates. You can take the exact same data set and give it to a number of different engineers and theyll probably all come up with different estimates on recoverable and total oil volumes in place. It doesn't matter who took the core sample or collected and recorded their production numbers. Anyone trained in analyzing that data can make a prediction based on various models and equations they plug the data into. Then, if you're trying to secure a loan or something, maybe you assume a little bit thicker pay zone, or slightly higher permiability....a small turn of the knob here or there can make a big difference in the prediction. I would imagine the models they use for predicting polar bear populations are very much the same way in terms of generating different results based on the same data sets. Surely they have improved over time as was noted in your previous article @remake it, estimates from the 50's 60's are far less accurate or comprehensive than what we have today and shouldn't be the basis of comparison. But then, the same could be said about just about any data or predictions from the 50s vs today, including climate change and wheather phenomena. The point is, the data and methods of analysis are not accurate enough or comprehensive enough to warrant dismissing someone for generating different results with there analysis. Worse yet, representing a species as going extinct because of AGW is at the very least a stretch and at the worst a down right lie. At the very least they could just call it rising temperatures and declining sea ice. Leave the causes for those things for climate scientists to discuss instead of inserting less qualified assumptions as facts. Focus on the subject, the polar bears. Otherwise, it seems like they're just using polar bears for political and ideological leverage as opposed to being concerned with the polar bears well being and responsiveness to environmental changes. I'm not against polar bears and I certainly don't want to see any species eliminated, I just think it's crazy to represent hypothesis as facts and take such a strong stance as to denounce any other intellectual discourse on the subject. Personally, I would be much more convinced by the extinction argument if a more professional approach was taken to defending it than firing the opposition. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
remake it + 288 October 29, 2019 2 hours ago, PE Scott said: The point is, the data and methods of analysis are not accurate enough or comprehensive enough to warrant dismissing someone for generating different results with there analysis. Crockford is a scientist who is known to peddle misinformation about polar bears and claims to be an expert, but is not, so an academic institution really does not want to be associated with people who besmirch the professions they foster. 2 hours ago, PE Scott said: Worse yet, representing a species as going extinct because of AGW is at the very least a stretch and at the worst a down right lie. That is not what polar bear experts are saying, but it appears to be the lie which Crockford is suggesting is the case, as she continues to ignore the fact that polar bears rely on sea ice as an essential feature of their habitat, and in future may not adapt to its decline. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest October 29, 2019 (edited) Wow this shit is still going, just amazing ... 6 pages of 1 person disagreeing with everyone else. Oh wait, that seems to be most threads, despite all the constant evidence. Yawn. Have fun I guess. Edited October 29, 2019 by Guest Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enthalpic + 1,496 October 29, 2019 5 minutes ago, DayTrader said: 6 pages of 1 person disagreeing with everyone else. Oh wait, that seems to be most threads, despite all the constant evidence. It's not my fault the majority around here are wrong about most things. LOL 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest October 29, 2019 (edited) Haha oh ok 2 guys You just think it's Trump's fault so jump on the polar bear bandwagon Edited October 29, 2019 by Guest Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enthalpic + 1,496 October 30, 2019 (edited) On 10/29/2019 at 2:44 PM, DayTrader said: Haha oh ok 2 guys You just think it's Trump's fault so jump on the polar bear bandwagon Believe it or not I worked on this stuff before trump's period. It's not like I liked bush 1 or 2 If trump did something pro environment I would praise him for it. Edited October 30, 2019 by Enthalpic 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest October 30, 2019 What about countries that do nothing at all towards it? They don't ever seem to get abuse? Just Trump. Everything is Trump. I noticed that no one answered anything they do personally towards it either. Saying ''we must do more'' and nothing yourself is not helpful mate. If it makes you feel better then great I guess. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest October 30, 2019 (edited) On 10/26/2019 at 10:27 PM, DayTrader said: Can I be so bold as to ask what the tree huggers here are actually positively doing towards the environment, rather than seeming to talk ''horse shit'', to quote Gerry? I guarantee every one of you uses as much oil and pollutes in your daily lives as all of us, I promise you you do more damage than me. Can you please explain what makes you so morally superior and not a hypocrite? I would love to hear what you do or have done to make a difference to the planet or its future. Going on Greta marches in continents you're comfortable in does not count (while avoiding the biggest culprits on the planet). And it also doesn't count when you get a McDonalds for lunch and you went to the march in your car. Do you think just disagreeing with scientists here is making a difference? Or that just saying everyone is wrong and we are all doomed does? Seriously, please give me, in detail, your incredible plan to save the world as it is apparently so doomed. Give me that plan, from your oil-based laptop or phone, which you're currently staring at, while telling others how bad they are and how they must change and do more. Then maybe you will get in your car. Then maybe have some meat for dinner. Then use plastics and oil derivatives all day everyday. I'd also quite like to know why entire continents to you do not need to be mentioned, in terms of what they are doing, or more accurately, not doing. Maybe you should look up the populations of Asia, Africa and South America in total. Please explain why it is only Europe, North America and Australasia that need to do more and why protests only happen here, while other countries do literally nothing positive for the environment. You are no greener than any of us... Maybe it makes you feel better to talk about 'climate change', ... if you did care you would do more than just talk about it. Instead you live exactly as we do or worse. Anyway, I await your groundbreaking global plans and to hear of your apparent green, holier than thou, non hypocritical lifestyle (told from a laptop). I'm guessing that this will not be replied to, like the post of the 500 most polluted cities, around 150 of which were in China, and none were in the UK or the USA. Maybe focus on that stuff and your own air quality, seeing as everyone's in a mask there, then maybe you can give the big one about 'climate' or anything even vaguely environmental. This all got ignored. How odd. No answers to any of it. No solutions. No attacking countries that do nothing. Weird. Proved every one of my points though so thanks I guess. The West must do more. Boring. And Trump is bad, Obama was great. We get it. Edited October 30, 2019 by Guest Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest October 30, 2019 (edited) @Selva Can we paste this to the start of every thread please, or maybe just put it in the main oilprice lobby? It will save a lot of time and chat. Edited October 30, 2019 by Guest Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Selva + 252 SP October 30, 2019 2 minutes ago, DayTrader said: @Selva Can we paste this to the start of every thread please, or maybe just put it in the main oilprice lobby? It will save a lot of time and chat. Hmm, let me think. 🤔 NO! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yoshiro Kamamura + 274 YK October 31, 2019 A global warming alarmist = an actual climate scientist A global warming moderate = oil and gas industry paid lobbyist shill More than 75 percent of species extinct due to human activity = Business as Usual Business as Usual = more than 90 percent of fish gone, replaced mostly by jellyfish and plastic islands Sustainability = who needs it, certainly not 70 years old oil exec whose penis won't rise ever again Extremist = A person refusing to wait to see if we will really all die, as the scientists say we will Moderate = Appropriate lack of imagination and information Underground bunker with three bars and seven bedrooms = rich man's solution Big Reboot = Let's hope the canned pears last Radioactivity = Just a state of mind 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yoshiro Kamamura + 274 YK October 31, 2019 2 hours ago, DayTrader said: @Selva Can we paste this to the start of every thread please, or maybe just put it in the main oilprice lobby? It will save a lot of time and chat. How is one man's obvious lack of mental faculties pertinent to unrelated problems and topics? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Douglas Buckland + 6,308 October 31, 2019 8 minutes ago, Yoshiro Kamamura said: How is one man's obvious lack of mental faculties pertinent to unrelated problems and topics? How is it ‘obvious’ that Trump lacks mental faculties? Or is it simply that you disagree with his policies and therefore HE must be the idiot? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest October 31, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, Yoshiro Kamamura said: How is one man's obvious lack of mental faculties pertinent to unrelated problems and topics? Maybe you should be asking that to the people that bring up Trump, whatever the thread is? And look up sarcasm in the dictionary while you're at it. Edited October 31, 2019 by Guest Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,756 RP October 31, 2019 On 10/29/2019 at 8:16 PM, remake it said: Crockford is a scientist who is known to peddle misinformation about polar bears and claims to be an expert, but is not, so an academic institution really does not want to be associated with people who besmirch the professions they foster. That is not what polar bear experts are saying, but it appears to be the lie which Crockford is suggesting is the case, as she continues to ignore the fact that polar bears rely on sea ice as an essential feature of their habitat, and in future may not adapt to its decline. I think its clear that Remake It loves bears, especially Pooh in China 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Otis11 + 551 ZP November 15, 2019 On 10/27/2019 at 2:39 PM, Enthalpic said: Maybe not so much in crap journals, but something prestigious like Nature there is absolutely a lot of review. Publish or perish is only for low-level academics; once you have tenure you can pretty much do whatever the hell you want. Biggest risk to credibility is funding / conflict of interests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(journal) " Fewer than 8% of submitted papers are accepted for publication." https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/editorial-criteria-and-processes Oh brother... citing Nature as Prestigious?!? May I suggest not? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest November 15, 2019 (edited) Who's that sexy legend? Ah ... So you guys know that's a photo a gorgeous journalist took of me without me knowing on day 3 of a poker tournament. Hence the hoodie and ridiculous good looks. I'm not normally so mysterious and gorgeous and intense but hey, she's only human, she had to take it. I had a hotel room opposite the casino too. You know how it is. If you don't you go on Tinder ... just sayin' That's my version of ''published'' anyway. #wobble Cheers. Edited November 15, 2019 by Guest Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
remake it + 288 November 15, 2019 11 minutes ago, Otis11 said: Oh brother... citing Nature as Prestigious?!? This calls your knowledge into question, as it has been called many times already, however why not show where the science community regards the journal as you suspect. 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PE Scott + 563 SC November 15, 2019 I have no words..... 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
remake it + 288 November 15, 2019 2 minutes ago, PE Scott said: I have no words..... Yet there they are! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ward Smith + 6,615 November 15, 2019 13 minutes ago, DayTrader said: Who's that sexy legend? Ah ... LOL so you guys know that's a photo a gorgeous journalist took of me on day 3 of a poker tournament. Hence the hoodie and ridiculous good looks. I'm not normally so mysterious and gorgeous and intense but hey, she's only human, she had to take it. I had a hotel room opposite the casino too. You know how it is. If you don't you go on Tinder ... That's my version of ''published'' anyway. #wobble I certainly hope that tournament wasn't in Vegas! Just sayin 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members