• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Arctic Warming claim wins Junkscience award

Handwringers and fearmongerers have always abounded in this world. For centuries people have made claims that the world is coming to an end, sometimes parading around in a sandwich board with an exact date. This century though, the eco-movement has bred a new kind of doom 'n gloomer - the 'Let's blame mankind for all our ecological ills' type.

Thanksfully we still have people that can look at more than one data point before proclaiming an impending catasrophe or that a cataclysm is imminent and provide some actual facts or counterpoints to prove their case.

http://www.junkscience.com/dec04/jsa200404.htm

Polar Bear Scare
By Steven Milloy
November 11, 2004, FoxNews.com
"Global warming could cause polar bears to go extinct by the end of the century by eroding the sea ice that sustains them," is the dire warning in a new report from an international group of "researchers" called the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.

I'm not quite sure about the polar bears' future, but it doesn't seem any alleged manmade global warming has anything to do with it. The report, titled "Impacts of a Warming Arctic," pretty much debunks itself on Page 23 in the graph labeled, "Observed Arctic Temperature, 1900 to Present."

The graph shows Arctic temperatures fluctuate naturally in regular cycles roughly 40 years long. The Arctic seems to be undergoing a warming phase ? similar to one between 1900-1940 ? which will likely be followed by a cooling phase ? similar to that of 1940-1970.

The report's claim that increased manmade emissions of greenhouse gases are causing a rise in Arctic temperatures is debunked by the same graph, which indicates the near-surface Arctic air temperature was higher around 1940 than now, despite all the greenhouse gas emissions since.

Also self-debunking is the report's statement, "Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased by about 35 percent and the global average temperature has risen by about 0.6 degrees Centigrade." So despite all the greenhouse gases emitted by human activity over 200 years ? we're supposed to worry, even panic, about a measly 0.6 degree C rise in average global temperature in that time?

Even if such a slight temperature change could credibly be estimated, it would seem well within the natural variation in average global temperature, which in the Arctic, for example, is a range of about 3 degrees C. Remember, global climate isn't static ? it's always either cooling or warming.

Though their own data indicate manmade greenhouse gas emissions and warmer temperatures don't seem to be a problem in the Arctic, the researchers nevertheless claimed these factors caused supposed 15 percent declines in both the average weight of adult polar bears and number of cubs born between 1981 and 1998 in the Hudson Bay region.

The 1999 study in the science journal Arctic that first reported apparent problems among the Hudson Bay polar bears suggested they might be related to the earlier seasonal break-up of sea ice on western Hudson Bay ? a phenomenon that seems to correlate with the 1970-present Arctic warm-up. But, as mentioned previously, the 1970-present Arctic warming period seems part of a natural cycle and not due to manmade greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, the notion of declining polar bear numbers doesn't square with available information.

A Canadian Press Newswire story earlier this year reported that, in three Arctic villages, polar bears "are so abundant there's a public safety issue." Local polar bears reportedly increased from about 2,100 in 1997 to as many as 2,600 in 2004. Inuits wanted to kill more bears, which are "fearsome predators."

An aerial survey of Alaskan polar bears published in Arctic (December 2003) reported a greater polar bear density than previous survey estimates dating to 1987.

If polar bears are getting skinnier as the 1999 study suggested, it may be due to greater numbers subsisting on the same level of available food. After all, harvesting Alaskan polar bears has been limited by the Marine Mammal Protection Act and international agreements since 1972.

The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report has spurred new calls for a clampdown on carbon-dioxide emissions.

Sens. John McCain, Arizona Republican, and Joe Lieberman, Connecticut Democrat, told the Associated Press the "dire consequences" Arctic warming underscore the need for their proposal to require U.S. cuts in emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

Fortunately, their call will likely get a chilly response from President Bush, who reiterated through a spokesman last weekend his continued opposition to the international global-warming treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol.
 
Ok...so lets take your side on the issue and say that the polar icecaps are in a cyclical temperature fluctuation.
There are other effects of air pollution...
How do you explain this?...and being a knowledgable conservative, you will understand that a fair chunk of your GDP is spent on health and medicine. But at the same time you would like to lower these costs.


Asthma Study

These asthma cases have more than doubled in the last 15 years.

Asthma?s Annual Impact in the United States

*Approximately 5,000 deaths annually

*Two million emergency department visits

*Nearly 500,000 hospitalizations

*14 million missed school days

* 14.5 million missed work days

*$14 billion in medical and indirect expenses

Help me explain your point of view a bit more clearly.
 
Originally posted by: Stunt
Ok...so lets take your side on the issue and say that the polar icecaps are in a cyclical temperature fluctuation.
There are other effects of air pollution...
How do you explain this?...and being a knowledgable conservative, you will understand that a fair chunk of your GDP is spent on health and medicine. But at the same time you would like to lower these costs.


Asthma Study

These asthma cases have more than doubled in the last 15 years.

Asthma?s Annual Impact in the United States

*Approximately 5,000 deaths annually

*Two million emergency department visits

*Nearly 500,000 hospitalizations

*14 million missed school days

* 14.5 million missed work days

*$14 billion in medical and indirect expenses

Help me explain your point of view a bit more clearly.

You seem to be jumping to another category of discussion. The thread topic is about Arctic Warming and the associated claims, not asthma. Surely the asthma issue is worthy of discussion, but not in this thread.

Besides that, I'm not a conservative either.
 
I thought the discussion was about pollution and how it will affect us.

If global warming is proven junkscience...it will be assumed that the creation of pollutants will have no effect on OUR environment (where we live, land or air)

Asthma point is worth discussing as most think just because there is no global warming (i have mixed feelings) that all is fine with the creation of these gases.

I'm merely pointing out it is not. You want to look at reality, this is reality.

Both sides of the global warming issue have valid points but few facts and lots of speculation.
Asthma numbers dont lie and are facts.

In a discussoin like this it comes down to pollute or not to pollute...i am showing all the facts...worthy discussion...game on! 🙂
 
If global warming is proven junkscience...it will be assumed that the creation of pollutants will have no effect on OUR environment (where we live, land or air)

No... It will be assumed that man cannot significantly stop global warming or that man made pollutants is not enough to solely cause or significantly increase global warming.

I don't think anyone thinks that massive pollution is OK.
 
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
If global warming is proven junkscience...it will be assumed that the creation of pollutants will have no effect on OUR environment (where we live, land or air)

No... It will be assumed that man cannot significantly stop global warming or that man made pollutants is not enough to solely cause or significantly increase global warming.

I don't think anyone thinks that massive pollution is OK.

Ok...but there has been nothing done in terms of pollution reduction in Bush's term...and nothing is planned. It is because of the belief that it is junk science. Instead of proving that it is junk science, we should show why pollution should be reduced. And this is partially why.

You do notice the negative impacts of the greenhouse theory falling through right?
 
Originally posted by: Stunt
I thought the discussion was about pollution and how it will affect us.
No. It's more about how people will disregard data points and distort findings to further an agenda.

If global warming is proven junkscience...it will be assumed that the creation of pollutants will have no effect on OUR environment (where we live, land or air)
I don't agree. Pollution - which is really broad, generalized term because it includes many factors and types - has been demonstrated for a fact to have deleterious localized effects. It has not yet been demonstrated for a fact to be affecting our global climate.

Asthma point is worth discussing as most think just because there is no global warming (i have mixed feelings) that all is fine with the creation of these gases.
How do you come to this conclusion. imo, most would like to see pollutants and fatory emmissions reduced regardless of whether it's affecting our climate or not.

I'm merely pointing out it is not. You want to look at reality, this is reality.

Both sides of the global warming issue have valid points but few facts and lots of speculation.
Asthma numbers dont lie and are facts.

In a discussoin like this it comes down to pollute or not to pollute...i am showing all the facts...worthy discussion...game on! 🙂
I think the most important factor is not pollutants, but learning the physiological cause of the problem itself. Pollutants may only be a relatively small factor in the cause of asthmatic reactions as well. Air is not clean naturally. A good windstorm can whip up airborne particulates and plant pollens in the most pristine of areas that could cause an asthmatic reaction. While surely it's a contributing cause, pollution can't be pinned as the sole causative factor in asthma.

Air quality has been improveing over the past 30 years in many areas due to restrictive pollution control measures put in place, particularly in urban areas known for having bad air, yet asthma rates are still rising? Does this tell us something?
 
Originally posted by: SuperTool
I read up to :
November 11, 2004, FoxNews.com
Thanks for putting that at the top and saving me 5 mins of my life.
I feel the same way when I see the NY Times listed as the originator of a story.

 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: SuperTool
I read up to :
November 11, 2004, FoxNews.com
Thanks for putting that at the top and saving me 5 mins of my life.
I feel the same way when I see the NY Times listed as the originator of a story.

As you should, since neither of these organizations are scientific journals with any peer reviews.
I don't get my Engineering references from Washington post either.
 
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: SuperTool
I read up to :
November 11, 2004, FoxNews.com
Thanks for putting that at the top and saving me 5 mins of my life.
I feel the same way when I see the NY Times listed as the originator of a story.

As you should, since neither of these organizations are scientific journals with any peer reviews.
I don't get my Engineering references from Washington post either.
Actually, it's no so much the organizations as the authors of an article. Milloy has some fairly respectable credentials.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: SuperTool
I read up to :
November 11, 2004, FoxNews.com
Thanks for putting that at the top and saving me 5 mins of my life.
I feel the same way when I see the NY Times listed as the originator of a story.

I thought you were supposed to be a liberal?
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: SuperTool
I read up to :
November 11, 2004, FoxNews.com
Thanks for putting that at the top and saving me 5 mins of my life.
I feel the same way when I see the NY Times listed as the originator of a story.

I thought...
First time for everything, eh?

Actually, this is not the first time you've made a lame edit to obfuscate.
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: SuperTool
I read up to :
November 11, 2004, FoxNews.com
Thanks for putting that at the top and saving me 5 mins of my life.
I feel the same way when I see the NY Times listed as the originator of a story.

I thought...
First time for everything, eh?

Actually, this is not the first time you've made a lame edit to obfuscate.
It's not the first, or second, or third, or forth time you've made the lame commentary on me being a liberal either. One would have to believe you are completely fixated on the subject in a rather unheathy way.

 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It's not the first, or second, or third, or forth time you've made the lame commentary on me being a liberal either. One would have to believe you are completely fixated on the subject in a rather unheathy way.

It's fair-game to note inconsistencies in your posts. I will continue to do so when they pop up.
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It's not the first, or second, or third, or forth time you've made the lame commentary on me being a liberal either. One would have to believe you are completely fixated on the subject in a rather unheathy way.

It's fair-game to note inconsistencies in your posts. I will continue to do so when they pop up.
Bwahahaha. :laugh:

So you'll continue to be an obsessive/compulsive for all to see?

Help yourself, weirdo.
 
Originally posted by: Stunt
Ok...so lets take your side on the issue and say that the polar icecaps are in a cyclical temperature fluctuation.
There are other effects of air pollution...
How do you explain this?...and being a knowledgable conservative, you will understand that a fair chunk of your GDP is spent on health and medicine. But at the same time you would like to lower these costs.


Asthma Study

These asthma cases have more than doubled in the last 15 years.

Asthma?s Annual Impact in the United States

*Approximately 5,000 deaths annually

*Two million emergency department visits

*Nearly 500,000 hospitalizations

*14 million missed school days

* 14.5 million missed work days

*$14 billion in medical and indirect expenses

Help me explain your point of view a bit more clearly.

Asthma has clearly gone up because of not.....environment, but because of Obesity. This is based on information avail at the hospital here. When the Obese have lost weight, their Asthma has significantly improved and has even dissapeared.
 
alright, ask any high school science teacher what do greemhouse gases do. then ask what burning 28 trillion gallons of fossil fuels produces.

the last time we ignored a problem like this, it thinned the ozone layer and australians got +25% skin cancer in 1 decade.

CFC's in the atmosphere are harmless. i mean a single CFC molecule only destroys 10,000 ozone molcules via catalytic reaction

who do you trust more, somebody whose willing to sell out the future of the environment for profit, or somebody who actually cares about it?
 
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
alright, ask any high school science teacher what do greemhouse gases do. then ask what burning 28 trillion gallons of fossil fuels produces.

the last time we ignored a problem like this, it thinned the ozone layer and australians got +25% skin cancer in 1 decade.

CFC's in the atmosphere are harmless. i mean a single CFC molecule only destroys 10,000 ozone molcules via catalytic reaction

who do you trust more, somebody whose willing to sell out the future of the environment for profit, or somebody who actually cares about it?
Guess who the biggest polluter in the western US currently is?

Give up?

Mt. St. Helens.

Ma Nature sure is a sloppy b1tch.
 
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
alright, ask any high school science teacher what do greemhouse gases do. then ask what burning 28 trillion gallons of fossil fuels produces.

the last time we ignored a problem like this, it thinned the ozone layer and australians got +25% skin cancer in 1 decade.

CFC's in the atmosphere are harmless. i mean a single CFC molecule only destroys 10,000 ozone molcules via catalytic reaction

who do you trust more, somebody whose willing to sell out the future of the environment for profit, or somebody who actually cares about it?

The Ozone is not something that is statically there in the atmosphere....it is something rather Dynamic in that it is created and destroyed constantly just like your skin shedding and growing back. Ozone is replinished mostly during the storm season. The hole that does show up is apparent only a few months out of the year.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: SuperTool
I read up to :
November 11, 2004, FoxNews.com
Thanks for putting that at the top and saving me 5 mins of my life.
I feel the same way when I see the NY Times listed as the originator of a story.

As you should, since neither of these organizations are scientific journals with any peer reviews.
I don't get my Engineering references from Washington post either.
Actually, it's no so much the organizations as the authors of an article. Milloy has some fairly respectable credentials.

CATO institute. Nuff said.
 
Back
Top