The Polar Bear Pic They Won't Show You

Come on AKG, photo editors for the popular press are all trained climatologists and should have known better! The only explaination is of a shadowy global conspiracy orchestrated by 'They'.

Exactly, we have to stop this use of imagery to illustrate frightening concepts. Down with visual media!

I think you forgot the words "imaginary" and "false" from your statement

No, using those words would give the misleading impression that somehow the photo of polar bears on a block of floating ice was imaginary or that somehow the fact of global warming is false.

If the image in question was in a report by the IPCC with the caption "This image is proof that polar bears are endangered by global warming' you may have a point. All this is though is a striking image illustrating the situation polar bears are in (ie: a diminishing habitat) that has been used by a few individuals and journalists to make a point. It's an allegorical illustration, it doesn't matter what caused the block of ice in question to be in the shape it is, it doesn't matter that polar beaars can swim perfectly well, all that matters is that it concisely illustrates the bigger picture. There is no 'they' perpetrating some massive fraud as the headline implies, just a handful of individuals using emotive imagery.

I therefore can not accept that this is a picture of a diminishing habitat.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "allegory"?

I agree AJS, I'm sick of the media using imagery and emotional scare tactics to try and convince the world of global warming. I think they would achieve much better results if they stuck to the facts and remained objective. But since when has big media ever been "OBJECTIVE" in their reporting.

I don't believe it is an allegory. I believe it is a lie, do you understand the meaning of the word "Lie"?

Of course it's an allegory! The image is there to illustrate the polar bears are under threat from global warming, it illustrates that point perfectly - that is not a lie, there is no deception going on, no-one is using that image "with intent to deceive". Show me an article that says "The polar bears in this picture are going to die because global warming melted the block of ice from underneath them".

wookie, the picture in combination with the gloom and doom articles about polar bears imply that the polar bears are there because of global warming, hence the deception. Yes, the picture itself is deceptive. Can you not admit that? You don't have to defend the picture to maintain your belief in global warming.

Att kurtstack & ajs: Thank you for firmly verifying my premises for using this seed as an example of straw man use.

Wow, you folks are literal minded!

This is like the anti fur trade campaign showing a picture of a cute little tiger pup to help it's cause and someone objecting because poachers don't go after tiger pups, just fully grown tigers! What you are objecting to is a detail irrelevant to the argument.

the picture in combination with the gloom and doom articles about polar bears imply that the polar bears are there because of global warming, hence the deception

Let's take this one step at a time…

- Polar ice is melting due to global warming, this is an accepted fact.
- This has consequences for polar bears, threatening their habitat and therefore their long-term survival prospects, also a fact.
- An article is written describing the link between diminishing polar habitat and the subsequent plight of polar bears.
- An image is used showing polar bears on melting ice, nicely conveying both concepts in one punchy shot.

Where's the deception?

Yes, the picture itself is deceptive. Can you not admit that?

The picture itself is not deceptive in any way, it's just a picture of some polar bears on a block of ice. Any deception relating to it would be in an innacurate caption and I'd happily admit that any caption that made factual errors in describing the image could be deceptive.

You don't have to defend the picture to maintain your belief in global warming.

Who said I was, i'm just defending it's relevance to the issues it is used in conjunction with.

The picture itself is not deceptive in any way, it's just a picture of some polar bears on a block of ice. Any deception relating to it would be in an innacurate caption and I'd happily admit that any caption that made factual errors in describing the image could be deceptive.

Talk about splitting hairs. You may want to refer to your tiger cub example and the "detail irrelevant to the argument" for a rebuttal to this. The point is that the picture, coupled with an inaccurate caption, being placed in articles/arguments for global warming is deceptive.

Does that mean that global warming is not affecting polar bears or melting ice? No. It simply means that this picture is not an accurate representation of the direct effects of global warming.

It simply means that this picture is not an accurate representation of the direct effects of global warming.

Thankyou for illustrating my point - show me the article making that argument that the image is an "accurate representation of the direct effects of global warming" - in the absence of such a bold statement I claim it is blindingly obvious to anyone but the most bloody-minded that it is an alegorical image that represents a generalised concept.

Yawn. Yes, we built our whole case for global warming on that one polar bear pic. Looks like we're back to square one. Someone call those scientists in France, tell them the jig is up unless we can find some photos of frowning penguins.

Um, we did? Funny, I thought it was built on a few thousand other things.

Whenever I read stuff like this, it basically confirms my opinion that the "opposite side" on this subject is full of it.

Sarchasm (n.): the gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.

it is an alegorical image that represents a generalised concept.

I'm not arguing that, I'm stating that it is a deceitful representation. If I was to write a story about a trip to the beach with my wife and inserted a picture of a different couple on the beach, it would be an attempt to deceive the reader.

I'm stating that it is a deceitful representation

If any of these articles was trying to convince readers that polar bears are being stranded on small chunks of ice you would have a point. Your example is not really valid because it is very specific, so a specific image would be expected, in this case the subject is much broader.

A fairer comparison would be with an article entitled 'beaches make a good destination for un-married couples', in which case a picture of a couple on a beach would do the job nicely - now if someone pointed out that it's actually you and your wife on the beach and that you are married not unmarried it would be daft to suggest that the author is being deceitful.

No, it's an image of polar bears playing on a piece of ice that was created by waves, something that I'm sure polar bears have been doing for thousands of years, I therefore can not accept that this is a picture of a diminishing habitat.

And further, anyone who has used or does use this photo to try and make a point concerning global warming is in my opinion purposefully perpetration a massive fraud.

Are you an expert on the properties of the melting and artic ice and certain that increasing artic temperatures in no way has any impact on the behavior of wave action on ice? Are you absolutely certain that increasing temperatures in no way changes the impact of wave action on ice?

By calling this a lie and a fraud you purport to be doing exactly that. That temperature changes have absolutely no impact on this whatsoever.

Do you have proof to support such a conclusion or are you just assuming it to be the case that increased temperatures could not possibly have any impact on wave action on artic ice and that situations like this could not possibly be on the increase due to rising temperatures?

If any of these articles was trying to convince readers that polar bears are being stranded on small chunks of ice you would have a point.

Stranded Polar Bears

Polar Bears now endangered because of global warming as evidenced by melting ice seems pretty specific to me.

yawn? really... the destruction of our environment is something to yawn at? and the entire case for global warming is built on one picture? spoken like a true idiot.

this:

The fact of the matter is this one picture has been and is used to frighten people, including children.

coming from a supporter of the bush administration just makes laugh.

and then it makes me sick.

No, that article is not trying to convince readers that polar bears are being stranded on small chunks of ice, it is reporting that Polar Bears May Be Listed as Threatened in the USA.

You're right about the caption, and I have already said many comments ago (#1.13) that… I'd happily admit that any caption that made factual errors in describing the image could be deceptive. …and I'll happily admit that that caption is deceptive in the sense that they are not in fact stranded and can swim away at will. But the caption is not the article - my point still stands; using an image of polar bears in a diminishing environment to illustrate the fact that their environment is diminishing is not deceptive.

Also, Catch 22 has a point I'd missed - the whole argument in the seeded article is nonsense - the block of ice may be shaped by waves, but it is still melting. Those polar bears are standing on a block of melting ice, which makes it's use even less erronious in an article that states that their "habitat may literally be melting".

klb - please refer to comment #1.18

I didn't mean to state that global warming is false, I actually personally do not have an opinion either way.

...And further, anyone who has used or does use this photo to try and make a point concerning global warming is in my opinion purposefully perpetration a massive fraud.

How 'bout that, a whole two paragraphs before you contradicted yourself. That's nearly a record.

I'm sorry you can't read. I posted the contradiction right there.

What's to debate? The evidence is right there. You're reminding me of a Monty Python skit now.

yawn? really... the destruction of our environment is something to yawn at? and the entire case for global warming is built on one picture? spoken like a true idiot.

Yes, klb, you're right. You have spoken like a true idiot. As wookie obviously points out, I am yawning at the seeded article sarcastically, because it has almost nothing to do with the very real, very compelling, very conclusive argument that global warming exists and that human contributions are a factor. The seeded article bores me because it is a sad attempt to discredit the global warming evidence based on one mislabeled AP file photo. How could you possibly miss the flavor of my comment?

Hey, ajs, could you try to be even more boring?

AJS on bush:

Being an Apologist

• link1

Attacking Bush's Political Enemies

• link1
• link2

I will commend you AJS, you work really hard to not be explicit about your support. Your choices on seeds and other comments you make are imply your support. Of course for your literal absolutist mind, implication means nothing.

Children! STOP FIGHTING RIGHT NOW OR I'M TURNING THIS CAR AROUND!!!

Seriously, why do obviously biased people obsessively pick on obviously biased people? Y'all know what you think and who is on who's side here. AJS is the author, and if you don't like him, if you don't think he's being honest with you, then please stop talking to him.

And AJS, please recognize that if you say in the same thread that (a) you're not a Bush supporter and (b) you link to Instapundit-sourced story and insinuate that liberal media-types are lying to us about global warming, that's a very unusual combination. So don't act so shocked when people don't believe you're not a Bush supporter. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but only because Bush is so unlovable these days.

If Instapundit is giving the entire story here - a big if - your criticism of the caption is warranted. But don't ever expect it to be taken seriously in a bipartisan forum when your seeded article cites Instapundit and Ann Althouse as his only sources. They're famously partisan bloggers, and when you source to them you're just repeating a talking-point-in-incubation, something they hope will one day be a FOX News feature with you-know-who as "special guest commentator". And yes, sometimes these stories-designed-to-breed-outrage are less than they appear (remember Barack Obama's childhood in a 'madrassa'?), and yet you're not the slightest bit skeptical about the source, you just trust its veracity like it came from the Wall Street Journal. That's a recipe for starting flame wars. And I'd say the same to anyone whose sources cite the Daily Kos or The Huffington Post. You're just asking, begging practically, to get flamed by the other side for your partisanship and dubious sources.

A note to everyone else: am I the only one who thinks that every time this bickering happens it sucks the life out of a thread? To read the responses to my comments, I have to scroll though half a mile of screeching accusations. That's no fun.

"The fact of the matter is this one picture has been and is used to frighten people, including children."

Oh the humanity! what about the children!?

No, it's an image of polar bears playing on a piece of ice that was created by waves......

umm, it hardly looks like they are playing. maybe praying for a miracle rescue, but they aint having any fun, i can assure you.

SO that means you do not support any of its policies?

umm, it hardly looks like they are playing. maybe praying for a miracle rescue, but they aint having any fun, i can assure you.

See, you are anthropomorphizing. Saying they are praying is a fallacy and an insult to thinking person. You cannot tell their state of mind from the picture. But, having gone and found a larger version of the picture I can tell you one thing. They are not "stranded". See the outline of the ice floe? Notice how the wave patterns differ between the photographer and the ice floe and the other side of the ice floe? The water is shallower there. Also, the picture had to be taken from somewhere and it was somewhere close. Additionally, even IF bears could have human concerns, they don't look particularly desperate to me. They are looking at the photograher. They could be speculating how tasty he might be or they could be worried he was going to come and bother them.

It's not like polar bears getting stranded on ice floes is a new thing. I remember first hearing about it on a Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom episode when I was a child 40ish years ago. A certain percentage die that way every year.

Gah! I blame Disney.

Based upon the evidence we have calling the bears in this picture "stranded" is a false characterization.

I will not try to read minds of bears, but I would still hazard a guess that whatever they were doing it was closer playing than praying.

The fact is the photo can be misidentified, that does not mean that every use is illigitmate or misleading in the context of a story about global warming.

The article itself is highly misleading.

E.g.

ice that was much thicker than they expected it to be. (pertinent excerpted text at bottom)

If you read to the bottom, you do not find any text saying it was "much thicker" than they expected it to be. They report some difficulty and there first attempt had to be aborted, it does not say it was much thicker than they expected but rather suggest its not a precise science on where to decide to drill. On the second attempt on the same flow it went through.

At most you can conclude that drilling was not particularly easy, the leap to the conclusion that it was much thicker is pure speculation by the author. Similarly some people used the photo of the polar bears were far too quick to assume that was actually speculation, must be true, that they were standed. The evidence indicates these two polar bears were almost certainly not stranded.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "allegory"?

Wookie, the definitions on your link page leaves out Michael Moore's definition: documentary

Give me a break.

nice rebuttal. you win the cookie little Benno.

Go get a cleenex and then read this.

Hegemonic...
First, do you get your science from the cover of time? There was no coming ice age in the 70's except from one scientists and News Week ran a story on his crazy theory... same deal with El Nino.

Second, how does this prove GW false?... well... I think I can understand how someone who gets all their science from Time and News Week would think it does.

Benno, I guess we are supposed to listen to someone that can't even spell kleenex.

woops, sorry Benno, I actually agree with you.

how does this prove GW false?

The reasoning is simple: earlier ideas were proven wrong, therefore all ideas will be proven wrong. Get it?

I'm not saying global warming is BS!

I hear you! I've been concerned about climate change, deforestation, diminishing bio-diversity and pollution for decades. I am disgusted by the hysteria and hype. I am ashamed that it is taking a supposed threat to humans themselves to force them to take steps to live in harmony with the planet and its other lifeforms.

i don't know how familiar you are with seasonal climate change, see because its the height of winter, and you're pretty far up north its GOING TO BE COLD if you look at the rest of the world there have been drastically increasing droughts in some areas, drastically increased flooding in other becuase the climate is out of whack.

We disrupted air currents that are usually stable and caused major events. Pity they're affecting mostly farmers and people living in Africa, not people who the western world really cares about so i guess that we'll continue to spew CO2 into the air until something hits home OH WAIT, KATRINA, but we really don't care about New Orleans, its not like the Fat Cats will care until they personally are affected, i mean what do they care if a few million people are homeless and displaced so they can make a buck, that didn't stop them form going into Iraq

We disrupted air currents that are usually stable and caused major events.

Compared to what? That's the point I wish everyone could get. "Recorded" weather statistics are only for the past couple of hundred years and are hardly a reasonable sort of "evidence" of human caused climate change when the geologic record shows that radical and sometimes violent climate change happened REPEATEDLY before humans even evolved. We are in the midst of the 6 (sixth) mass die off of species. Five of these happened BEFORE THERE WERE HUMANS. STUFF CHANGES! We CANNOT, C-A-N-N-O-T, stop the Earth from changing. We can only accept responsiblity and do our best to adapt.

warming causes climate change... the rate of warming in the last 150 years is unprecedented in the geological record, as is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 in the atmosphere causes the atmosphere to stay warm, more CO2 means more heat in the atmosphere.

So, climate change is due to our current warming cycle... the current warming cycle is caused by the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Where is that CO2 coming from then? hmm...

warming causes climate change

::looks astonished:: Climate change is a complex NATURAL event influenced by the heating and cooling of the Earth itself, variations in it's orbit, the heating and cooling of the Sun, violent events like comets and volcanoes and the evolution of creatures, like the cyano bacteria, that impact the system. Warming can actually be a SYMPTOM and not a CAUSE of climate change.

the rate of warming in the last 150 years is unprecedented in the geological record

Do you have a link for that? Because this is what I've heard:

A tremendous release of methane gas frozen beneath the sea floor heated the Earth by up to 13 degrees Fahrenheit (7 degrees Celsius) 55 million years ago, a new NASA study confirms. NASA scientists used data from a computer simulation of the paleo-climate to better understand the role of methane in climate change. While most greenhouse gas studies focus on carbon dioxide, methane is 20 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. [source]

Fifty million years ago, temperatures soared to unprecedented levels and the seas became a staggering 12C hotter than today. [source]

I'm sure you mean well, but your understanding of what is going on is limited to the information you get from the hysteria mongers.

CO2 in the atmosphere causes the atmosphere to stay warm, more CO2 means more heat in the atmosphere.

Methane is at least as important as CO2. It amazes me that you seldom hear much about it from the "global warming" fear mongers. One article I read, Did We Start Warming 5000 Years Ago, says that the human activity of agriculture was already influencing the climate five millennia ago.

I suppose your average person is still not willing to accept that his/her very existance impacts the circle of life and that agriculture alone had already set into motion current events, long before the industry began to develop. Whether it's the methane from producing food, the heat from the 6 billion plus people and their cars, the impact of deforestation and our vast oceans of concrete and heat reflecting buildings [Urban Heat Effect], the chemicals pumped into the atmosphere by airplanes and war, everthing humans do causes some change.

So, climate change is due to our current warming cycle

::sigh:: Warming is a SYMPTOM of climate change. This current warming trend began at the end of the last Ice Age. The natural cycle of warming and cooling has been impacted by human activity, but WARMING is not CAUSING anything.

the current warming cycle is caused by the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

CO2 in the atmosphere is one of many complex variables that can be behind the recent warming trend. Also implicated is the recent (geologically) warming of the Sun. It seems all of the planets in the solar system are warming. (I sincerely doubt that excess C02 is causing all of that.)

Where is that CO2 coming from then?

6+ billion people exhaling several times a minute. LOL

Gwenny, I'm not as steeped in electronic sources as you are (and thank you very much for sourcing, btw), but to my eyes the entire line of your argument has one big logical flaw. So correct me if I'm misrepresenting you, please. You're basically making the claim that because (a) climate change has happened repeatedly in the past without human instigation and (b) we're in the middle of a long-term warming trend, so therefore (c) humans aren't contributing to global warming.

But logically speaking, the first two points simply don't lead to the third. It's like saying that because (a) I've never been married and (b) I haven't been on a date in two months, therefore (c) I'll die lonely. It's a very different point but the argument is the exact same logical structure, with the same logical flaw. In no way does past history or current trends dictate the future absolutely; sometimes, things happen that are unprecedented.

Past history and current long-term trends may support the case that the warming we're experiencing now is natural - but it's just vague material support, and not remotely conclusive proof. Our current carbon emissions are certainly unprecedented, it's not totally irrational for people to believe it could have unprecedented effects on the climate, and it doesn't strike me as appropriate to treat that belief with such a condescending air.

Rhetorically you paint a picture of a global environment too large for carbon emissions to impact. But several of the ice ages you mentioned - two of the first three, IIRC - occurred precisely because of oxygen/carbon emissions from aerobes and molds and trees, causing a slow change in global temperatures which eventually led to sudden climactic instability. The third ice age, I believe, was pretty much exclusively due to carbon released into the atmosphere by trees. So the carbon content of our atmosphere does very much seem to matter.

The appropriate question is whether human carbon emissions could lead to that kind of change, and I don't see much empirical evidence amongst your links to contradict the well-established claim that carbon levels in the atmosphere are currently many times higher than they have been historically since the last ice age. And nothing to contradict the claim that polar temperatures have gone up five degrees F in the last sixty years or so (that measurement is, after all, pretty damn empirical), right in line with the percentage of change in carbon compounds in the atmosphere. The relationship between the two is virtually linear, and carbon levels from the past also seem to trend linearly with past warming and cooling ages. It's not conclusive evidence either, but it's still reasonable evidence that an unprecedented change in carbon levels could cause a climactic change.

Also, you repeatedly stress that climate change causes warming and not the other way around, which sets up a very odd dialectic. That logic would indicate that "climate change" is something entirely independent from global warming, happening for its own set of reasons - sun spots or volcanoes or something cataclysmic, probably - and warming is only a symptom of climate change and thus on these other causal phenomena. I have never, ever heard anyone insinuate that before, that's novel.

Granted, the phrases "climate change" and "global warming" are separate terms referring to separate phenomena, and are too often used interchangeably. It's right to point that out. But it strikes me as silly to further suggest that temperature change can't cause climate change. Again, my understanding of the first few ice ages is that they were caused by a long slow change in the composition of the atmosphere, slowly changing the global atmospheric temperature, and at some point a critical mass was reached, a chain reaction began and the planet suddenly froze over. In other words, warming caused the climate to change. Is the current atmosphere composed in such a way that it can't happen again, to any small degree?

Finally, I still have yet to hear from the skeptics why they think virtually the entire community of climatologists (including but not limited to the IPCC) is conspiring to spin the world into economic ruin through mandatory emissions caps and such. Can their collective opinion really all be so easily discredited? What's their collective motivation to ruin the global economy? Where's the profit in doing so? What kind of conspiracy must it take to cover their tracks? And if there's no conspiracy but only systematic bias at play, is that bias as glaringly obvious as the skeptical climate science issued exclusively by conservative think-tanks and funded by oil companies? Rule number one when considering public policy is: consider the source. So what makes you trust the latter over the former? Until and unless I hear a convincing answer for that, I will be very skeptical of the skeptics.

Sorry Gwinny, seems I didn't read your comment carefully enough before I went on one of my trademark spiels. Your argument about other possible causes for warming is more intriguing than I first surmised, and I'm sorry for assuming certain things about your stance.

Still, the possibility that other factors could be playing a major role in global warming is not enough reason to say we shouldn't focus on cutting carbon emissions, and that's really the whole point of this discussion.

Maybe if we act strongly against carbon emission, things will fall apart despite our efforts, and perhaps for some of the reasons you state. But this discussion is ultimately about policy. And it's irresponsible policy to point to a bunch of things you have no control over and say, hey we're probably screwed anyway, so we shouldn't worry about the one big factor we do have control over. It's all well and good to introduce a contrary point of view, but since this is such a hot-button issue, certain people (like me) are going to assume you're saying we shouldn't bother cutting CO2 emissions at all. So, I'll ask you directly: knowing what we currently know, should we cut CO2 emissions? And how aggressively?

Gwenny, I have to admit I am somewhat unsure at to what exactly your position on climate change is, but it seems to boil down to saying that the human element, particularly in reference to C02 contributions, is not as significant as many would claim. I'd dispute this, to some of your specific points…

Climate change is a complex NATURAL event influenced by the heating and cooling of the Earth itself, variations in it's orbit, the heating and cooling of the Sun, violent events like comets and volcanoes and the evolution of creatures, like the cyano bacteria, that impact the system. Warming can actually be a SYMPTOM and not a CAUSE of climate change.

The problem with this statement is that the natural causes for temperature variation such as the Milankovich theory you mention are well understood and do not account for the current anomolous warming. Sure the Earth's climate changes over time but it doesn't change this much without the human contribution.

This current warming trend began at the end of the last Ice Age. The natural cycle of warming and cooling has been impacted by human activity, but WARMING is not CAUSING anything.

Warming is both a symptom and a cause - it is a symptom of human influence and is in turn further driving climate change, for example; the melting of the Siberian tundra is caused by a warmer climate resulting in the release of massive quantities of methane into the atmosphere (which as you point out is significantly more potent that C02), further driving the warming.

CO2 in the atmosphere is one of many complex variables that can be behind the recent warming trend. Also implicated is the recent (geologically) warming of the Sun.

That sun thing is not a factor. Also, by saying "CO2 in the atmosphere is one of many complex variables" you seem to be implying that simply because we can identify other contributory factors we have to discount any bias given to the C02 element - this would be the case if any of those other factors had anywhere remotely near the same level of effect but they do not, the correlation between human C02 contributions and the current rapid (geologically) shift in climate behaviour is stark.

I'm sure you mean well, but your understanding of what is going on is limited to the information you get from the hysteria mongers.

Apart from the slightly patronising tone, the 'hysteria mongers' bit is an irrelevent Ad Hominem attack that does nothing to invalidate the evidence. You can't assume that those supporting the theory of human causation aren't aware of other factors, and you can't assume that all information supporting this view is sourced from 'hysteria mongers' (whatever they are).

ps. I know, I know; all the above links come from the same 'how to talk to a climate skeptic' source, but it's just out of convenience - I don't have time to go digging around for individual sources when this place brings the salient ones together (and openly debates the various points with skeptics in the comments threads).

I Was going to respond Gwenny, but I think they did a great job.

As for "my understanding" *Gwenny pats BMS on the head*... I use to argue all the points you laid out. I changed my mind when I read the new science on the subject.

Oh.. BTW... Gwenny... Warming of the atmosphere is the single most important factor in climate change... climate is not just about temperature... it is about ocean currents, air currents, precipitation rates, sea level and temperature.... increasing temperature releases more fresh water into the ocean from the melting of polar ice. The currents in the ocean disappear because of the change in density of sea water due to the freshwater being added. Local climates are affected now because warm water is not transported to the areas it use to resulting is a drop in temperature of those local regions.

The increased heat of the atmosphere causes the heat of the sun to have less of a dynamic effect on the air currents which results in major changes in the jet stream and pressure systems. This reduces precipitation in some places and increases it in others... the change in precipitation causes a change in the local climates as well.

Finally, sea levels rise because of Greenland and Antarctica's ice sheet melting... this rise in ocean surface area changes climates on many small islands (they disappear) causes the coast lines to change, and adds a lot of surface area to the oceans.... this in turn has an effect on the climate as well since uneven heating of the oceans drive the weather the change in surface area will change the heating and cooling dynamic of the oceans.. changing the weather in localities which will change the climate.

Yes... it is a Complex Dynamic system (a mathematical term I am fully aware of and understand the implications of) but that does not mean that one can not understand how the variables will change....

Also Gwenny... if you truly understood what a complex system was, then you would understand that even a small change in one single variable can have very large effects on the system itself.... so... CO2 level being "just one variable" does not make it insignificant.. nor the changes we make in it.

I guess that became a response :-)

now see... if you had just laid off the attacks I probably would have left it at my first sentence.

I quit. I accept that humans are not going to evolve intellectually or emotionally in time to save themselves. You are all obviously intelligent and FINALLY interested in this subject. But your perspective is so human-centric, your knowledge so limited, and your willingness to be directed by corporations and the media's smoke and mirrors so endemic that . . . . nevermind.

::sigh::

if you had just laid off the attacks I probably would have left it at my first sentence.

Giving you information is attacking you? ::rolls eyes:: See, this is why I probably won't mourn for a lot of you if this happens in my lifetime. Most humans are a waste of carbon based life.

I quit. I accept that humans are not going to evolve intellectually or emotionally in time to save themselves. You are all obviously intelligent and FINALLY interested in this subject. But your perspective is so human-centric, your knowledge so limited, and your willingness to be directed by corporations and the media's smoke and mirrors so endemic that . . . . nevermind.

::sigh::

So let me get this straight - you make a handful of points about global warming and a few people then go on to politely point out some flaws in your argument. Rather than respond with anything to qualify or validate your initial position you make a bunch of unsubstantiated Ad Hominem attacks, and sigh at the screen?

I don't know what your intention is, but on the surface that seems like the virtual equivalent of walking off in a huff to sulk. That entire paragraph just screams "I'm smarter than you lot, don't you get it…?".

Your attack was the patronizing at the end, not the content before then. If you noticed I took it in stride.

Please answer me this... CO2 levels are almost 1-1 correlation with global temperature over the last 650,000 years. Given this correlation as well as the chemical properties of CO2, one would easily be able to conclude that CO2 levels cause the temperature changes on the earth. Human activity in the last 150 years has increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere to the point that we have now surpassed the historical 300 ppm maximum level that is part of the natural cyclical levels over the last 6 ice ages.

So... CO2 levels causes the temperature to change at a near 1-1 correlation, thus CO2 is the most significant contributor to global temperatures. Humans have been producing tons of CO2 every day for the last 150 years and CO2 levels have risen far above the natural maximum for the last 650,000 years. You claim that we are not the cause of global warming give this information? our CO2 production is the only unnatural CO2 production on the planet and there has not been any geological events that would cause such amounts to be spilled into the atmosphere during this same time period. Where is the CO2 coming from if not from human activity?

Gwenny,

Well I wasn't expecting an email!

I'm not sure why you felt it easier to do that rather than post here, but whatever, to answer your points…

"Rather than respond with anything to qualify or validate your initial position you make a bunch of unsubstantiated Ad Hominem attacks, and sigh at the screen?"

So, the 20ish links to scientific information about my pov do not qualify or validate my position? Whatever.

What, so you think I just replied without bothering to read them? You do realise it is possible for people to read the same stuff you do and dissagree with your conclusions right? Or is your interpretation of the evidence the only possible one there is?

For a direct answer, NO, those links do not qualify of validate the points you made, especially in the light of the comments made subsequently. All you have done is throw a bunch of links together showing additional contributors to global warming - you didn't even string together a coherent argument for anything in particular, just exploded into scattershot finger waving! If you have some special insight that everyone else has missed I'd be genuinely interested, please, write the article.

You know, the sad thing about this is that I don't disagree about the direction the world is going. Human interference HAS had an impact, delaying the onset of the next Ice Age, if nothing else. I think we need to be proactive in finding solutions that moderate our influence, provide for humans and other animals as we struggle through the coming change and educate those that can be educated.

I specifically said I was "unsure at to what exactly your position on climate change is", I don't know why you think it's a sad fact that we turn out to agree on some things…? In fact, the only thing we seem to disagree on is the level to which human CO2 contributes.

This will not happen if we use misrepresentations and outright lies to terrify people. Eventually the truth comes out and then people get pissed off and you can't get them to believe the stuff that is really happening.

I agree completely. Who's lying here, who's misrepresenting anything?

The only thing you've seem to use to back up your position is pointless and vain statements about how you've been concerned for the planet since the 60's, and how ignorant and limited everyone else's perspective is compared to yours.. as if that excuses you from actually having to back up what you say with a cogent argument! …and then when I dare to suggest that some of your points are flawed you fire off this email and decide to ignore anything further I might say!!

Don't bother responding, you are going on ignore as soon as I send this and I'll just delete any email you send me after I add your email address to my spam filter.

Well if simply raising questions about your conclusions is a solid basis for making your ignore list I suppose I must be in wide and varied company… I really don't know side of bed you got out of this morning but I challenge anyone to read through the last few posts and see any justification for such a vitriolic response.

:: casts eyes around with look of "what the fuuu…" ::

The ignore should really only be used when someone is being belligerent to you. Just because you argue a lot and consider the person a lost cause on the subject is not a reason to ignore them.

I mean.. Koozebane and AJS are not on my ignore list (though I suspect I made theirs :-/ )

The ignore should really only be used when someone is being belligerent to you. Just because you argue a lot and consider the person a lost cause on the subject is not a reason to ignore them.

Well I guess you can use the feature for whatever you want, but yeah, generally I agree. If Gwenny wants to block me I don't really care to be honest it just strikes me as a bizarre over-reaction…

Human Beings are now the keepers of many things after we have deforested much of the planet, caused acid rain, among many many other things. Don't you think after causing these kinds of things we have a responsibility to ensure the survival of species?

Well, if we are to learn from nature, the price of being the apex predator is being dependent upon every species below you in the food chain.

Don't you think after causing these kinds of things we have a responsibility to ensure the survival of species?

Nope. It's called adaptation. Lots of species are doing. The geese, rats, cockroaches, starlings . . . okay, those are all pests, but they not only adapted they have learned to exploit humans.

Geese are pests?

Geese are pests?

OOOOH yeah they are, they leave quite the mess behind after grazing in a softball, soccer field.

Which makes the field greener in the long-run, no?

Geese are pests?

OMG, yes. LOL In Colorado they are taking over parts of Denver, leaving sidewalks so covered with feces folks can't walk on them. In California you can be attacked in parks.

Ironically enough, when I was a child the big threat was the impending "extinction" of the Canadian goose. Fooled us, didn't they.

I agree that geese are pests. It's tough to make a three foot put with piles of goose poop between your ball and the hole, but I digress. Wow, we have certainly made a lot out of this picture. Wow!!

So steve, you are saying humans annointed themselves keepers of the polar bears because we created machines that pollute. Seems like a stretch to me. What has a polar bear ever done for you?

Also note that the picture credited to Amanda Byrd in the link is not the same as the pictures in the other links credited to Dan Crosbie.

Edit request:

In the name of not leaping to conclusions. Replace the word "you" with "the author of Riehl World Review". I dont know why you chose to publicize this spin and attack on global warming propents. It certainly implies support of his views but I see you deny having an opinion one way or another on the legitimacy of the articles conclusions.

I would also like to point out that both Amanda Byrd and Dan Crosbie were research team members on that same team. It's quite possible that the names were confused on the photo or, just maybe, they took a photo of the same thing since it was such an interesting picture. I'm not entirely sure just what the author is hoping to imply, but I don't see any reason to jump to alarm here.

Why would you consider Ms. Byrd's caption "naieve" (sic)? She was a graduate student studying Marine Biology at UAF, on a team researching oceanography and climate in the Arctic. I have no reason to think she doesn't know what she's talking about.

Ms. Byrd's naieve caption aside, how can anyone even attempt to deny global warming when California has only seen about 3 days of rain this year?

I live in the East Bay. We have also experienced a horrific cold snap that destroyed my avocado tree and probably my citrus crop. Does that prove there's global warming? No. It does not. It proves that we don't control the weather and it changes from year to year. Is the climate changing? Yes. Just as it has been changing for the billions of years there has been an Earth. Are we impacting it? Undoubtedly. Should we make changes? Yes.

But this hysteria and hype and humancentric whining makes me sick. Stuff changes, things die. It's the way it has always been. That is why there have been five major die offs of species in the last several billion years.

I blame Disney for the stupidity of the American public in being manipulated into action for the wrong reasons--and questionable action at that. Bambi et all should be banned.

Stuff changes

If that is your response to global warming, then I don't really have much to discuss with you. It's simply not the case that what we are now observing (and more than just your backyard, mind you) is a result of stuff changing. Might I suggest reading some of this as a way to get at something other than anecdotal data.

I'm sorry that the use of a stock photo has upset you so, but the fact remains there is a real climate issue at hand and we are the cause. This is not hysterics nor hype and I can assure you I am calmly reading the information for real science sources and acting accordingly.

If that is your response to global warming, then I don't really have much to discuss with you.

LOL Then we have nothing to discuss because my response to CLIMATE CHANGE--because we really don't know what is going to happen, do we--is that it happens and if we don't get off our asses and start coming up with some strategies to deal with the combined natural and manmade events instead of jumping up and down and pointing fingers, we are screwed. Well, you are. I've been ready for years. Sometimes I look forward to the majority of unthinking humans to be obliterated.

It's simply not the case that what we are now observing (and more than just your backyard, mind you) is a result of stuff changing.

Did you know that the oceans are at one of their lowest points in the history of the Earth. . not human history, the history of the planet. Also, at one time the Earth came close to freezing solid while at another point there were no polar caps and the entire planet was a vast swamp. STUFF CHANGES. Please, stop being human-centric. It's even more annoying sometimes than being Ameri-centric.

Might I suggest reading some of this as a way to get at something other than anecdotal data.

Dude, I have been concerned about the environment since the 60s. . .probably before you were born. I am not saying that there are no changes taking place. I know they are. I've seen them first hand. I just no longer care if humans survive through them, unless humans start acting like they deserve to survive. Humans are filthy, self-centered ignorant lifeforms for the most part. No amount of education or begging has swayed the vast majority until there's "proof" our way of life is "at risk".

I'm sorry that the use of a stock photo has upset you so, but the fact remains there is a real climate issue at hand and we are the cause. This is not hysterics nor hype and I can assure you I am calmly reading the information for real science sources and acting accordingly.

It makes me ashamed to be a human to see how easily the masses are swayed by exaggerations when the truth has been ineffective for over a century. Not only that, it's because polar bears are cute--oh the poor widdle tings, we must save them--not because they are an awesome predator that inspires admiration and respect. The masses aren't impressed that the diversity of our planet has been seriously damaged and that millions of fellows human live in horrific, toxic conditions. No, but threaten that it will cost more to drive their spawn to soccer practice and they are all up in arms.

But I have no problem not talking about with you. ::shrug::

Wasn't it frost that wiped out the orange industry?

Yes indeed, the entire winter has been the coldest on record.

Not.

Awww, you're ruining all our fun!

Amen.

Yep. Didn't work. Oh well, hopefully you get the picture. ;)

If I were going to make such accusations, I'd at least have bothered to verify the two pictures were indeed the same. They're clearly not. Hopefully everyone can see what a fool this blogger has made themselves out to be.

Also, notice how…

Mother polar bear and cub on interesting ice sculpture carved by waves

…is put forward as evidence that the ice they are on is not melting. I suppose this is also definative proof that they are also not afloat in the sea as the sea is not mentioned in the original caption either.

More than happy, I would have to say that polar bears are not below us on the food chain. We do not eat polar bears, and I don't think they eat humans. So I guess we are probably equal with them on the "food" chain.

I think that must have been in response to some comment elsewhere. However, does it really matter where polar bears relate to humans on the "food chain?" I can't imagine any answer to that question giving us the authority to cause their demise. Further, they are far from the only species in danger due to global warming, not the least of which is mankind. While there appear to be those here who seem more than happy to step aside and watch mankind destroy itself, I am not one of those people (nor do I think that global warming will result in the end of mankind, frankly, just some avoidable rough times).

I simply do not see that arguing over whether the polar bear is worth of our attention due to it's unwillingness to help me is either a valid or useful discussion. The vast majority over everyone and everything on this planet have done nothing for me, but yet it doesn't give me any right (nor desire) to do something that harms them.

I think that this thread was likely doomed since it's beginning (it's not like the blog post had any merit). However, I'm not seeing much productive discussion here. Let's all try again elsewhere sometime.

Jason, you have to understand the logic:

Global warming doesn't exist,
and if it does it's not caused by us,
and even if it is us, what are we going to do about it,
change our way of life for some polar bear,
do you think if the polars bears were in charge,
they'd do the same for us?

We do not eat polar bears, and I don't think they eat humans.

For the first one, I would say there are people who do. I don't like predator meat, but some do. As for eating humans, as their habitat has been encroached on there have been more and more violent events. I doubt your average polar bear would have any qualms about eating the human inside the wooden box he just ripped open if things got bad enough.

Polar bears are perfectly happy to eat people. You can eat them if you want, but don't eat the liver, it's so full of vitamin A that it is toxic.

I've had grizzly meat, it tasted like very greasy beef. Polar bears are a variety of grizzly.

Polar bears are a variety of grizzly.

Looks like DNA is already taking steps to be certain that the polar bear line doesn't totally die out. Polar Bear-Grizzly Hybrid in Canadian Arctic

i remember reading somewhere that polar bears are the only animal that will actively stalk and kill humans..

can't recall where though.

Wookie...do you know how to swim?. I'll bet you do. I would also bet that after about 15 minutes you would need to stop and rest.

Nope, not particularly well I must admit - I'm pretty athletic otherwise but in water I'd say after 15mins I'd probably have drowned already... You're right about polar bears, by coincidence I saw a documentary just the other day claiming they could go for a few hours before needing a rest, and have been spotted hunting tens of kilometers off the ice shelf … but all this pleasant chit-chat aside, what is your point?

And who made the sick joke - was that me you're refering to again there or someone else? - it helps to use the quote feature so we can all keep track of what's going on…

The rest of what you said - all good points, I agree entirely about the 'who cares what the cause is' bit - often overlooked.

It's like this...Global Warming is...REAL

Yep. It's been happening for 12k years THIS time. Because, you see, the Earth has these cycles . . .cold, warm, cold, warm. The temps drop, the snow accumulates, entire species are wiped out and then it temps rise, the snow melts and entire species are wiped out. LOL

Att Gwenny: I have seen you do this "It's been happening for 12k years" argument over and over again. Would you please do the community a favour and educate yourself? Thank you.

Att Gwenny: I have seen you do this "It's been happening for 12k years" argument over and over again.

So, are you claiming the Earth has NOT been warming for 12 thousand years? That glaciers still cover significant portions of the US Midwest and mastodons still roam free? That the oceans weren't already rising even before the development of agriculture?

Sea level has risen around 130 metres (400 feet) since the peak of the last ice age about 18,000 years ago. Most of the rise occurred before 6,000 years ago. From 3,000 years ago to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising at 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr. Since 1900 the level has risen at 1 to 3 mm/yr;[1] since 1992 satellite altimetry from TOPEX/Poseidon indicates a rate of rise about 3 mm/yr.[2]

Would you please do the community a favour and educate yourself? Thank you.

You don't follow all the links that I, almost EXCLUSIVELY in this argument, provide. While the rest of you are whining the current media song, I have researched it. I've been concerned about the environment since I was 10. I admit it, I went through what all of your are going through. . .30 freaking years ago. But I got over the mourning and whining and started figuring out how I can help.

If any of you who are old enough had been concerned about anything but getting laid and getting drunk in the 70s and helping the handful of us who were trying to make a difference while there was still time we might not be in the throes of a media fed frenzy to point fingers. We might have actually turned back the tide of manmade change. Now it's too late. Been telling all you whiners for ten years that it's too late, it's time to start finding a way to save as many people as possible. But no one is taking any constructive action and by the time this issue has been argued to death in on the floor of congress and parliment . . . well, chances are the US Congress will be under water.

And you won't listen. Humans will be winnowed and only the best or most prepared will survive. ::shrug:: There was a time I cared. There was I time I lay awake at night, mourning in advance the children who will suffer. There was a time that each new report of a species lost or mass killing sent me into a weeks long depression. Now all I feel is relief that it's going to be over soon and the Earth will be able to go back to regulating itself.

It's funny how so many people I respect here, who in any other discussion can see the truth and the hype, are so caught up in the misrepresentations and outright lies that are being used to manipulate people to gain power over them. And I just don't know how to make you understand that I'm not disagreeing about the direction we are headed, I'm just morally and ethically offended that you all are so humancentric . . ..gah, it's disgusting.

As you were. I'll be careful not to offend you again, Benno. I'm sure the loss of a former comrade like me is a small loss.

Gwenny, the earth has been warming and cooling for the last 650,000 years... the problem is that during that entire time, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere never rose above 300 ppm... they are now above 500 ppm... this occurred in the last 150 years. CO2 has a near 1-1 correlation to global temperatures. this warming is NOT natural.... yes, prior to 150 years we were warming, but we augmented that warming and are now causing it to go above the levels that it naturally would have.

sorry... I made a mistake..... there are 380 PPM right now, the levels are going to reach above 500 ppm by the middle of the century.

-Thanks! :)

The last half hour of the webcast was both informative and entertaining.

Senator John Kerry refused to accept persistent nonsense on climate change from the Bush administration for years.

Kerry was relentless in pleading for truthfulness on climate change policy from Bill Brennan, the current Acting Chairman of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Deputy Administrator of NOAA headquarters staff.

Brennan and the preceding director of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and Deputy Admistrator of NOAA, Dr. John Mahoney, were both dumbfounded, repeating planned statements and showing their silent fear in not wanting to contradict previous statements with more lies, under oath this time.

New,

Rick Piltz testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee

Climate Science Watch Director Rick Piltz's testimony.pdf for the February 7, 2006,

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation hearing on "Climate Change Research and Scientific Integrity."

See Details http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/