Polar Bears, Dead Coral and Other Climate Fictions
 

Recent WSJ editorial : wsj.com

I always find it interesting when past “truths” are given a fresh look. Whenever I hear claims of settled science, I am always leery.

Being a scuba diver, I can tell you first hand that the dying of coral reefs is very real, and extremely saddening : (

True. And very sad indeed.

Thanks for putting some light on facts.

I used to hear that what was killing the coral in the Keys was runoff from septic tanks? That's not true anymore?

"While you’ll find no shortage of headlines declaring that polar bears face extinction, the numbers tell a different story.

The State of the Polar Report 2018 put the new global mid-point estimate [of the polar bear population] at more than 30,000.

Data from conservation groups and the government show that the polar bear population is roughly five times what it was in the 1950s and three or four times what it was in the 1970s when polar bears became protected under international treaty.

In fact, though polar bears were placed under the protection of the Endangered Species Act in 2008 over concerns that its Arctic hunting grounds were being reduced by a warming climate, the polar bear population has been stable for the last three decades.

In 1984, the polar bear population was estimated at 25,000. In 2008, when polar bears were designated a protected species, The New York Times noted that number remained unchanged: “There are more than 25,000 bears in the Arctic, 15,500 of which roam within Canada’s territory.”

New estimates from the International Union for Conservation of Nature show a mid-point estimate of 26,500 (range: 22,000 to 31,000) in 2015. In The State of the Polar Report 2018, zoologist Susan J. Crockford says updates to IUCN data put the new global mid-point estimate at more than 30,000." (fee dot org website)

Shouldn't all the polar bears be dead by now?

No! Thanks to being protected.

Reefs close to the shoreline are definitely negatively affected by shoreline development and the associated stuff that winds up in the ocean. However, that doesn’t explain the bleaching of the reefs much further off the shoreline or in areas with little to no development. Close to the shoreline, boats dropping anchor on the reefs is also a major source of damage.

Oceans are water. Wind, currents, earth rotation, waves movement of sea creatures and Shipping, and other forces mix/stir/blend thing into the water like a spoon stirring cream and sugar into your coffee or tea. The Oceans are affected from top to bottom, world wide. Just like your whole cup of coffee or tea is creamy and sweet..

Still true. But there is lots more involved than just sceptic tanks.

I believe little that is put out by a Rupert Murdoch publication.

Isn't that disappointing though? It used to be newspapers/reporters put out facts for us to form our own opinion. Now...they are forums for "political commentators"--not "newsmen" (from the likes of Cronkite, Russel, Huntley, Reasoner, Mudd, Jennings, Murrow, Mike Wallace, etc.)

I read the entire WSJ article. Mr. Lomborg certainly has strong opinions on the subject. He has a Phd in Political Science--not environmental science. He is selling/shilling a book.

Here is some information about the Dr. Lomborg from the London School of Economics.

A closer examination of the fantastical numbers in Bjorn Lomborg’s new book - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment

The WSJ offered this up as an editorial...commentary....opinion. But that is not how the story is being quoted. People are quoting Mr/Dr Lomborg's opinion as facts. Not unlike when FOX was sued by Dominion Voting and FOX lawyers presented the legal defense that their people are NOT news reporters--they are political commentators just repeating what others have said do they are not required to "report" stories accurately. FOX News settled for over $750 million dollars--so much for defending the truth of their statements. I do not ever remember Walter Cronkite being sued.

This story was an "editorial" by Lomborg.

Are there any reliable/faithful news outlets anymore? Maybe the BBC?

I’m sure I recently watched a video on how awesome the Great Barrier Reef was doing despite the dire predictions of the past.

Tourism video? Or anti environmental propaganda by big oil/industry and others who profit from deregulation of protection for the planet we call home?

Please share-- We have a scuba diver online (I am one also since 1978) who would enjoy seeing that the GBR is thriving again...

The Smithsonian Ocean, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Great Barrier Reef Foundation, the Australian Institute of Reef Science, Al Jazeera, UNIESCO, the Queensland Government World Wildlife Foundation, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and the BBC say otherwise.

But if you have contrary video--please post so we can root out these naysayers and plan some trips!

Costa Rice is fantastic for diving--second only to the GBR....but only a 2-hour flight from Orlando.

WHAT? Are you saying companies like tobacco/oil/car/big pharma/Boeing/Koch Industries fund "scientific studies' for fake news to air to show they are legit? IMS...

This is who funds the Global Warming Policy Foundation...

From Wiki...

Because it is registered as a charity, the GWPF is not legally required to report its sources of funding,[10] and Peiser has declined to reveal its funding sources, citing privacy concerns. Peiser said GWPF does not receive funding "from people with links to energy companies or from the companies themselves."[11] The foundation has rejected freedom of information (FoI) requests to disclose its funding sources on at least four occasions. The judge ruling on the latest FoI request, Alison McKenna, said that the GWPF was not sufficiently influential to merit forcing them to disclose the source of the £50,000 that was originally provided to establish the organisation.[12]

In May 2022, OpenDemocracy reported that tax filings in the US revealed that GWPF had taken money from US 'dark money' sources, including $620,259 from the Donors Trust between 2016 and 2020. The Donors Trust has in turn received significant funding from the Koch brothers. The group also received funding from the Sarah Scaife foundation, set up by the heir to an oil and banking dynasty.[13]

The Gl...och brothers - Wikipedia.

But--few of us (me included) bothered to check out the source/author to determine any bias/motive (if any) we just click on the first article that confirms our bias/stance--and then go vote...:-( It takes less time to google the author than to read a false/misleading/paid-for article.

Cigarette manufactures had doctors and Ronald Regan promoting the health benefits of cigarettes in the 1950's.

:throwtomatoes:

ABC & George Stephanopoulos are currently being sued by a certain political candidate...

CNN settled a $275 million lawsuit for lying about Nick Sandman...

The WaPO settled a $250 million with Sandman in another lawsuit...

NBC was sued for faking explosions on Ford Pick-up trucks...

But sure, Fox News is the problem... Everybody drink!

Does this help?

Is the Great Barrier Reef making a comeback?

The problem is journalists are anything but these days

Climate change deniers are heartless!
 

A mother polar bear comforts her cub on a melting ice floe. Take a good look at this...it is happening and is undeniable. Humans and our selfishness are responsible for these poor animals who die frightened and confused. You have to be completely devoid of feeling if you can look at this and not feel immense sadness and guilt.
https://www.talkofthevillages.com/fo...05774551-n.jpg

I wasn't saying. I was asking. ? Is a question mark.

There are many who would and will continue to deny the truth because the lies they tell and pretend to believe in, they think, absolve them from from any responsibility. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. We'll, it's broke.
Zoom in and look at the cub. That poor baby bear is very like dead now, unless the photographer managed to save it. A cub that size laks the fat to survive the temperature of the water.

I always thought it was funny when the idiot box mockingbird media showed the same file footage of a single polar bear floating of a small piece of ice whenever the news propagandists talked about global warming. You would think people would have the basic ability to catch on to their indoctrination technics.

Journalists these days have a point of view which supercedes being objective.

Yes
 

News reporting is biased now. I don’t know how we lost objectivity. Perhaps it isn’t taught anymore? It used to be the fundamental of journalism. It seems now everything is written to support an agenda.

Like Einstein once said, “ If the facts don’t fit the theory, then change the facts. “

And what do all those organizations have in common????

A: they want your donations

So ask yourself----what advertising tactic will garner them more $$$$?

a) Everything is just fine, the oceans are doing great, keep up the good work, OR

b) Chicken Little, the sky is falling, it's imminent and we need to act now

Pretty much answers its own question, except to the indoctrinated and brainwashed.

And which organizations does Soros support?????

Unfortunately it seems...not really. Especially not those identified as American outlets. They all seem to share one unfortunate trait in common, and that is preaching (via slanted writing, selective presentation of the facts or other means) to a certain segment of American society. Some are over-the-top blatant. Others are a bit more clever. But they all suffer from the same malady thus rendering the "news" they present, to a greater or lesser extent, more propaganda than anything else.

I've been going to foreign sources for over a decade now, preferably those without a dog in the particular fight in question. Australia has some good sources: Sydney Morning Herald, for one. For Asia, the best source by far is Yomiuri Shimbun (Japan news in English): They're comprehensive, even-handed for the most part, and dig far deeper into stories than American sources do. For the Middle East, it is The Jerusalem Post and (oddly enough) al-Jazeera, both of which, though on opposite ends of whatever spectrum is in effect over there, do a suprisingly good job with the facts of the story. For Europe, BBC and BBC America (different entities), but all European capitols and other large European cities print their major newspapers in English.

They all do a far better job of news reporting than any American source I can think of. American sources, to a greater or lesser extent, have learned that Americans' hunger for validation at the expense of true information is, unfortunately, a gold mine.

Ice formation and ice melting is seasonal. The propaganda photo you posted is a scene thay has been repeated over centuries. Polar bears can swim more than 200 miles. They didn't get that way lazing around on hard ice.

Except, they continue to buy it, every single time...

Millions of young animals die every year as a result of natural/normal conditions, accidents and predation. That is nature. The polar bears you refer to that can swim 200 miles are healthy adults. The mother and cub (especially the cub) are not likely to be able to accomplish such a feat. Humans can swim the English Channel. Yes, human can do it, but not most humans, and not likely any small children.
Conditions on earth have deteriorated. Much of it is just earth's natural evolution. But since the human industrial revolution, the deterioration has, in many places become devastation by the added contribution of human destructive and polluting activities. This continues to get worse with the ever bloating human population. The situation has become obvious to anyone willing to take a serious look. One need not be a scientist to see when your lawn dies in the heat or when dogs feet get burned on the sidewalk. But what can one think of to say to complacent individuals who want to bury their heads in the sand. Are they selfish or blind or just disconnected and don't have feeling for the world around them.

I look at that & wonder why the massive icy land mass right near them was cut out of the photo. I also see a Mom & her baby having a cuddle.

Do you have an original with the "massive icy land mass right near them" still in the picture?

I can show three separate pictures of this pair with no land mass near them and an article that reports the nearest land was 12 miles away.

(This was a poor picture to use to make a point but it does not appear to be doctored)

Amen to that!

Roger Ailes was truly brilliant. He was an amazing TV pioneer and cashed in. I truly respect him for that. He was the media consultant for Richard Nixon/Ronald Regan. After the Nixon/Kennedy debates he was a visionary who realized that television was indeed the future. He saw a thirst for an outlet that told people what they wanted to hear and he created it. He was the Henry Ford of targeted programming.

With the advent of the internet *everyone* can now site-surf and find the outlet/web site that confirms their already existing opinion and they head to the trough to feed. Nobody needs to hear the opposite opinion--we can so easily migrate to the source (MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, PBS) that confirms/validates our existing premise--it is always reassuring to know that we are always correct. :bigbow:

All these other web/news sources are trying to mimic Ailes--and they are decades behind him and sloppily trying to catch up. He was the Lucy Arnez of opinion /commentary/news content....

Back in the 60's he saw the future. Well done Mr. Ailes--well done.

Facts are facts no matter what spin you try to put on them.

Yeah--I wish that were true. "Facts" were presented that Obama was born in Kenya, Hillary Clinton/Soros ran a child-sex ring out of a pizzeria in DC, Bill Gates was injecting us with a microchip through a syringe, and JD Vance had sex with a couch.

Depends on what outlet you were watching to determine what the "subjective facts" are. "Facts" were presented that the moon landing was faked, 9-11 was a government conspiracy, the earth is flat, and climate change is a hoax/scientific fact.

There are no Cronkites anymore--he literally changed world history when he told the American public on TV that the US was in a "stalemate" and the Viet Nam War was not winnable. We listened--because we knew he was not in it for the ratings. That is in no-way the case today.

Who is there now?

We cannot have an honest debate if we cannot agree on the facts. Eyes on the screen=revenue.

That which true is factual. That which is not true but which one asserts is true, is not factual. It is a falsehood, no matter how much you believe otherwise. Facts are facts, no matter how much you deny them, no matter how much your faith or politicians tell you otherwise, no matter how inconvenient or upsetting they may be. The facts don't care whether we agree on them or not. The facts are truth! Everything else is fantasy, opinions, falsehoods, lies.

Facts are different than theories. These cover a lot of ground.


You can double check what are facts using the internet rather easily. Theories are a lot harder but I have found very few facts which negate the theory of global warming.

While one person's observation is interesting, data collected from many divers -- and all systematically plotted over time -- tells a different story. Find out more at the Weather Club -- and why corals love global warming and increasing CO2.

Do research. So many of these graph posts are malarkey.