[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

According to the articles posted in this thread, the increase in PBs are due to their increased food source. Not a ban on hunting...

And other articles attribute it to more accurate counting, conservation efforts, or really no increase at all.

It would seem the number of polar bears is a bad proxy for the impact of climate change.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

Of course I'm right. Do you think I make this stuff up? I studied it in undergraduate and graduate school for 10 years and then practiced it for 40 years. What you think is the cause is not relevant. Nobody who makes decisions listens to you, or to me either for that matter.

The ones making the decision are just guessing.

[Topspinmo]

IMO need to be more concerned about de-forestation and population grown. That IMO what killing the planet earth. IMO that only thing we can control. IMO If we control that other factors reduce.

[mtdjed]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Correct, but the weight has nothing to do with it. It is about the volume. The volume of the ice is reduced when it melts, but, because the ice was floating, part of it was above the water level. After it melts, the part that was above the water line is now increasing the total volume of water, and the water level is the same.

Didn't we learn all this in grade school?

Why Ice Floats for Kids - Bing video

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Two Bills

Think you should bother to read my previous posts regarding PB's.
At no time have I complained/stated that CO2, or global warming is killing the bears.
I disagreed with the other posters repeated claims that CO2 and global warming are responsible for bears numbers rising.
The ban on hunting in the 50's and 70's by all bar Canada are the main reason for the returning to previous population figures.
Canada allows hunting in one area, and the numbers killed is controlled by the local indigenous population.

The junk-science message is clear - according to alarmists (and Al Gore) - man-made (CO2 driven) warming hurts polar bears ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MddWTJEFrTc

[Two Bills]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

According to the articles posted in this thread, the increase in PBs are due to their increased food source. Not a ban on hunting...

My bad.
Of course with all this CO2 saving the planet, the world is greening up, and the Polar Bears have all become vegetarians and breeding like rabbits.
China, USA, and India as the producers of over 50% of the CO2 between them, should be commended for saving the planet.
A Nobel gong for saving the world no less!

I may be a bit old and thick, but I know the life cycle of seals and Polar Bears, and the late forming of Polar Ice, thinner ice, and the melt coming earlier, is not conducive for their sustained welfare.
They will adapt over time, but to say CO2/Climate Change is their friend is utter nonsense

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Two Bills

My bad.
Of course with all this CO2 saving the planet, the world is greening up, and the Polar Bears have all become vegetarians and breeding like rabbits.
China, USA, and India as the producers of over 50% of the CO2 between them, should be commended for saving the planet.
A Nobel gong for saving the world no less!

I may be a bit old and thick, but I know the life cycle of seals and Polar Bears, and the late forming of Polar Ice, thinner ice, and the melt coming earlier, is not conducive for their sustained welfare.
They will adapt over time, but to say CO2/Climate Change is their friend is utter nonsense

Some call it nonsense - I call it common sense. A totally iced north pole means almost no access to seals - which happened in the past - and the PBs survived. A totally (or mostly) ice-free north pole means access to seals and other forms of life (like walruses) - which happened in the past - and the PBs survived. It seems that human alarmists are unable to survive climate change.

[Two Bills]

Originally Posted by sounding

Some call it nonsense - I call it common sense. A totally iced north pole means almost no access to seals - which happened in the past - and the PBs survived. A totally (or mostly) ice-free north pole means access to seals and other forms of life (like walruses) - which happened in the past - and the PBs survived. It seems that human alarmists are unable to survive climate change.

///

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

And other articles attribute it to more accurate counting, conservation efforts, or really no increase at all.

It would seem the number of polar bears is a bad proxy for the impact of climate change.

Then the climate alarmists should stop using it!

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Then the climate alarmists should stop using it!

I’ve lost track. Are the climate alarmists using it or is it the other side fixated on proving Al Gore was wrong?