Global Climate, The Greenhouse effect.

[Buffanator]

"Truth? There is no truth. There's just what you believe."
~the first Slayer

😉

 

[nerd4hire]

And here's what I believe...

There's been no warming since 1998. In fact it's been cooling since 2002.

The freaky ice melt in the arctic of last year did not happen this year. In fact there was a record refreeze this last winter.

Wait...somebody else put it all better.

Someone please help me out here. Everyone is yelling about fixing the "climate crisis", but I still can't find it - the crisis, that is.

There appears to be no significant change in either the frequency or intensity of hurricanes and in fact the last two seasons have been pretty quiet. Katrina hit land as a pretty standard CAT 3 and hurricane intensity isn't measured by the measure of property damage at any rate.

Global "temperatures" appear to be dropping ( if that term has any meaning at any rate ) and the solar scientists are complaining about a quiet sun which is starting to show many of the same characteristics as the Maunder Minimum, which led to the "little ice age". Well, that's a crisis, I suppose, but not the same color as the present one.

Sea levels continue to rise a minuscule amount each year as they have since the last ice age when sea level was perhaps 400 feet lower than it is today. I just can't see New York under water anytime in the 21st century at the present observed rates which don't seem to be changing.

Even the oceans seems to be cooling a bit based on data from the new diving buoy system, but perhaps NOAA is cooking the data and we can't trust them any more than we can trust NASA anymore.

The Antarctic Ice Pack continues to grow and is now larger than ever in the 30+ years we've been able to take highly accurate radar altimeter measurements. The Arctic Ice continues to expand and shrink annually as it seems inclined to do, and we note some pretty good sized volcanoes have recently been discovered on the Arctic Ocean floor which might be helping the shrinking part a bit.

Polar bear populations are at near record levels and seem healthy, and even I have seen them playing around on floating ice chunks in the Arctic summer. They are a terrestrial animal, after all, as anyone can see who visits the Churchill area in the summer and takes a polar bear cruise on one of their giant bear-proof buses.

Droughts and floods seem to be more strongly correlated with changes in ENSO and his friends than with a one degree temperature rise over the span of a hundred years, but maybe I'm missing something.

So, while hordes of folks continually call for Weapons of Mass Taxation to be hauled out to fight the "climate crisis", I still can't seem to find the crisis anywhere and note that the likely beneficiaries of carbon taxes and such will be the folks tolling the alarm.

As I said at the beginning: I'm having trouble locating the crisis, so I'm hoping some of the many experts here on this forum can give me a little guidance.

Posted at alarmist site RealClimate.org by Atmospheric Physicist Jim Peden then pulled by RealClimate censors.

Jennifer Marohasy: Denying the Climate Crisis: A Comment from Jim Peden

 

[T.I.P]

I dunno, i dont pay too much attention to global warming, coz i live in a cold place.
But im thinking, 100 years ago there was 1.5 billion people on earth, and that was before the industrial boom. Now a century later theres almost 6.5 billion people, god knows how many cars, and basically, its just pollution everywhere.
Now surely humans have to be making it worse, its only the last few years some people have been trying to cut back.
It may just be a coincedence that the tempratures rising fast at the same time we're heavily polluting the atmosphere, but maybe, just maybe, it is us thats making things worse.

 

[nerd4hire]

I always think of counselor Mackey in South Park when I hear that argument Ghostface. Basically what you're saying is "Pollution is bad M'kay".

I agree with you. Here's the problem with that argument in the context of global warming though. The global warming debate is about carbon dioxide's ability to warm the atmosphere, and CO2 is not pollution.

CO2 is benign at the levels man is capable of putting into the atmosphere. It's invisible. It's necessary to maintain life on earth. Plants need it to live. Without CO2 all life on earth would cease to exist. There is only about 385 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere at the present time. This number fluctuates historically. There was more than 10 times this amount when plants began to evolve. There was 4 times this amount during the time of the dinosaurs. Dinosaurs, you may have heard, were big animals.

The idea CO2 is a greenhouse gas and can remit radiation captured as it reflects from the sun off the earth has nothing to do with the fact a room will get warmer if there's more people in it, or people can huddle for warmth in the cold.

CO2 is not pollution. The reason you think it is, is because the mainstream media encourages you to think so. One example is the way they talk about "carbon controls". Carbon dioxide is not carbon. Carbon is a solid. Carbon dioxide is a gas and is no more carbon than H2O (water) is hydrogen. When Al Gore starts talking about CO2, and he shows you billowing dark smoke from smokestacks in the background he's BS-ing you. CO2 is invisible.

Is man having negative effects on the environment? Of course, but let's not allow sneaky, control-freak politicians with hidden agendas to use that fact, and baffle us with BS.

In the 1970s there was also climate hysteria. That time they were telling us global cooling was coming to kill us all. (Newsweek was big in that one too). Supposedly that time it was aerosols responsible.

So yeah, let's do something about pollution, but let's leave poor, little helpful CO2 out of it until there's some real scientific evidence showing it's actually doing what they say it's doing. There isn't even that much of it - about 385 parts per million, or about 4 one hundredths of a percent. And the part of that 385 ppm industrialization is responsible for is about 3%.

 

[MSchett]

but pollution is doing bad things tho like acid rain and what not

 

[T.I.P]

So yeah, let's do something about pollution, but let's leave poor, little helpful CO2 out of it until there's some real scientific evidence showing it's actually doing what they say it's doing. There isn't even that much of it - about 385 parts per million, or about 4 one hundredths of a percent. And the part of that 385 ppm industrialization is responsible for is about 3%.

I think the CO2 arguments a load of crap anyway. Watched this Al Gore clip on you tube, and he's standing there, banging on about co2 this and co2 that, and he then proceeds to show this graph showing co2 levels and temprature levels from the last 10,000years or something, and it shows both co2 and temprature is almost the exact same shape, rising at the same time and falling at the same time. But this is him jumping in and talking bs without getting all the facts, because what actually happens is tempratures rise or fall, then a few hundred years later, co2 follows. So its the rising tempratures that is causing rising co2, and not the other way about.
But as i said in my first post, i dont know that much about global warming to be making any real argument for or against it, ::huh1::but if i had to guess, id say in one way or another, humans probably aint helping matters at all.

 

[Buffanator]

CO2 is benign at the levels man is capable of putting into the atmosphere. It's invisible. It's necessary to maintain life on earth. Plants need it to live. Without CO2 all life on earth would cease to exist. There is only about 385 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere at the present time. This number fluctuates historically. There was more than 10 times this amount when plants began to evolve. There was 4 times this amount during the time of the dinosaurs.

Yes. C02 has been steadily increasing since the 1950's. At PRESENT TIME, it shows no indication of DECREASING.

Oh, & dinosaurs are extinct. 😉
[br][/br]
Edit:
[br][/br]

what actually happens is tempratures rise or fall, then a few hundred years later, co2 follows. So its the rising tempratures that is causing rising co2, and not the other way about.

What I consider is the fact that we've NEVER had THIS MANY PEOPLE on the planet AT ONCE. And we're growing. Just keep on growing... more & more & more people added to the mix, using more & more energy, taking up more & more space, killing off more & more plants, etc. IT MAKES SENSE that people are ADDING TO THE PROBLEM of global warming.

To people like me & ghostface, anyway... 😉

 

[nerd4hire]

First of all, what global warming problem? Temperatures flattened out overall after 1998. There's been slight cooling since 2002.

Also...yes, CO2 has continued to rise. Look at the graph above. Why don't temperatures rise with the CO2? They're supposed to according to human-caused global warming theory. It isn't just for those ten years either. Temperatures also fell from the 40s to the 70s. CO2 continued to rise.

Warming in itself is not a problem. Historically mankind as a race does better during periods of warming such as the Roman warm period, or the Medieval warm period (during which Northern hemisphere temperatures were warmer than todays').

You point out "Dinosaurs are extinct". I'm not sure I get your point. Are you saying the dinosaurs are extinct, because soccer moms were driving their Subarus around emitting excess CO2, or that the quadrupled levels of CO2 which were around during the millions of years of their existence suddenly killed them? I'm lost on that one.

What we've got is this...

CO2 is not pollution.

There is no smoking gun evidence CO2 is causing significant warming much less crisis level warming. There has been a gradual warming trend since the warming following the little ice age (think 1400s, also a time when soccer moms and their subarus were not a problem). There is a longer term warming trend starting about 12,000 years ago after the last glacial ice age. That was the one when the glaciers started melting. But lately, warming...not so much. In fact have a look at the satellite pic of ice in the arctic last year versus arctic ice extant this year at the same time. The purple, red and yellow is ice. Dark blue is open water.

If that's a little tough to decipher try this graph showing last year's melt versus this years. The ice has increased, and the melt line is now following the average.

Saying there's more people in the world therefore there is a warming crisis is kind of vague. Connect the dots for me. Something like evidence of the connection, or even the crisis existence would be nice as well. Temperatures have been much, much warmer than today without any people at all. The world continued on.

In fact wanna bit of a chuckle. Check out George Carlin on YouTube trying to make sense of how much danger "The World" is in from global warming. Hint: not much.

YouTube - George Carlin: Environmentalists and Global Warming

Edit

Oh and one more time CO2 does not kill plants. It helps them to grow. It also makes them hardier and more able to withstand stress such as water deprivation. Commercial greenhouse growers pump 1000ppm and more of CO2 into their greenhouses to help the plants grow. (you heard me when I told you there's only 385ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere right now, right?)

 

[T.I.P]

ok, plants need co2, but, theres nowhere near the amount of plants/trees/grass there was 100 years ago

 

[nerd4hire]

ok, plants need co2, but, theres nowhere near the amount of plants/trees/grass there was 100 years ago

That's another one of those things that sounds like it must be true. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on how you choose to look at it, it's not.

Planet Earth is on a roll! GPP is way up. NPP is way up. To the surprise of those who have been bearish on the planet, the data shows global production has been steadily climbing to record levels, ones not seen since these measurements began.

GPP is Gross Primary Production, a measure of the daily output of the global biosphere -- the amount of new plant matter on land. NPP is Net Primary Production, an annual tally of the globe's production. Biomass is booming. The planet is the greenest it's been in decades, perhaps in centuries.

Until the 1980s, ecologists had no way to systematically track growth in plant matter in every corner of the Earth -- the best they could do was analyze small plots of one-tenth of a hectare or less. The notion of continuously tracking global production to discover the true state of the globe's biota was not even considered.

Then, in the 1980s, ecologists realized that satellites could track production, and enlisted NASA to collect the data. For the first time, ecologists did not need to rely on rough estimates or anecdotal evidence of the health of the ecology: They could objectively measure the land's output and soon did -- on a daily basis and down to the last kilometre.

The results surprised Steven Running of the University of Montana and Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA, scientists involved in analyzing the NASA data. They found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth's vegetated landmass -- almost 110 million square kilometres -- enjoyed significant increases and only 7% showed significant declines. When the satellite data zooms in, it finds that each square metre of land, on average, now produces almost 500 grams of greenery per year.

Why the increase? Their 2004 study, and other more recent ones, point to the warming of the planet and the presence of CO2, a gas indispensable to plant life. CO2 is nature's fertilizer, bathing the biota with its life-giving nutrients. Plants take the carbon from CO2 to bulk themselves up -- carbon is the building block of life -- and release the oxygen, which along with the plants, then sustain animal life. As summarized in a report last month, released along with a petition signed by 32,000 U. S. scientists who vouched for the benefits of CO2: "Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century."

Financial Post Story

 

[Lou]

I have a stupid question....
but what does it matter?

I'm not gonna quote and link debate because we all know there's crap all over the internet that not only claims to back global warming but plenty that are against it and someone I'm sure I could find one that says to use a lighter while trying to examine your gas water heater.

I know where I live, when we were little we'd get snow...LOTS of snow, every winter. Now, we MAY get 1 dusting of snow a year, but never a real snow or even anything that isn't more grass than white stuff. Does that PROVE global warming? No, but it sure doesn't disprove it or discount "Tennessee Warming".
You can "proof" of ANYTHING on the internet.

But, in the end, isn't the answer still the same whether your concerned about Polar Bears, snow in Tennessee, gas prices, landfills or pollution?
We need cars that don't make us dependant on oil. We should recycle so we 1.) don't use up all our resources 2.) further pollute the planet in making new things from scratch and 3.) don't fill up our planet with items we can actually reuse. We should use Solar and Wind energy and get energy efficient stuff, for the penguins, pollution and for cheaper bills.

In any case, unless your plan is to end the world, there are reasons for changing all this stuff whether you believe Global Warming is happening or not, right?

 

[nerd4hire]

Now that's some pretty unstructured reasoning there, but let me try to organize what I think I heard to try to make sense of it.

Basically you appear to be saying all information researched off the internet is invalid. Since pretty much all studied information appears on the internet sooner or later, it follows all such information is invalid.

Within this belief it's asserted "proof", or I would say support, or evidence doesn't matter. What matters is faith in the underlying rightness of the ideology one believes in. Have faith and good things must happen, whether there is rational support for the fundamental tenets, or not.

Check this one out...

YouTube - Michael Crichton on Environmentalism as a Religion

So in answer to the question which you acknowledge is stupid, "what does it matter?"...

It matters first of all because the proselytizers of this faith insist not only that the faithful believe in it, but that all suffer the consequences of that faith. And there are major consequences, both current, and potential.

We are already seeing food prices being driven up as a result of policies involving biofuel. There have been scattered food riots world wide as agricultural lands are being switched from food based to fuel based, and policies designed to encourage biofuels are enforced on poorer nations. Rain forests in such countries as Indonesia, and Brazil are being strip-mined for biofuels.

The Kyoto accord on climate change enforced a structure whereby the economic progression of western, developed countries is thwarted, but the development of such countries as China and India are encouraged, and unmanaged. You may have heard China recently took over status as most polluted country, and it's getting rapidly worse. In fact it's worth noting the US did not sign the Kyoto accord and it's carbon footprint has increased noticeably less than other developed countries which did sign it.

I could go on, but I'd like to also mention the potential dangers of making policy based on "faulty--or faked--science". History has shown us there have been many mistakes in the past as a result of this. Off the top of my head...faulty science demonizing DDT killed millions of people, mostly children in the third world. Lysenko's pseudo-scientific agricultural policies starved, or killed millions in Stalin's Russia. Eugenic belief validated the death camps of Nazi Germany. And dare I mention Thalidomide.

Policy made based on unsupported science is, and has been proven dangerous. The precautionary principle which says it's OK to make a mistake based on unsupported reasoning if faith allows you to fear a conceived, larger danger, is nonsense. It doesn't work.

More succinctly, in answer to your question "does it matter?" - yes, it matters.

 

[Lou]

Basically you appear to be saying all information researched off the internet is invalid. Since pretty much all studied information appears on the internet sooner or later, it follows all such information is invalid.

No, I'm saying that you can find proof to support almost any opinion on the internet and it's perfectly valid to the person who wants to believe it.

Religions are based on the same theory. All of them, that I can think of at the moment, can be proved by the people who believe based on some "facts" and disproved by others who believe differently based on other "facts".

Plenty of wars and random destruction have been based on religions that no one can really validate.

I'm not saying Al Gore is a genius, but I am saying that for your average person, the answers are still the same whether you believe in global warming or not.
I can't PERSONALLY save Polar Bears. I have nothing against polar bears, but I can try to lower my power bills. I sat through a whole episode of Oprah with Al Gore and he didn't tell me to save the polar bears, he talked about solar panels and lowering my electric bill, hybrid cars, and recycling. Is that going to SAVE any polar bears? Probably not. Is it going to ruin rainforests? Nope. Does it impact China in any way? I don't think so.

As far as Global impacts of this, I use logic.
If there was far more proof that global warming was a myth and that the idea was harmful, one of these scientists in one of these countries could have disproved it? It's not like we're talking about hurting China for the belief of Big Foot.
So, just maybe you're not seeing the big picture.
Cars that run on water-vapor...good, cheap, replenishable.
Which, oddly, is what I heard Al Gore say, not strip mine....he said solar power, wind power, cars that run on water.

Whether an average person decides to recycle, put on solar panels, or drive a car that emits less pollutants, whatever their thought process, has just as much impact on China as what religion they happen to be.
Anyone who would HARM a country (say, BOMB CHINA) for not converting, would be in the "zealot" catagory like a suicide bomber.

I would say there is a HIGH likelihood that BOTH sides aren't completely right. I firmly believe our pollution is destroying the world? As soon as Al Gore says? Probably not. I do believe that we have a chance to try and turn things around. Maybe. But, I think we should try. Both for ourselves and for the frogs of the world.
Is EVERY way people are trying this right? Of course not. Are some ideas good? Yes. More importantly, are the things that the normal average person can do good ideas? I see no problem with installing solar panels or driving less and little impact on China or rainforests.

All I'm saying is that whatever the zealots may or may not be doing doesn't mean that every person who believes in Global Warming, recycling or saving the planet it doing the same thing. It also doesn't make them wrong for believing it.
There may be ZILLIONS of polar bears, but many animals suffer from pollution.
Personally, I like frogs.
Now, if they ASK me if it's okay to strip mine rainforests, I'm gonna vote NO. Until they ask me, I fail to see how whatever I believe or do to conserve energy has any impact at all on what other whackos are doing that may or may not be evil.

 

[T.I.P]

Yup, heavily media driven. Could think of a hundred things like this. Alot of people are happy to be told what to believe

 

[Buffanator]

No, I'm saying that you can find proof to support almost any opinion on the internet and it's perfectly valid to the person who wants to believe it.

Which is pretty much what I said a couple pages back. 😉

And to n4h: I can post graphs, too - except the graphs I POST will support MY BELIEF that global warming is as real as apple pie, whereas YOUR graphs support YOUR BELIEF that it's not.

For instance, this graph shows the warming trends from 1880 to the year 2000.

Now, isn't that pretty? It's from Geology News. A very REPUTABLE website, which I'm sure you will find a way to dispute their credentials.

What you do not seem to want to admit is that it DOESN'T take rocket scientists to figure it out. You keep pointing to your massive brain & wonderful search skills to say "Ha, you are wrong, little minded people!" But it's not as complicated as you make it out to be.

You say that GW is NOT caused "by humans". I agree. But what I AM SAYING is that GW is a REAL issue, and HUMANS are adding to the problem. Not causing it... ADDING TO IT. Global warming does not mean that there is no more ice... or snow... or cold temperatures. But the fact - AND YES IT IS FACT - is that we are in a warming trend. How long it will last is anybody's guessimate.

"The science has made it quite clear. The impact has been felt seriously around the world. Now only lacking largely is a political will, as a human being, a whole international community is standing at the very critically important juncture. Whether or not we address this issue properly and collectively, the whole future of our generation and planet Earth will depend."
~United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, at an interview in Sept 2007 in the garden of U.N. headquarters in New York.

Ban also stated that Global warming will be a priority at the United Nations.

These are our WORLD LEADERS talking. They are taking it seriously. So am I. Therefore I do "little things" that make a difference. I recycle. I use less to conserve more. Because I THINK IT MATTERS. Only those who think it is "bunk" will continue wasting & living as tho tomorrow is never in danger. And it probably isn't, for the next 25 or 50 years... but 100 years from now? when you & I are long gone? Who's to say? So doesn't it make sense to take action NOW, instead of waiting for the inevitable & then trying to solve the problem?

 

[nerd4hire]

Jeez guys, relax. It's like you're standing in front of your computers pointing crucifixes at the screen thinking I'm going to ooze out of it and infect your brains with mind worms, or something.

It's not my fault the information exists. I'm just offering it up for consideration. This is the way reasoned debate works, or at least the way it's supposed to work. A point is offered up, and support is presented for that point.

Several times the point has been made I can offer up support for my side, and you can also offer support. It may surprise you to learn you've just made the skeptics' argument. The science is not settled. Debate exists. It is therefore necessary. Restructuring the world's political and economic power structure to embark on policies already proving foolhardy to attack a problem which may, or may not exist is unwise. More information and debate is necessary, not less.

I think maybe the reason discovering there is an actual debate on this issue is making you angry is you don't really know yet what the global warming skeptic's argument actually is. Fearing the information which supports their argument will not help you to learn it. Learning it is necessary if you hope to point out its conceived weaknesses.

You appear to think AGW skepticism is anti-environment. This is not true. It is also not true total acceptance of global warming doctrine is all pro-environment. Many who were warmists (including environmentalists) are switching sides. They are finding the wealth of current and developing evidence tends to suggest caution. Some believe global warming doctrine is hijacking environmentalism for political motives, and embarking on an agenda based more on a hidden political agenda than any true danger to the environment.

Skeptics aren't against recycling, or energy alternatives, or even pollution controls. They will however point out the disadvantages of some energy alternatives proposed, and the advantages of others. They will remind you carbon dioxide is not pollution, and although a gradual, warming trend has existed for centuries, it is not at crisis levels, and little actual scientific evidence exists supporting a human forced, crisis level, global temperature rise.

 

[Lou]

Skeptics aren't against recycling, or energy alternatives, or even pollution controls. They will however point out the disadvantages of some energy alternatives proposed, and the advantages of others. They will remind you carbon dioxide is not pollution, and although a gradual, warming trend has existed for centuries, it is not at crisis levels, and little actual scientific evidence exists supporting a human forced, crisis level, global temperature rise.

It may be time to admit that I'm not personally 100% convinced that GW IS real.
I know it's not nearly as cold here as it used to be, we get weeks of 70's in the winter, just for kicks now. And, I know my allergies have gotten progressively worse even though I'm better at handling them than I was when I was 12.

I've heard the stories about the polar bear pictures and I tend to believe it about that picture.

On the other hand. I believe that our "wasting" has gone overboard for WAY too long. And where CO2 may not be a pollutant, if we keep cutting down trees and building giant cities and being an over-populated planet we're not going to be able to breath in a while.
The chemicals we take it is already causing puberty to happen early in children. I have a friend who's daughter is a year older than my daughter (and you've seen pictures of her, she's itty bitty) but my friend's kid already needs a bra and she's SEVEN!

It's true, there are downfalls to ALL change. For instance, IF we may water powered cars, who's to say that in 100 years or 200 years that WATER won't be too expensive?
As ridiculous as it may sound, I think Doc Brown had it right in Back To The Future, we need cars that run on garbage!

There's always going to be people who come up with horrible ideas to implement any plan. Hence, why so many "well meaning" parents do AWFUL things to their children in a way to "teach them".

As a whole, I think the general plan of GW is a good one. Even if it shows faulty polar bear pictures. Most of this world NEEDS a face to put on these things, not just charts. Honestly, NEITHER chart does squat for me. Show me a pathetic animal with no place to live and I say, "Hmmmm....perhaps recycling isn't so hard." Show me a penguin with one of those 6 pack things caught around him and I start cutting up every 6 pack holder into shreds and plopping it in recycling bins where ever I see them.

As a whole, I believe that the theory of GW is a good one. Maybe it WON'T be too hot to live here in 100 years or 1000 years if we do nothing.
But, the way I see it, it's giving us things to "do". It's giving our scientists and car makers new things to consider to solve problems. I wasn't even 10 years ago EVERYONE had to have an SUV, now, not so much. It doesn't take a graph to figure out SUVs burn more gas and spit out more pollutants than my Mother-In-Law's little Prius.
For the bulk of the population, I think GW is a good thing to, at least, consider. I also believe that the growing movement shines a light on what the people with BAD ideas are doing.
Again, when and if they ASK me if I think it's a good idea to strip mine rainforests to save the polar bears, I'm gonna say, "Uh, no".

I guess I realize it's a debatable issue, on the other hand, I guess I believe that if it ISN'T true, the actual impact of most normal average people believing it IS true is about as big as believing in the Easter Bunny.
Whereas, the impact of the general public NOT believing could have a MUCH bigger impact later if it IS true or even just concerning conserving our resources and pollutants.

Oh, and BTW, I take offense to this comment.....

Jeez guys, relax. It's like you're standing in front of your computers pointing crucifixes at the screen thinking I'm going to ooze out of it and infect your brains with mind worms, or something.

ALL my crucifixes are firmly planets where they always are! To act like I'm that big of a weirdo is offensive. I wouldn't do such a stupid thing, and to assume I would is just rather uppity of you.
I put Saran Wrap over my computer monitor, of course. That is the ONLY way to stop mind worms from getting through and infecting me. GEEZ!

 

[ILLYRIAN]

I just found out that some rotten sod nicked the Polars Bears soap. So now their nice white fur is a bit dirty, that means they can be seen, and as such they can be counted.
Problem is before the fur got all dirty were the number of Polar Bears counted or was a guess made. Chances are their numbers were just a guess so there could be a heavily reduced numbers of them. But then again.
Did the Polar Bears have a head count? that could be problematic as Polar bears apparently aren't very good at counting, 'cos they've got claws not fingers. I've often heard about counting on your fingers but not once have I heard about counting on your claws. Oh well.

 

[Buffanator]

In fact wanna bit of a chuckle. Check out George Carlin on YouTube trying to make sense of how much danger "The World" is in from global warming. Hint: not much.

YouTube - George Carlin: Environmentalists and Global Warming

HEH - in all the "debating" I forgot to add that I LOVE GEORGE CARLIN & that bit is one of my Carlin favs!

"The planet is FINE! - the people are f***ed."
~George Carlin

 

[nerd4hire]

Here's another funny one. Penn and Teller petition against Di-hydrogen oxide.

LewRockwell.com Blog: Environmental Hysteria Exemplified