Climate Change blamed for cannibal polar bears
December 11th, 2009 at 7:00 am by David Farrar
Marty G at The Standard shows off his expert knowledge of Arctic polar bears, and declares this photo shows how climate change has turned polar bears into cannibals. He says:
This is climate change. This is just the beginning.
I have a terrible feeling that this picture is an omen of things to come.
Oh yes, next there will be cannibal geckos, cannibal crabs and worse.
Or one could talk to someone who actually lives in the area, as the Daily Mail did:
But this theory is disputed by Inuit leaders in Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, who claim it is wrong to connect the bears’ behaviour with starvation.
Kivalliqu Inuit Association president Jose Kusugak said: ‘It makes the south – southern people – look so ignorant.
Ignorant indeed. Unless you prefer Marty’s knowledge of polar bears to the local Unuit leader.
‘A male polar bear eating a cub becomes a big story and they try to marry it with climate change and so on, it becomes absurd when it’s a normal, normal occurrence.’
What a shame – it could have made a great film – revenage of the cannibal polar bears.
Related posts:
- First casualties of climate change
- Coddington on climate change and population
- The Press on Climate Change
- UK Govt climate change ads banned
December 11th, 2009 at 7:06 am
I can understand why they pick on the cute and cuddly polar bears, but they constantly show their ignorance and it is time they were found out.
Polar bears and not endangered, in fact (if my memory serves correctly) their numbers have doubled in the last thirty years. Palin was vilified when she objected to them being put on the endangered for that reason.
When are these guys going to get real?
December 11th, 2009 at 7:08 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Unpopular. Like or Dislike:December 11th, 2009 at 7:19 am
Oh dear, thats an embarrassing and ignorant slip from Marty G
Bogus is right. Polar Bears are doing very well.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:22 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Unpopular. Like or Dislike:December 11th, 2009 at 7:22 am
MacDoc points out the story has been picked up by the Herald, with the usual lack of research, no surprises there.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:34 am
“. . . But how do we save the polar bear? I’d first point out that polar bears have survived sometimes dramatic climate changes over thousands of years, most recently the so called “medieval warm period” (1000-1300 A.D.) in which large parts of the arctic glaciers disappeared and Greenland was truly “green”. Contrary to that heart-wrenching image on the cover of Time of an apparently doomed polar bear floating on a chunk of ice, polar bears can swim for miles. In addition, more polar bears die each year from gunshot wounds than from drowning. So instead of rationing carbon energy, maybe the first thing we should do to protect polar bears is to stop shooting them! . . . ”
Somewhere it was estimated Kyoto provisions would save just one tenth of one polar bear a year, but not shooting them would save 104.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:34 am
Nope it is a reminder that nature is cruel – people who live in cities, work in ivory towers and whose only contact with nature is Walt Disney and the Discovery Channel don’t realize how hostile the world really is.
What we should do is round up every green agitator, strip them of their clothes and dump them in the jungles of Sarawak and tell them to get on with it.
They wouldn’t last five minutes is my pick.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:36 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Unpopular. Like or Dislike:December 11th, 2009 at 7:46 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Unpopular. Like or Dislike:December 11th, 2009 at 7:53 am
When he was dispossed from his home, his culture, and his family because of economic exploitation and overusage of resouces, he turned on his children. Solid proof that family violence is truly rooted in the economy…
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 7:56 am
So we will just ignore what the local guy said, because I mean wtf would he know. Pfft…The Standard, what a fucking joke.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:57 am
Three weeks earlier? And thats your proof of AGW?
FFS
Lynn, (the guy with the girls name), how do you explain male Lions eating their cubs?
That ice melt in Kenya must be a real problem. Sheesh.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:01 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Unpopular. Like or Dislike:December 11th, 2009 at 8:06 am
lprent said “But don’t let me interrupt your hangover with a dose of reality.”
A dose of reality? From you, of all people Lynn? Sorry, I’m not convinced
December 11th, 2009 at 8:08 am
Don’t know about polar bears but in many animal species, weaning (or death of) young is the trigger for hormonal changes that stimulate oestrus in the female thus making her receptive to mating. It is not uncommon for males to kill the young that have been sired by another male in an apparent attempt to increase the spread of their own genetics. Darwinism at work.
message to lprent. If you come here try using some intelligence in your discussions, your arrogant approach makes you just another tosspot otherwise.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:13 am
Iprent
Are you enjoying the free and frank exchange of ideas here?, see how good a blog can be when people like you are not editing or banning anybody who you do not agree with.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:18 am
God, climate change again.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 8:21 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Unpopular. Like or Dislike:December 11th, 2009 at 8:24 am
What’s the chance that we can get that Polar Bear to visit ‘substandard’ central – I can think of a few commentators there that would make great entrees.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Helen Clark went into the last election with sustainabilty as a major policy plank. Turns out her regime wasn’t sustainable.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:32 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Unpopular. Like or Dislike:December 11th, 2009 at 8:36 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Unpopular. Like or Dislike:December 11th, 2009 at 8:37 am
The problem with The Standard is you can’t handle the truth, so you ban it. Typical pinko attitude.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:39 am
Pete George, switch off your computer and go outside. You’re getting weirder by the minute.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:41 am
Male cats of all sizes will nail all the young of another males if they can.
they’ve been doing it for hundreds of thousands of years, is that a “symbol of what we are doing to our planet” of the reality that nature doesn’t have G rating?
Some pretty desperate stuff from the “man controls the weather with taxation” hysteria crowd. Show me science not the political advocacy.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:49 am
Lynn
Ok explain to us all why NIWA uses the Kelburn Temp Measuring Station as one of the seven sites for our measurements when, because it is next to an Asphalt carpark the Station is classed 4 by the IPCC.
Note that 1 is the best out of 6
Hardly striving for excellence and accuracy are they?
December 11th, 2009 at 8:50 am
The Copenhagen polar bear with it’s likely agreement?
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 8:52 am
lprent,
You are correct, I don’t rush off to wikipaedia for answers when discussing, generally I draw from my own knowledge and experience. As I said, I haven’t studied polar bears but I will offer this from general knowledge so don’t ask for references. In some mammalian species, death of offspring will trigger almost immediate onset of oestrus. No months of waiting, no counting of days, no temperature charts (at least I don’t think polar bears carry thermometers) just dead cub today, mating can start by the end of the week.
The real point? …. It may have nothing to do with climate change at all in which case the article can be dismissed as bullshit.
If I were you though I would re-inforce the front door, a plague of highly pissed off lemmings may be coming your way due to their winter range being upset by some anthropogenic sunspots.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Iprent
Bullshit, if I ever had a go at anybody it would have been that retard Robinsod and even then it would have been in retaliation to what he had to say, any issue I tried to raise was deleted, any issue that caused embarrassment to the then Labour government was quickly removed from the site, you know this to be the case.
Actually, your approach to Robinsod best illustrates why the left are inherently corrupt, you say you are against abuse yet you let Robinsod have a free run of the place.
Basically Iprent, you are full of it, the Standard could be a great blog, a place where a free and frank exchange of ideas happens, but the reality is so different, perhaps it is because you know that socialism does not stand up to close scrutiny, what ever the reason the fact remains that you ban anybody who does not agree with you.
The EMPU and Labour party funded Standard is a perfect example of what Labour are like when they are the government, crush all opposition, silence anybody who does not agree and use every chance you get to push your lies and deceit.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Unpopular. Like or Dislike:December 11th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Well of course he’s right.
“I have a terrible feeling that this picture is an omen of things to come.”
The terrible things to come from the junk writers at The Standard.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:00 am
“That photo is a symbol of what we are doing to our planet.”
Yes, given that its main theme is deceit, it is especially apt.
You are such a conscienceless liar. Like the great majority of leftists.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Well DPF is certainly giving you lots of time to tell us all how repressed you are petey.
Irony doesn’t just mean it has lots of iron in it.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 9:15 am
BB You are correct
The Stranded does not allow freedom of speech on their blog because it makes them look inept and stupid ( in reality that is so).
Iprent- learn from kiwiblog on how a real blog works.
Go away and sulk and feel ashamed.
[DPF: What people think of The Standard is off topic for this thread. Responds to Lynn's contributions or don't respond at all. You can use General Debate for anything else]
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 9:19 am
I think it’s great that Lynn and co are continuing to push this.
To put up the same old emotive we’re killing the Poley bears theme as a desperate way of guilting people into supporting an ETS or carbon taxes, or anything about AGW, just shows how tone deaf they are.
A recent advertising campaign went viral on the net and it showed Polar Bears falling from the skies. All that led to was even more mockery – not to mention an appreciation that this is really the best argument the warmers have got.
A failed emotive approach to the issue, together by a failed regulatory approach at Kyoto, followed up by a repeat exercise in the here and now.
Still, I’m sure this will give summer party goers something to talk about in sad, hushed tones of horror before reaching for their Alaskan salmon brioche, fine French wine, and Brazilian coffee.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Funnily enough, I know a few experts on polar bears. It’s been kind of interesting that to date, the international conservation treaty covering polar beers (Norway, Denmark/Greenland, Russia, Canada, USA) has been generally successful. Partly it allows for flexibility. The US does not permit commercial hunting in Alaska. Canada has devolved much of the polar bear management to local Inuit, who have developed their own quota for commercial hunters. There has been no ‘one-size fits all’ approach.
In general, the population since the 1970s (globally, including Canda) has trended upwards. There are normal cycles of rises and falls, as you get in all natural populations. But there has been no observed trend down. The extinction risk posed by AGW for polar bears is a projected one, not an observed one.
The reason polar bears get picked on is because they’re mammals. The political economy of environmental movements is that it is better to make up something (for a cute animal) than to focus on species that are really threatened. The latest data we are getting from the Red Book lists from the IUCN is that over 1/3 of all surveyed reptile and amphibian species are in serious decline. 10% of all gharials (from a population of a tenuous 1000 animals) have died in the last 12 months.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:31 am
“A failed emotive approach to the issue” yes, “this is really the best argument the warmers have got.” no.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 9:34 am
“BB: your biggest problem on The Standard is that you seldom have anything substantive to say.”
Utter bullshit. The Standard is a home for little cowardly tyrants who use subjective crap like the above in a weak attempt to conceal that fact that they are intolerant bigots, petty tyrants and people who generally make a farce of the concept of freedom of expression.
Bruv is perfectly right . The reason so many left wing sites ban dissent at the same time as they profess to care about freedom of political expression is because their ideology is unable to withstand logical scrutiny.
The Standard are a pack of liars, smearers and intellectual cowards.
The old Soviet Union in microcosm.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Repost of the above as I ran out of editing time (after reading DPF’s comment, which strikes me as a bit unfair as it was Lprent who [mainly] went off topic).
“BB: your biggest problem on The Standard is that you seldom have anything substantive to say.”
Utter bullshit. The Standard is a home for little cowardly tyrants who use subjective crap like the above in a weak attempt to conceal that fact that they are intolerant bigots, petty tyrants and people who generally make a farce of the concept of freedom of expression.
Bruv is perfectly right . The reason so many left wing sites ban dissent at the same time as they profess to care about freedom of political expression is because their ideology is unable to withstand logical scrutiny. This attempt to pervert the truth on polar bear population decline is typical.
The claim is just pure deceit that will not withstand scrutiny, yet so many people who will say this have been banned by the autocratic little Stalinists running the place.
The Standard are a pack of liars, smearers and intellectual cowards.
The old Soviet Union in microcosm.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Chthoniid, the links I posted here suggested some populations may be increasing, some may be decreasing. Is this different to what you know?
December 11th, 2009 at 9:44 am
We should just leave an open statement for warmers –
Climate Change To Blame For [inset cause of the week here]
This story is interesting though –
MORE
December 11th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Maybe the Daddy polar bear saw that his cub was going to turn into a mateless, dateless, Auckland computer programmer destined to spend their life jacking off publicly to Helen Clarke and all things socialist so decided to put him out of his misery.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Here’s the actual Falling Polar Bears advert.
See! Bears falling from the sky and crushing cars. I think it was designed for people like my 10-year old who, upon seeing the clip, uttered the immortal words of any Transformers fan – That is SO cool. Actually if Michael Bay popped up in the credits I would not be surprised.
On the semi-serious side I see a lot of 9/11 imagery (and sound effects) here. Clearly this is one issue where living beings falling from the sky is something the media are encouraging us to get angry about.
But back to mockery, with Mark Steyn’s riff on an old Jimmy Stewart Christmas movie:
It’s A Warmerful Life: every time they call your flight, a poley bear loses its wings.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 10:02 am
I don’t know how the Polar Bear thing slipped through, the standard are very wary lately about the issues they publish – off the air on climate change, education, law and order and any issue they are going to get utterly hammered on.
Lately they are getting more anti responses than supportive, indicating that either they are running out of supporters or their arguments are simply crap.
the bannings and censorship are just the resulting desperation.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 10:09 am
I looked out of my office window this morning and there were two polar bears falling past. I threw them a couple of parachutes to save them. They landed safely (you can’t say I don’t do my bit to mitigate AGW) and then proceeded to eat a mime who was doing street theatre outside Kirk’s. It seems there really is a silver lining to every cloud.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Pete- polar bears show the volatility of a small population. There have been periods of decline and increase for most (made noisier by sampling errors) This is why the IUCN assessment was that they depend on conservation management. To date, this has been pretty successful.
The recent change in status has been to vulnerable. That is way off cause for concern compared to endangered or critically endangered. The change to vulnerable has simply been a product of anticipated declines over the next 30-50 years. Which in turn, means we’ve got to be pretty good at estimating changes to summer ice and the adaptability of bears to that.
But, you’re not going to pick up a 30-50 year downward trend caused by climate change, in the first 2-5 years. That’s just being ecologically ignorant. All you’ve got with small populations in that time frame is ‘noise’.
Climate change may in fact be more serious for many reptiles. Take the gharial. It is a truly endangered species. We know that sex in reptiles is determined by temperature in the egg-phase, so rises in temperature can bias sex ratios. Compounding this is habitat loss. The ability of gharials to adapt to climate change- by establishing successful populations in cooler river systems- is just not possible anymore.
So, why are we concerned about polar bears- with a wide range over 5 different countries and a mere vulnerable status- and not a critically endangered reptile found basically in one Indian river?
People use polar bears because they are better for manipulating other people through ‘emotive connections’. If it really was about endangered species, they’d be out there trying to save the gharial instead. But an animal of low conservation concern is just so much better for manipulating the public if it looks ‘cute’.
December 11th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Is it just me, or does that photo look “photoshopped”?
Do we know if the person who took the photo has confirmed it for real?
The article in the Herald doesn’t mention who took the photo.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 10:29 am
I can’t tell, but with the blown highlights in the background, it will be a digital shot.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Thanks Chthoniid, it’s good to actually get some useful comment and discussion on it, I know I stirred with a couple of posts but I was interested in the realities of the polar bear situation and got hammered. There seems to be more natural polarisation here than between polar bears and penguins.
Hey, wouldn’t polar bears love to live in Antarctica? More food options. But that would be a bit of en ecological dilemma, what if (hypothetically) the only way to save polar bears was to switch poles?
December 11th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Yes, it is strange how people react much more to polar bears (dangerous predator to man) and the gharial is not as cute (and which is not the same threat as crocs).
I presume reptiles and lizards will have less ability to adapt to different temperatures. And at least the polar bear can roam over a wide area, if the gharial’s river becomes uninhabitable they are a bit stuffed.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Chthoniid
I would have thought that the bear’s mouth would have to be more open to ensure a proper grasp of the cub’s head, but to me it looks like the bears mouth isn’t open.
I’m no photography expert, but it just doesn’t look real to me.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Might’ve said this before, but when ‘saving’ the habitat of large, ‘cute’ (i don’t think they’re cute, charismatic might be a better word) animals who happen to roam around large areas, you effectively save the tens/hundreds/thousands of other animals living there as a side result. Maybe it IS about endangered species, but maybe some conservation-types are of the view that finding animals like the polar bear is a good way of saving other ones at the same time…?
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 11:30 am
All you climate change deniers are all traitors, just like Nazi sympathisers were during WW2!
Chris Trotter says so.
Why the Dominion Post allows communists to write opinion columns, I don’t know.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 11:44 am
If he actually said communist stuff about seizing the means of production and proletariat dictatorships, they probably wouldn’t let him. But he don’t!
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Would that make them bi-polar bears?
That might explain their actions.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:47 am
If Commrade Chris is for it I’m against it.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 11:50 am
” Why the Dominion Post allows communists to write opinion columns, I don’t know. ”
I’m suprised you don’t know by now. Its because they’re cut from the very same cloth as the Progressive Trotter. Their willingness to promote the stinking lies behind the GW scam is proof enough, or you could also ask why they don’t have columns from Mark Steyn or Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin.
Its because they exist not to bring us objective reporting or unbaised news, but to promote the ideology of Progressivism. Scum who have betrayed the craft of journalism to their political masters.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:53 am
It’s worth noting, that the words “denier” and “traitor” have no place in science, they are the words of religious zealots. That’s what we are seeing here, a malign campaign by a group of religious extremists trying by all the various propaganda tricks to enforce conformance with their dogma. Which is why comments about reality and hangover’s should be such a laugh.
December 11th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
I do recommend this working paper from Kersten Green et al on alarmist campaigns. My contribution is acknowledged but us trivial in terms of the output in the paper. I just filled out a form.
http://kestencgreen.com/green&armstrong-agw-analogies.pdf?wwparam=1260383354
And here are their comments on polar bear populations.
http://forecastingprinciples.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=79&Itemid=131
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Stephen, I think you will find that, almost to a man, you will get no arguments from climate sceptics about the need for conservation of endangered species (except mosquitos, fireants and flies), ecological protection and pollution control measures (same thing really). Also for the need for clean water and clean air.
Where the argument comes in is when it is all hung round the neck of the climate change albatross and the population is being scared and manipulated by major global influencers in a way that will noy=t improve the lot of genuinely endangered species and places one jot.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
stephen- I have responded in the past. let me outline my objections.
First, it gives tacit approval to mislead or lie to the public about extinction threats. That simply does not sit well with scientific integrity.
Second, the reality is that there is only so many conservation dollars governments, industry and the public are willing to provide. It’s tough getting any resources for the creepy-crawlies and the scalies, without having some cute mammal jump the queue due to an exaggerated extinction risk.
Third, I don’t think it works. What you end up with is large reserve areas but of a narrowed landscape type. There is plenty of evidence that several small reserves- often with more diverse landscapes- delivers more biodiversity. Where we have tested reserves developed under an umbrella ‘cute’ species for invertbrates, the results are often disappointing. Many endangered species still live in- or depend on habitat types- outside these large reserves. Some species cope well with patch shrinkage (small reserrves) but badly with patch separation. Some don’t cope well with patch shrinkage, but handle separation better. In short, it’s actually very hard finding an umbrella species that actually works.
If we take the gharial as a counter example, this is a species that formerly inhabited much of the river systems of India. India is a mega diverse country for species richness. The gharial functioned as the top predator (like polar bears), and if a like level of concern was manifested to tigers and polar bears, there would be significant spillovers into amphibious and aquatic vertberates and invertebrates for India.
So the question is why are we concerned about hypothetical declines in polar bears, when we have very real declines in an other top predator like the gharial? I think it is simply that polar bears have been picked because of their capacity to manipulate public opinion. They are a better propaganda vehicle. This isn’t about conservation. This is about deceiving the public for a political outcome, not a conservation outcome.
I wonder how many people even knew the gharial was in trouble before I mentioned it today?
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
I had never heard of the gharial Chthoniid. Interesting that it is one of the biggest crocodiles (unless you put me straight on that). But weak jaws mean less threat to humans.
But I wasn’t alarmed that a polar bear would eat uit’s own species.
And I think the concocted shock tactics (of both sides of the climate debate) is a bad and sad sign of what lengths people will go to to try and force their propaganda.
December 11th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
“I think the concocted shock tactics (of both sides of the climate debate) ”
More lies. Trying to insidiously and deceptively equate those who promote truth with the evil Stalinist propagandists who promote the political scam of the century. Gawd you are one odious and contemptible customer.
December 11th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Ah, the master baiter, chief concocted shock tactician. Attack attack attack gets a bit tedious and pathetic Red.
Is it true you cut your pills in half and only swallow the right side?
December 11th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Here’s a fun clip concerning Al Bore,polar bears and a challenge to environmental “journalists”.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/280354
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Why are we making a big deal out of polar bears eating other polar bears? It happens elsewhere in the animal kingdom. Lions,rats, chimpanzees. People need to get over themselves. It even happens in humans. I refer you to the 1960s documentary “Africa Addio, which is on you tube (Italian with english subtitles). It talks about waring humans eating the livers of those they have killed. Amongst humans, it is never about global warming but about territory, land, fucking and innate tribalisms. I am sure this is what drives polar bears to eat each other. I am sure the practice has existed since the “dream time”.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Grizz you don’t need to go off shore to find examples of people eating eachother. Think where you are man.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Hey pete, cut out the middle man and change your name to “Hidden due to low comment rating.” Save us all some time.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Grizz, right.
If we look at the entire quote from DPF’s link by the Inuits –
That says it all really. He emphasized the word ‘normal’ twice there, and they should know.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
“Attack attack attack gets a bit tedious and pathetic Red.”
Take it from me, nowhere near as tedious as witnessing your squirming and deceit and artifice in your yellow backed attempts to portray yourself as a moderate.
You’re an extreme left fake. A poseur. A cheat and a mendicant. Don’t ever pretend to me to be anything else Pete, because I can see right through you. Deceit drips from every letter of every word of every sentence in every paragraph of every post.
If you had any balls, you’d cease this charade and come out of the extreme left closet you skulk in.
December 11th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Murray, that highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the new karma filters.
The first post was deliberate stirring, I thought that was reinforcing DPF’s intention of the topic but I knew that would get put down.
2 I thought was a reasonable counterpoint from a reputable scientist (chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of the journal Science.) but because it questioned Palin and used the word denier I guess it’s not surprising it was downed. Interesting thing in the next topic (GD) someone else referred to the same Palin article and got positives.
3 was I think very balanced and relevant to the topic and was asking reasonable questions about what polar bear numbers are really doing, with some relevant links. Why was that jumped on? I know I’m not flavour of the blog and I realise I get a fair few auto downs but I find that one surprising. I guess it means a lot here don’t want to discuss or debate, they seem to only want to reinforce their fixed views and frown on anyone questioning them.
4 and 5 were facetious although trying to provoke a bit of deeper thinking but that was not appreciated, not quote hidden yet.
6 is interesting – in response to a standard putdown of the Standard I implied that posters here were not always shining examples of reasonableness but that broke the “they bad, we good” rule so of course is headed down too.
7 was simply a question asking someone obviously more knowledgeable about polar bear numbers and that’s going down too (2-11). Is it because most don’t bother reading and just auto down on the name? Or is it because it questions a claim at the start of the thread that remains unsupported (it appears to be wrong)?
Then I got into a discussion (thanks Chthoniid) where I learnt some interesting stuff but I have been consistently downed through that too.
I just thought that was an interesting analysis.
I’m aware there are some here who simply choose to dislike anything I post on a personal basis.
I wouldn’t be here if I just wanted to join a closed mind self admiration society. That’s just about all Kiwiblog would be if people like Murray were able to vote for who contributed.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Ok Red, I’m prepared to do that. You choose a couple of posters from Dunedin that are prepared to meet me and verify my closet.
Have you got any balls?
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Waaaa waaa waaaa.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
And the AGW chest beaters wail on unabated.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
well Pete, your first posts were AGW propaganda, after that you were treated like the boy who cried wolf, and I doubt that you’re going to get many people to change their opinion about you now. Time for a new name perhaps?
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
lol the pic is meant to be real? i thought this was a piss take.
love the hiding of posts for negative karma. outstanding
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
I too fear the day when we are pursued across the frozen tundra of the Canterbury plains, chased by marauding packs of cannabalistic Polar Bears.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
I can’t be the only one getting tired of the moderate centre left’s constant wanking on about clomute chonge. Though it is nice to have poorly rated posts by hidden – combined with Rip, it’s like having a double hull with which to traverse the decrepit sea of left wing argument.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Show me any? I’ve certainly questioned more than a few posts against AGW, that just seems to be heresy here, but that’s quite different to posting propaganda.
Why? It’s the only one I’ve got.
Hurf (if you are not still RIPing me), it sounds like you are on the wrong blog, this is an open blog. And, ah, most of the consistent climate propaganda on here comes from the other side.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
I don’t know pete, perhaps “That photo is a symbol of what we are doing to our planet. “?
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Is that the other side to you Pete? You spend 99% of your posts attempting to knock back anyone who refuses to worship at the Climate Change altar, yet when challenged claim to be keeping an open mind. It’s just not credible. You are, by your own consistency of theme, cast as a AGW believer. Be man enough to admit it.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Pete,
This karma censorship is a bit annoying, but your comments are mostly good especially the buried ones. Climate change is real enough to deserve someone portraying the evidence and you are doing a good job.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Yeah, Rightnow, that was deliberately provocative – trying to follow DPF’s lead and provoke thought and discussion – but isn’t there a touch of truth? Aren’t we cannibalising our planet a little bit at least? And most of us with looks of “so what?”?
As Chthoniid says, the polar bear may not be at immediate risk but a heck of a lot of other species are – and often indisputably due to human encroachment. And waiting until we invent some new technology won’t repair what has been lost for ever.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
getstaffed, because I call you on your extreme claims that doesn’t by default make me a fan for the opposite. Can you point to any posts where I have “worshipped at the Climate Change altar”?
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
pete, You show me your consistently balanced opinion and I’ll retract. But you won’t be able to do that. You are firmly in the camp that believes AGW is real.
Why are you so intent on telling us you’re sitting on the fence, when it’s clear to everyone that your mind is made up?
Haven’t seen you call me on any ‘extreme claims’ lately. I’ll keep an eye out though.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Pete, I’m not going to deny that earth’s resources are constantly exploited, and I’m in favour of action such as cleaning up waterways, limiting toxic outputs etc. I don’t believe there is any place for deception however, and that is why I am so anti the AGW movement. While some of the goals might be good, overall it is misguided. Sure the product of burning fossil fuels is stinky and undesirable, but that doesn’t mean it is going to cause catastrophic warming to our planet which has been far warmer in the past and should be warming up right now as we’ve come out of the little ice age.
Vote:Scorn is well targetted at those who won’t open their eyes and question whether we’re taking the right approach to the threats to our environment, because the AGW scam isn’t going to result in any benefits by having commitments to CO2 cuts that no country is likely to achieve. 90% of the carbon trading so far has apparently been tainted by corruption, why would anybody think that would improve?
December 11th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Sure, I think it is likely to be real. Most data and real world indicators currently point that way. It is a widely held informed belief. But believing that is totally different to “worshipping at the Climate Change altar”. I have never done that.
I have made it clear a number of times that I have doubts about the extent of the effect, and the effect of it’s variablity, and and I have also made it clear I have serious doubts about the necessity and suitability of proposed mitigation measures. Do you ignore or forget that?
Edit – I am fairly close to Rightnow’s position as expressed in the previous post.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
More on Rightnow’s post at 3.30pm:
I think something like what Rightnow says there is a logical and sensible conclusion for anyone with common sense and an inquiring mind.
There are closed minds on each side of the issue, I presume they have an agenda to push, a vested interest (political or business), or they just pick positions and don’t want to budge from there.
Rightnow “because the AGW scam isn’t going to result in any benefits by having commitments to CO2 cuts that no country is likely to achieve.”
I think it is more misguided rather than a scam, but I suggested something similar above “The Copenhagen polar bear with it’s likely agreement? ”
Vote:- maybe that was not clear, I was likening the Copenhagen agreement/statement to the chewed over cub. That is hardly worshiping, is it getstaffed.
December 11th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Pete – yawn. Another pleading to the reasonability of your fence-sitting. You have no ‘serious doubts’ other than when challenged like this. The rest of the time you work at 150% to deflect, deny or denigrate the views of those that feel AGW is a scam. As for ‘widely formed indictors’ you know as well as I do that science is not about consensus – it’s about truth and there’s a squiffy absence of truth in the multi-billion dollar climate change industry just now.
The fact is it doesn’t matter if you fence sit or worship at the AGW altar, it won’t change the nature of any ‘deal’ made behind the closed doors of Copenhagen or anywhere else. Anyone with any doubts about the extent of the alarmism needs to be yelling, pushing, insisting that our politicians agree NOTHING while the science on which trillions of dollars of global wealth re-distribution is less than 99% certain. We’re way less than 99%, and yet you are not asking for the brakes to be applied. Quite the opposite. I’m yelling and proud to be doing so.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Well, getstaffed, if your yelling was more reasonable you might get a lot more reasonable people onside. You’ve taken the extreme view shock approach that the “alarmists” have tried and failed at. Doesn’t that tell you something.
Truth and science are not words that usually go together. Your approach doesn’t come across as science based, more ideological.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Climate change does pose some serious problems for libertarians, how does the market supply a solution to air pollution when there is no such market? So much so that libertarians, of which there are a few around here, tend to make up the staunchest camp of climate change deniers (along with oil producers). The only viable response of a committed libertarian is to perform vigorous cranial/anal inversion and ignore any facts that support climate change theory. It’d be like asking OBL to comment on Darwins theory of evolution.
Personally I favour a neo-liberal solution to climate change – smaller government, reduced borrowing, targetted carbon footprint consumption tax (operating within NZ akin to or replacing GST), withdrawl from Kyoto and a slashing of income tax. Politically this puts me way, way, way to the right of most all of the climate change mainstream and right smack in the middle of what Kiwiblog comments section is normally all about. Except not on this, because on climate change Kiwiblog comments section is firmly in do nothing, everything is fine, ignore all evidence to contrary mode.
Essentially this lot and all the rest of the of the denier camp are the dilettante intelligensia of our time.
Vote:December 11th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Pete – getting O/T so have repled on GD thread
Vote:December 12th, 2009 at 7:50 am
The photo looks like a fake to me.
Vote:December 12th, 2009 at 8:05 am
African crocodiles commonly predate on their own kind.
But I guess we won’t be seeing those unlovable bastards as Al Gore junk science pinups any time soon.
Vote:December 13th, 2009 at 1:45 am
This is ridiculous!!!
Anyone who watches Nat Geo and AnPlan knows that male mammels kill and sometimes eat cubs.
I blieve that most of the time it’s when a male takes over as alpha male in a certain territory.
They kill the cubs to get rid of competing genetic offspring, and to make the females available to mate again.
Vote:December 13th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
This article from the Standard is based upon an entirely fabricated, photoshop green fake picture.
# RedRock (26) above, is the only one to pick it as far as i can see :
he says :
Chthoniid
I would have thought that the bear’s mouth would have to be more open to ensure a proper grasp of the cub’s head, but to me it looks like the bears mouth isn’t open.
I’m no photography expert, but it just doesn’t look real to me.
Go across to the Standard here to see the further green misinformation
Click on Farrar above to get to The Standard site
\http://peterquixote.blogspot.com/
by peterquixote
The picture presented is an amateur photoshop set up.
Neither the victim polar bears head or the entrails were in the original picture.
This is obvious.
Note the feathering and overlap between the victim head and the entrails.
That is you can see head and entrails in the same area of the picture.
Note how the entrails are not really in the bears mouth, they are attached by photoshop and extruded toward the mouth.
Note the lack of blood or other body parts in the photo.
This photo is pure green fake.
Further to my report above, you can see evidence of photoshop green fake
Blurred edges and opacity between the entrails and the polar bear’s leg:
The head of the victim polar bear has the face of an adult made smaller,
whereas the head of a cub is wider:
The entrails are meaningless and represent no anatomical part of a bear true, they are a badly defined photoshop amalgam between mesentry [ thats abdominal fat] and guts, but actually neither;
Note how obvious it is that the original picture is just a bear standing there, with head toward viewer;
Standard garbage.
”
peterquixote
Vote: