The world's most confusing winter!

ballz2wallz · 04-09-2007, 12:27 PM

So we've all heard and seen of the stranded polar bears (shown below) that have been a major tool in the propaganda war on global warming.

As it turns out, that picture was a hoax that nicely portrayed what people wish were happening regarding the polar bears. The ice they were playing on was actually attached.

Nonetheless, the polar bears losing their habitat losing ice with which to feed off has been a major issue, and undending 'proof' of global warming.

Lesser ice cover in the polar region is bad for polar bears as they will now have to swim into the open water to hunt for seals expending more energy.

It goes on to say:

Meier said low winter sea ice will pose a threat to wildlife habitat because it means the ice is freezing up later and melting earlier in the year.

But wait, just a few days later, as it turns out, the ice is actually staying around LONGER, causing otters to die, as they are unable to swim!

An extra-cold winter on the Alaska Peninsula has frozen sea otters out of the bay and pushed them onto the tundra near Port Heiden where they're easy prey for wolves, humans and hunger.

So what is it?!! Are the polar bears dying because there isn't enough ice, or are the otters dying because there's too much ice?!!!!

Roonie · 04-09-2007, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

So we've all heard and seen of the stranded polar bears (shown below) that have been a major tool in the propaganda war on global warming.

I am not so sure how major of a tool this has been as you claim? It may have been said, don't know by who? Did Gore say it? I have yet to watch his film. The IPCC report has yet to even talk about this issue in everything I have read to date??

ballz2wallz · 04-09-2007, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by Roonie

I am not so sure how major of a tool this has been as you claim? It may have been said, don't know by who? Did Gore say it? I have yet to watch his film. The IPCC report has yet to even talk about this issue in everything I have read to date??

Have you never seen the picture before? I've seen it quite a few times

Roonie · 04-09-2007, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Have you never seen the picture before? I've seen it quite a few times

Honestly, it is the first time I have ever seen it.

ballz2wallz · 04-09-2007, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by Roonie

Honestly, it is the first time I have ever seen it.

You can go here to see how much it's been used. I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceburg

The "stranded polar bear" photo continues to grab headlines, even after yet another thorough debunking. In what has become the furry, cuddly symbol of all that is wrong with the climate change debate, the now ubiquitous photo was splashed across news pages worldwide, with captions such as this from the Daily Mail (click for article and image):
They cling precariously to the top of what is left of the ice floe, their fragile grip the perfect symbol of the tragedy of global warming.
See more articles with the same specious claims here, here, and the NYTimes version with photo caption correction appended here.

There was just one problem: the photograph was taken not of polar bears "stranded" on ice - far from it.
Rather, the bears were wandering around their natural environment as they do every day. Read the first-round debunking here and here.

And:

Even with this most recent thorough debunking, the myth carries on. The polar bear is now the mascot of yet another global warming alarmist website. Al Gore couldn't find any struggling polar bears, so he had to animate them. The US government is now researching their status as an endangered species. But they are not doing so based on the usual protocol set by the endangered species legislation, but instead in response to a lawsuit by environmentalists such as Greenpeace alleging as much. This story is far from over.

Roonie · 04-09-2007, 03:25 PM

Let me get this straight. Because they used a photo (that is now claiming to be misrepresented) to go along with their story, the actual story is false now too???

That is a mighty jump in logic.

ballz2wallz · 04-09-2007, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by Roonie

Let me get this straight. Because they used a photo (that is now claiming to be misrepresented) to go along with their story, the actual story is false now too???

That is a mighty jump in logic.

It very well may be

I think it goes along nicely with the fact that we have conflicting reports with the ice up there. One story says there's too little, and is killing off the polar bears, while the other says there's too much, which is killing off the otters. Funny, don't ya think?

Roonie · 04-09-2007, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

It very well may be

I think it goes along nicely with the fact that we have conflicting reports with the ice up there. One story says there's too little, and is killing off the polar bears, while the other says there's too much, which is killing off the otters. Funny, don't ya think?

Yes I do think so.

There is definately a media frenzy surrounding GW. The truth lies somewhere in there.

MTdream · 04-09-2007, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

It very well may be

I think it goes along nicely with the fact that we have conflicting reports with the ice up there. One story says there's too little, and is killing off the polar bears, while the other says there's too much, which is killing off the otters. Funny, don't ya think?

perhaps....the climate is more complex that we want to admit? and perhaps any models/assumptions are just like when you assume anything...

thomez · 04-09-2007, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

As it turns out, that picture was a hoax that nicely portrayed what people wish were happening regarding the polar bears.

Who wishes this were happening to polar bears?

ballz2wallz · 04-10-2007, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by thomez

Who wishes this were happening to polar bears?

If it didn't really happen as shown, then why would they lie about it and say it was?

Because it furthers their agenda. They wish they were stranded in this picture, that's why they lied about it.

When you lie, do you lie saying something you want, or saying something you don't want?

AVengeance · 04-10-2007, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

If it didn't really happen as shown, then why would they lie about it and say it was?

Because it furthers their agenda. They wish they were stranded in this picture, that's why they lied about it.

When you lie, do you lie saying something you want, or saying something you don't want?

What you want... or at least what you want someone ELSE to believe.

That polar bear pic reminds me of the tails and gill slits I see in the evolution debate. Soon, it won't even matter when or why or anything else about that picture. It will STILL get used as "proof" of global warming, naysayers be-damned, just like drawings and pictures of fetuses beside each other shows the order of evolution in various life-forms in biology texts, even though the entire concept was discredited nearly a century ago.

Roonie · 04-10-2007, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

just like drawings and pictures of fetuses beside each other shows the order of evolution in various life-forms in biology texts, even though the entire concept was discredited nearly a century ago.

Am I reading this correctly, are you saying evolution was discredited a century ago??

AVengeance · 04-10-2007, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by Roonie

Am I reading this correctly, are you saying evolution was discredited a century ago??

No, you're not reading it correctly. Haekel's idea that we have tails and gill slits in the womb because fetal development is a reflection of our evolutionary development is a total farse. It's called "otogeny recapitulates phylogeny". We know it's not true. Human embryos do not have tails nor gill slits at any point in the development of a baby.

My relating it was just to point out how you can take a picture of something that "looks" like something on the surface and totally misuse it. Then, once you've beaten it into the minds of enough people, it becomes "fact" long after it's been disproven. I expect we'll be seeing more of this polar bear picture (or ones much like it) to show evidence for the "tragedy of global warming."

thomez · 04-10-2007, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

What you want... or at least what you want someone ELSE to believe.

correct, so that you can get a certain reaction from them

Someone that would use these pictures as evidence to argue for change would be dishonest, but that doesn't mean that they actually wish for polar bears to die.

Nonphixion · 04-10-2007, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

If it didn't really happen as shown, then why would they lie about it and say it was?

Because it furthers their agenda. They wish they were stranded in this picture, that's why they lied about it.

When you lie, do you lie saying something you want, or saying something you don't want?

Now that's just an inflammatory comment and I am sure is not what the journalists intended.

This whole debacle is quite blown out of proportion in, in regards to this thread. What should be done instead of furthering any GW dysphoria with media money -- would be to pour the dollars we saved from ceasing "such unqualified nonsesne" into funding for research of alternative sources of energy.

ballz2wallz · 04-11-2007, 06:55 AM

Originally Posted by Nonphixion

Now that's just an inflammatory comment and I am sure is not what the journalists intended.

Why give journalists so much credit? Are you sure Dan Rather didn't mean to lie about Bush on national television?

thomez · 04-11-2007, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Why give journalists so much credit? Are you sure Dan Rather didn't mean to lie about Bush on national television?

why argue that the people trying to make a point to save polar bears wish that they were dying?

ballz2wallz · 04-11-2007, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

why argue that the people trying to make a point to save polar bears wish that they were dying?

Because if polar bears weren't endangered, they wouldn't have a case to argue

If they had no photographs (which apparently they don't) then they have nothing to reach others' emotional sides with. That doesn't make sense to you?

Roonie · 04-11-2007, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Because if polar bears weren't endangered, they wouldn't have a case to argue

If they had no photographs (which apparently they don't) then they have nothing to reach others' emotional sides with. That doesn't make sense to you?

Makes absolutely no sense.......... My wife deals with pacemakers for the heart. That is her job and she absolutely does not wish heart problems on anyone. Or an oncologist wishing there were more cancer patients. Or a funeral home director wishing for more plagues etc, etc, ......... it makes no sense.

A picture does not necessarily prove or disprove anything. Most of the time pictures are used as a visual aid to help their story along not to prove it.