Climate Change Denial (1 Viewer)

[Imaginos]

The procedures by which the IPCC selects papers to cite, selects its authors, responds to reviewer comments, etc., have all come in for some criticism. Some of the events related in the 'Hockey Stick Illusion' are illuminating in respect of this.

How do you reconcile this with this?

I don't think 'conspiracy theories' is an accurate description

And see here for a summation of Curry's bizarre behaviour as regards Montford's book.

 

[jurek]

I'm afraid that I'm not quite as sanguine about the ramifications of climate change as Jurek.

Look at my location and you will understand. I live 4.5m below sea level, pay water protection tax and vote in local water protection board. So I watch carefully how my money is spent and treat coldly fools spreading panic about climate!

Other people have comfort of scary stories about 6 m sea level rise. In Netherlands it is detaily covered. The result is much like this "State Committee for Durable Coast Development gave its advice in 2008. It expects a sea level rise of 65 to 130 cm by the year 2100. Reaction measures would cost approximately 1 billion Euro/year."

To put into perspective - 1bln Euro/year in a scale of a country is large sum, but not incredible in the background of whole budget. If preventing global warming costs even 1 percent of GBP, it is much cheaper to let the climate warm.

In contrast to most people, I am not interested in discussion whether global warming is man made. Man made flood is not different from completely natural flood.

God, the old gravy train argument again. How pathetic!

You may dislike it, but Big Oil and companies producing biofuels, wind turbines etc both try to get your taxes. Your job it to choose carefully and keep maximum money! I met surprisingly educated people who believe that since Big Oil uses misinformation, their opposite must be honest. Not.

 

[dantheman]

I think I thought I knew partly where Jurek was coming from initially ...

Somehow I doubt that the real measures which would have to be taken to prevent global warming taking place will actually happen. Even the green alternatives don't really seem to be beneficial to the 'wild' environment (wind - wind farms and their problems, also their actual carbon footprint (embodied energy) and energy produced figures inacurrate; biofuels - massively overrated as to get any amount huge natural areas would have to be destroyed etc etc).

Big (global) business interests and the necessity for 'Growth' at all costs mean we will continue to use more and more energy as a species ...


(oops, put head above parapet. Apologies for not being scientific either )

 

[Tinbum]

I've been sat here with my house whitewashed, windows covered by shutters and a smashing awning recommended by sir Paul condon for ages. I've invested in prime beach front property in strategic places around the West Midlands and have converted my dog to solar power.

It's bleedin freezin! We've had the coldest temperature ever recorded last week, the sea temp are way down and all we've got to look forward to is another cold, wet summer.

I used to live in Rye, e.sussex. It one of Henry viii's cinque ports. It is now miles from the sea. Climate changes, sea levels change. Deal with it!

Gotta go, the ice in my gin and tonics melting and it's overflowing over the table. Oh, wait........ Never mind.

 

[fugl]

You may dislike it, but Big Oil and companies producing biofuels, wind turbines etc both try to get your taxes. .

You're shifting ground. Your original post referred to scientists spreading panic about climate change in pursuit of research grants, not to self-interested behavior on the part of competing industrial establishments about which I'm at least as cynical as you are.

 

[Squonk]

How do you reconcile this with this?

I don't think they are contradictory. Documented events are not the same thing as theories.

And see here for a summation of Curry's bizarre behaviour as regards Montford's book.

Thanks for this link - I enjoyed reading it. It shows Judith Curry commenting at the 'RealClimate' blog, trying to get Gavin Schmidt to take seriously the issues raised in 'the Hockey Stick Illusion'. Schmidt, without having read the book, responds with (in my view) a dismissive and disrespectful tone throughout. In this he is supported some of the other regular commenters at 'RealClimate'. Curry does not feel that Schmidt's responses properly address her points.

 

[Imaginos]

Schmidt, without having read the book, responds with (in my view) a dismissive and disrespectful tone throughout.

Have you read any of Mann's papers?

I note you find the tone of the responses more important than the content.

(I find this part of the exchange revealing:

Curry: "Montford’s book clarifies three weaknesses in the paleoreconstructions, from MBH 98/99 through Mann et al 08. These include problems with tree rings, the centered PCA analysis, and the R2 issue."

[Schmidt: Really? This is it? The PCA analysis is completely moot as has been shown in the literature Wahl and Amman (2007) and von Storch et al (2005) and above. And you think this is a big issue in 2010? Please. The 'R2' issue similarly - the NAS Chapter 9 deals with the issues there very clearly. The basic point is that when you get to the relatively sparse networks further back, the reconstructions don't have fidelity at the year-to-year variability. If that is something you care about (i.e. whether 1237 was warmer or cooler than 1238), then you are out of luck. If instead you are interested in whether the 13th Century was cooler than the 12th C, it's not the right metric to be using. And finally, 'tree rings'? A whole community is just dismissed in your mind? The community that actually pioneered community-wide data sharing in climate science? A community moreover in which the literature has openly dealt with the many issues that arise in dealing with the nature of trees and tree rings - they are the 'problem'? Again, really?
The points are even more bizarre when you actually look at the latest work that shows that reconstructions without tree rings or off-centre PCA give good reconstructions back centuries and that they aren't grossly different to the ones using tree rings. What more do you want? ")

Curry is trying to get Schmidt to take seriously a pack of lies and outdated misunderstandings of the science and you wonder at his tone? If someone wrote a book that disseminated lies and conspiracies about my colleagues I'd also be dismissive of someone who was spreading those lies around whilst evidently not understanding the issues.

 

[Imaginos]

God, the old gravy train argument again. How pathetic!

Speaking of gravy trains, It emerges that the authors of the NIPCC report get remuneration far in advance of the authors of the IPCC reports.

Craig Idso apparently receives $11,500 per month as senior editor & Fred Singer & Robert Carter $5,000 & $1,667 per month respectively as co-authors.

The IPCC authors provide their services for free. I'll leave it up to others to find a climate scientist that is raking in $138,000 per year on top of his (or her) day job.

(ref: planet 3.0)

 

[jurek]

You're shifting ground. Your original post referred to scientists spreading panic about climate change in pursuit of research grants, not to self-interested behavior on the part of competing industrial establishments about which I'm at least as cynical as you are.

I wanted to be kind to those scientists. But if you provoke me - yes, scientists do face strong competition for grant money and tend to overstate importance of their subject. Its a job of every grant commission to trim this.

And science process prefers dramatic and usually omits negative results. In a broad subject, like effect of climate on wildlife, this easily leads to overblowing and overdramatizing.

One can joke: it is easy to fund a study how polar bears are harmed by global warming, but nobody gets funds for study how black and brown bears are not harmed by global warming. And this is only half joke - grizzly bears in fact are spreading slowly in Arctic, but no scientist took this occassion to praise how the species wiped out by humans from most of its historic range is apparently getting a new habitat.

The job of scientists is to collect individual pieces. But those pieces must be judged if they accurately cover the trend, and decided to practical meaning to the society and best response which involves public money. Individual pieces can be right, but the second part easily goes wrong.

 

[Squonk]

Have you read any of Mann's papers?

Portions thereof. His papers are analysed in great detail at 'Climate Audit' and in 'the Hockey Stick Illusion'.

I note you find the tone of the responses more important than the content.

I agree with Judith Curry that the content did not properly address her points. In the response you quoted, for example, I certainly don't think the principal components analysis is 'moot' when we are discussing the validity of the hockey stick graph.

Curry is trying to get Schmidt to take seriously a pack of lies and outdated misunderstandings of the science

That's your view and one which Curry and others disagree with. Let's leave it there and refer readers to the links we have both provided, where I am sure the disagreements will continue.

 

[Imaginos]

Portions thereof. His papers are analysed in great detail at 'Climate Audit' and in 'the Hockey Stick Illusion'.

So you haven't read the paper, or, I'm guessing any of the papers (eg) that follow on from it or it is based on. You are basing your opinion on the partisan "analysis" at a blog & in a book by someone who hasn't studied the subject.

I agree with Judith Curry that the content did not properly address her points. In the response you quoted, for example, I certainly don't think the principal components analysis is 'moot' when we are discussing the validity of the hockey stick graph.

Let's remind ourselves how you entered this discussion on the other thread:

"But if you apply a sceptical mind to these 'rebuttals' and try to understand the technical details, it starts to look as though the 'authorities' themselves don't really understand the issues, and are just parrotting other 'authorities'."

Now let's look at Judith Curriy's comment on Schmidt's response:

"Gavin, the post I made in #167 was a summary of Montford's book as closely as I can remember it, sort of a review. I did not particularly bring in my personal opinions into this, other than the framing of montford's points. So asking me to retract a point made in a book in a review of that book is, well, pointless. your attempt to rebut my points are full of logical fallacies and arguing at points i didn't make. As a result, Montford's theses look even more convincing."

Will you apply a sceptical mind at who is "just parrotting" who?

I take it that you haven't read Wahl & Ammann 2007 or von Storch 2005? If not then I guess you must be "just parrotting" yourself.

That's your view and one which Curry and others disagree with. Let's leave it there and refer readers to the links we have both provided, where I am sure the disagreements will continue.

Why leave it there? I've got plenty more if you want - how about we look in detail at the errors in Montford's book? How about we discuss why the HSI (published 2010) goes into so much detail on a graph published in 1998, when the authors of the paper in question had published an update on it in 2008?
How about we look at where the science is now & not keep digging up an outdated paper from 1998 that is only famous because Al Gore used it in a presentation? How about you read (and understand) some of the science you are critiquing rather than the conspiracy theorists that are feeding you lines?

 

[Simon M]

Since Jurek seems to have dire problems in recognising the differences between scientifically demonstrated fact, editorially altered media reports and his own internal monologue I feel it necessary to point a few things out. He also has no idea what the difference between positive and normative statements are.
On his initial quote:

I think so-called climate activists deriberately misdirect the debate to get dotations to ineffective climate subsidies under "moral panic" of supposedly catastrophic change.
Changing climate does mean also 1) that warmer climate will be positive for many regions

This is a mixture of fallacy and normative. In what sense will it be better? For whom? Can you please cite some scientific assessments of this?

2) all calculations show that adaptation to new climate is MUCH cheaper than prevention

Again this is a fallacy and you have absolutely no evidence to back it up. Here is a summary of some facts regarding the cost of climate change. Every one of the reviews cited suggests prevention is economically better than trying to ‘adapt’ to the consequences.
Economic Costs
Several attempts have been made to quantify the potential economic costs of climate change. Estimates have ranged from 1 – 3% GNP (Fankhauser, 1994) to 0.5 - 2% GDP (Nordhaus and Boyer, 2001-+) to 5 - 20% GDP (Stern, 2006). Economic costs articulate the monetary cost over specific time periods (the previous values are expressed as a proportion of global GDP/ GNP growth). But it is important to consider that these valuations are of “global GDP each year, now and forever”. The monetary amounts are therefore greater than a year of current global GDP growth within 150 years or so, even if the lowest predicted costs are selected. Various criticism have been levelled at the Stern report in particular, notably by economist William Hordhaus for taking a prescriptive approach in it’s choice of discount rate (Hulme, 2009; 4), in essence the criticism is that the report becomes overly subjective by deviating from consensus. Other commentaries have also pointed out that by using low or declining discount rates, the Stern Review would have today’s poorer generations subsidise tomorrow’s much wealthier generations to make them even richer (Goklany, 2006)

It is however difficult for economics to value to cost of permanent losses which will occur in terms of eco-system services and biodiversity since these services would otherwise be provided long into the future and are irreplaceable (Myers, in Reaka-Kudla et al. 1996; Neumayer, 2007) . Economic calculations for biodiversity loss are there based upon Bayesian estimates of the value of impact upon Biodiversity. However, the complexity of this issue means it is best discussed in its own right.

3) current climate policies are not cost-effective, in fact are very wasteful.

Political statements are by their nature normative. The effectiveness of current policy is only bad if more effective policies can be demonstrated.

Europe 1) cannot prevent warming climate anyway, because it accounts for a fraction of worldwide emissions

Well it’s about 6bn tonnes to 11bn tonnes so actually the EU with a comparatively tiny population still produces half as much greenhouse emissions as China and India combined (5.3 vs 9 for the most recently assessed figures in 2005). But I’m sure you wouldn’t let things like facts stand in the way of your ascertains.
And actually the European model has demonstrated that emissions trading can be used to at least prevent dramatic increases in emissions. US emissions have increased at a much faster rate than in the EU.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions

2) adapting/mitigating warmer climate is much cheaper than basically killing the economy to prevent the change

As John pointed out this is contingent upon numerous highly unpredictable factors. The exact effects of warming the rate of technological progress and what kind of measures are used for prevention or adaptation. In any case not one single serious economist has ever suggested adaptation is likely to be cheaper. See economic costs above.

3) human population will benefit from warmer climate - changing from cold boreal to balmer Meditrerranean climate

Show me a single climate model that demonstrates this. Boreal zones are generally sparsely populated. Most of the European and world population lives in temperate or Mediterranean climates. These areas are projected to have increasing difficulty with crop growth etc.

4) has wildlife already adapted to fast change during the passing of Ice Ages. As [sic] evidenced by southern birds, butterflies etc spreading north. Including John's Dropwing, all the cool white egrets colonizing Europe etc.

I have already demonstrated literally hundreds of examples proving this is an utter fallacy. Sure adaptation will occur, but we already know it’s not occurring fast enough to prevent massive biodiversity loss and species extinctions. So one more time Jurek, just for you…
Biodiversity Loss
Climate change is inextricably linked to biodiversity loss. Even optimistic climate scenarios (such as the 2OC warming in the next 100 years) have been unequivocally demonstrated to precipitate future losses of ~18% (11% - 37%) of all biodiversity (Thomas et al, 2004). The highest (though still plausible) projections of warming predict collapses of major biomes; which would therefore hugely inflate numbers of extinction events (Malcolm and Markham, 2002)

Projected extinction models are also likely to be highly conservative since they account only for species loss through ‘climatic niche’ loss rather than possible interactions between species. Since invasive species are the currently regarded as the second largest driver of extinction (IUCN, 2009), it seems likely that the new interactions between species displaced by climate change will have cascades of unexpected consequences (Mooney, 2001). Additionally other continuing factors such as land-use change increase the susceptibility of species to climate change through effects such as range-reduction, fragmentation and changing fire-regimes (Brook, 2008).
Partly as a result of climate change global biodiversity is more threatened now than at any other time in human history, with a consensus in the scientific community that we are now entering a ‘sixth great extinction event’ (Leakey and Lewin, 1996). Many authors have emphasised the economic (e.g. Costanza et al, 1997) and ethical (e.g. Lockwood, 1999; Norton & Ulanowicz 1992) reasons these extinctions should be prevented. We may even destroy species or genes which are potential resources we do not even know exist.

I think so-called climate activists deriberately misdirect the debate to get dotations to ineffective climate subsidies under "moral panic" of supposedly catastrophic change.

Activists may do this, but all I have done so far is quote proven scientific literature against your asinine ascertains. You can use Goole Scholar to search abstracts yourself if you think there is some kind of editorial bias in the papers I’m presenting. I challenge you to present peer-review literature which demonstrates your points…

Yes, I also heard that, but this idea seems to be abandoned. As well as ideas about 6m sea level rise, Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035 etc etc.
Please cite the scientific papers you ‘heard’ this from? Tabloid newspapers tend not be a good source of information on any subject. Your knowledge of climate change seems to be entirely based on sensationalist media reports.
However, eg. percentage of European pollution against China and India (which made sure it will not follow climate policies) remains firm fact.

See my rebuttal to 1) above.

Simon, you are simply ridiculous by scaring people that every bird shifting range northwards in warming climate will go extinct.

I didn’t say that at all. I said the endpoint of decline is extinction, which was to demonstrate that in presenting papers showing decline of birds there is also therefore a possibility of extinction. In any case I have presented you with demonstrated population level extinctions in Europe and you now seem to be entirely silent on the point which you were so ardently argue earlier.

I understand that scientists try to get research grants by studing "global warming with everything" but this is plain wrong.

You understand nothing. I’m sure everyone on this forum will support me in saying this is nauseating idiocy of the highest order. Next you’ll be suggesting scientists engineered global warming and cancer just so they’d have something to solve.
The broader subjects of investigation for research grants is determined before their allocation to specific topics anyway so the majority of global warming research money would have been allocated before anyone applied for the grants.
If you think science is some kind of racket I would point you in the direction of the salary figures for research scientists who have spend 7+ years before their first paid job vs the salary of a lawyer or business administrator with the same amount of experience. Science is a vocation. When did you last hear of corrupt scientists?
If you don’t like what science has to say or the results it produces I would advise you not to live with them. No modern medicine, no computer, no communications, no cheap fabrics, no cheap food, nothing. I would be very interested to know what you do for a living that’s so comparatively noble.

I thought that you are just rude, now I see you have problems with understanding and reasoning.
Ecological impact is a meaningless catchphrase. Ecology is always changing and everything, anytime, had, has and will have ecological impact. Studying it is interesting activity, but this is NOT what society is concerned about.

I’m can only guess that you don’t know what ecology is since this is basically the equivalent of “What have the Roman’s ever done for us?”
Okay let’s start with one brief example. Ecology is the scientific study of the relations that living organisms have with respect to each other and their natural environment. Like for example the competitive interaction between Staphylococcus and Penicillium notatum, perhaps the greatest medical discovery of the 20th Century.

To dupe people into paying billions of pounds and euro in the middle of economic crisis, you should demonstrate more. That the impact is only negative and of magnitude really justifying billions of pounds spent. And - most importantly - the money will be spend the best way possible. The facts speak opposite.
Here is an example of the recent, realistic not alarmist approach:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16730834
"Climate change this century poses both risks and opportunities, according to the first comprehensive government assessment of its type."
"Hotter summers leading to between 580-5900 deaths above the average per year by the 2050s." but: "Milder winters leading to 3,900-24,000 fewer premature deaths by the 2050s, significantly more than those forecast to die as a result of hot weather." I would say 4-6 times more.
So you can stop picking only scary stories and throwing at people.

The fewer premature deaths you refer to will be due for the most part to reduction in the infection rate of the influenza virus. However, extrapolating a reduction in the spread of influenza should logically mean we extrapolate trends in all potential infectious disease since they will all be altered in some way. Unfortunately that would require ‘pointless ecological research’ by scientists. And here is a brief synopsis on the actual effects on global health.
Human Life and Health
The exact impacts upon human health and life are hugely uncertain but additional millions of people are predicted to be put at risk from water shortage, malaria, hunger and coastal flooding (Parry et al., 2002) The human-induced warming that the world is now experiencing is already causing 150,000 deaths and 5 million incidents of disease each year from additional malaria and diarrhea(Patz, 2005). Further anticipated problems include the potential destabilisation of international order by environmental refugees and emergence of new conflicts (Homer-Dixon, 1991; Barnett, 2007) and the depopulation of sovereign atoll countries (Barnett and Adger, 2003).

Look Polyanna, you have taken into account one soundbite of one report which refers to just the UK in isolation. Undoubtedly there will be marginal temporary benefits in some areas. No one is denying it. However, we live in a global world and the social, economic and geopolitical effects will affect Britain. Sure you don’t care about global warming cause it’ll be nice weather in Holland and who gives a damn about the millions dying from droughts in the third world? But when those droughts and famines cause widespread migrations and civil unrest and the prices of copper and oil skyrockets and trip an even bigger global recession, then what? Don’t be so naïve as to think you can isolate yourself from the effects of complete global change.
If you would like to contest any of the arguments above please at least cite some real literature beyond your own baseless tabloid ascertains.
References cited can be found at the end of these documents…
http://tinyurl.com/7z25zax
http://tinyurl.com/82eba2d

 

[Simon M]

I wanted to be kind to those scientists. But if you provoke me - yes, scientists do face strong competition for grant money and tend to overstate importance of their subject. Its a job of every grant commission to trim this.

And science process prefers dramatic and usually omits negative results. In a broad subject, like effect of climate on wildlife, this easily leads to overblowing and overdramatizing.

One can joke: it is easy to fund a study how polar bears are harmed by global warming, but nobody gets funds for study how black and brown bears are not harmed by global warming. And this is only half joke - grizzly bears in fact are spreading slowly in Arctic, but no scientist took this occassion to praise how the species wiped out by humans from most of its historic range is apparently getting a new habitat.

The job of scientists is to collect individual pieces. But those pieces must be judged if they accurately cover the trend, and decided to practical meaning to the society and best response which involves public money. Individual pieces can be right, but the second part easily goes wrong.

No studies of species benefitting from climate change and spreading in to new areas exist...
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00063650709461479
http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrec...ns+climate+change&uid=791499673&setcookie=yes

There are numerous studies citing species which will benefit and have and will continue to spread due to climate change. But with even a basic understanding of ecology you would know that because species interact with one another that for every species which spreads there are likely to be other species which suffer. In fact since the species which adapt fast are usually generalists it will mean the large scale spread of a small number of species at the expense of very large numbers of specialists and overall biodiversity in every community and globally will be greatly reduced. Some examples of this are included here.
http://tinyurl.com/7z25zax

 

[Imaginos]

No studies of species benefitting from climate change and spreading in to new areas exist...

As another example I was looking for evidence of jurek's assertion that Grizzlies were expanding into the Arctic (couldn't find any - doesn't mean there is none) and found that a few species were apparently expanding into the Arctic:

“Emerging” Parasitic Infections in Arctic Ungulates

Abstract: "...In this paper we present three case-studies of emerging parasitic infections and diseases in ungulates in the Canadian north. First we discuss climate warming as an important driver for the emergence of disease associated with Umingmakstrongylus pallikuukensis, a nematode lungworm of muskoxen. Then we examine how Protostrongylus stilesi, the sheep lungworm, emerged (or re-emerged) in muskoxen after re-introduction of this host into its historical range made it sympatric with Dall's sheep. Finally, we consider Teladorsagia boreoarcticus, a newly described and common abomasal nematode of muskoxen that is emerging as a disease-causing parasite and may be an important regulator for muskox populations on Banks Island, Northwest Territories. These and other arctic host-parasite systems are exquisitely tuned and constrained by a harsh and highly seasonal environment. The dynamics of these systems will be impacted by climate change and other ecological disruptions..."

 

[jurek]

I was looking for evidence of jurek's assertion that Grizzlies were expanding into the Arctic (couldn't find any - doesn't mean there is none)

Here are some:
Rockwell, RF, LJ Gormezano and D Hedmann. 2008. Grizzly Bears in Wapusk National Park, Northeastern Manitoba. Canadian Field-Naturalist 122(4) 323-326 .

ARCTIC VOL. 60, NO. 3 (SEPTEMBER 2007) P. 271 – 276 Most Northerly Observation of a Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) in Canada: Photographic and DNA Evidence from Melville Island, Northwest Territories J.P. DOUPÉ,1,2 J.H. ENGLAND,1 M. FURZE1 and D. PAETKAU3
url: http://www.google.pl/url?url=http:/...arctic&usg=AFQjCNH1iVS7vwea_V1vZYRnYVEynib19g

 

[Imaginos]

Here are some:
Rockwell, RF, LJ Gormezano and D Hedmann. 2008. Grizzly Bears in Wapusk National Park, Northeastern Manitoba. Canadian Field-Naturalist 122(4) 323-326 .

ARCTIC VOL. 60, NO. 3 (SEPTEMBER 2007) P. 271 – 276 Most Northerly Observation of a Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) in Canada: Photographic and DNA Evidence from Melville Island, Northwest Territories J.P. DOUPÉ,1,2 J.H. ENGLAND,1 M. FURZE1 and D. PAETKAU3
url: http://www.google.pl/url?url=http:/...arctic&usg=AFQjCNH1iVS7vwea_V1vZYRnYVEynib19g

That's great news.

However, from your first link: "The presence of Grizzly Bears raises interesting potential issues for other species in Wapusk National Park. Grizzly Bears are known to be exceptionally efficient predators of both Caribou and Moose (Ross 2002) and would place new predation pressure on those species. Such predation would provide competition for both Wolves (Canis lupus) and Polar Bears, although Grizzly Bears are known to provide scavenging opportunities for other such species (Ross 2002). Female Polar Bears and their new cubs become active in the early spring in the interior portions of the Park and if Grizzly Bears were also to den there, encounters between the two species would be likely but the outcomes uncertain. There are reports and speculation that Grizzly Bears kill and consume female Polar Bears and their cubs but also that Polar Bears may prey on denning Grizzly Bears (Taylor 1995; Doupé et al. 2007)."

and from the second: "Whether a small viable population of grizzly bears now exists on Melville Island, or simply transient (seasonal) visitors, the sighting nonetheless raises important ecological questions. Of particular interest is the possible interspecific competition between grizzly bears and polar bears for food and space, including the potential for adult grizzly bear attacks on polar bears (especially cubs). It is also possible that polar bears, being more active in the winter, could prey upon denning grizzly bears."

Which I think you'll find is what Simon M. has been trying to say...

 

[Simon M]

One can joke: it is easy to fund a study how polar bears are harmed by global warming, but nobody gets funds for study how black and brown bears are not harmed by global warming. And this is only half joke - grizzly bears in fact are spreading slowly in Arctic, but no scientist took this occassion to praise how the species wiped out by humans from most of its historic range is apparently getting a new habitat.

Here are some:
Rockwell, RF, LJ Gormezano and D Hedmann. 2008. Grizzly Bears in Wapusk National Park, Northeastern Manitoba. Canadian Field-Naturalist 122(4) 323-326 .

ARCTIC VOL. 60, NO. 3 (SEPTEMBER 2007) P. 271 – 276 Most Northerly Observation of a Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) in Canada: Photographic and DNA Evidence from Melville Island, Northwest Territories J.P. DOUPÉ,1,2 J.H. ENGLAND,1 M. FURZE1 and D. PAETKAU3
url: http://www.google.pl/url?url=http:/...arctic&usg=AFQjCNH1iVS7vwea_V1vZYRnYVEynib19g

I'm sorry I'm really confused haven't you just proven yourself utterly wrong?

 

[Simon M]

Which I think you'll find is what Simon M. has been trying to say...

Exactly. Cheers.

 

[jurek]

Sure you don’t care about global warming cause it’ll be nice weather in Holland and who gives a damn about the millions dying from droughts in the third world?

Don't be a hypocrite.

Asia, Africa and South America don't want to join any agreement which limits their industrial development.

However, these regions want to lift their millions out of poverty by free international trade. But Western countries keep trade bariers for their products. One of arguments, I admit not the main one, is "to reduce carbon emissions from transport", "stop exporting carbon footprint" "eat locally" etc.

 

[Imaginos]

To be fair to Jurek, at least he's gone out & found some of the actual science as has appeared in peer-reviewed journals. That's light years from what we're seeing from Squonk.