<< "THERE IS NO SNOW" ~ MAIN ~ MODO NOW ADO >>
BEAR SCIENCE ATTACKED
Have these people no shame?
As the poster child for the climate change generation, polar bears have come to symbolise the need to tackle climate change. But their popularity has attracted the attention of global warming sceptics funded by the oil industry, who have started to attack polar bear science.
has attracted the attention of global warming sceptics funded by the oil industry
It’s an article of faith that scientific inquiry that throws doubt on the validity of Global Warming (or its bastard half-brother Climate Change) is always funded by the oil industry and is therefore suspect.
What this ignores is that a truth exists independently of its discoverer.
For example, Nazi-sponsored research was among the first to draw a link between smoking and cancer. The Nazis were and are despicable, but the cancer link still holds.
Posted by The Mongrel on 2007 07 05 at 04:02 AM • permalinkI have found Mann’s hockey stick very effective for killing polar bears.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 07 05 at 04:03 AM • permalinkI just don’t get it. What’s the problem?
If the ice does melt, we will no longer need the polar bears to police the ice sheets and keep them free of pesky seals and their dangerous blow holes!I mean, sure. The polar bears are on contract but they’re not union and it wont be all that hard to cut them loose once we don’t need them anymore.
I don’t understand - I’m a climate change sceptic and I’m NOT oil funded
Posted by aussiemagpie on 2007 07 05 at 04:07 AM • permalinkA reply to Soon’s paper, under review at the journal, accuses him of ignoring data that does not fit his argument and of misinterpreting the predictions made by climate models.
Not even the IPCC pretends that climate models predict anything. The only results derived from these models are interpretations, and Soon is being smacked on the wrist for making his own.
Dropbears are also very importantDropbears
Warning and Information about Drop Bears
Latin scientific name: throatsremovis:And from this site all about Dropbears:
Tourists wishing to protect themselves are advised to use the only 100% effective deterrent. The dropbear doesn’t like the smell of Vegemite. Therefore, a liberal coating of this product applied to the face and neck regions will afford protection. Due to the numbers of dropbears around these days, Vegemite can be found on sale in every supermarket in Australia.
Posted by aussiemagpie on 2007 07 05 at 04:24 AM • permalinkLet us not forget the Black Bear. Wouldn’t want to be racist or anything.
One such as this beauty roams through this part of the mountain I live on. In fact one such as was ogling my wife as she walked the dogs.
Then she asked what that substance on her robe was….said it looked like honey. I said nahhhhh, must be tree sap.
The NewScientist (is it something new not to need a space between two words, or is it just stupid?) has also solved the mystery of the missing Andean lake:
On Monday, a team of scientists flew out to the National Park and returned with the verdict: melting glaciers dunnit.
Please, no attacks on this disappearing-lake science.
Hold it a minute. I’m a global warming skeptic and I haven’t seen one dime from oil companies. Whose holding on to our payola?
paco! Where are your lobbyists and the money bags?
Posted by wronwright on 2007 07 05 at 06:10 AM • permalinkPolar bears - thick coats, thin skins.
Critics of polar bear science do have some valid points. Not one polar bear has won a Nobel Prize for Science. Not one polar bear holds a qualification in climatology, although this has not stopped most of the world’s leading human climate change “scientists”. Polar bear science smells strongly of fur seal blood.
Would anybody critical of Exxon-Mobil funding actually argue the world’s second-largest company (and allegedly at the core of AGW) not conduct research on AGW?
And besides, with earnings for 2006 in the vicinity of USD 40 billion, it’s hard to imagine any academic in the US who isn’t receiving money (directly or indirectly) from Exxon-Mobil.
The Great Global Warming Swindle will be shown on ABC at 8.30 next Thursday.
Followed by a discussion…
#23, yes. It is a bit hard to get the list of the ‘discussion’ panel from the website: http://www.abc.net.au/swindle (haha). They flash the names of the expert panel up on the ad (you know, the things the ABC doesn’t have), but it wouldn’t pay to blink.
I hae only seen the ad once, and recognised Michael Duffy as one of the names. Now Mr Duffy might be a reasonable chap, but an expert? puleese. If you must have a journo, why not Bolt?#19 Umm, Wron? I’ve been flogging the enslaved accountants who are going over the books. Funny how cheap we got ‘em off ENRON. Andrea is getting that income stream. Apparently she has a special research and surveillance project. It is absorbing those funds. Andrea is also practising her skinning techniques on polar bears. While they are still alive.
I was supervising the cleaning of Andrea’s newly extended trophy wall recently and made the completely innocent and totally unrelated comment that:
“Oh, and leave Pedro the Llama alone. That’s one of Andrea’s spies in a Llama suit, he keeps an eye on Wronwright’s activities at home.
<Looks worriedly at Andrea’s ‘Disgusting perversions committed by Wronwright’ file, which is so large things are starting to orbit it. Wonders why some of the visible file markers include ‘chickens’, ‘mead-fuelled carnage - asstd’ and ‘interspecies relationships of a perverted kind with silicon-based dimorphic hexapodal ungulates’. Remembers he is not really supposed to use Andrea’s computer terminal while in her office supervising the cleaning of Andrea’s trophy wall, so recently extended by 100 metres… upwards. For the mounted heads. Which are mostly human. Oh, look, there’s Huckabee> ”So do the sums about one-plus-one (and remember the last time you did that, the answer is NOT ‘a grapefruit??’, mmmkay?)
I hear that summer 450BC in Tiryns was nice, BTW. Very nice.
MarkL
Minionmeister to the VRWCPolar bear scientists would have more credibility if they spent at least some time away from the study of seals.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2007 07 05 at 07:14 AM • permalinkIt’s because New Scientist was heading the direction of tosh such as this that I didn’t renew my subscription—20 years ago. Obviously it hasn’t improved. It was a good read for the layman up to the late 80s when it took a turn to the left.
Posted by walterplinge on 2007 07 05 at 07:39 AM • permalinkOk El Cid, I have the M&Ms;, popcorn, jellybeans, chips, gummi bears, licorice alsorts, chocolate cake, Guinness and other booze.
Let’s feast!
walterplinge—It’s Gramscian scoailism at work. I pretty much stopped reading Skeptical Inquirer when it became all Bad Baptists! all the time under the new editor. Needless to say, they embrace AGW, too.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 07 05 at 09:48 AM • permalink#19 paco! Where are your lobbyists and the money bags?
Not to worry, Wronwright. Petroleum Allies for Combating the Ozone are wining and dining around the clock to insure that climate change skeptics get their share. Paco’s Petroleers have got the gravy train underway, and your anti-global warming comments have not gone unnoticed! A cut of the propaganda profits will be coming your way - er, as soon as we have any profits. The whole thing is being run by the Philanthropic Association of Charitable Organizations - whoever they are - and their expenses have, thus far, exceeded revenues. But we hope to make it up on volume.
and their expenses have, thus far, exceeded revenues. But we hope to make it up on volume
.
I snorted the breakfast of
championsalso rans, Diet Coke, up my nose at that one because I actually worked at a company that told me the same thing “yes, yes, we understand that we are selling below cost, but we will make it up in volume”. I’m sure that whole concept would have played out well except for the going bankrupt and being liquidated part.Posted by SwampWoman on 2007 07 05 at 11:05 AM • permalinkCheezles. I’ve a mate who’s a Mexican carpenter. He wouldn’t be without ‘em.
And for all the whiney blowback I’ve been getting for my AGW skepticism, not a single petro-dollar to show for it. I’m all for cheezeling a bit of research funding from
BIG Oil. T’would pour oil on troubled waters.Jus’ sayin’.
#49. Well there’s two theories to the ‘below cost’ thing, y’know. The admin departments beloved ‘full absorbtion costing ‘model, and the common practice of ‘marginal costing’.
Many’s the time I went eyeball to eyeball with admin over their insistence that every transaction had to contribute to every aspect of a total costing template, when in the real world a certain percentage of transactions could be done on marginal costing, that is, covering the actual wholesale costs of the
deal, with an undefined margin on top, thus boosting volume, achieving notional economies of scale thus enhancing margins across the board and, and…..And they looked at me just the same way you’re looking at me now…..
New Scientist descends to a new low in attacking scientists with ad hominen slurs. Another reason I don’t buy that rag anymore.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 07 05 at 12:44 PM • permalinkCould somebody tell me what the great advantage is to keeping a giant, bad-tempered predator around that would at best consider me a tasty between-meal snack? I say their highest and best use is as a bear-skin rug in front of a crackling fire.
/Not that I’ve seen many polar bears or enjoyed many crackling fires in Florida, but I can dream.
Posted by SwampWoman on 2007 07 05 at 03:57 PM • permalink“But their popularity has attracted the attention of global warming sceptics funded by the oil industry, who have started to attack polar bear science.”
Polarbearologists need to rise up and put a stop to that nonsense.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2007 07 05 at 04:32 PM • permalink#48 paco -
A cut of the propaganda profits will be coming your way - er, as soon as we have any profits. The whole thing is being run by the Philanthropic Association of Charitable Organizations - whoever they are - and their expenses have, thus far, exceeded revenues. But we hope to make it up on volume.
paco, you told me the same exact thing when I asked you where my 90% share of the profits (albeit with a 10% share of voting rights) were for Wronco, my small but growing Mighty Mo of a company you “acquired” in a hostile takeover *.
“We’re losing money”, you said. “We’re not making any profits”. “We have a slight cash flow problem”. That’s all I heard but every time I travel to the corporate offices (by a Greyhound third class bus ticket to save money), I see nothing but luxury. Polar bear rugs. Teak wood furniture. Van Gogh and Renoir reproductions on the walls. And teams of scantily clad female assistants waiting on the new Wronco “management” team.
Cut those expenses paco! I want my profits!
* hostile takeover, paco style = Apaches helicopters, tanks, and a crack team of commandoes
Posted by wronwright on 2007 07 05 at 05:36 PM • permalinkCan one be snow blinded by polar bear science?
Posted by andycanuck on 2007 07 05 at 10:57 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
polar bear science (sic). Is that science about polar bears, or science BY
~!^%&$@ polar bears?????
Cheers
RodC