Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

I don't watch much TV, I rarely have time be be fair but always looking for stuff on catch up to watch when away with work

 

I posted the i-player link further up the thread, but I'll post again if you wish. Really recommend it.

 

If you wouldn't mind

 

Global warming in the Antarctic. Sea ice is also twice the size of antarctica or three times the size of Australia. This has never been seen before since we watched it. Smashed records three years running. The northern hemisphere is also getting bashed.

But this is just "weather", a rainy day in december is proof, this antarctic is a denier, lets prosecute it for denying climate change, obviously the Antarctic and Arctic are funded by exxon. Polar bears are too, tripling in number is denial

please log in to view this image

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06y8hyr/the-brain-with-david-eagleman-1-what-is-reality

 

In the 37 years it has been recorded by satellite it has also seen its smallest yearly 'growth'. Should I say growth, covered area, expanse........

 

Are people prosecuted for denying climate change?

 

Are polar bear populations increasing: in fact, booming?

please log in to view this image

A persistent myth to the contrary, polar bear numbers are NOT increasing. Details...
148

Answered by Dr. Steven C. Amstrup, chief scientist with Polar Bears International and USGS polar bear project leader for 30 years.

Q: Why all the fuss about polar bears? Aren't their populations increasing: in fact, booming?

A: One of the most frequent myths we hear about polar bears is that their numbers are increasing and have, in fact, more than doubled over the past thirty years. Tales about how many polar bears there used to be (with claims as low as 5,000 in the 1960s) are undocumented, but cited over and over again. Yet no one I know can come up with a legitimate source for these numbers.*

One Russian extrapolation presented in 1956 suggested a number of 5,000 to 8,000, but that figure was never accepted by scientists. The fact is that in the 1960s we had no idea how many polar bears there were. Even now, about half of our population estimates are only educated guesses. Back then, the best we had over most of the polar bear's range were uneducated guesses. Polar bear science has come a long way since then.

We do know (and I have published papers on this) that some polar bear populations grew after quotas were imposed in Canada, aerial hunting ceased in Alaska, and trapping and hunting were banned in Svalbard. All of these events occurred in the late 60s or early 70s, and we know some populations responded—as you would expect. Some populations were not being hunted back then (or were hunted very little) and those were probably unaffected by these three actions.

Back then, the sea ice was solid and not noticeably in retreat. With stable habitat, polar bears were a renewable resource that could be harvested on a sustainable basis.



Makes you wonder why people would assume numbers are increasing?


From which statistical start point, when numbers were unknown? Or from numbers pre hunting/Post hunting quotas?

 

The case of sisu against climatards was the landmark case

 

I thought that was the upcoming court case about AIDS being man made that he referred me to as some sort of proof.

 

Sisu avoided jail because the other prisoners argued to the European court of human rights that it would violate their dignity as human beings to be forced to share a confined space with him

 

His has a class action case against the Russians who altered the data on polar bear numbers

 

Pretty much confirms everything you have been saying, I dare say there will be some bloggers out there denying it

 

50 million people on the East Coast of the US have been put on serious storm alert for this weekend, global warming predicts 60 cm of snow over the next 24 hours.

Truth deniers take note

 

If this is true (as in no real data available), it makes you wonder why some alarmists claim (loudly) the numbers are falling.

 

@BringBackFootie. won't read that, as the scientist that he is has already reached his conclusion

Sorry, did I say scientist? My mistake I meant conspiraloon.

http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

 

Go and read about the link between increased precipitation and global warming would be my advice

 

One word....Booker

Go and research the balloon, alternatively you could just read the ****ing thread

 

Would be quicker if you just explained it to me

 

And your views on the rest of the people saying it?