Cows absolved of causing global warming with nitrous oxide

[konradv]

You have to wonder. We have had animals farting in the woods for more than 10,000 years. But suddenly it's a danger?
---------------------------

It's not animals in the woods that are the problem. They've been there forever. It's the agency of man that's the bottom line for AGW. That would be factory meat farms, not natural wildlife.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yep, but ol' Teabagger apperantly doesn't know the differance between open range and factory livestock.

 

[gslack]

Humans are the only predators that are a danger to humans.

Oh really?

You didn't hear about the jogger (last month) in Alaska that was found to have been eaten by wolves?

The Polar Bear populations has exploded so much they have carry rifles with then (in Alaska) because a Polar Bear will eat you as soon as eat a seal.

Looks like mother nature is still a danger.

Which BTW, runs counter to the lie that "global warming" is depleting the Polar Bear. Quite the contrary, the population has gone up.

What the Experts Say - Polar Bears International

Polar bears in recent decades

Papers on polar bear populations AGW Observer

Just want to show how you either don't actually read half of what you post, or that you only see and get what you want to from it...

Your first link....What the Experts Say - Polar Bears International

On that site we find a whole bunch of videos with experts on polar bears talking about, you guessed it polar bears.

The first video was a professor whom they call the grandfather of polar bears, being interviewed by a kid. he talks very lightly and unscientifically about polar bears and answers the kids questions. he makes mention very briefly of what he calls "Global Warming" twice in the 7 minute video.

Well someone should explain to the guy its called climate change now because it could get colder or warmer they just don't know.... Second, thats science? he tells us very briefly that global warming could effect polar bears.... Could? Well thats like saying I could run over a person with my car today.. I mean I could but is it likely I will? Or should I plan on the fact I might and not leave the house? No thanks...

The other videos are more or less the same type of thing, each with a very brief tie in to climate change.. one guy really struck me as being a bit out of place in this global warming tie in. he said polar bears are nesting more on land than they used to. And here is the kicker, He never said it was due to climate change... He said it was due to increasing industrial activity.... Wow, a bit of a stretch to tie that into AGW....

Looking at this page I noticed they are experts on polar bears, and not on climate. Also that they are wanting to protect polar bears, and the MSM tells them climate change will kill them. SO what do you think they are going to say? Seriously, this is asking the guilty if they did it or not and then just deciding their guilt based on that..

And the thing that got me the most on the site? An ad on the left hand side from you will never guess.... One of the BIG Players in BIG OIL themselves, BP... Yep the devil himself... They preach against climate change, blame the burning of fossil fuels but they post an ad from on of the main oil companies in the world on their site..... Yeah! Thats the hypocrisy in all this in all its glaring reality.

Your next link..... Polar bears in recent decades

Here is the only really relevant part in all of it where climate change is concerned. Please notice the bolded parts I made....

While the ultimate or progressively evolving effects of climatic change on polar bear populations is not certain, we do recognize that even minor climate changes could likely have a profound effect on polar bears. The following is from the IUCN/Species Survival Commission, Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) web site and in summary indicates the following:

• Climate changes on prey species will have a negative effect on polar bears
• increased snow can result in reduced success in successfully entering seal birth lairs
  
• decreased snow or increased seasonal rain patterns could effect seal pupping by not providing adequate snow for construction of birth lairs or if rain fall by collapsing birth lairs thus reducing seal productivity
• prey reductions could effect polar bear condition and ultimately cub production and survival
  
  
• Changes that alter the period of ice coverage could affect distribution and impact polar bears

• bears may spend greater amounts of time on land
• extended use of terrestrial areas would ultimately effect physical condition of bears when forced to rely on fat stores
• decreased physical condition could effect production and survival
  
• bears using deteriorating pack ice may experience increased energetic costs associated with movements and swimming
  
• Denning could be impacted by unusual warm spells
• access to high quality denning areas may be limited or restricted
  
• use of less desirable denning habitat could have impacts on reproduction and survival
  
• rain or warming could directly cause snow dens to collapse or be opened to ambient conditions
  
• loss of thermal insulative properties in opened dens could affect litter survival

As a case in point, in Western Hudson Bay researchers have collected demographic information on polar bears since 1981. Over this time frame and location the sea ice breakup has been occurring earlier. The earlier breakup has been related to the poorer condition of polar bears and there is a correlation between the earlier breakup and a decadal scale pattern of warming air temperatures during the spring between 1950 and 1990. It appears that earlier breakup caused by warmer temperatures has resulted in declines in physical and reproductive parameters of polar bears in this area. This is the only study to date to demonstrate the effects of changed environment resulting from climate changes, and a corresponding effect on polar bears. Climate change is not uniform in all areas of the Arctic, however. Since Hudson Bay is located at the southern most extent of the range of polar bears, findings here may be a forewarning of changes to come in future years for other areas of the Arctic. Clearly, climate change and its effect on sea ice and polar bears should be closely monitored in future years.

Now if you look at that crap you may notice some real problems with waht oldsocks likes to preach and what they say. First they tell us its hard to make a real judgement on climate change in regards to polar bears because the information is not all there yet.. Then they go ahead and tell us all things that COULD happen because of climate change..... Okay and again I could do a lot of things but I am not going to plan on most of them just them same. And I especially won't use the fear of it to pass a tax on life...

Your next link....Papers on polar bear populations AGW Observer

This was no surprise oldsocks uses this place a lot.... This blog, (and yes it is a blog it uses wordpress and is set up like a blog) likes to troll the science journal synapses for pertinent climate change papers and then posts briefs on those briefs about them... Kind of just like what oldsocks does here huh.... Any way I looked it over and noticed right away this blog is parroting what others have said and is like a AGW faithful information portal. Kind of a green web forum propagandists toolbox...

This douche bag site even has a page dedicated to so-called "debunked anti-AGW papers"... I looked it over and found that all of the so-called debunking was done by other bloggers like him or similar.... No scientific review or found to be flawed by peer review like oldsocks and DR Douchebag like to cry about all the time. just a bunch of bloggers talking shit and calling it wrong.. Gee I could do that too then couldn't I..... Yeah...

The site has a dandy little "about" page as well... On it they tell you in a very up front way that they are a site dedicated to promoting AGW theory.. WOW way to go right for the unbiased and scientific source azzhole!... LOL..

But don't take my word for it....

About

This blog is about climate science with an emphasis on the observations of the climate change that is currently ongoing. Specifically the emphasis will be on those observations that show that it is mankind that is and has been causing this current climate change by greenhouse gas emissions. The AGW in the title stands for Anthropogenic Global Warming, which is a commonly used term for the current human-caused climate change.

I am not a professional climate scientist, but just an interested layman who has been getting familiar particularly to the observational side of the issue by reading the research papers on the subject. I hope I can offer some relevant information on the subject especially as the public discussion on the subject tends to focus more on what climate models can do instead of emphasizing the observational body of evidence which is very large and in my opinion convincing by itself even without far-reaching climate theories or models.
About author:
- Name: Ari Jokimäki
- Location: Espoo, Finland
- Year of birth: 1967
- Education: Bachelor’s degree in computer engineering
- Other hobbies: Astronomy, observing and documenting nature, guitar & bass playing

From that we see this guy is only going to show one side of the argument. So as far as science is concerned, not gonna get it there, not real science just his cherry-picking... The next thing we can safely say is he is basically full of shit and declares his site to be about and pertaining to one thing, while he posts and its body shows it is about another.

he said : " I am not a professional climate scientist, but just an interested layman who has been getting familiar particularly to the observational side of the issue by reading the research papers on the subject."

Then he said: "I hope I can offer some relevant information on the subject especially as the public discussion on the subject tends to focus more on what climate models can do instead of emphasizing the observational body of evidence which is very large and in my opinion convincing by itself even without far-reaching climate theories or models."

Uhm okay.... But if you are going to rely on reading the "research papers on it" alone, how in the hell can you tell us about "emphasizing the observational body of evidence "

Freaking idiotic... Truly the blind leading the blind. Or the idiotic parroting the idiotic in this case...

Once more oldsocks we catch you either not reading what you link to as evidence, or not understanding it. Either that or you post it knowing this and hope no one will check.... Your BS is really tiresome ...