oly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6957 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3015 times:
Maybe it's the way my brain works, but raining polar bears makes no sense at all.... certainly in terms of a link between flying and polar bears. And the blood splatters make even less sense, apart from any shock value. A polar bear in the sea miles from anywhere because all the ice had melted, there's a link.
But I did learn a polar bear weighs the same as the amount of CO2 generated per pax on a shorthaul flight. Makes you wonder the animal mass equivalent of CO2 per pax if the same journey was done by car, coach, train, boat, whatever. 50 lits of petrol -> 110kg of CO2.... so all those cars travelling the motorways, autoroutes, autobahns, interstates, autostradas.....
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11923 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2410 times:
Thankfully they sum up their own stance in the organisation's own name. I guess people stupid enough to be taken in by this kind of sensationalist propaganda need constant reminding of how foolish their mission is...
Incidentally yes, this was posted on here when it was first released, at least a year ago IIRC and the feedback from the general public was predominantly negative. It only shocked and upset children who didn't understand the message, whilst the majority of people saw straight through it and were angry at the needlessly gory portrayal.
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
mestrugo From Chile, joined Apr 2007, 237 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2159 times:
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 8): Polar Bears must like CO2, because their numbers are increasing...
Alas, that's not true.
At the 2009 meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations* of polar bears:
8 are declining.
3 are stable.
1 is increasing.
By comparison, in 2005:
5 were declining.
5 were stable.
2 were increasing.
*Insufficient data to determine the fate of the other 7 populations
Results from long-term studies show:
Canada's Western Hudson Bay population: 22% decline since the early 1980s, directly related to earlier ice break-up on Hudson Bay.
Southern Beaufort Sea population along the northern coast of Alaska and western Canada: decline in cub survival rates and in the weight and skull size of adult males; similar observations made in Western Hudson Bay prior to its population drop.
Baffin Bay population, shared by Greenland and Canada: at risk from both significant sea ice loss and substantial over-harvesting.
Chukchi Sea population, shared by Russia and the United States: declining due to illegal harvest in Russia and one of the highest rates of sea ice loss in the Arctic.
bueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 734 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1896 times:
Quoting bojangles (Reply 11): The sound of an aircraft overhead and bodies falling amongst skyscrappers?
Exactly my thoughts. Hardly good taste at all.
I do find it highly amusing that they put forward train travel as an alternative for flying yet if we add up the long term impacts of building railways etc, and, more importantly, generating the electricity needed, rail is actually considerably more expensive and releases more CO2...
ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21724 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1683 times:
Quoting mestrugo (Reply 9): 8 are declining.
3 are stable.
1 is increasing.
Huh. I must have failed math. What happened to the other 7? Hardly a true representation if they can't get enough data to monitor the other 7. How are we to believe they have enough data to properly report on the 12 they claim to know about?
Either way, there are some populations INCREASING, some DECLINING, and some stable. One of the increasing ones increased by a massive amount.
How can that be with so much CO2 out there? Could it be natural shifting of populations and climates, something that has happened forever, the same phenomenon that caused the currently shrinking Swiss glaciers to GROW in the 18th century, so much so that they pushed down into long established towns and destroyed them?
Why are some people so conceited to believe that everything that happens on earth is the result of the actions of mankind? Not only is that a hubris filled belief, but it's dangerous. It leads one to declare that "the world is as it should always be right at this moment (or when I was a child, and things were awesome), and we should do everything in our power to keep it exactly as it is now (or restore it to then)." And it leads people to expend all their resources and economic power in an effort to prevent something that isn't preventable, and restore something that isn't restorable.
I believe in recycling, cutting down on pollution (REAL pollution), and other efforts, but fighting CO2 in an effort to control mother nature is just tilting at windmills and calling them dragons. Some might believe in the impossible dream, but ultimately, it's foolish...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.