The East Anglia thing was spun by the Murdoch media to be other than it was--a few scientists figuring out how to account for a statistical anamoly in scientific data by tweaking a model of climate change. Big goddamn deal. It's what scientists do.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...l#.VRnu_Ir3bCR

No Quincy. It was about them falsifying data. As academics and scientists often do.

John, here are two simple questions for you:

1) Do you deny that polar bears are now listed as an endangered species?

2) Do you deny that coral, which has existed for 200 million years, is dying on a massive scale as a result of destructive human activity?

Did you follow the links, John? You have been lied to, and not by scientists using a few unfortunate verbs while showing off about legitimate scientific modeling in private emails.

Here’s an article about how global warming is affecting three critters, including polar bears and various kinds of waterfowl.

http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Threats-...d-Habitat.aspx

Further info:

http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Threats-...l-Warming.aspx

Brian. This is from something called Buzzle which discusses endangered species. It lists many, many species that really are endangered. However...

The government of Nunavut rejoices over the fact that their polar bears are not endangered and also about how their Inuits have once again proved to be right. However, the release of this survey has intensified the debate between scientists and Inuits. When questioned by the special agents from the Interior Department, Jeffrey Gleason states that their paper had no mention of polar bears being affected by global warming, and that if the link was made, it was all a misunderstanding. However, he does admit of being aware that it was based on their paper, that polar bears were placed under the Endangered Species Act.

The crux of the matter is that different claims are made based on scores of assumptions. What kind of effect climate change and global warming has on the population of polar bears is not clear. The data available today is not sufficient to deduce how global warming has affected the polar bear numbers and does not extend to all 19 subpopulations. Moreover, we must remember that the Nunavut government study was an aerial program, which is not as accurate as physical mark-recapture technique. If the number of polar bears are rising, we can only be happy, nevertheless, we have to remember, all these studies are approximations and further detailed studies are yet to be conducted.
Read more at Buzzle: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/are-p...ndangered.html

The fact is that nobody really knows.

Might I suggest that this argument migrate to the warmer climes of a thread I have just created called, "A great place to argue about global warming".

I'm concerned that as temperatures rise on this thread, Steve's original discussion point is in danger of becoming extinct. Although some subject-change deniers will surely label my claims as alarmist scaremongering, I have reams of retro-fitted data to support my point, I'm not afraid to use it.

I'll be the first to point out that I've not "done my bit" to combat Subject Change on this thread, but will be happy to join you on the other thread where I will be virtuously recycling old arguments like there's no tomorrow (which, incidentally there isn't).

Matt

Now you're just trolling, John. Although I must admit the denizens of the deep did get all stirred up as you dragged the smelly catfish bait through the mud and weeds, so it *was* effective trolling. A little excitement during an otherwise dull day on the water, perhaps? Harmless fun, even. But you really shouldn't pull their strings like that... when the muck gets stirred up, the water gets cloudy, and it's harder to fish.

Thanks,

Bill

Fish on, Bill, even if you have to break the ice first.

The morphing of threads into something else is what makes them just go on and on and on.

People DO get cross about things they cannot influence in any way, don't they?

Duchess of Malfi: Oh I could curse the stars.
Bosola;: Look you, the stars shine still.

Poetry is there for all eventualities.

Apposite, methinks, and not altogether irrelevant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF9DrUXowBo

Ann, I don't know if you play poker. If you do, I will 'see' your fin (a fiver), and 'raise' you two esquimaux :
The Again-Bite of INUIT also known The Prick of Conscience.

Here is a sample.

þis boc is dan Michelis of Northgate / ywrite an englis of his oȝene hand. þet hatte: Ayenbyte of inwyt.

This book is [the work of] don Michael of Northgate, written in English in his own hand, that's called: Remorse of Conscience.

I am aware of the masterwork of the Man of Kent, but I intend to eschew the again-bite of in-wittering.

Naw? So, you don't want nunavit! Then (in poker) I win all the chips, but I will leave the fish to you. Gesundheit.

mmmmm