[John Whitworth]

I see none of you has gone where I said you should go. But then it hasn't been twelve minutes, has it? And what has 97% of scientists got to do with it? What are the areas of expertise of these scientists? Atre the other 3% all MAD scientsts?

The inuit don't agree with you about polar bears, Brian. But, hell, what do they know? They just live there. They don't have all these degrees. Nevertheless, I wouldn't diss the inuit, if I were you. But I'm sure you weren't going to.

[Julie Steiner]

An increase in the number of polar bears coming into human settlements in the far north could be interpreted in various ways, John, including:

1.) a polar bear population so robustly healthy that it's expanding farther south than it used to, thus impacting human communities more than formerly.

2.) a big decrease in the availability of polar bears' usual northern food sources (e.g., ice floes from which the bears can hunt seals and walruses), thus forcing them to seek alternative food sources in human settlements.

Since sales of polar bear pelts and parts can have a significant positive impact on household incomes in the far north, it is unsurprising that interpretation #1 seems to be more popular among residents of the far north than interpretation #2.

The Inuit are as human as you and I, and therefore are probably as eager to interpret evidence in a way that supports what they want to believe as you and I.

[John Whitworth]

How insistent you all are in believing the worst. You remind me of flaggellent monks. It's all going to be all right, you know. It really is.

The Daily Telegraph? I wouldn't believe much in the Daily Telegraph unless it comes from Christopher Booker or that guy the Beeb sacked for being right. If it were the Mail now...

[Julie Steiner]

I looked for a Daily Mail article on polar bear woes for you, John, and I discovered it's far worse than I thought. You're right--it's better not to research this stuff at all.

[John Whitworth]

Trust in God and take short views, Julie.

Remember, the world is NOT going to cut carbon emissions so we will know whether it will matter. Or my children will know. Not a particularly doomy pair, I'm glad to say.

All will be well and all manner of things will be well. A good website to cheer you all up is notalotofpeopleknowthat.com.

[Roger Slater]

I suppose that's the closest you'll come to admitting you don't actually have any factual support for the arguments you make up as you go along.

[Michael Cantor]

John - it you could figure out something as simple as providing a working link to a web page - which you either cannot, or can't be bothered with - I might have a trifle more patience with your constant blather. But you can't figure out how to set up a link (something 97% or more of us can do without difficulty, when we aren't spreading horror stories about global warming), and when I look for the web site you refer us to what I get is "Bad Request - Invalid Hostname", it's all of a piece. It's just not that as soon as you get off the subject of poetry you so often don't know what you're talking about - it's that you bray about it so loudly and so frequently.

[Roger Slater]

Originally Posted by John Whitworth

And what has 97% of scientists got to do with it? What are the areas of expertise of these scientists? Atre the other 3% all MAD scientsts?

To answer your question, apart from pointing out that 97% is a lot more than 3% and the burden is on you to explain why you support the view of the 3%, the fact of the matter is that even the 3% are dominated by people who are being paid by special interests to create junk science. One of the leading and most-cited climate deniers, Wei-Hock Soon, was recently exposed as having lied about receiving money from various oil companies and the Koch brothers (American billionaires who fund candidates and force them to withdraw support from alternative energy). It turns out he has accepted over $1.2 million to drum up doubt about man-made climate change. He accepted this money for publishing "scientific" papers in journals that have rules against publishing papers from people who accept money, and he fraudulently hid that fact from the journals. Here's an article on the subject. So no, the 3% aren't "mad scientists," they are shills for vested interests that perceive their financial interests as being threatened by the well-accepted scientific consensus about climate change. And it's precisely that kind of shilling that has taken in otherwise intelligent people like you who ultimately, faced with the facts, have nothing to say but "don't worry, be happy."

[John Whitworth]

Oh come on, Michael. Try a bit harder. I just got it.

And as for people taking money, Roger, you've got the wrong guys. But it's no good. You WILL believe what you will believe. .

The East Anglian professors lied. Al Gore lied. But hey, they lied for a good reason.

[Roger Slater]

John, did you read the article I linked to? I provided you with sources for my claims. You just came up with a superior and (some might say) smugly dismissive bromide about people believing what they will believe, with the implicit suggestion that you alone are exempt from that human foible. The fact is, I don't "want" to believe in climate change. It's a terrible thing. It is you, with your "don't worry, it will all be okay" attitude, who are believing what you want to believe. I think you understand that intelligent people can only roll their eyes at such willful ignorance. You're not even engaging in a discussion. You're simply insisting you are right without any facts to support you, and when the few facts you have attempted to rely upon (like the bears) are conclusively rebutted, you don't even acknowledge your error or seem to think it matters in the least.