Polar bears resort to cannibalism as Arctic ice shrinks

Post Reply New Topic

Any excuse to waft away the claim, eh? you desperate desperate man.. fine, whether google put it up or not, I don't really give a rat's poop. The point is, weather control is the reality of the situation.

And I don't know what the deal is with that map you posted.. so what?.. a map?.. that tells me what? that old train tracks run all over the place?.. duhh.. if you had of actually watched that video, you would see true logic at its best.. it was a concentration camp, end of story.. you probably watched 1 minute of it, how overly typical.. one of the trains that is showed on the train track in the video had military written on it.. so yeah, I'm sure it's just an old train track.. newly renevated old train track..

The map is of weather stations operated by a railroad in Alaska - a wind sock is not proof of a helicopter landing pad / concentration camp, but the map is proof that the railroads gather weather information and have a legitimate use for windsocks.

I watched enough to see the the "Air Force" train (2-3 minutes before gagging on the illogic of it all). That engine was likely built in WWII or during the space race (before we had NASA, the Air Force did the rocket launches) and I would not be surprised to see it in a yard undergoing repair or renovation. I keep my cars for 10-15 years, but the railroad keeps engines for 50 years and tracks even longer. Believe it or not, the US Air Force (and other branches of the military) own a lot of stuff, and they sometimes use trains, planes and ships to move their stuff around.

On friday, a co-worker showed me pictures she took recently while working on a project in a train repair yard. It was very high tech. The railroads are undergoing a big increase in business because they are so much more fuel efficient than trucks. One of the pictures was a guy welding new metal onto old tracks - no different than laying a new layer of asphalt over an existing road.

With all the benefits that weather control can bring to the military, do you really think they would give up that easily?

And, if they had the capability to control the weather, do you think they would want people to know about it?

All the talk about aliens seems to sway people more than this. The government wanting to control the weather seems very plausible to me, but somehow it's lumped in with the other conspiracy theories which are way out there and perpetuated by the very people who want their secrets to remain secrets.

"If the bee disappears from the surface of the earth, man would have no more than four years to live."

Last edited by Magnus on 27 Sep 2008, 7:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.

well 2 to 3 minutes wasn't enough I guess.. I was satisfied that what she was demonstrating was in fact, something that they have renovated for a reason.. apparently it was going to be torn down, but instead they renovated it.. and the barbed wire fencing was facing inwards, not outwards.. to keep people IN, not out.. (new fencing).. there were giant heaters attached to the building, larger than any train station would need.. believe me it's not a train station.. watch for yourself..

First off, let's knock down that "professional scientists" figure. The basic requirements, as far as I can tell, would allow me to sign the petition in the not so distant future when I finish my BSc, and I haven't got a thing in the world that would make my opinion particularly qualified in climate science. Never mind who knows how accurate there methods are. When we start factoring out (of there current 31K signatures) people who are trained in fields not related to climate science, we drop down to 3,697 signatures in people claiming to be in "Atmosphere, earth, & environmental" sciences. You could safely enough shave of another 2148 from that number because earth scientists aren't specialists in that field either, leaving us with 1549 possible candidates worth looking at. I'm not in the mood to take a serious look at it, but I'll wager you can knock out a decent chunk of those who don't have a PHD, leaving us with even fewer people who can really be called "professional scientists in the field".

Most of the websites I'm coming across are pretty dismissive, so I'm making do with what I can get. Scientific American had this to say about it.


Now, honestly, given the wealth of information out there and the fact that the near totality of published peer reviewed articles agree with anthropogenic global warming, I don't think I really need to go any further into this. This isn't taken seriously even.

I've got many more sources backing up my claims:

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/art ... 1152.shtml
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/debunking.htm
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62598

I don't see the point of posting more links, as the burden of proof is on you.

If he is trying to convince you, then not only does he have the burden of proof on him, he has mission impossible.

On the other hand, he effectively cut up your claims that the atmospheric science community has such a large group of people opposed to the idea of anthropogenic global warming.

Newsmax is not a credible source. The second source you listed was a reprint of something published in the June 2002 issue of the Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology. World Net Daily is not a credible source either - that article is about an essay contest sponsored by a media company.

Both Newsmax and WND were started with funding from Richard Scaife, noted right wing ideologue. If you want screed from Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Pat Buchanan, those websites are great. They do not have much of substance when it comes to science.

Something is happening. When polar bears start eating each other you have to ask what is going on in the world.

Possibly the same thing that has happened millions of times throughout history.. that bit of news is meant to get an emotional response.

Polar bears are somewhat cannibalistic. It goes with the territory. The only ones "resorting to" anything are film crews and media outlets trying to make a dishonest buck.

mmm... well said.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/polardog.asp
yeah, polar bears are just mean, vicious killers, all the time...

http://www.m4gw.com:2005/m4gw/3-lazy-polar-bears.jpg
clearly survival of the fiercest and most vicious, here...

Every fall, adult male and non-pregnant adult female polar bears gather together to wait for the sea-ice to form. Somehow, they have managed to do this for thousands of years without killing each other. Once on the ice, they avoid one another - they do not, in other words, actively hunt each other under normal circumstances.

LKL, don't give me that cuddly polar bear crap... No, of course they don't actively hunt each other! Notice I said "somewhat"? BUT, polar bear - outside of those gathering seasons you try to take as a constant example - if a polar bear comes into contact with another not immediately a member of it's family, they will fight and try to eat each other. Not the only species to do so. Just because selective photo shoots don't show the constant, doesn't mean it isn't there... Next you'll be saying koalas don't try to rip peoples faces off!

Find me some examples *not* from the last five-ten years of polar bears encountering each other on the ice and 'fighting to eat each other.'

Yes, they may fight each other, and yes, they may eat each other - if one is clearly injured and/or weak enough for the other to kill easily. When your life depends on the ability to catch and kill other animals, you don't deliberately go out and look for the toughest animals out there (members of your own species) to eat. If they encounter one another, they're far more likely to deliberately part ways because neither can afford to be injured in a fight. The exception is when they are starving, and have no other choice.

I'm not claiming that polar bears are pacifists, but the fact is that injurious intraspecies combat, even between males, is the exception rather than the rule in nature.

As I said, goes with the territory. Food is seasonal; after all, they rely only on meat. When their food supply has it's mating season, their main food supply, some start to starve. Always happens that way. By taking seasonal events out of context to promote this man-made global warming story is very dishonest, or at least poorly understood.

The original point that was made is that the medium to long term trend in temperatures is mucking up the normal seasonal variation - polar bears have less time to hunt because for an increasing period the coasts are becoming ice-free. It is you that either doesn't understand what was said, or are distorting it.

The US Government declared polar bears to be an endangered species earlier this year:

Last edited by monty on 28 Sep 2008, 4:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.