So because it's happened for other reasons in the past, that conclusively rules out climate change as a cause in this case? Not seeing the logic there.
Let's not jump to any conclusions here, either pro or against climate change as a cause, until we get a peer-reviewed study concerning this event. TFA is insufficient evidence, as is your link.
there doesn't seem to be a correlation between the recent years in which mortality events occurred (2009, 2011, and 2014) and the years in which lower ice levels were recorded (2007 and 2012)
Arctic ice has quite a bit of local variability from year to year, so you probably don't want to average ice area in the entire Arctic, but only look at the habitat area of the walrus.
Fascinating website. Lots and lots... and lots of articles bashing global warming. Googling them turns up lots of SEO, pointed almost entirely to anti-climate change sites using site to support their claims.
Truly fascinating.
I also like how Dr Crockford's writing contains such brilliant scientific conclusions as this one:
"I suggest this is what really happened: the polar bear biologists working in Svalbard earlier this year knew this bear was going to die back in April when they captured him – they s
Stop lying, I'm sick of it. Just admit what you are actually doing for a change.
You, and all the other "skeptics", are pretending to be engaged in a rational approach.That's not credible.
There will never be enough evidence to convince you. It's obvious from your past behavior. Every time a new piece of real world evidence shows up you have the same knee jerk reaction: ti's not enough, there's some other reason, it happened before, what about (irrelevant information here), etc.
Couldn't agree more. The parent poster (Karmashock) stated, " They noted less sea ice, they noted the walruses, they noted AGW, and just linked A to B to C without bothering to any science in between. That is my problem." So, Karmashock would have liked a scientific study showing how AGW led to the Walrus landing. So, when an abberation occurs, it can't be accepted as related to anything else, unless there is some "science in between". Really, it is too late for that. The abberation has already occured.
So because it's happened for other reasons in the past, that conclusively rules out climate change as a cause in this case? Not seeing the logic there.
Let's not jump to any conclusions here, either pro or against climate change as a cause, until we get a peer-reviewed study concerning this event. TFA is insufficient evidence, as is your link.
there doesn't seem to be a correlation between the recent years in which mortality events occurred (2009, 2011, and 2014) and the years in which lower ice levels were recorded (2007 and 2012)
Arctic ice has quite a bit of local variability from year to year, so you probably don't want to average ice area in the entire Arctic, but only look at the habitat area of the walrus.
Fascinating website. Lots and lots ... and lots of articles bashing global warming. Googling them turns up lots of SEO, pointed almost entirely to anti-climate change sites using site to support their claims.
Truly fascinating.
I also like how Dr Crockford's writing contains such brilliant scientific conclusions as this one:
"I suggest this is what really happened: the polar bear biologists working in Svalbard earlier this year knew this bear was going to die back in April when they captured him – they s
You, and all the other "skeptics", are pretending to be engaged in a rational approach.That's not credible.
There will never be enough evidence to convince you. It's obvious from your past behavior. Every time a new piece of real world evidence shows up you have the same knee jerk reaction: ti's not enough, there's some other reason, it happened before, what about (irrelevant information here), etc.
So there is an extraordinar