Comments by "@level Joe" (@leveljoe) on "What the Fossil Fuel Industry Doesn't Want You To Know | Al Gore | TED" video.

  1. What? The ocean has swallowed all dry land! We are living in Water World right now!!!
    6
  2. ​ @Power_to_the_people567 How is it not?
    4
  3.  @Power_to_the_people567  You didn't answer the question. Thinking is hard if you haven't tried. Start trying.
    2
  4. Jesus, no! You obviously don't remember his climate predictions from the early 2000s. They were all wrong, and not just by a little. All while he continued to pollute like the top 1%er that he is. He is a grifter.
    2
  5. ​@Power_to_the_people567 Why narrow your focus at all? If Al can't practice what he preaches, then is not the messenger anyone should take stock in. Gore is a grifter attempting to make himself relevant to a new generation that doesn't know or remember what a fraud he is.
    1
  6. ​​ @Power_to_the_people567  The number of polar bears has increased. Thought you should know.
    1
  7.  @Power_to_the_people567  So, you agree we have more polar bears. Good to know.
    1
  8.  @Power_to_the_people567  "in roughly their natural numbers." Nowhere in what you posted does it state that the number of polar bears is on the decline. Because there is actually more now. I can play the numbers game if you like? One female polar bear had 2 cubs over 3 years, while another female had zero. So using your method of selective calculation, the population of bears had doubled, right? Groups if bears or individual bear numbers is not indicative of health of the entire class. Your source agrees with what I said when I said that there are more now.
    1
  9.  @Power_to_the_people567  The US Geological Survey estimated the global population of polar bears at 24,500 in 2005. In 2015, the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group estimated the population at 26,000 (range 22,000–31,000)7 but additional surveys published 2015–2017 brought the total to near 28,500. However, data published in 2018 brought that number to almost 29,5009 with a relatively wide margin of error. This is the highest global estimate since the bears were protected by international treaty in 1973. Enjoy!
    1
  10.  @Power_to_the_people567  "Isolated numbers" You are using Isolated numbers and that is why you're wrong. I'm talking about the global population! Data published since 2017 show that global polar bear numbers have continued to increase slightly since 2005, despite the fact that summer sea ice in 2018 was again at a low level not expected until mid-century: the predicted 67% decline in polar bear numbers did not occur. · Despite marked declines in summer sea ice, Chukchi Sea polar bears continue to thrive: reports from the first population-size estimate for the region, performed in 2016, show bears in the region are abundant (almost 3000 individuals), healthy and reproducing well. · National Geographic received such a profound backlash from its widely viewed ‘this is what climate change looks like ’ starving polar bear video, released in late 2017, that in 2018 it made a formal public apology for spreading misinformation.
    1
  11.  @Power_to_the_people567  lol You found out that you were mistaken, so, now you've pivoted to "We can't know how many polar bears exist"? Hahahaha
    1
  12.  @Power_to_the_people567  You need to educate yourself Susan Crockford: State of the Polar Bear Report 2018
    1
  13.  @Power_to_the_people567  "Susan is still wrong..." Based on what?
    1
  14.  @Power_to_the_people567  You can't claim the numerous of bears is doing anything unless you know how many there are. That's a fairly simple concept. If you're claiming there is not any degree of certainty as to what the population is, then you shouldn't be arguing the population number is changing. Again, a simple concept.
    1
  15.  @Power_to_the_people567  What a load of hyperbole! "Based on the scientific findings by a majority of the mainstream scientists." Which mainstream scientists said her peer reviewed research study contains faulty data? If it was a "majority," what was the number of those who disagreed? When and where was this concensus arrived (as if science functions on the principal of consensus)? "Based on the per reviewed research studies that demonstrate that ice caps play a vital roll in polar bear populations." Where was this argued against? You must be having a separate argument in your head that I am not a part of. It is possible that some of the bears are thriving because their food sources are not as sparsely located. Bears are opportunistic hunters and less ice to cover increases the likelihood of finding prey. ...but that is just a theory. You haven't demonstrated food sources for the bears has decreased, wasn't your argument on the loss of ice on which to hunt? You're all over the map... Who said an exact number for the exact population exists? There you go with the strawman argument again.
    1
  16.  @Power_to_the_people567  ...as if you have a functional understanding of how science works.
    1
  17.  @Power_to_the_people567  Where did I insult you?
    1
  18.  @Power_to_the_people567  Earlier you claimed that paraphrasing was using the strawman tactic. So, you're OK with paraphrasing now? ...sigh... Ahhh, anyway... I can't help it if you feel insulted by me stating a valid and objective observation. That is a "you" problem as I have no obligation to treat you with kid gloves when you clearly have zero grasp of the scientific method. You posted a hypothesis where you think there is a causation to a suspected decline in the polar bear population due to the reduction in sea ice area. This hypothesis needs to be tested to know if the population had actually been negatively impacted. It was, and the polar bear population as a whole, was not. Using the scientific method, your hypothesis failed. The population of polar bears has increased, indicating that any reduction in "ice caps" (your words) thus far has had no detrimental effects. Has it benefitted the polar bears? Now, that might be a theory worth pursuing. There I go again hurting your feelings. Enjoy your conspiracy theories.
    1
  19.  @Power_to_the_people567  That is an opinion, and it is worth nothing.
    1
  20.  @Power_to_the_people567  ...but the global population of polar bears has increased. That is the "problem" that prevents your position from standing, and makes those papers great media for recycling into cardboard.
    1
  21. ​ @Power_to_the_people567  Al has been wrong 99% of the time.
    1
  22.  @Power_to_the_people567  The conversation was about the use of private planes, and you hijacked the conversation first.
    1
  23. ​ @austindenotter19  stop talking
    1
  24. Al Gore is the Ricky Bobby of the "climate change" world.
    1
  25.  @Power_to_the_people567  Just because you said it doesn't matter, does not mean that it doesn't matter. Are you a child?
    1
  26.  @Power_to_the_people567  Ahhh, word games.... Can you explain how something can be irrelevant and yet still matter? I paraphrased you, and accurately so. You seem to be of the understanding that Gore's critiques are attempting to defend the oil industry. Your conspiracy theories is all you have to support your argument why it isn't a problem worth talking about.
    1
  27. ​ @Power_to_the_people567  Electric cars = slavery Wind = ecological disaster Hydrogen = explosive
    1
  28. No, we don't.
    1
  29. The earth IS round. Al gore IS a grifter.
    1