March 22, 2016

Dear Jonathan Toews: “Don’t lecture me about carbon dioxide, when you couldn’t even find carbon on the periodic table”

Rebel Staff
 

Jonathan Toews, the captain of the Chicago Blackhawks, is the latest celebrity to get on the "climate change" bandwagon.

Of course, he still flies in a private jet.

Have you seen Toews’ $3.5 million, 6,500 square foot house?

And his cool Prius — I mean, Mercedes supercar? It runs on renewable fuel, right?

I love the fact that we live in a world where talent and merit and hard work can pay off for anyone.

But do me a favour, enviro-hypocrites:

Shut up.

WATCH my entire monologue, and my whole show, when you become a Premium Member of TheRebel.media. Joining is fast and simple: Just CLICK HERE.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-03-25 22:07:42 -0400
“John Landry commented 3 hours ago
Dear Mr. Kokes,
“Cause the intellectuals aren’t buying it.” Really? With a statement of that caliber you still see yourself as an intellectual?”

Compared with the hand dragging Neanderthals in this bunch I do feel quite superior in my intellect. From my learned perspective I have a difficult time understanding why anyone with even a grade 9 education would not know that global warming is being caused my human activity. Now depending on your age, you best speak to your children and grandchildren on this topic as most of them have known from their schooling. It’s called getting an education! Some of you should try that.

Still not convinced about human emissions? Then why don’t you go into the garage, close the doors and windows, start up your vehicle and watch the exhaust fill the room. In the global warming world, the carbon monoxide is the CO2 and the inside roof is the gassy atmosphere trapping in the carbon. Unfortunately, you’ll expire before you feel the heat being generated. And because ignorance is truly bliss, I will preface this with a warning. DON’T TRY THIS AT HOME!
commented 2016-03-25 21:53:34 -0400
“eric ezaki commented 38 mins ago
“I know the cause global warming and it is not man made. I am a graduate of the suzuki school of junk science and my professor was our very own fruit fly geneticist the world reknown dr david suzuki”.

At least you’re being honest. Most pretend they know something, you on the other hand are quite clear that you don’t.
commented 2016-03-25 21:50:12 -0400
“Robert Odynski commented 3 hours ago
There hasn’t been any man made global warming. NASA and IPCC recently published papers stating that and wondering why there’s no warming even though CO2 levels are higher than predicted 20 years ago”.

You best check those published papers again Robert and try to comprehend what was said again. Don’t just look at the pictures and assume you know what is being said.

“Robert Odynski commented 3 hours ago
I live right by the Pacific Ocean for over 20 years. I see the high tide marks every day on the rocks and pier supports and can honestly say there has been no change in sea level at all over the past 20 years”.

Well since you actually saw there was no change in seal level for over 20 years, then I am relieved. Now was that just a gut feeling visual account or did you actually take some measurements? You do know that the world’s scientist would disagree with you and your faulty vision. Let me know the level of your toilet water so we can discuss further. Unbelievable!
commented 2016-03-25 21:42:24 -0400
John, your broken English, run on sentences and nonsensical delivery was likely intended for a Neanderthal audience. And if that was your intend, you did well.
commented 2016-03-25 21:10:54 -0400
I know the cause global warming and it is not man made. Remember when the ozone was being depleted. The scientists claim it was all the cows farting releasing millions of metric tons of methane into the atmosphere thus depleting the ozone thus causing global warming. It,s all the hooved animals flatulating (not to mention human flatulence) that is the cause of global warming. I am a graduate of the suzuki school of junk science and my professor was our very own fruit fly geneticist the world reknown dr david suzuki.
commented 2016-03-25 18:55:46 -0400
There hasn’t been any man made global warming. NASA and IPCC recently published papers stating that and wondering why there’s no warming even though CO2 levels are higher than predicted 20 years ago.

Al Gore, George Soros, David Suzuki, IPCC, and other global warming hucksters were certain we would be suffering massive floods, massive droughts, crop failures world wide, and hundreds of millions of deaths due to global warming by 2016 if we didn’t cut CO2 years ago. Well, here we are with CO2 at higher levels than their predicted tipping point, and no global warming to show for it.

I live right by the Pacific Ocean for over 20 years. I see the high tide marks every day on the rocks and pier supports and can honestly say there has been no change in sea level at all over the past 20 years.

Millions of people like Toews have been brain washed into believing in global warming, so they just blindly believe. It works the same as getting indoctrinated into a religion or cult.
commented 2016-03-25 18:42:48 -0400
Dear Mr. Kokes,

“Cause the intellectuals aren’t buying it.” Really? With a statement of that caliber you still see yourself as an intellectual?
commented 2016-03-25 18:38:53 -0400
He has the right to speak his mind. It actually enforces the idea man made global warming is a lie, because if those who say they believe it don’t have lives that reflect their beliefs then they too know it’s a hoax. It’s a marker for the truth.
commented 2016-03-25 12:26:47 -0400
Did you two look deep into each other’s eyes when giving that pat on the back?

Seriously, you talk a good talk but you have yet to produce a scientific paper in support of your ill-informed concepts on global warming. On the other hand, I have presented several scholarly papers that unequivocally support that human activity causes global warming. Furthermore, I have provided up-to-date information on how dramatic the effects of global warming has been for the last 15 years.

So why don’t you two hand dragging Neanderthals go back into your cave and give yourselves a reassuring hug on the ignorance you spew for the sheep. Cause the intellectuals aren’t buying it.
commented 2016-03-25 02:08:47 -0400
Thanks ClimateFallacy. It’s amazing how Mr. Kokes can be so thoroughly wrong any time he tries to think about what has been told to him.

Mr. Kokes, enjoy your doomsday cult. If there’s no falsification criteria then it’s not science.
commented 2016-03-24 19:55:11 -0400
Michael Doll,
Great levelheaded, intellectual post.

Mr Kokehead,
Your comments are irrational, puerile, and off-topic.
Anything you’ve contributed only proves one thing; that weather changes; which it’s been doing for billions of years. You’re chasing a strawman.

The concept that man has a statistically significant influence is pure conjecture that has yet to have a stitch of evidence to validate it; and no, your single strand of hope on a fudged, satisfactorily refuted and dismantled consensus document doesn’t count as evidence from a scientific perspective; rather it’s a glimmer of a dream for only faith-based mindsets.

@climatefallacy
commented 2016-03-24 17:32:32 -0400
Poor Jonathon.
Nobody has told him that nowadays Michael Mann’s hockey stick is as limp as a Liberal at a gun show.
commented 2016-03-24 09:45:44 -0400
Michael Doll commented 10 hours ago
“I mentioned some of my academic background so you could see what view I see things through: the long view. I didn’t say I was a geologist, I said I studied geology. There is a difference”.

Oh I see, the difference is that you never completed your program just dabbled in some geology courses. Likely a drop out for lacking the comprehension to move forward. That explains a lot in your lack of knowledge and it is no wonder I have trouble following your rationale. And once again, you failed to provide any scientific evidence to support your ill-informed conclusions.

I bet your ancestors ran around in the middle ages claiming that the earth was flat. Judging by your ignorance on global warming, the acorn does not fall too far from the tree.

And consider yourself left behind.
commented 2016-03-23 23:52:56 -0400
Measurements need not apply, peer review fraud doesn’t matter, falsification doesn’t apply. Got it. My line about the nature of your studies as a throwaway, not a fixation. " Are you trying to devalue my contribution to science by suggesting such a farce?" what contribution is that? You’ve made no reference to what your contributions might be. What we’ve seen so far is a rude parrot. Granted, most of the initial responses to you were rude. Mine wasn’t, but that didn’t slow you down.

I mentioned some of my academic background so you could see what view I see things through: the long view. I didn’t say I was a geologist, I said I studied geology. There is a difference. Glaciations naturally occur and wane without any inputs from us, isotope based temperature reconstructions from ice boreholes show that 10 degree temperatures swings over the course of a couple of centuries are normal, as are 100 metre changes in sea level. What I referenced is common knowledge in the field. If you insist on references for 1st year course material then I can’t oblige. What causes the temperature cycles we observe? We’re not sure. Oh, and you must not have looked closely at the google search you referenced – none of the top 10 papers try to make a case that CAGW is occurring, they take it as a given that humanity is causing any changes and then talk about (and model) the effects of it.The models are still running 4 times hotter than the satellite data sets, but that doesn’t matter when the papers only work on modelled results instead of using field validations to support their allegations. Correlation is not causation. The null hypothesis has not been falsified.

Enjoy your religion. No falsification criteria means it’s not science. Believe what you will, but leave me out of your doomsday cult and keep your hands off my wallet.
commented 2016-03-23 22:45:02 -0400
I said show me the studies to support your conclusions and instead you give me a diatribe of “stuff” you have gathered from news organizations and blogs, which may calm your personal anxieties in being wrong but provides nothing substantive in contradicting what I have been saying.

You seem fixated that my discipline is in political sciences and you are wrong again. Are you trying to devalue my contribution to science by suggesting such a farce? I think we both know that I know what I speak of. And the “settled” science is indeed on my side, in that, “human CO2 is causing global warming is known with high certainty and confirmed by observations”. Now this reality may not sit well with you but as a geologist you would not know of such things. What you should be looking into as a geologist is the effects of fracking on seismic activity. But I bet your handlers would not want you to comment on that honestly.

With respect to you comment, “peer review isn’t really all that important to science”. You obviously have never defended a paper nor did any actual scientific study. If you had you would not have made such a ridiculous statement. But here is a newsflash for you, global warming is indeed anthropocentric and here is a link of scholarly, "peer reviewed " studies in support of that conclusion:
https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=anthropogenic+climate+change+evidence&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjQotzAn9jLAhUO9WMKHaaBAaMQgQMIGTAA

As for biodiversity, what does a geologist know about biodiversity? Judging by your comments, not much. You thinking that “warmer is better” speaks volumes on your inability to understand the spatial and temporal extent of biodiversity including trophic levels, food webs etc.. I can only imagine that ecosystems must be a completely foreign concept to you, right? Of course it is! And then you have the nerve to assume a geography discipline in discussing ice ages. Your depth of knowledge in this regard should be limited to filling up a glass of ice.

In future, stick to talking about rocks and faults – something you should have a good understanding of and leave biodiversity, ice ages and climate change to those that are properly disciplined to speak to those issues.
commented 2016-03-23 21:04:19 -0400
Mr. Kokes. Arguing from authority, use of ad-hominems, ignoring what the 97% actually means… you’re not doing well for settled science. Keep in mind that consensus is a political term, not a scientific one. Were it not so then we would never have heard of Einstein because of the consensus of Deutsche Physik. The word of 100 against the word of one wins in politics, but not in physics.

2nd paragraph – Billion dollars. Not Million.

Peer review was shown to be distorted by the climategate papers over 6 years go. As noted at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102186.html it was discussed as being a gatekeeping function: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Peer review isn’t really all that important to science. As Popper opined (paraphrased), a scientific theory can never be proven but it can be falsified. If no falsification criteria are provided then it is not scientific. If you personally, Mr. Kokes, have any credibility at all, then name the falsification criteria for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Note that if it’s not catastrophic then it’s not a problem. If it’s not anthropogenic, then it is a problem, but it’s not one that we caused. That I’m sure you will dodge the question isn’t a reflection on you, it’s just an illustration that global warming is not a scientific belief, it’s a pseudo-religious belief. If it cannot be disproven then it cannot be scientific.

I talked in periods of millions of years. You’re talking about 15. I’m trained in Geology, and referenced what I learned in my previous post. I’m guessing you were in political science. As for the list you so blithely discarded, one example of how wrong you are is that the wavelength difference between downwelling and upwelling radiation is a practical test of whether the principal idea underwriting catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is correct, it can be measured by satellites. Guess what? The satellites do show the predicted wavelength difference! But only in desert areas where the water vapour signal doesn’t over-power the CO2 signal.

I know it won’t disturb your religious support for “…legitimate, credible and peer reviewed scientists…”, but one of the best examples of modifying the past to suit present assumptions comes from Australia. Homogenization and normalization were used to take a well positioned rural station and to adjust its temperature profile so that a 100 year cooling trend turned into alarming warming trend. This means taking actual instrument readings and modifying them. This is the antithesis of science. For those who are open-minded enough to look into it, more details are listed at: http://joannenova.com.au/2015/08/the-bom-homogenizing-the-heck-out-of-australian-temperature-records/

There was no ulterior motive in the question about biodiversity. It’s a simple rhetorical question to which the answer is that warmer is better. It’s always been that way. For what happens when the current interglacial ends, 900,000 of the past million years Canada has been buried under ice sheets. That’s only 90%, not the 97% that you like to parrot, but it’s alarming enough to me. Why do you want the ice to return? Our country will cease to exist when it does. And the cycles that tell me that the ice will return are well proven. Computer simulated positive feedbacks that will turn us into Venus 2 are not.
commented 2016-03-23 15:16:35 -0400
Looks like you drained the kolaid pitcher Doll, cause I have seen the same old rhetoric time and time again. It is like you are all on the same choir singing from the same page of the hymn book.

The 5 million dollars is going to legitimate, credible and peer reviewed scientists to study the issue which 97% of those scientists believe is urgent to address. They are working towards the public’s interest not the fossil fuel industry’s interest.

Go to the Nasa site or any other government site in which legitimate, credible and peer reviewed scientists speak to dramatic warming in the last 15 years with 2014 and 2015 being the hottest years in recorded history. What do you have to show, the same rhetoric Ball and company pushes in dated satellite images that speak in the past tense and never considers the up-to-date information. And why would they, that wouldn’t sit well with the fossil fuel industry that supports these quacks.

As for YOUR statement, “I won’t go into things like absorption saturation, nucleation and it’s effects on albedo, cloud formation as a negative feedback, grid size in the GCMs, pal review, changing the standard of proof when model failure has occurred, conflict of interest within review panel members, falsification criteria, H20 being the dominant greenhouse gas, absence of presumed positive feedbacks in the geologic history, the null hypothesis, redefining what peer review means…. I’m pretty sure your mind is made up”.

Of course you wouldn’t want to go into such things because it’s all bullshit. And of course, you don’t want to discuss peer review because none of your anti-climate hacks had a peer review, allowing them to spew their own bullshit at the likes of gullible people like yourself.

And before I speak on biodiversity which I already know where this is coming from, why don’t you provide the scientific studies that support the bullshit you just spewed. Some legitimate, credible, peer reviewed scientific studies that suggests any of the garage you just discussed.

Until then, don’t play me a fool. I’m not one of your sheep.

And why am I not surprised you are bored crusader girl as this conversation is way over your head. Now go run along and join your other bottom feeders and discuss shiny things.

In any case Doll, I will be waiting with baited breath your so called studies in support of what you said. Just remember, it’s best to remain quiet and have people think you are a fool than to speak out and confirm to all that you are. So my advise, move on as well and save yourself further embarrassment.
commented 2016-03-23 08:23:08 -0400
I’m curious, Mr. Kokes, since an unspecified amount of money to Friends of Science makes them bought and paid for, does that mean that the estimated $5 billion USD/year available for anthropogenic global warming research and mitigation mean that those who are paid to find human disruption are bought and paid for?

The earth has been in an ice age since North and South America joined approximately 5 million years ago and cut off the main equatorial current. For the earth, “ice age” means that ice is found at the poles year-round. That’s a relatively new development, but I’m guessing you’re not aware that geologists have to be excluded from your consensus to keep the numbers up. In fact, in the original “study”, everyone who didn’t earn a living from studying global warming had to be excluded. Even then, the questions that were agreed upon is “it’s warmer than 200 years ago” and “mankind has an affect on his climate”. By these statements I’m part of the consensus because UHI is a very real effect!

I won’t go into things like absorption saturation, nucleation and it’s effects on albedo, cloud formation as a negative feedback, grid size in the GCMs, pal review, changing the standard of proof when model failure has occurred, conflict of interest within review panel members, falsification criteria, H20 being the dominant greenhouse gas, absence of presumed positive feedbacks in the geologic history, the null hypothesis, redefining what peer review means…. I’m pretty sure your mind is made up. What was that about “Studies show that those that think they are competent usually are not …” again? I know that I don’t know what will happen next, but that compared to the forces and energies involve we are mites on the backs of fleas arguing about how we steer the dog.

One final item for you to ponder: is there more biodiversity at the poles, or at the equator? Life loves warmth and wetness, and plant life has been starving for more CO2 for a long time.
commented 2016-03-23 07:13:54 -0400
Mr.Kokes…you bore me…yawn. You must love “bottom-feeders” seeing all your posts here. You should get professional help for that.
commented 2016-03-22 20:45:18 -0400
And since we have met on a few occasions climatefallacy I think you’re likely a mod here or maybe an admin for this site. I hope you people don’t curtail my freedom of speech because my subject matter may not be agreeable to some. But if I am banned for speaking the truth than I will know why and rest assured I will be back should this occur. Just herding the sheep is all.
commented 2016-03-22 20:20:13 -0400
I said it before and I’ll say it again, climatefallacy is nothing but an oxymoron. And you have the nerve to link me to the “Friends of Science”. Once again, the anti-climate drones use catchy word symbols to make people think they are doing good work when in fact they do work for the oil companies. Their postulations on supposed climate change theories have been laughed at by the real scientific community for years now. It is well know that Harper was affiliated with this group and where the Friend of Science (still laughing at the name) get their funding from. The Globe and Mail revealed that back in 2006.

Observers of fossil-fuel industry funded astroturf groups will recognize much of this as a rerun of the Friends of Science saga from a few years ago. You can read about previous FoS shenanigans in excruciating detail at SourceWatch.org. But here’s a short summary, taken from that article (I’ve also linked to some of the various references): [In August, 2006] The Globe and Mail revealed that the group had received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry, including a major grant from the Science Education Fund, a donor-directed, flow-through charitable fund at the Calgary Foundation. The donations were funnelled through a University of Calgary trust account research set up and controlled by U of C Professor Barry Cooper. The revelations were based largely on the prior investigations of Desmogblog.com, which had reported on the background of FoS scientific advisors and Cooper’s role in FoS funding. In the course of an internal review and audit begun in March of 2007, the University determined that some of the research funds accepted on behalf of the Friends of Science “had been used to support a partisan viewpoint on climate change”, and unspent grant money was returned on September 10, 2007, according to a Calgary Foundation statement. As a consequence, the University advised FoS “that it would no longer accept funds on the organization’s behalf”, according to an email from University legal counsel Elizabeth Osler sent on December 24, 2007. On February 17, 2008, CanWest News Service reported that U of C officials had shut down Cooper’s “‘Research on Climate Change’ trust account” …

In its heyday, Friends of Science managed to funnel hundreds of thousands dollars in non-taxable charitable donations to projects run by two of the top PR disinformation specialists in Canada: Tom Harris, then of APCO Worldwide, co-ordinated the production and dissemination of the FoS video, Climate Catastrophe Cancelled. The film featured several former and current FoS “scientific advisors”, including Tim Ball, Tim Patterson and Ross McKitrick. Morten Paulsen, lobbyist and Conservative Party organizer, ran an anti-Kyoto radio ad campaign during the 2005-6 federal election campaign, targeting several key close ridings (electoral divisions) in the province of Ontario. Paulsen, in a new role as Alberta vice-president for PR giant Fleishman-Hillard, lobbied the the Canadian government (ostensibly on behalf of Friends of Science), from March 2006 up to August 2006.

Here is the corresponding part of the grant history of the Scientific Education Fund as of early last year (from an official Calgary Foundation statement in April 2008). Grant History $100,000 11/15/2005 University of Calgary $100,000 03/15/2006 University of Calgary To support academic research in the science of climate change $25,000 06/07/2007 University of Calgary <$25,000> 09/10/2007 University of Calgary returned This donation was returned due to U of C investigation that found the funds supported a partisan viewpoint on climate change.

The timing of the first two “academic research” grants, totaling $200,000, indicates clearly that they were directed to support the above-mentioned activities of Morten Paulsen (i.e. the Ontario ad campaign in 2005-6 and lobbying efforts in 2006).

However, the grant history also shows that since the Globe and Mail revelations of 2006 and subsequent internal U of C investigations, Friends of Science activities have been greatly constrained. In 2007, a proposed Heartland-style climate conference, to be organized by Barry Cooper and Tim Patterson, was postponed and eventually cancelled. Presumably, the returned $25,000 grant had been earmarked for this purpose.

But it appears that is all about to change, as detailed in the latest FoS newsletter, released at the end of June. The newsletter makes the political motivation and policy objectives of the two new projects very clear: Public support for an alarmist driven agenda has been waning as evidence for a warming atmosphere has not materialized. But still Canadian media such as the CBC and the Globe & Mail continue to stress the coming climate disasters: rising sea levels, greater incidence of malaria, extensive droughts, etc…. The Friends have lobbied politicians in an attempt to encourage a debate between the two sides of the climate change issue. But we have failed. It has become clear that our “leaders” are reluctant to adopt a stance which they fear is politically incorrect. If change is to be accomplished it must be driven by the “man on the street”. We won’t change the way politicians act until we change what the majority of Canadians believe.

So climatefallacy try to get your so called facts from a credible and realizable source cause Friends of Science is even a bigger oxymoron that you.
commented 2016-03-22 18:23:02 -0400
“Drew Wakariuk commented 1 hour ago
Kokes go up north and go swimming in all that melted ice LMAO!, And by the way the south pole ice increases by around 1% or 2% rather dependably. You do know there is a south pole don’t you?

And please tell me why all the predictions you fools come up with go awry? Polar bear number are increasing the ice has not melted and there is more now then when Gore said it would be gone by 2013. LMAO! Now go live without, since you are so righteous."

I see you got that nervous laugh going for you. Nice! I didn’t want to leave this discussion until I addressed the issue of the south pole (Antarctica) that you raised. And I hope you do realize that polar bears do not inhabit the Antarctica but likely you think that.

In any case, here is some information on the subject and you best sit for this because it will likely crack open that genius head of yours:
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum
NASA | The Arctic and the Antarctic Respond in Opposite Ways
https://youtu.be/J_WWXGGWZBE

The Arctic and the Antarctic are regions that have a lot of ice and acts as air conditioners for the Earth system. This year, Antarctic sea ice reached a record maximum extent while the Arctic reached a minimum extent in the top ten lowest since satellite records began. One reason we are seeing differences between the Arctic and the Antarctic is due to their different geographies. As for what’s causing the sea increase in the Antarctic, scientists are also studying ocean temperatures, possible changes in wind direction and, overall, how the region is responding to changes in the climate.

http://phys.org/news/2015-10-mass-gains-antarctic-ice-sheet.html
NASA recently released a study suggesting that the Antarctic Ice Sheet is gaining more ice than it is losing — a finding that, at first blush, seems to contradict the idea of global warming. So, how can Antarctica be gaining ice mass in a warming world where ice sheets are collapsing and the melting is predicted to increase sea levels across the globe?
It turns out that the two phenomena — a growing ice sheet and warming-related melting — are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, the NASA study, which was published Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology, does not disprove global warming.
Rather, the researchers found that snow accumulation is adding more ice to East Antarctica (the huge chunk of the continent to the east of the Transantarctic Mountains) and the interior region of West Antarctica than is being lost as glaciers across Antarctica thin out. More snow accumulation is, counterintuitively, a sign of global warming; more precipitation happens when there is more moisture in the air, and more moisture in the air is a product of higher temperatures, said Elizabeth Thomas, a glaciologist with the British Antarctic Survey.

A good video to put things into a layperson’s perspective:
Antarctica land ice vs sea ice
https://youtu.be/9PUmKHBtnlA

Some additional facts pointing to the effects of global warming on the Antarctica.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm

Truth about Polar Bears:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/polar-bears-global-warming.htm

To get an idea of the potential impacts of future climate change on polar bears, we can look at subpopulations found at the bears’ southern range, where habitat changes have been most noticeable so far. A good example is the western Hudson Bay subpopulation, which is one of the best studied. Here, ice floe break-up is taking place earlier than 30 years ago, effectively reducing the feeding period by about three weeks. As a result, the average weight of female polar bears has dropped by about 21% between 1980 and 2004, and the population declined by 22% between 1987 and 2004. In Alaska, there is evidence of increased cub mortality caused by a decline in sea ice.

In conclusion, the reason polar bears have been classed as threatened comes from the impacts of future climate change on the bears’ habitat. Current analysis of subpopulations where data is sufficient clearly shows that those subpopulations are mainly in decline. Further habitat degradation will increase the threats to polar bears.

Truth about Polar bears – layperson’s perspective:
https://youtu.be/MddWTJEFrTc

http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/wildlife/polar_bear/population/
Status of the polar bear populations in 2014
3 populations were in decline
1 population was increasing
6 populations were stable

By 2040, scientists predict that only a fringe of ice will remain in Northeast Canada and Northern Greenland when all other large areas of summer ice are gone. This “Last Ice Area” is likely to become important for polar bears and other life that depends on ice.

According to a 2015 study, polar bears are already beginning to move towards the Last Ice Area in response to reduced ice in the southern part of Canada’s Arctic archipelago.

A projection of sea ice in the archipelago, supported by WWF, shows that much of the region is facing significant ice loss in the coming decades – with potentially serious consequences for polar bears.

http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/dec12/polar_bears.asp

Just open your eyes to the facts Druel and the truth will set you free.
commented 2016-03-22 17:40:38 -0400
Drew Wakariuk commented 5 mins ago
Drew Wakariuk commented 6 mins ago

Some people just like to hear themselves talk regardless if it is with little substance. Your 15 minutes of fame is up Druel, now take some time and read through the links I provided. You might actually learn something. And please do so while standing in a tailings pond cause I doubt any more toxic harm can come to you.
commented 2016-03-22 17:35:42 -0400
“Drew Wakariuk commented 1 min ago
Kokes what is so great about progressives? And sorry but progressive thinking is not what progressives do, progs think any change they want is somehow progress, WRONG! I am smarter than you will ever be”.

Studies show that those that think they are competent usually are not and judging by your above statement, there is definitely some truth here. Case in point, I used the term progressive thinker and that means someone who likes to think up new ways of doing things and they’re open to change. Yet, you somehow redefined the term in a very foolish and awkward way. Duh!
commented 2016-03-22 17:31:51 -0400
Kokes my challenge to all green kooks who love wind turbine magnets and solar panels and use computers and electronics, i will go stand in a tailings pond in Ft. Mac if you go stand in one at the rare earth mines where your green products and the electronics you use come from.
commented 2016-03-22 17:30:25 -0400
Kokes go up north and go swimming in all that melted ice LMAO!, And by the way the south pole ice increases by around 1% or 2% rather dependably. You do know there is a south pole don’t you?

And please tell me why all the predictions you fools come up with go awry? Polar bear number are increasing the ice has not melted and there is more now then when Gore said it would be gone by 2013. LMAO! Now go live without, since you are so righteous.
commented 2016-03-22 17:27:19 -0400
Now here is some science for you Neanderthals. Simple click on the read and do some reading:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513
https://www.wmo.int/media/content/2015-hottest-year-record
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-record-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015
https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=intergovernmental+panel+on+climate+change+%28ipcc%29&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwi1s4qXrLbLAhUU-WMKHa1rDowQgQMIGTAA
http://www.skepticalscience.com/debunking-climate-myths-from-politicians.html
http://news.discovery.com/human/documents-highlight-plans-to-spread-warming-denial-120217.htm

For those that are overwhelmed with English as their first language, here are so picture videos to help in understanding:
https://youtu.be/6yiTZm0y1YA
https://youtu.be/xVQnPytgwQ0
https://youtu.be/xcVwLrAavyA
https://youtu.be/Jrp9cFjuYnM
https://youtu.be/__UgsLUxmos

The above links and videos are based on real science and although this concept is something foreign to most of you, try to read slowly and rewind the videos often.

Now if you need any help with some of the big words used, just give me a shout and I would be more than happy to dumb it down for you all.

And please feel free to link any fictional anti-climate rhetoric or comic book links in response.
commented 2016-03-22 17:26:54 -0400
Kokes what is so great about progressives? And sorry but progressive thinking is not what progressives do, progs think any change they want is somehow progress, WRONG! I am smarter than you will ever be. If you guys are so great then why do we have to support you all the damn time. And why do you need the government to think for you? Are you incapable of doing that for yourself?