Remember me
▼ Content

Polar Bears: sharp decline in numbers and health


Polar Bears: sharp decline in numbers and health15-02-2011 04:25
DesertphileProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(33)


http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/22823/0

http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/index.html


http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html

http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/89767_nunavut_government_reduces_baffin_bay_polar_bear_quota/

http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/06-0546.1

http://alaska.usgs.gov/staff/biology/pdfs/Fischbach_et_al_2007_PolarBiol.pdf

http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/6317/1/PolBears.pdf
05-02-2015 05:22
DesertphileProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(33)
Note to whoever just now sent a query to me: this web site forum censors content, so I do not participate here. I do not create content in any venue that censors people.
05-02-2015 06:23
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
But you just posted a great deal of content
05-02-2015 21:37
branner
AdministratorProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(33)
Desertphile, I don't know who sent you a query, but it would be great if you could participate with your knowledge in the forum. Yes, I had to remove a few parts of some posts back in 2011 (always clearly stated with red font color), in order to keep the forum civilized. I would like to attract more qualified users, scientists etc. to the forum. Using very bad words about opponents is not what is needed.
06-02-2015 04:00
greyviper
☆☆☆☆☆
(44)
I wonder what this decline in the number of the polar bears imply? Is there any study published that could establish correlations to other issues?
07-02-2015 14:30
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/44/2/163.full

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/climate_threat_to_polar_bears_despite_facts_doubters_remain/2161/

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113746

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v2/n2/full/ncomms1183.html

Google WORKS!
Edited on 07-02-2015 14:40
30-09-2015 04:57
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3858)
greyviper wrote:I wonder what this decline in the number of the polar bears imply? Is there any study published that could establish correlations to other issues?

The decline was due to hunting. Polar bears were never in any danger. They have been thriving all along. Remember, polar bears survived the medeival warm period just fine. Warmer weather just means their prey populations thrive all the more.

Russia and other countries in the Arctic Circle that experienced pockets of polar bear overpopulation have encouraged hunting of polar bears to trim the numbers. Warmazombies, of course, ensured the "decline" figures were documented...and then attributed them to Global Warming, not to the hunting.

One Example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/8390792/Russia-lifts-ban-on-polar-bear-hunting.html


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-09-2015 10:41
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Haha, Um, did you actually read the Telegraph article that you just posted?!

"Russia has legalised the hunting of polar bears for the first time in more than half a century, a move that critics say will put further pressure on the endangered mammal"

"An estimated 2,000 polar bears live in the area, down from around 5,000 ten years ago"

Doesn't really support your argument does it, although you can't really trust any science that it published in the media, as it is written to generate an audience, and not to convey the facts. I would be interested in reading some white literature about how well the polar bear populations are doing...
30-09-2015 12:53
arthur18
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
Here is some fairly recent data on polar bear numbers.

http://polarbearscience.com/2013/07/15/global-population-of-polar-bears-has-increased-by-2650-5700-since-2001/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/polar-bears-threatened-species-or-political-pawn-1.2753645

The polar bears are doing just fine.
30-09-2015 13:37
KeiranKProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(14)
Really interesting to read more about the Polar bears, I had not thought about the issue of hunting, we are constantly bombarded with the warmer climate that other vital aspects can be overlooked.
30-09-2015 20:53
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
The thing about polar bear populations is that there is not a lot of data around. If you go to the IUCN website, and look at the data, then even though it is not white literature, you are at least looking at the original information. The data (up to 2014) show the following:

There are 19 polar bear populations identified. When looking at the trends over the last 12 years, 6 of these populations are stated as being stable, 1 is increasing, 3 are declining, and 9 populations do not have enough data to say whether they are stable, increasing, or declining. That means that we have no idea what is happening for almost half of the polar bear populations.

The other thing about polar bears is that it is no use waiting until the summer sea ice is all gone, as by that point, it is probably too late to do anything about it.

If you look in the published literature, e.g.:

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/docs/USGS_PolarBear_Amstrup_Forecast_lowres.pdf (US Geological Survey report)

http://arctic.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/arctic/index.php/arctic/article/view/312/345 (whole article available for download)

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch4s4-4-6.html#box-4-3 (see box 4.3)

It is clear that polar bear populations are expected to decline in the future, even if we are not sure whether they are declining now or not.

As for whether they will go extinct entirely, I think it is probably too early to say. This will depend a lot on whether the polar bears can adapt to new habitats and feeding habits, and how effectively they can compete for resources with brown bears.
30-09-2015 23:57
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3858)
climate scientist wrote:
Haha, Um, did you actually read the Telegraph article that you just posted?

Do I need to reiterate your poor reading comprehension? I posted that article merely as a quick example. You are free to research the entirety of the polar bear hunting situation on your own. I have no intention of building any sort of case to convince anyone of anything on this topic. I merely answered someone else's question by pointing him in a particular direction.

I take it you are disputing the contention that hunting has been a factor in relatively recent decreases in some polar bear populations? ...and I take it you are so disputing because you are still pouting over your need to just show that I am wrong somehow.

climate scientist wrote: although you can't really trust any science that it published in the media, as it is written to generate an audience, and not to convey the facts.

Yet you swear by religion posted in the media for exactly these reasons.

Canadian zoologists are asking what the panic is over polar bears. Those studying polar bears count the global polar bear population to be in excess of 25,000, more than when counted 40 years ago. Because polar bears are thriving, they are expanding into human living areas prompting legalization or their hunting.

What, exactly, are you disputing?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-10-2015 00:16
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
"I take it you are disputing the contention that hunting has been a factor in relatively recent decreases in some polar bear populations? ...and I take it you are so disputing because you are still pouting over your need to just show that I am wrong somehow."

Not at all, I suspect hunting is a valid reason why some populations have decreased, and I did not imply anything otherwise.

"Yet you swear by religion posted in the media for exactly these reasons."

My climate science knowledge comes from my education up to PhD level in oceanography and climate science, as well as my professional experience as a climate scientist. I do not rely on the media for any climate science information, as I have often found the media to mis-quote climate science publications, including those written by my colleagues. As a climate scientist, I have full access to pretty much all the climate science journals through my work, and I also hear about a lot of unpublished work, or work in progress when I attend conferences/project meetings. I understand that many people do not have to same access to climate science information as I do, although there has been a movement in recent years for journals to become 'open access', i.e. free for anyone to read in full. There are also lots of other reliable sources of information on climate science that are freely available, including the IPCC reports (which are very long, but there are condensed summaries available too), and web pages of scientific institutions, such as NOAA, the UK Met Office, CSIRO, the WMO (they produce a good GHG 'bulletin' document every year, in multiple languages).
01-10-2015 01:08
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3858)
climate scientist wrote:Not at all, I suspect hunting is a valid reason why some populations have decreased, and I did not imply anything otherwise.

Then would you mind explaining your need to contest my point and why you felt the need to assert that my "argument" is somehow not supported?

climate scientist wrote: My climate science knowledge comes from my education up to PhD level in oceanography and climate science, as well as my professional experience as a climate scientist.

...and I call BS. I'm perfectly willing to stipulate you have a PhD in oceanography but I don't believe for a second you have any accredited degrees in "Climate" anything because that is pure religious fantasy. There is no more "Climate" science than there is 'Christian" science, although both desperately seek to link their respective religions to science for its authority value.

You are not going to convince me or any other scientist that you somehow have "Climate" science until you can produce a falsifiable "Climate" model. The fact you don't even know what a falsifiable model is or why you must have one in order to have science just throws all your credibility on science out the window.

If you were an actual scientist you would quickly admit to not having something you don't have, in this case a falsifiable model. As you are deeply devouted to your religion that you believe is science, you refuse to simply admit that you are aware of no science model that defines "Climate." Such an admission would not be the end of the world, but it is so telling when you go into an EVASION death struggle.

You really are the only one you are fooling.

climate scientist wrote: I do not rely on the media for any climate science information,

As you insist on using the term "Climate Science" when you are fully aware that you have no "Climate" science, you are eliminating any possibility of rational discussion on the matter. You claim you'd like to discuss science yet you present only religious dogma for discussion, and you DENY the completely valid science presented to you that runs counter to your religious dogma.

If you are serious about discussion "Climate" as a science, you need to present the falsifiable "Climate" model that has survived the scientific method. You have not done that yet. Ignorance of science is no excuse.

climate scientist wrote: As a climate scientist, ...

As any other devoutly religious person...

climate scientist wrote: I have full access to pretty much all the climate science journals through my work,

At one point I had access to a vast collection of MAD magazines. Boy, were those the days. Neither my collection of magazines nor yours constitutes science. You need a falsifiable model for that.

climate scientist wrote:There are also lots of other reliable sources of information on climate science that are freely available, including the IPCC reports (which are very long, but there are condensed summaries available too),

Just so we are on the same wavelength, the IPCC is a purely activist organization. I understand that you consider activist propaganda and relgious dogma to be "science." None of it, however, is. You must have a falsifiable model in order to have science. I also take it that this requirement bothers you greatly because you don't have one. This should not surprise you since religions are all completely unfalsifiable in nature (lest they be proven false). No religion is ever going to have a falsifiable model. Your religion is never going to be science.

You can easily find published oceanographic models that have survived the scientific method. Not so with "Climate."


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-10-2015 01:30
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Just for the record, global warming quite obviously falsifiable by observation. If, for example, the average ocean level were to stop rising for a significant (i.e. long enough to account for weather variations) period of time while CO2 levels continued to rise, this would falsify global warming. Ergo, global warming is falsifiable.
01-10-2015 03:34
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3858)
Surface Detail wrote:Just for the record, global warming quite obviously falsifiable by observation.

Falsifiablility of a model is inherent in the model. No one gets to speak for the model except the model. Only the model gets to say what falsifies it.

Present the falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false) and let it speak for itself.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-10-2015 12:06
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
"Then would you mind explaining your need to contest my point and why you felt the need to assert that my "argument" is somehow not supported?"

Well, if hunting was banned from 1957 to 2011, and the polar bear population more than halved from 2001 to 2011, then the decline is probably not caused by hunting...

"...and I call BS. I'm perfectly willing to stipulate you have a PhD in oceanography but I don't believe for a second you have any accredited degrees in "Climate" anything because that is pure religious fantasy. There is no more "Climate" science than there is 'Christian" science, although both desperately seek to link their respective religions to science for its authority value."

Wrong again I'm afraid. My degree is in Oceanography, my Masters is in Climate Change, and my PhD is in atmospheric greenhouse gas measurements.

There are many universities that offer courses in climate science:

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/prospective-students/graduate/taught/degrees/climate-change-msc
http://eesc.columbia.edu/programs/graduate/masters-climate-society
http://www.uidaho.edu/cogs/psm/degrees/climatechange
https://www.uea.ac.uk/study/postgraduate/taught-degree/detail/msc-climate-change

In fact many oceanography degrees include lots of climate science:

http://noc.ac.uk/southampton

Here is a mailing list that advertises meteorological and oceanographic jobs world-wide. Many of the job adverts that I receive through this mailing list are relating to climate science. Sign up for free and see for yourself:

http://www.lists.rdg.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/met-jobs

So do I take it then that you count oceanography as a valid science? Does this mean that you agree that there are observable climate change signals in the ocean, such as sea level rise, coral bleaching, increased surface ocean temperature, increased carbon stored in the ocean, increased subsurface deoxygenation and oxygen minimum zones, reduced ocean pH, etc.

"At one point I had access to a vast collection of MAD magazines. Boy, were those the days. Neither my collection of magazines nor yours constitutes science. You need a falsifiable model for that."

Please can you explain to me how climate science articles published in the very prestigious 'Science' journal do not constitute as science (e.g. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5832/1735.abstract).

"You must have a falsifiable model in order to have science"

Please can you describe and explain to me the falsifiable model on which lung cancer research is based? Or diabetes? Actually, any falsifiable model from any field of science will do. I'm sure that this a very easy task for you, seeing as you seem to be such an expert on science and what constitutes as a falsifiable model.

I also see that your definition of science seems to be somewhat different to the Oxford English Dictionary definition:

"The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment"

Any comments...?
01-10-2015 21:03
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3858)
climate scientist wrote:Well, if hunting was banned from 1957 to 2011, and the polar bear population more than halved from 2001 to 2011, then the decline is probably not caused by hunting...

The ban was lifted because the hunting was occurring, and increasing, and they understood why.

The hunting did not begin when the ban was lifted. The prosecution of hunters ceased when the ban was lifted.

climate scientist wrote: Wrong again I'm afraid. My degree is in Oceanography, my Masters is in Climate Change, and my PhD is in atmospheric greenhouse gas measurements.

Be that as it may, any institution is free to award you the piece of paper you pay for but they can't necessarily make it worth any more than the piece of paper. I know I wouldn't hire anyone with such a degree, but I bet you were able to find government funding that required those words in the degree. Your obvious inability to provide the science that defines 'Climate", "Greenhouse Effect", "Greenhouse Gas" tells the story. Is "Climate forcing" a part of your dogma as well?

climate scientist wrote: In fact many oceanography degrees include lots of climate science:

You have amply illustrated that there is no such thing as "climate" science.

climate scientist wrote: So do I take it then that you count oceanography as a valid science?

Sure.

climate scientist wrote: Does this mean that you agree that there are observable climate change signals in the ocean,

No. There is no such thing as "climate" therefore there is no such thing as "climate change" and thus there is no such thing as a "climate change signal."

Get some "climate" science and then we can talk about science of "climate" things.

climate scientist wrote: and oxygen minimum zones, reduced ocean pH, etc.

This is the créme de la crap. The ocean's pH is not lowering.

climate scientist wrote: Please can you explain to me how climate science articles published in the very prestigious 'Science' journal do not constitute as science

Sure. The articles are not science. The journal is only prestigious among devout climate lemmings and warmazombies. There is no such thing as "Climate" science. The list goes on.

climate scientist wrote: Please can you describe and explain to me the falsifiable model on which lung cancer research is based?

Lung cancer research is based on human anatomy, human physiology, celular microbiology, and others.

climate scientist wrote: Or diabetes?

Same as above.

climate scientist wrote: I also see that your definition of science seems to be somewhat different to the Oxford English Dictionary definition:

Yes, and? Are you under the impression that the dictionary is a science textbook? "Climate" is a word in the dictionary but "Climate" is not defined in the body of science. Go engineer something with your dictionary.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-10-2015 12:32
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
"Be that as it may, any institution is free to award you the piece of paper you pay for but they can't necessarily make it worth any more than the piece of paper"

So enlighten me, which piece of paper did you pay for?

"This is the créme de la crap. The ocean's pH is not lowering. "

Haha. So you agree that oceanography is a science, but you don't believe oceanographic data. So what is it exactly that you think oceanographers do??? Mill about on boats looking at fish I suppose! I shouldn't be surprised really that you are cherry picking which bits of oceanographic science that you wish to believe, since you have been doing the same with physics and chemistry too.

So do I take it that all of the other research published by the journal 'Science' is also "not science". Does this mean that all of the recent work on Graphene is also a hoax, and that Geim and Novoselov should be stripped of their Nobel Prize??

"Lung cancer research is based on human anatomy, human physiology, celular microbiology, and others."

Haha. This is a completely inadequate response! Would you be satisfied if I stated that climate science is based on physics, chemistry, biology, maths, and others? I doubt it!

"Are you under the impression that the dictionary is a science textbook?"

Of course not. I'm just trying to explain the basic definitions to you. I could find some other more 'scientific' references if you would like. How about the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Science, any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. "

Still no mention of falsifiable models....

Btw, over 100 Nobel Prize winners help to write the Encyclopedia Britannica, and I'm guessing that they spent a while making sure that they had an adequate definition for the term 'science'.
04-10-2015 05:44
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3858)
climate scientist wrote:Haha. So you agree that oceanography is a science, but you don't believe oceanographic data.

Once again I have to raise the issue of scientific illiteracy.

On the one hand there are data. On the other hand there are subjective conclusions that are drawn from data. I shouldn't be the one to teach you this.

Data is not something that is "believed," ...conclusions are. I don't believe your conclusions. Why don't you post the complete dataset from which you drew that conclusion so that the public can scrutinize it? Post it and let's discuss it.


climate scientist wrote:So what is it exactly that you think oceanographers do???

It looks like they learn less science than I had previously thought.


climate scientist wrote: So do I take it that all of the other research published by the journal 'Science' is also "not science".

Does any of this research come with a falsifiable model that has survived the scientific method?

climate scientist wrote:Does this mean that all of the recent work on Graphene is also a hoax, and that Geim and Novoselov should be stripped of their Nobel Prize??

I take it you don't understand what the Nobel Foundation is. The present awards. The foundation can do whatever it wants with the foundation's money; they can award it to whomever they wish for whatever justification (as long as it can be stretched semantically to fit the charter) . They awarded Gore and Obama prizes.

How did you ever come to the understanding that the Nobel Foundation somehow determines science?

climate scientist wrote:Haha. This is a completely inadequate response! Would you be satisfied if I stated that climate science is based on physics, chemistry, biology, maths, and others? I doubt it!

Your poor reading comprehension is rather trying. Please go to the store, get some apples and get some oranges. Notice that they are not the same.

My statement was a thorough response to the claim that there were no working models. Do you, or do you not recognize anatomy as a working model? Human physiology? Do you believe that microbiology is somehow not a collection of working models?

climate scientist wrote: Of course not. I'm just trying to explain the basic definitions to you. I could find some other more 'scientific' references if you would like. How about the Encyclopedia Britannica:

No. If the only way for you to hold a science discussion is to bend, twist, stretch, fold, spindle or mutilate semantics until anything you say is "correct" then we won't be discussing science. You can use this: http://scienceornot.net/2012/01/17/scientific-models-are-falsifiable/

We're not going to get far if your underlying premise is that those who own the dictionary companies get to redefine science.

Thermodynamics defines "work." The dictionary has many definitions for "work." If you are discussing thermodynamics then it doesn't matter what any reference says.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-10-2015 17:11
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi IBdaMann,

In your prior post you stated, "Data is not something that is "believed," ...conclusions are. " I would disagree, as data is never 100% objective. While data can have a high degree of precision and, therefore, suggest a high degree of certainty, I know of no thorough presentation of data used in science discourse today which does not include an analysis of the data's degree of uncertainty or error (i.e. - consider the error bars on graph points in data charts).

While through the replication of data it is possible to demonstrate a high degree of verifiable reproducibility, at best this can only make the degree of uncertainty, or error, statistically insignificant, yet even that never entirely eliminates it. Therefore, at some point you have to believe that data is correct even though it is impossible to ever prove that it is actually 100% correct.

As for conclusions, they're a dime a dozen.
04-10-2015 18:48
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
In a follow-up to my prior post, here's a nice example of how degrees of error/uncertainty are portrayed in data set graphs. In this example, instead of placing error bars at each separate data point along the lines, they used shading above and below the data graph lines to indicate 95% confidence levels (i.e. - the data lines fall well within 95% confidence of being error free). While this is not the same as being 100% truthful, it does give us the sense that the data is reliable and believable.


Edited on 04-10-2015 18:49
05-10-2015 19:45
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi Everyone,

I have enjoyed participating on various threads over the past few weeks here on Cimate-Debate.com. It is wonderful to have a place where we can freely exchange ideas on this topic.

Unfortunately, some of the threads like this one have taken on negative overtones which no longer facilitate ongoing goodwill which is the foundation of this website. In cases such as this, I have decided that the best way to respond to such threads is by not responding to them at all and ceasing any further participation in them.

The reason I'm posting this is to let you know that instead of continuing participation here, I have created my own new thread, and I invite you to do the same. You can join my new thread at:

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-2-minute-warning-clock-on-climate-change-d6-e714.php

To assist in maintaining a welcoming and inclusive atmosphere on my thread, I'm going to suggest the following guidelines:

1. Please stay on topic. If you find my new thread inspires tangential ideas which you'd like to share with others, then create a new thread of your own for that purpose and post an invitation to it from my thread.

2. Please direct your critical posts/comments to the message and not the messenger (i.e. - anyone expressing themselves either on this website or outside of this website). Agreement is not required, but respect is requested.

3. Please avoid posting road blocks. Repetitive and redundant posts serve only to draw attention to oneself and create conflict.

Given I lack the capacity to take authoritative action, I cannot moderate my new thread. However, think of me like a janitor who aspires to maintain a welcoming environment for everyone.

If someone does not follow the thread's guidelines, I will post a request asking them to amend their post of concern. Should they refuse, then in the spirit of maintaining goodwill here I will contact the website administrator/moderator and ask that they intervene.

Should you find another participant violating these guidelines, I would ask that you not respond to them. Instead, if I have not already addressed your concerns by post in my new thread, please notify me so that I might do so immediately.

I look forward to your participation in my new thread and the opportunity to exchange ideas with you.

Sincerely,

Trafn




Join the debate Polar Bears: sharp decline in numbers and health:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
health emergency625-06-2019 21:36
Snow: predicted decline globally, increase locally16718-05-2019 21:23
Almost all glaciers are in sharp decline10418-05-2019 04:02
'Climate change erodes mental health,' says psychiatrist030-04-2019 15:34
Our biggest health risk is climate change, Quebec doctors group says826-04-2019 04:45
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact