birdog1960 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Please tell me, what are the implications? read the article. it's from that liberal iconic publication business insider. not going to waste my time at some futile attempt to educate you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 read the article. it's from that liberal iconic publication business insider. not going to waste my time at some futile attempt to educate you. Translation: I dunno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Please tell me, what are the implications? Isn't it obvious? The Pacific walrus population has reached a consensus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 shrinking away from honest debate again huh? is the ice flow rapidly decreasing as noaa states or do you know better? and how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 shrinking away from honest debate again huh? is the ice flow rapidly decreasing as noaa states or do you know better? and how? What "ice flow?" What the !@#$ are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 What "ice flow?" What the !@#$ are you talking about? this: http://www.noaa.gov/features/monitoring_1008/arcticice.html. but you already knew that. intellectual dishonesty suits no one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 this: http://www.noaa.gov/.../arcticice.html. but you already knew that. intellectual dishonesty suits no one. Where is it talking about any ice flows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Where is it talking about any ice flows? you want to argue sementics because you can't effectively argue the point. i get it. it's an old, cheap trick and one that you use repeatedy. doesn't matter if the walruses are on a stationary ice formation or a floating one in the past. many are not on any ice at all right now and that's because there's much less ice. but you already know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 you want to argue sementics because you can't effectively argue the point. i get it. it's an old, cheap trick and one that you use repeatedy. doesn't matter if the walruses are on a stationary ice formation or a floating one in the past. many are not on any ice at all right now and that's because there's much less ice. but you already know that. I think the bigger argument lies in the fact that the article makes no connection at all with a reduction of polar ice and the activities of mankind. the lesser argument deals with the definition of ice floes (not flows). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 you want to argue sementics because you can't effectively argue the point. i get it. it's an old, cheap trick and one that you use repeatedy. doesn't matter if the walruses are on a stationary ice formation or a floating one in the past. many are not on any ice at all right now and that's because there's much less ice. but you already know that. Why is the ice shrinking? What do you suggest we do about it? Personally I'd get a harpoon and open a walrus BBQ joint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 you want to argue sementics because you can't effectively argue the point. i get it. it's an old, cheap trick and one that you use repeatedy. doesn't matter if the walruses are on a stationary ice formation or a floating one in the past. many are not on any ice at all right now and that's because there's much less ice. but you already know that. It's not semantics. It's an illustration of your inability to discuss the topic. I'd rather discuss it with the scientists at NOAA, who actually know what they're talking about, than someone who doesn't even know the rather significant difference between "ice flow" and "ice floe." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 It's not semantics. It's an illustration of your inability to discuss the topic. I'd rather discuss it with the scientists at NOAA, who actually know what they're talking about, than someone who doesn't even know the rather significant difference between "ice flow" and "ice floe." here's what i think about words used in this thread recently: it was wrong to digniy the word "dishonest" with "intellectual". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 here's what i think about words used in this thread recently: it was wrong to digniy the word "dishonest" with "intellectual". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 here's what i think about words used in this thread recently: it was wrong to digniy the word "dishonest" with "intellectual". I was dishonest, wondering why you were talking about glaciers on the North Slope with respect to walruses? You're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 or that walruses are just happily unpredictable creatures that do thing like inhabit an island en masse just for a good picture? actually, yes http://polarbearscience.com/2014/10/01/mass-haulouts-of-pacific-walrus-and-stampede-deaths-are-not-new-not-due-to-low-ice-cover/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 D'oh!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 it's an "f" to you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Please tell me, what are the implications? Have you never tried to get sand out of Walrus blubber? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Have you never tried to get sand out of Walrus blubber? No but as a chef I can give you some tips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts