Polar Bears seem to be at full capacity in two areas

The point you are trying to make is illogical RUBBISH.
Just because there is a slight increase in one area does not negate the decrease in the many other areas.
Polar Bears are actually starving in Svalbard, as recent pictures have shown.

I count EIGHT threads Carboncareful where your main concern is in rubbishing Bags. I'd say it was time to let go. It does nothing for your arguments.

Because in the past the poster called Bags has systematically tried to rubbish everything I've had to say (about climate change). That is why I gave up posting on Gransnet. I just happened to pop in and have a look today. The thing is Climate Change is too important to let denials go by without challenging them. Things are getting worse; scientists now think the tipping points are nearer than originally thought. Governments are not doing what they should. For instance our government has not taken account of methane which is a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2. And fracking could cause huge quantities to belch out; and melting permafrost will release huge amounts of methane too.
I have grandchildren, it worries me sick about what sort of future they will have. I have to protest, that is all I can do. I am not an expert but on the other hand I do read a lot of scientific stuff and I do have several friends who are scientists; I've been involved in environmental stuff for over forty years so I'm not talking through my hat. Some of the stuff posted on gransnet is by scientists who are sponsored (paid, that is!) by vested interests ie the fossil fuel industries. This just makes me sick.....

Sometimes people try to make out CO2 is harmless. Well, water vapour (from planes) is a greenhouse gas. Obviously it depends where it is as to whether or not it does harm. Same goes for CO2

Oh for flip's sake! (polite version)

" your main concern is in rubbishing Bags."

Isn't CC just putting her (alternative) point of view. It is allowed.

I'm not stopping you putting her point of view, CC (and Jings) and I don't remember Bags stopping you putting you point of view in the past. The whole subject needs aired, but not by personal attacks. Keep to the facts and leave the personalities out of it.

Sorry, put her where I should have put your.

CC did say the point was rubbish. Not Bags. (in her first perfectly reasonable post) (before anyone else stepped in)

I'm worried about the kind of planet we are passing on to our grandchildren too.

Probably another we will be losing !!!

Poster that is !!!

carbon I'm curious to know why you have suddenly decided to blanket GN. with your posts relating to posts made quite a few months ago. What was your purpose to leave such a long time between something that you feel so strongly about?

I hadn't noticed the dates. Hmmm. Fair question there.

I enjoy reading carbon's views, probably because they are along my thoughts too. Too many people make this a personality contest and I think they should butt out and leave it to be about the subject not the personalities. Carbon only posts regarding environmental subjects and that is her prerogative.

The environment and the consequences of scientist getting it wrong is far too important for people to ignore. It's not us who will suffer the consequences but those we care about the most.

* Carbon's* aggressive attitude, which I do accept comes from desperation and fear, does her cause a great disservice. It drives other people into denial. Is that what she wants?

Carbon has only posted today on issues raised by Bags - after a period of quite some months. From that I would suggest carbon's posts were specifically targeted towards personality - not subject matter. Some posts were certainly personal.

Mischief making.

Butty, I stopped because I just do not have time to keep up with the likes of Bags who seems to spend all day posting and researching. Also other people (not Bags) were getting at me personally and going too far. I'm quite thick skinned about environmental stuff but I suddenly thought to myself: if I was someone who let these things bother them then this would be awful. I've absolutely nothing personal against Bags, I do not know her after all, its the stuff she posts that worries me so much. And I mean really really worries me! Upsets me - so I have to keep away for a bit.
In fact there have been quite a lot of non-climate things when I've agreed with her - isn't that so, Bags?

Desperation and fear? What's she supposed to be afraid of? Or desperate about?

Sorry to talk about you carbon.

There's nothing in the rules to say someone should n' t catch up with threads on a subject that interests them.

So two more posts come in before I can post the one I've just sent - and both of them getting at me personally. I despair.

I don't think anyone is going to become a climate change deny-er because of any particular attitude carbon has!

Bags certainly doesn't spend all day posting! (Probably not researching, either). If what she posts about climate change worries you so much carboncareful, why keep away - why not challenge and discuss?

But that's what she's trying to do!

Rather aggressively - and on several threads, some of them nearly a year old!