Scientist confesses he made up polar bear population estimates..

originally posted by: cenpuppie
There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

--Benjamin Disraeli

Now if only this global warming hoopla can die a quick painful death.

So the world isn't warming ? Glaciers are not retreating ? Flora and fauna are not advancing towards the poles ?

A big fat lying statistic, is this what you are stating ?

It looks like I could be right - the old Polar bear could be sacrificed to make way for oil:
en.wikipedia.org...

On 14 May 2008 the U.S. Department of the Interior listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, citing the melting of Arctic sea ice as the primary threat to the polar bear.[155] While listing the polar bear as a threatened species, the Interior Department added a seldom-used stipulation to allow oil and gas exploration and development to proceed in areas inhabited by polar bears, provided companies continue to comply with the existing restrictions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The main new protection for polar bears under the terms of the listing is that hunters will no longer be able to import trophies from the hunting of polar bears in Canada.[156]

The ruling followed several years of controversy. On 17 February 2005 the Center for Biological Diversity filed a petition asking that the polar bear be listed under the Endangered Species Act. An agreement was reached and filed in Federal district court on 5 June 2006. On 9 January 2007, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to list the polar bear as a threatened species. A final decision was required by law by 9 January 2008, at which time the agency said it needed another month. On 7 March 2008, the inspector general of the U.S. Department of the Interior began a preliminary investigation into why the decision had been delayed for nearly two months. The investigation is in response to a letter signed by six environmental groups that United States Fish and Wildlife Director Dale Hall violated the agency's scientific code of conduct by delaying the decision unnecessarily, allowing the government to proceed with an auction for oil and gas leases in the Alaska's Chukchi Sea, an area of key habitat for polar bears. The auction took place in early February 2008.[157] An editorial in The New York Times said that "these two moves are almost certainly, and cynically, related."[30][158] Hall denied any political interference in the decision and said that the delay was needed to make sure the decision was in a form easily understood.[157] On 28 April 2008, a Federal court ruled that a decision on the listing must be made by 15 May 2008;[159] the decision came on 14 May to make the polar bear a protected species.[156]

Upon listing the polar bear under the Endangered species act, the Department of the Interior immediately issued a statement that the listing could not be used to regulate greenhouse gas emissions,[155] although some policy analysts believe that the Endangered Species Act can be used to restrict the issuing of federal permits for projects that would threaten the polar bear by increasing greenhouse gas emissions.[155] Environmental groups have pledged to go to court to have the Endangered Species Act interpreted in such a way.[155] On 8 May 2009, the new administration of Barack Obama announced that it would continue the policy.[160] On 4 August 2008, the state of Alaska sued U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, seeking to reverse the listing of the polar bear as a threatened species out of concern that the listing would adversely affect oil and gas development in the state. Alaska Governor Sarah Palin said that the listing was not based on the best scientific and commercial data available, a view rejected by polar bear experts.[161] In March 2013, a United States Appeals Court ruling upheld the "threatened" status of the polar bear against a challenge led by the State of Alaska.[162]

I think scientists are being told to say Polar bears are not endangered.

Not surprised if true.

a reply to: doobydoll

I think scientists are being told to say Polar bears are not endangered.

Polar bears are not listed as endangered, they are listed as threatened.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) defines an endangered species as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."

The ESA defines a threatened species as "any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range."

oceanservice.noaa.gov...

The polar bear is listed as threatened, primarily because continued and accelerated global warming will likely result in loss of habitat. Currently, in some areas they are doing well. Not so well in others. But in much of their range there is not enough information to determine the population status.
awsassets.panda.org...

"Now if only this global warming hoopla can die a quick painful death."

Now, that's a really funny sentence! Because, why would you want the truth to die? You want people to lie to you?

The earth is warming. We know this, every scientific agency, organization and group in every country in the world that studies climate sees this and is telling us this. I hope the truth never dies a quick painful death. I hate living in ignorance.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OpenEars123

I totally believed the polar bears were dying out.

Somebody told you they were?

Yes, mainly the documentaries and charity commercials showing a polar bear floating on a small piece of ice, facing imminent death due to everything melting.

Now I guess that was all similar to propaganda, to fit someone(s) agenda to rake in the cash from suckers like .
Hence why I feel like a dumbass

I know they're suffering in some places due to global warming, but I ate up all this guilt sheet and believed the entire species was going to die off soon, coz I'm a dumbass :-/

edit on 1/6/14 by OpenEars123 because: (no reason given)

that's 2 attempts I've made a reply, and it didn't work.
I'll get my coat.

edit on 1/6/14 by OpenEars123 because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: yorkshirelad
.

So the world isn't warming ? Glaciers are not retreating ? Flora and fauna are not advancing towards the poles ?

A big fat lying statistic, is this what you are stating ?

I think it's the way things are presented to Joe public is more the issue, which is the case in point here. If you read the footnote which will be in the 'next' report, you can see that it is less than a 'qualified guess' since they admit to including out of date figures. I don't know if they make that a footnote in every report, but I guess not.

“As part of past status reports, the PBSG has traditionally estimated a range for the total number of polar bears in the circumpolar Arctic. Since 2005, this range has been 20-25,000. It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand. It is also important to note that even though we have scientifically valid estimates for a majority of the subpopulations, some are dated. Furthermore, there are no abundance estimates for the Arctic Basin, East Greenland, and the Russian subpopulations.Consequently, there is either no, or only rudimentary, knowledge to support guesses about the possible abundance of polar bears in approximately half the areas they occupy. Thus, the range given for total global population should be viewed with great caution as it cannot be used to assess population trend over the long term.”

You see, it is like media using pathos when they do these reports on the bears as 'endangered species', while the report on oil drilling permissions will be stuck in somewhere else. It's more likely the bears will get picked off by oil spills, than global warming.

that's 3 times I've written a reply, I'm not doing it again.

Android OS + new upgraded ATS = canine fecal matter

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OpenEars123

I totally believed the polar bears were dying out.

Somebody told you they were? That claim hasn't come from any wildlife scientists.
However, it is feared that global warming will eventually threaten their existence. They aren't "dying out" yet.

The estimated polar bear population is not being used to show they are "dying out". The premise of this thread makes no sense. How does trying to produce an estimate constitute fraud?

Here is one major wildlife scientist that made false claims that the polar bears were drowning to death for lack of ice. His fraudulent research was a big part of Al Gore's propaganda campaign and was even used to get the bear listed on the endangered species list as threatened.

Charles Monnett, Ph.D. is an Arctic Wildlife biologist with U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE), an agency of the U.S. Department of the Interior that manages the nation's natural gas, oil and other mineral resources on the outer continental shelf (OCS). As Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) for BOEMRE, Monnett coordinated much of the agency's research on Arctic wildlife and ecology and had duties that included managing about $50 million worth of studies on the impact of oil/gas drilling in the Arctic Ocean. [1] In July 2011, Monnett was suspended for 6 weeks, and lost his COR status, pending an ongoing investigation by the DOI Office of Inspector General. His defenders claimed he was subjected to a smear campaign.[2]
Some of Monnett's most noted work deals with polar bears and the effects of climate change on the species. Monnett was on a research flight tracking bowhead whales in 2004 when he and a colleague, Jeff Gleason, spotted four dead polar bears floating in the water after a storm.[2] After additional research, Monnett found that this was "the first time dead bears [had] been spotted among more than 350 sightings of swimming bears recorded over 16 years of surveying the area."[7] Monnett conjectured that this was due to "bears having to swim up to 60 miles across open sea to find food. They [were] being forced into the long voyages because the ice floes from which they feed [were] melting, becoming smaller and drifting farther apart."[8]

Monnett published his findings in 2006 in an article in the peer-reviewed journal Polar Biology.[9] Al Gore referenced Monnett's study in his 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth, which made the polar bears into an important symbol of climate change.[10] The paper was cited by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in its 2008 decision to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.[11]

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Here is one major wildlife scientist that made false claims that the polar bears were drowning to death for lack of ice.

We speculate that mortalities due to offshore swimming during late-ice (or mild ice) years may be an important and unaccounted source of natural mortality given energetic demands placed on individual bears engaged in long-distance swimming. We further suggest that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues.

www.motherjones.com...
Speculation is not a false claim. It is speculation. Why do you think dead polar bears were found floating in open water? What do you think killed them? Feel free to speculate.

His fraudulent research was a big part of Al Gore's propaganda campaign and was even used to get the bear listed on the endangered species list as threatened.

What fraudulent research would that be? The fact that 4 dead polar bears were found in open water? You think he lied about that? Do you have reason to think that?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: doobydoll

I think scientists are being told to say Polar bears are not endangered.

Polar bears are not listed as endangered, they are listed as threatened.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) defines an endangered species as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."

The ESA defines a threatened species as "any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range."

oceanservice.noaa.gov...

The polar bear is listed as threatened, primarily because continued and accelerated global warming will likely result in loss of habitat. Currently, in some areas they are doing well. Not so well in others. But in much of their range there is not enough information to determine the population status.
awsassets.panda.org...

Thank you for the clarification, appreciated.

I still think oil is the reason why scientists are doing an 'about turn' with regard to the Polar bear's listing as a threatened species.

Why would authorities list it as threatened in the first place for no reason?

Dodgy shenanigans are afoot, and when that happens it's usually because big money is involved.

a reply to: doobydoll

Why would authorities list it as threatened in the first place for no reason?

Because continued and accelerated global warming will likely threaten their habitat and likely cause them to become endangered.

a reply to: smurfy

More like how Joe Public interprets the information.
Ignorance is a choice in 1st world nations.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance

Here is one major wildlife scientist that made false claims that the polar bears were drowning to death for lack of ice. His fraudulent research was a big part of Al Gore's propaganda campaign and was even used to get the bear listed on the endangered species list as threatened.

Charles Monnett, Ph.D. is an Arctic Wildlife biologist with U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

There are others, or to put it another way, there are more who disagree with the stats, or with each other, or if there was already a decline. Okay, so they have spats, but over what? none of them actually know overall how many fecking polar bears there are, there are various places where they are not even counted, and various reasons for that.


Nature Magazine 2007,

"Thin ice, thin bears

Biologists were already worried about this population of bears. Back in 1999, before the population started to decline, the same census found that bears became thin in years with less ice2.

Polar bears fast through their summer by stocking up on weanling ring seals. In early spring, the bears feast on unwary seal pups until the ice breaks up, storing up much of the energy they’ll need to get by. In years when the ice breaks early, the less-able hunters catch fewer seals than they need.

Now it seems the hunger is leading to deaths. “It’s scary,” says Martyn Obbard, who keeps tabs on polar bears at the southern edge of Hudson Bay for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources in Peterborough, but did not participate in this study. “The evidence and their conclusions are solid.” "

Canadian Geographic 2012,

"Wait … what? More bears than there were 10 years ago? Nearly double the prediction? “Polar bears are one of the biggest conservation success stories in the world,” says Drikus Gissing, wildlife director for the Government of Nunavut. “There are more bears here now than there were in the recent past.”

“That’s false,” says Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity, the international advocacy organization that, in 2008, successfully pushed to have polar bears listed as “threatened” in the United States. “Polar bear populations are in decline. That means individual bears are starving and drowning.” "

The above are obviously extracts, so just in case anything could be construed as 'selective' the links are here,

www.nature.com...

www.canadiangeographic.ca...

a reply to: yorkshirelad

The world is warming, and the Antartic Ice Sheets are melting. Those facts are not made up. The reason people aren't concerned yet is because it doesn't affect them immediately at the moment. However, let's take the best case scenario, and that the Earth will rise 28 F in 5000 years(although do we really have that much fossil fuel to burn?) That means we probably have about 2000 years to live, so you want mankind to exist for only 2000 years more?

We have to assume that we are never going to colonize another planet, because in order to colonize such a planet, you have to directly evolve on that planet, i.e learn to breath elements other than oxygen, or metabolize elements other than carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen(the composition of carbohydrate), adjust to the gravity of that planet(perhaps this is the reason that the UFOs cannot show?), etc.


I also object to the notion that relying on technology all the time means that standard of living has increased. In my younger days, I would just play cards, chess, Chinese chess, Monopoly, etc. What we really need is more non-electronic diversions(or improvise such as superchess). Other than the shower and the toilet, you cannot say one lifestyle is better than the other.

a reply to: Phage
Conjecture does not equal science and does not merit inclusion in peer reviewed scientific publications. I hate seeing climate extremists making real scientists and peer review look bad.

a reply to: smurfy

The above are obviously extracts, so just in case anything could be construed as 'selective' the links are here,

You mean it isn't selective to not include this:

Even more troublesome is the fact that the number of cubs observed in the western Hudson Bay population is dramatically lower than in the past. While adult bears may be fat and savvy enough to survive a few lean years, juvenile bears reach a tipping point quickly. Despite the triumphal notes sounded by the Nunavut government, the study’s authors point out that the scarcity of cubs undercuts the entire hypothesis that “increasing numbers of bears … are the result of overall subpopulation growth.”

Warming temperatures are affecting the range of polar bear populations, shrinking their habitat and eventually, scientists fear, their numbers. While some northern bears may benefit from a more readily available diet, southern bears could find that food sources such as seal are more difficult to hunt and that human-bear encounters occur more frequently. Melting sea ice forces polar bears to fast for longer periods of time, impacting reproduction rates and the overall health of a population. Warming temperatures also increase human traffic, bringing pollution that impacts the health of both the bears and their prey.

www.canadiangeographic.ca...

a reply to: Deny Arrogance
Conjecture is where science starts.

Did you read the paper? There's quite a bit more to it. The only conjecture was about the cause of death for the 4 carcasses seen. This can only be conjecture since no one was present to witness it, however other than high winds and rough seas, there isn't any indication for a cause of death other than drowning.

Where does the fraud come into it?

a reply to: 727Sky

Its no surprise. Look for example at that statistic of 98% consensus from the scientific community stating over all agreement on the reality of man made global warming.

The question asked is always if they think SOME gloabl warming is man made. Not if it is definitive and conclusive to the end that ALL climate change is man made. It is a lie that most people agree on it. Its a tactic meant to induce the mob mentality. Its 50/50 at best if not the opinion of a minority.

The scientific community like the rest of us are waiting for proof of anything. It is still just an idea that is one of many. I don't see the point on spending trillions of dollars a year on reducing non existent carbon footprints.

The truth is its about money. More money is spent the jobs, careers and fields of study surrounding gloabl warming BS than is made by oil.

Factor in the endless government subsidies, private donations, and the endless profits that a speculative carbon market funded entirely by tax monies from every country in the world and you can see the reason behind this farce.

Legislation meant to strip local economies of power and competitiveness, international regulations meant to castrate developing nations, and everything else that constitutes a global power grab and we have more proof of this madness.

Thousands upon thousands of people make their living off the global warming craze.


They are complicit in this BS.

a reply to: tadaman

Thousands upon thousands of people make their living off the global warming craze.

How many make their living off of the selling of fossil fuels?

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: smurfy

More like how Joe Public interprets the information.
Ignorance is a choice in 1st world nations.

It could be, but then what the public gets is often an economical sound byte to begin with.