It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bad News for Global Warmongers: Polar Bears Might Not Be Doomed After All

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Over the last few years we have seen many different groups claiming that people must alter their lifestyles to protect an ever-more endangered Polar Bear population. Unfortunately, this flies in the face of real-time observations, that say something different.

Now, the Canadian government has released a study that shows that Northern Canadian Polar Bear populations may be higher than ever, and growing.



The debate about climate change and its impact on polar bears has intensified with the release of a survey that shows the bear population in a key part of northern Canada is far larger than many scientists thought, and might be growing.

The number of bears along the western shore of Hudson Bay, believed to be among the most threatened bear subpopulations, stands at 1,013 and could be even higher, according to the results of an aerial survey released Wednesday by the Government of Nunavut.

Healthy polar bear count confounds doomsayers

Of course, that doesn't stop the self-interested groups that want to see more and more government funding for their "preservation" activities.

A group of activists, zoo officials, lawmakers and scientists has proposed increasing the number of polar bears in U.S. zoos, to help maintain the species' genetic diversity if the wild population plummets.

seattletimes.nwsource.com...

Forget that actual counts of populations have contradicted the doomsday scenarios of these grant-hungry "activists."


The number of bears along the western shore of Hudson Bay, believed to be among the most threatened bear subpopulations, stands at 1,013 and could be even higher, according to the results of an aerial survey released Wednesday by the Government of Nunavut. That’s 66 per cent higher than estimates by other researchers who forecasted the numbers would fall to as low as 610 because of warming temperatures that melt ice faster and ruin bears’ ability to hunt.

The study shows that “the bear population is not in crisis as people believed,” said Drikus Gissing, Nunavut’s director of wildlife management. “There is no doom and gloom.”

www.theglobeandmail.com...

This, of course, follows on the heels of competing reports that show, alternately, that Polar Bear populations are at their highest levels and growing, and those that "predict" devastation and the need for ever-greater government intervention and funding for a hypothetical "crisis."

Guess which one gets the most MSM attention and funding.

jw







Read more: dailycaller.com...
edit on 5-4-2012 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


1000 individuals counted vs 600 estimated. Yup sounds like the population is THRIVING...



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


I am glad to find another man (or woman) who has not been brainwashed into this global warming marketing scam. I salute you!



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Im curious how long records on Polar bear numbers have been kept? are they saying the highest ever recorded or that the species is recovering and the number is getting back to where it used to be?

Im confused about your global warming statements, I thought global warming was a fact it was just a question of if man was responsible or not

edit on 5-4-2012 by IkNOwSTuff because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


No. The Gov wants you to think it is a fact, but it is not. Global warming is an unproven theory. Some graphs from NASA sattelite, buried by the Government, shows Earth cooling. CO2, in some case, went up while Earth was cooling. That Global Warming is a marketing scam.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Buddha1098
reply to post by jdub297
 


1000 individuals counted vs 600 estimated. Yup sounds like the population is THRIVING...


Since you have no understanding of sampling and statistics, perhaps your mom could explain what the grownups are doing here.

By all credible accounts the population IS thriving.

Got something that shows otherwise besides imagination and fear?

jw



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


No. The Gov wants you to think it is a fact, but it is not. Global warming is an unproven theory. Some graphs from NASA sattelite, buried by the Government, shows Earth cooling. CO2, in some case, went up while Earth was cooling. That Global Warming is a marketing scam.


A couple questions

1) Glaciers and ice shelfs are retreating and breaking up which is a fact, does this not prove global warming?
2) Have you seen or can you link something that actually shows these images or the info the gov has suppressed?
3) Ive heard that when the ice sheets do melt the water somehow affects currents which will lead to a cooling, is there any truth to this?

Cheers

P.s not being a smart ass I genuinely dont know



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by jdub297
 


I am glad to find another man (or woman) who has not been brainwashed into this global warming marketing scam. I salute you!


I deeply fear the damage we can cause to our local environments, as we've seen with "black soot" and nitrogen in our estuaries. That doesn't translate into a global cataclysm or a slippery slope to catastrophe.

We, and nature, can handle and address the limited damage we do to specific areas.

I do not live in fear that man will turn the entire world upside down.

jw



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
Im curious how long records on Polar bear numbers have been kept? are they saying the highest ever recorded or that the species is recovering and the number is getting back to where it used to be?


You could find out by trying. The Innuit have been keeping track of Polar Bear populations and interactions for centuries. They agree that there are more of both today than in their lifetimes.

Do you need to be spoonfed, or are you just waitng for the MSM to tell you what to think?


Im confused about your global warming statements, I thought global warming was a fact it was just a question of if man was responsible or not


There is nothing in my post about "global warming." Any confusion is the result of your own thought process.

Please show us where in the OP there is any mention of "global warming."

You can't.

jw



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Scientists estimated that there would be 600 individuals. Turns out they were wrong the number is closer to 1000. You see a thriving population. I see a population doing better than expected, but certainly not healthy. If they had estimated 600 and found 5000 I'd be more impressed.

You could just as easily argue that populations only appear healthier because the bears are forced to find food closer to human habitation.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


No. The Gov wants you to think it is a fact, but it is not.

Then why do we pay more for gas, food, power and other commodities?
Are you saying that the gov't has not been straight-forward with us about this?


Between the middle of 2009 and February 2010, hand-picked members the Council of Economic Advisers, the Office of Management and Budget, the Council on Environmental Quality, National Economic Council, Office of Energy and Climate Change, Office of Science and Technology Policy,
The Environmental Protection Agency and the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Transportation and Treasury — but no outside organizations -- cobbled together, with no public debate, a private "consensus" on how to price carbon in the U.S.

The SCC figure adopted last February is $21per ton of CO2 (about two weeks' use of your car). The value has already been applied to standards for fuel efficiency, and tailpipe emissions. It will be figured into any carbon mitigation strategy, whether cap and trade, cap and dividend or carbon tax.

It has also been applied to new appliance efficiency costs and standards, and is being considered for industrial and power-generation applications as well. The initial rate in the UK was approx. $43/ton; it is now closer to $125. Once imposed, the "creep up" is inevitable.

Obama secretly sneaks carbon tax on almost everything!,



Global warming is an unproven theory.


From what I've seen "global warming" HAS been proven; to generate book sales, increase taxes and other burdens on the public, raise prices of food and other necessities, and enrich the grant-mongers who ignore natural cycles and established scientific methods.


Global Warming is a marketing scam.


And a very successful one at that. Just look at all the credulous and uninformed who have sipped the Kool-Aid and begged for more.

At my expense.

jw
edit on 5-4-2012 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
1) Glaciers and ice shelfs are retreating and breaking up which is a fact, does this not prove global warming?


Glaciers and ice shelves have grown and retreated far longer than we've been around to notice. The notorious "Himalayan Glaciers" have been shown to be highly susceptible to "black soot" locally produced and short-lived, and not to any "global" phenomenon. The Arctic ice cover was predicted to have disappeared as long ago as 1998 according to some "climate models" and their advocates.

Do you not know how to verify this, or are you just playing ignorant to draw attention to another myth of the AGW faithful?


2) Have you seen or can you link something that actually shows these images or the info the gov has suppressed?


You've mistaken me for someone else.
Please show: Where in my OP or replies have I said anything of the kind?


3) Ive heard that when the ice sheets do melt the water somehow affects currents which will lead to a cooling, is there any truth to this?


I've heard that when the moon is in the seveth house, and Jupiter aligns with Mars, then peace will guide the planets and love will rule the stars. We find our truth where we look for it. Have you even tried to look?

jw



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Buddha1098
reply to post by jdub297
 

Scientists estimated that there would be 600 individuals. Turns out they were wrong the number is closer to 1000. You see a thriving population. I see a population doing better than expected, but certainly not healthy.


Given the limited size of the sample area and time period, what evidence do you find that the population is "certainly not healthy?"
When a certain habitat is expected to sustain a given population, and the observed population is almost 70% larger than expected, you have to be extremely biased or ignorant of biology and statistics to miss the significance.

jw



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Ouch!!!

Coming across as a bit touchy and defensive there jdub.

Yeah I could have googled it but thought since it was your OP you might wanna give me your take.

And the part where it says warming temperatures in the the article you posted then the following post that mentioned global warming was were I got global warming from.

P.s dont watch any MSM news at all so please excuse my ignorance on these matters



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
reply to post by jdub297
 

Ouch!!!
Coming across as a bit touchy and defensive there jdub.


Maybe you should reconsider the screen name.

Only to those who've chosen to ignore the obvious and troll as if they were oblivious to the truth. I have a lot of tolerance, but I cannot abide the willfully ignorant or those who pretend to be so.


P.s dont watch any MSM news at all so please excuse my ignorance on these matters


No one needs to rely on the MSM for the truth (I didn't see this on any MSM TV shows); and, there's no excuse for ignorance.

jw
edit on 5-4-2012 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 





Glaciers and ice shelves have grown and retreated far longer than we've been around to notice. The notorious "Himalayan Glaciers" have been shown to be highly susceptible to "black soot" locally produced and short-lived, and not to any "global" phenomenon. The Arctic ice cover was predicted to have disappeared as long ago as 1998 according to some "climate models" and their advocates. Do you not know how to verify this, or are you just playing ignorant to draw attention to another myth of the AGW faithful?


I wasnt aware of any of this, I know the artic ice shelf is breaking up and that mountains that have been covered in snow for 100s of years are now bare but didnt know it was short term cyclical I thought it was more long term.
I have no idea of what AGW means





You've mistaken me for someone else. Please show: Where in my OP or replies have I said anything of the kind?


If you had of paid attention you would have noticed the post you responded to was actually directed to swan not you, so no didnt mistake you for someone else and your OP mentions nothing of the kind




I've heard that when the moon is in the seveth house, and Jupiter aligns with Mars, then peace will guide the planets and love will rule the stars. We find our truth where we look for it. Have you even tried to look?


Yeah I have actually, for the first time hear on your thread. I didnt have an agenda and am not knowledgeable about the topic. It seemed interesting so I clicked your thread and in an effort to deny my own ignorance thought I would ask someone who if not knowledge at least had an interest in the subject and may be able to answer some questions but then what do I get, belittled and patronised.

Your extremely rude and I no longer wish to have any part in your thread



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 

The "mountains" you refer to is Kilimanjaro, and the changes you refer to have been attributed to land use and drought, local phenomena. There are some reports that increased snow cover at higher levels has impeded treks previously more easily accomplished.

A direct reply to a post begins with: reply to post by XXXX. Your quote of another member was not directed to anyone inparticular, but presented a direct question. I answered it, best as I could. Maybe you could direct your questions to the person who posted what you do not believe?

This thread is about observed and measured Polar Bear populations compared to "doomsday" predictions and projections for same by people and groups interested in funding for support of their flawed conclusions.

I have interacted quite amicably with members of opposing or different positions for several years. I have little tolerance, however, for members who post without thinking, or trying to at least educate themselves from "sources" other than other members, YouTube, Wikis or gossip.

It is saddening to see that ATS has devolved into a goldfish pond, in which kibble is tossed to unthinking scavengers, from the clearinghouse of new and informed ideas that it once was.

If your feelings were hurt, perhaps you should try a bit of inquiry or at least rumination before posting unattributed hearsay, and mere specualtion, as if they were a "contribution."

Every one of your"just wondering" questions is easily susceptible to examination with a minimum of effort and inquisitiveness. Do you expect to be spoonfed information all of your life, and accept what you've been given as definitive?

Bottom line is that, contrary to exaggerations otherwise, and the clamoring for limited resources, Polar Bear studies confirm again and again that their populations are growing and adapting to whatever changes they've encountered just as all species are expected to if they are to be successful.

jw



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Get rid of the mocking title (really?) and you might just have an interesting thread.

Why would someone view this as bad news in the first place?



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 





The "mountains" you refer to is Kilimanjaro, and the changes you refer to have been attributed to land use and drought, local phenomena. There are some reports that increased snow cover at higher levels has impeded treks previously more easily accomplished.


See, was a civil response so hard?




A direct reply to a post begins with: reply to post by XXXX. Your quote of another member was not directed to anyone inparticular, but presented a direct question. I answered it, best as I could. Maybe you could direct your questions to the person who posted what you do not believe?


I wasnt aware of this ettiquette, normally when i quote someone they know its directed at them, thank you for informing me.
You didnt answer as best you could you came back at me with snide remarks and told me to do research, and at no point did I say or imply I didnt believe them i just wondered as too their source.




It is saddening to see that ATS has devolved into a goldfish pond, in which kibble is tossed to unthinking scavengers, from the clearinghouse of new and informed ideas that it once was.


I was under the impression it was a discussion forum, didnt realise it was a read my post then bugger off and do your own research forum.




If your feelings were hurt, perhaps you should try a bit of inquiry or at least rumination before posting unattributed hearsay, and mere specualtion, as if they were a "contribution."


It takes alot more than some bitter crabby anonymous forum poster to hurt my feelings I assure you, I was merely pointing out your response was anti social at best and down right rude to be more accurate.
my whole post was an inquiry not a statement of any facts so I have no idea what your talking about with the rest of the above drivel.




Every one of your"just wondering" questions is easily susceptible to examination with a minimum of effort and inquisitiveness.


yes they were and the minimum of effort was to ask someone who sounded like they new what they were talking about




Do you expect to be spoonfed information all of your life, and accept what you've been given as definitive?


No I dont and no hence the reason I was confirming what i had heard.




Bottom line is that, contrary to exaggerations otherwise, and the clamoring for limited resources, Polar Bear studies confirm again and again that their populations are growing and adapting to whatever changes they've encountered just as all species are expected to if they are to be successful.


Prior to you being the rudest person i have had the unpleasantness to come across on this entire site i was interested now I couldnt care less.

next tie someone asks you a question to genuinely fill in gaps in their own knowledge how about just answering and feeling happy that you had the opportunity to educate someone on a topic you obviously care about.

Ill leave it there but dude you sound like you need a hug or something
edit on 6-4-2012 by IkNOwSTuff because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


The OP comes off as a flame-baiting troll with that thread title.

Why do people flag this crap?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join