Fake News of Polar Bears Dying From Global Warming Exposed — Again

a reply to: xuenchen

Polar bears can swim for 5 days straight and they have us believing the they are dying. lol The polar bear population has grown over the years.

originally posted by: Konduit
a reply to: reldra

The thing is, Al Gore and all his climate gurus were promoting this rubbish as holy writ and using it to push their agenda. Talk about fake news...

You going back to what Al Gore had to say? Shall we stay in the present?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
I read it. Her colleagues think she is a nut.

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: xuenchen

Polar bears can swim for 5 days straight and they have us believing the they are dying. lol The polar bear population has grown over the years.

It has not. Find where it has.

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
I read it. Her colleagues think she is a nut.

I could say the same about you Relda.

Attack attack attack and it is always the person you attack.

Her colleagues think she is a nut.

Prove it!

P

a reply to: reldra

Now that is a legimate point. Actually, they disagree! and by her own admission, she is not a field scientist. However, she is a zoologist and that allows her to express her opinion in a blog and in publications, including a book.

Further, her "opinion" is more in keeping with the Polar Bear report I posted.

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: xuenchen

Polar bears can swim for 5 days straight and they have us believing the they are dying. lol The polar bear population has grown over the years.

It has not. Find where it has.

Q: Are there three times as many polar bears in the Arctic now as there were in the 1970s?

A: The population of polar bears today is larger than it was in the 1970s, due mainly to legislation banning polar bear hunting, but exact numbers are unclear. We couldn’t find any figures showing that the population had tripled.

a reply to: reldra

The Polar Bear Status Report

Polar bear population is increasing in the Mclintock area, decreasing in 3 other areas, stable in 6 areas and quite simply unknown in most of the arctic.

www.polarbearsinternational.org...

So the climate change alarmists are quite simply making it up. Its "fake news".

Dr. Crockford's collegues may disagree with her opinion but they have no basis in fact for doing so!



Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Konduit
a reply to: reldra

The thing is, Al Gore and all his climate gurus were promoting this rubbish as holy writ and using it to push their agenda. Talk about fake news...

You going back to what Al Gore had to say? Shall we stay in the present?

Says the person who has no problems blaming Bush on present day issues and tossing his state departments use of a private server to justify your girls use.

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: xuenchen

But back to the OP, polar bears are threatened, there is less ice. This is a fact. Do not pull tiny paid for blogs out of nowhere to state the polar bears are not dying or threatened. They certainly are.

Science deniers will always find fringe blogs from discredited paid off "Scientists" that will give the narrative their corporate owners desire

Sadly the below average mentality bait they push becomes easy and popular amongst the drones of society who believe verses understand

a reply to: SaturnFX

So Polar Bears International is a "fringe blog by paid off "scientists""

www.polarbearsinternational.org...

About Us PBI's mission is to conserve polar bears and the sea ice they depend on. Through media, science, and advocacy, we work to inspire people to care about the Arctic, the threats to its future, and the connection between this remote region and our global climate. Details... © Daniel J. Cox/Natural Exposures Share40 Polar bears. They're what we're all about. Entirely. We know that if we can assure the survival of the polar bear—the creature in most immediate peril from climate change and pollutants—we'll have created a better planet for all its flora, fauna, water, and air. Time is of the essence. And we have some distance to go. But we're optimistic. We're impassioned. And we're resolute. Take a minute to learn about us and the work we do. Then, help us if you can. Discover how you can make a difference. Donate. Volunteer. Conserve. Talk. Learn. Teach. Help. Welcome! You've come to the preeminent resource for all things polar bear. Polar Bears International is a recognized 501(c)(3) nonprofit in the U.S. and a registered charity in Canada.

This organization supports catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. These people are on YOUR side!

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: SaturnFX

Talking about "fake Scientists" lets look at ....

“It is regrettable that anyone affiliated with the University of Victoria participated in the activities of an organization like the Heartland Institute,” says Dr. Thomas F. Pederson, Executive Director of the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS) at UVic. “The University prides itself on being an institution of higher learning that deals with facts and that is nowhere more true than in the field of science. Those who deny that the planet is warming as a direct result of human activity are denying facts.


Now just who is Dr. Thomas F Pederson, Executive Director of the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS)?

First of all PIC has only 5 projects on the go. The major one is

www.pics.uvic.ca... BC Natural GAS DEVELOPMENT!

The institute is positioning Natural Gas to replace other forms of energy (including so called green energy), nuclear, energy from tides of the pacific ocean.

Now I just wonder if the Institute is funded by the Natural Gas Industry. And I bet that they are paying a hell of a lot more than 750.00 per month directly into Dr. Thomas F. Pederson pocket.

And what makes Dr. Pederson able to comment on polar bears...

www.pics.uvic.ca...

The University of Victoria has appointed Dr. Thomas Pedersen as director of the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions. Pedersen moves from his current position of dean of science at UVic, which he has held since 2003. His previous positions include director of UVic's School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, and associate dean, research, for the faculty of graduate studies at the University of B.C. He holds a degree in geology from UBC and a PhD in marine geochemistry from the University of Edinburgh.

Degrees in geology and marine geochemistry,,,,what has that to do with polar bears! Or climate change for that matter.

So the man works for the Natural Gas Industry, lobbying for natural gas to take dominance in the market in the province of BC.

He has done work with the Pembina Institute.

Just how dirty is this man? Maybe he should learn about people in glass houses!

So how about Relda, Is the man squeaky clean and above reproach even though his paycheck comes from the energy sector and he is employed in trying to influence the market?

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: SaturnFX

So Polar Bears International is a "fringe blog by paid off "scientists""

This organization supports catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. These people are on YOUR side!

Tired of Control Freaks

I am discussing the controversy surrounding Susan Crockford and the issues involving Heartland. Corporate owners/masters.

Anyone who actively tries to deny science on what may make the world damn near uninhabitable for humans deserves a microscope to figure out what their agenda is. Skepticism is fine, but you know if you are trying to suppress studies and desperately finding anything to "look like" studies are wrong while being disingenuous you deserve nothing but contempt and perhaps a lot worse....nothing like pushing the agenda that will make future generations suffer.


Whats the discussion about polar bears anyhow? I barely understand the point of this thread...polar bears still exist, therefore science is wrong? What, in your mind, do you believe the intent of this story/thread to be?

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
Degrees in geology and marine geochemistry,,,,what has that to do with polar bears! Or climate change for that matter.

Is that a real question? what does marine geochemistry have to do with AGW?
..do you even understand the discussion about AGW? the oceans is where the biggest issues are. Its like the air conditioning for the world. screw that up and mass extinctions happen, wild weather fluctuations, etc.
How does that get screwed up? temperature rising will bleach the coral reefs, mass fish extinction (of which the world relies on), melting caps will screw up the circulation, etc etc..lots of science, I read on it a couple decades ago, lets just say a warming ocean even by a few degrees globally will have catastrophic effects.

The guy seems 100% qualified

As far as anyone lobbying for any type of gas...well, I have a different view on this subject.
I 100% believe we need to move into green energy alternatives, but understand we will be a drop in the bucket compared to a rising China and India becoming industrial. Whats needed is innovation to remove instead of just hopes to cut back. There have been many unfunded projects to get atmospheric scrubbers a viable thing that needs to be looked into. We wont change our lifestyle, but we will pay to continue on safely if its considered a viable path towards cleaning up without effecting our love of stuff.

a reply to: SaturnFX

of course its all about the ocean. Something Jiim Hansen hadn't even considered when he testified before Congress in 1989.

BUT - what has marine GEO CHEMISTRY to do with POLAR BEARS. He gave his opinion on Dr. Crockford - a zooologist.?

BTW - shouldn't he be a climatologist to comment on climate change?

He is paying is mortgage with money donated by the natural gas industry to provide studies that support the natural gas industry. He is on the dole.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: SaturnFX

And your point is well taken.....however....that little fringe blog is correct according to the International Polar Bear Institution.

The OP did lousy research and his research was immediately attacked by an ad hominem attack based on the fact that Dr. Crockford receives 750.00 / month from Heartland.

I am trying very very hard to demonstrate that ad hominem attacks are gross and illogical.

Personally, I don't care if you agree with Dr. Crockford or not but to simply dismiss her opinion without providing any evidence to the contrary is LIBEL. She obviously is not a "nut", she knows whereof she speaks and the person who criticized her in the article has his nose buried very deeply in the money trough. The good dr know NOTHING about polar bears and it is obvious to me that the "little fringe blog" is not Dr. Crockfors blog but rather the blog that libelled her without evidence of any kind.'

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: reldra

a real climate scientist

LOOOOL.

There is an oxymoron in there somewhere...

Hmm, there's so much to say about this topic that I'm not even sure where to start really. But let's begin with the fact that the polar bear has been a very successful marketing tool since at least the early 90s. Extensively used by Coca Cola in their marketing campaigns, the polar bear has become the cute and fluffy bear on TV that everybody loves.

And then of course Al Gore, in his "documentary" An Inconvenient Truth (Lie), used the animal as a psychological tool to further attach people emotionally to the "dramatic" loss of Arctic sea ice and the (alleged) effect (drowing) it would have on polar bears. Since then, the polar bear has become an (I would say THE) icon, of the global warming movement and is used on almost every occassion, especially by the MSM and NGOs, to trigger an emotional response from the public. That being said, most people seem to have forgotten that the polar bear is anything but a cute little teddy bear that would likely shred you to pieces if faced with.

Anyways, enough with the psychological dissection of this global warming icon, let's take a look at some actual data. What does the IUCN, which lists the species as "vulnerable", have to say about the polar bear population and trends?

Estimating Polar Bear abundance is expensive and difficult because the animals often occur at low densities in remote habitats. Although abundance estimates have generally improved in recent decades (Obbard et al. 2010), information remains poor or outdated for some subpopulations. Summing across the most recent estimates for the 19 subpopulations (Table 3 in the Supplementary Material) results in a total of approximately 26,000 Polar Bears ( 95% CI = 22,000-31,000 ).
...
The total number presented here does not include the Arctic Basin subpopulation, for which no information on abundance is available.

This image further illustrates the uncertainty that exists in monitoring polar bear populations accross the Arctic region. So what more do we know?

Current Population Trend: Unknown

Additional data:
♦ Extreme fluctuations: No
♦ Population severely fragmented: No
♦ No. of subpopulations: 19
♦ Continuing decline in subpopulations: No
♦ Extreme fluctuations in subpopulations: No
♦ All individuals in one subpopulation: No

Checking the data we see that the population trend is currently unknown, while the rest of the data is not pointing towards a worrying trend at all. So how come the polar bear is still being categorized as vulnerable? The "IUCN Red List Categories & Criteria", p. 20, gives us an answer to that:

A population size reduction of ≥30% projected or suspected to be met within the next 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer (up to a maximum of 100 years), based on (and specifying) any of (b) to (e) under A1.

But now the next question is: will the polar bear population indeed decline in the next few decades, and if so, could the melting of Arctic sea ice have something to do with it? We do know that the Arctic has been ice free in the past, during the early Holoc ene to be exact, for at least parts of the summer periods. Yet the polar bear continued to survive in these conditions, so that certainly downplays the argument that polar bears would have a hard time surviving without ice.

What we also know about polar bears and their "eating habits":

Greater than eighty percent of most polar bears’ annual stored fat is accumulated during the ringed seal pupping season that stretches from late March to the first week of May. Well-documented observations (Stirling 2002, Harwood 2012, Chambellant 2012) report that cycles of heavy springtime sea ice have drastically reduced ringed seal reproduction. Heavy springtime ice is likely the greatest cause of polar bear nutritional deprivations, yet not one USGS model incorporates sea ice conditions during this critical time.

For an extensive overview of all the critiques raised about USGS modeling, I refer you to this article.

Lastly, I want to point out the dubious science that was used by Al Gore on the "drowning" polar bears, which was all based on this paper. In 2004, the scientists observed 55 polar bears, of which 4 were dead floating in the sea. They assumed these bears drowned due to long distance swimming while there was actually little to nothing known yet in science about polar bears and their swimming capacity. This phenomenom was understood better once researchers observed an adult female polar bear in the Beaufort Sea that "made a continuous swim of 687 km over 9 days."

In other words, it can be concluded that the science on polar bears is still based on a lot of assumptions and data gaps, which makes it incredibly difficult to accurately predict the future of the polar bear. If there is any trend to be spotted, it is IMO not a worrying one. We would be better off put our focus and effort on other species that are actually endangered due to interventions by humans than on this creature of which relatively little is known about.

However, what can be said is that the polar bear presents itself as a very useful psychological tool for the people pushing the AGW agenda. Therefore it doesn't come as a surprise to me that this global warming icon is still continuosly being (falsely) used by people to provoke an emotional response rather than a rational and scientific one.

At least, those are my two cents.

a reply to: snchrnct

a reply to: reldra

I have slight brain damage, so bear with me.

If researcher A shouldn't accept funding from Group A (because they do not accept mans role in warming), why should researcher B accept money from Group B (because they do accept mans role in warming)?

If Researcher A (deny) is automatically assumed to be "in the tank" and therefore all information bogus, should not the same be true for Researcher B?

Far more money is being channeled into "proving" AGW or even "debunking" AGW deniers, than is being spent on alternative warming theories. Should this not be a red flag? Does that sound like an established science/fact?

For the record, I have no doubt that we are going through significant changes. I'm old enough to remember Americans melting the polar ozone layer with hairspray and almost causing snowball earth (we survived). It gets warm, it gets cold, it gets hot. Mankind and cowfarts aren't causing it and we won't be able to modify it. We spent too much money on R&D for destruction and not enough on creation.