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

polar bears were never endangered the way wormists have claimed
the PBear counts were fudged just like all the presented data supporting MMGW has been
star and flag

Originally posted by The Sword
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?

The title came from the source of the story, not me.

A thread should not be judged by its cover.

reply to post by The Sword

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

The people who depend upon an advanced state of fear of climate change, and who can profit from the belief that man's actions are threatening an "attractive" species will find studies such as this to be a threat to their livelihood and quackery. Would anyone care if Global Warming was a threat to bedbugs?

jw

For a different slant on 'global warming' I read climate depot each day, some headlines make me think, such as NASA says arctic sea ice doubles, NSGS estimates there are 25,000 adult Polar bears, Alaska more snow than ever, Temps are below 30 years mean, and haven't risen for 15 years. many more like that.

reply to post by jdub297


The study’s conclusions drew concern from Andrew Derocher, a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta who has been studying polar-bear populations for years. Prof. Derocher said the 1,013 figure is derived from a range of 717 bears to 1,430. “It’s premature to draw many conclusions,” he said, adding that there were no comparative figures and the upper end of the range, 1,430, was highly unlikely.

Prof. Derocher also said some details in the survey pointed to a bear population in trouble. For example, the survey identified 50 cubs, which are usually less than 10 months old, and 22 yearlings, roughly 22 months old. That’s nearly one-third the number required for a healthy population, he said. “This is a clear indication that this population is not sustaining itself in any way, shape, or form.”

Certainly not healthy my friend. Did you actually read the whole article or just the parts that agreed with your worldview?

Perhaps you have a better grasp of biology and statistics than me. I'm not sure if you've got Prof. Derocher however.

reply to post by Buddha1098


Unfortunately for the grant-dependent Dr., the facts belie his "concerns."

A population that has indisputably grown beyond expections renders his concerns about observed cubs and yearlings nothing more than "straw bears." Even at the lower end of the measurements, the population far exceeds the "declining numbers" the fearmongers cling to.

Sorry for Dr. Derocher, but his persistent adherence to beliefs over observed facts pretty much limits the value of his opinions.

jw

reply to post by The Sword


Because they believe his ignorant worldview.

reply to post by jdub297


You know more about polar bears then a professor of biology who has been studying them for years?

Are you really that arrogant or are you actually this stupid? I'm not insulting you. This is an actual honest question. Which is it? Because i cannot for the life of me believe that anyone would hold onto their worldview so strongly as to be this obtuse.

I can see that I am ironically doing the same thing I'm accusing you of but at least my worldview is the consensus one.

You posted an article which has both points supporting and refuting your worldview. Why are the ones which you agree with truth, and the ones you don't are suspect?

reoly to post by Buddha1098

You know more about polar bears then a professor of biology who has been studying them for years?

I know how to read an article objectively, post it and detect biased or uninforned reply posts that add nothing to the thread, but inject misinformation and disinformation to serve a member's unspoken agenda.

Dr. Derocher, an advisor to Polar Bears International, in addition to his teaching chores, has offered nothing more than self-serving opinions and speculation in defense of his propositions and hypotheses.

The very same organization, (PBI.org), has shown that the observed population is not "in decline" (as Derocher laments), but has grown significantly from obesrved counts.


www.polarbearsinternational.org...
(Note that the West Hudson Bay population has grown almost 40% (1,300 v. 935) since 2004.)

You've obviously decided that credulous belief in the unsupported statements of an "advisor" with a personal stake are more credible than actual observations.

Ignorance and bias often cloud the analytical abilities of those who only see or believe what their "faith" tells them; facts be damned!.

Are you really that arrogant or are you actually this stupid?

I am able enough to fully examine my sources before I post, and to examine the motives and bases for oppsing or contradictory opinions before I accept either as "Gospel."

I'm not insulting you. This is an actual honest question.

No, it isn't; it's the rhetorical rant of an uninformed advocate with nothing to support their false beliefs other than the conjectures of their priesthood.

Because i cannot for the life of me believe that anyone would hold onto their worldview so strongly as to be this obtuse.

Worldview, worldview, worldview ... .
Does the repetition comfort, or does it betray the rhetorical limit of an otherwise uninformed advocate?

You have no idea how strongly anyone other than yourself clings to some "worldview." Posting an article and starting a thread reflect more an interest in open-minded discussion than the closed-minded clinging to a doomsday "worldview" of a global warming fearmonger with no support other than speculation and belief.

I can see that I am ironically doing the same thing I'm accusing you of but at least my worldview is the consensus one.

You posted an article which has both points supporting and refuting your worldview. Why are the ones which you agree with truth, and the ones you don't are suspect?

deny ignorance
jw

reply to post by jdub297


Fact 1) Polar bear counts appear to be on the rise.

Why? Is it because there are more polar bears or is it because polar bears are forced to find food near human habitation. If you have your worldview (There's that word again) then you will say it's the former. If you have mine you will say it's the later. I'm not willing to go count them myself.. so I don't know the reason but if I'm balanced and objective I'd would say either are possible.

Fact 2) Female polar bears weight has been declining steadily in the last 30 years. Because of less time spent on the ice bears are not getting enough to eat and this could jeopardize the bears ability to reproduce.

Fact 3) According to Derocher, the small number of cubs surveyed supports point number 2

Fact 4) According to PBI the best indicator of polar bear health is weight.

Fact 5)The Canadian Government has a vested interest in making the polar bear population appear healthy.

Fact 6) The Nunavut Government has a commercial interest in making the polar bear population seem healthy.

If you want to use one statistic to prove your point then that's fine. Polar bear counts have risen. On the surface this seems to be good news for the bears, but taken in context, the bigger picture tells a different story.

I'm sorry for my tone earlier. I tried to edit my message but ATS wouldn't let me.

Originally posted by Buddha1098
reply to post by jdub297

 

Fact 1) Polar bear counts appear to be on the rise.

Why? Is it because there are more polar bears or is it because polar bears are forced to find food near human habitation. If you have your worldview (There's that word again) then you will say it's the former. If you have mine you will say it's the later. I'm not willing to go count them myself.. so I don't know the reason but if I'm balanced and objective I'd would say either are possible.

Fact 2) Female polar bears weight has been declining steadily in the last 30 years. Because of less time spent on the ice bears are not getting enough to eat and this could jeopardize the bears ability to reproduce.

Fact 3) According to Derocher, the small number of cubs surveyed supports point number 2

Fact 4) According to PBI the best indicator of polar bear health is weight.

Fact 5)The Canadian Government has a vested interest in making the polar bear population appear healthy.

Fact 6) The Nunavut Government has a commercial interest in making the polar bear population seem healthy.

If you want to use one statistic to prove your point then that's fine. Polar bear counts have risen. On the surface this seems to be good news for the bears, but taken in context, the bigger picture tells a different story.

I'm sorry for my tone earlier. I tried to edit my message but ATS wouldn't let me.

"Bigger picture?" Is this in your imagination, nightmares, or something else you ingested that disturbs your perception of reality?

Face it, every single count, despite fearmongering, reveals a thriving Polar Bear population.

Even the most ardent advocates have fallen back to a "Yes, but" position to defend exaggerated claims of devastation.

jw

reply to post by jdub297


I presented facts to support my position. You've presented rhetoric.

You're entitled to your opinion but it is just an opinion and, despite your protestations to the contrary, not a very informed one at that.

warmongers ?

does everything have to be my side vs your side ?

lets just be happy for any good news and leave it at that

Originally posted by Buddha1098
reply to post by jdub297

 

I presented facts to support my position. You've presented rhetoric.

You're entitled to your opinion but it is just an opinion and, despite your protestations to the contrary, not a very informed one at that.

Please provide citations to your "facts."
You offer nothing but fear-mongering and hyperbole.
Even Dr. Derocher has notings but his "gut" instincts.

Originally posted by Buddha1098

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

A difference of extra 400 polar bears?... Yes they are thriving, how many did you expect there would be?...

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

 

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

Why do people flag this crap?

Because the only crap so far have been responses like yours.

The point the op is making has more premise than anything you can come up with to defend your dead religion...

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

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

According to a report in 'resilient earth' website, "nasa satellite debunks global warming myth" 'climate depot' also has reports on its website, I get daily updates from 'climate change' most reports debunk man made global warming.

We do not have accurate counts!

We never have, and at this rate never will.

We can't make any real determination until we get actual counts.

As long as our government relies on aerial survey and civilian observation, we will always be estimating by a very large percentage.

Throw a UV detection system on a patrol aircraft, point it down, and start counting. Do this 3-4 times a year.

Get real information so we can make a real analysis.

I found some of jdub297's comments harsh, but I can see why. I've been a member at ATS for two years and lurker for about a year prior and I've seen the decline in quality posts and an increase in poor responses. Seems even many of the moderators are getting testy. Yes, this is off topic, but I've given a lot of consideration to canceling my membership because of this sort of thing.

I think jdub297 did a good job of supporting his argument, regardless of his short fuse. An increase in numbers is an increase in numbers and to me that reflects a healthier population. However, if climate changes cause the polar bear to go extinct, then their adaptation to polar conditions has become a liability to survival. Nature will fill the void left by the polar bear if it can't survive, extinction has been the rule from the very beginning, it's called natural selection. So what if polar bears look soft and cuddly, I wouldn't want to be mauled by one. I'm sure the polar bear wouldn't care if we went extinct, we are their biggest competitor.

Climate change, whether heating or cooling, is not an "unproven theory", although the claims that our actions contribute to it are unproven. Climate change is evident throughout the history of planet. I will admit that there are certain people trying to use climate change to advance an agenda, but it is very real. It's something that transpires over thousands of years, not over night.

Always entertaining on ATS. Aliens, bigfoot, illuminati, fixed elections, moon landing faked...all perfectly valid fact that is being hidden from the "sheep".

Climate change? Well that's just down right crazy talk!