|
Post by louise on Feb 9, 2011 22:10:59 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Feb 9, 2011 23:07:56 GMT 1
I "could" be the Queen of Sheba. More shite.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 9, 2011 23:40:39 GMT 1
I could win the lottery, but I'm not giving up the day job just yet!
"The polar-bear population of western Hudson Bay is down..."
But everywhere else it is increasing. Remember Polar bears are hunted, too, as well as being hunters.
A lot of big IFs in that piece of rent-seeking scaremongering.
Is there nothing you cannot swallow without gagging, Louise?
|
|
|
Post by louise on Feb 9, 2011 23:47:22 GMT 1
"The polar-bear population of western Hudson Bay is down..." But everywhere else it is increasing. Can you please provide a link to this?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 10, 2011 12:05:45 GMT 1
Don't you get tired of this feeble rejoinder, Louise? Find the info for yourself like everyone else does.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Feb 10, 2011 12:07:24 GMT 1
I'm pretty sure that it is standard practice that whoever makes an assertion should be the one to back up that assertion.
For all I know, you could be making it up.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 10, 2011 13:21:03 GMT 1
I reckon that Polar Bears really are at grave risk of dying out.
Their REAL ecological environment has been altered for the worst by the activities of AGWists. Their natural predator has been eliminated, leaving them unwanted.
Put the buggers back on the Eskimo .. and see the population rise .. and become much fitter to survive .... etc..
Green Action = Human Action = Wrecking the Environment. And you can't have a clearer example than the Great Dying of the Polar Bears.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 10, 2011 13:22:44 GMT 1
The polar bear population has been increasing from an estimated 5,000 in the 1950s to an estimated 25,000 today. There are lots of references to this IF you look. What you are quoting in the OP is a self-confessed "scenario" of the authors who have confounded genuine care for the environment with AGW alarmism and are making the cuddly polar bear their poster child. The polar bear is doing quite nicely thanks to a reduction in hunting.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Feb 10, 2011 13:29:25 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 10, 2011 13:35:27 GMT 1
Louise, this why I do not engage with marchesarosa any longer - she and her acolytes simply deny every shred of scientific evidence that is presented. She would still deny AGW even if everyone else in the world accepted it due, I presume, to some psychological need to rebel and perhaps to gain attention. Very, very sad.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Feb 10, 2011 13:40:28 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 10, 2011 19:36:04 GMT 1
Louise, Abacus, and others
We actually know f-all about Polar Bears and their numbers in the past, or in the present. We cannot now trust ANY number ... because those who are supposed to be getting the numbers cannot be trusted any more.
Everywhere you look you see fiddling in the cause of some other campaign rather than the issue at hand; and/or bigging-up and grant seeking. Ecoscience is FUBAR because it has sold itself down the river, and tried to sell us all, too.
Time was, when Nerd-u-Like scientists buggerd off into the wild and became totally anal about collecting lists of numbers, which they spent years sorting out nand filing for posterity.
Look at the difference between e.g. Darwin's voyage and that recent uttely stupid polar thickness expedition, with press-releases taking the place of proper scientific observation and anaysis.
Basically, the weather may or may not be changing, asn teh Pola Bears must take their chances along with the rest of life on this planet. If they can adapt, they will survive. End of story. Same goes for Man. So, it is all about adaptation .. i.e. doing MORE of one thing to displace other stuff. Adaptation is NOT just doing LESS of stuff... that is just Dying out.
I have yet to see any positive, forward-looking stuff coming out of Greenism except self-serving rent-seeking crap by the offspring of the middle class. Where are the Inventors who can give us son-of-carbon-burning technology? Clearly state education and the Universities are NOT the places where such NEW stuff will come.
So leave the bloody polar bears alone and start shouting about the FACT that we need MORE BETTER stuff ... BETTER meaning cheaper, lighter, faster,cleaner .. rather than LESS of todays stuff.
Tomorrow's generations need more, better stuff.The fact that some of this generation have suffered a massive failure of nerve and seek to stop the world so they can get off, is not doing the right and proper thing even to the polar bears.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 10, 2011 20:39:51 GMT 1
Demographic and Ecological Perspectives on the Status of Polar Bears Written by Dr. Mitchell Taylor and Dr. Martha Dowsley Friday, 14 March 2008 06:08 scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/demographic_and_ecological_polar_bear_perspectives.htmlAbstract Although two polar bear subpopulations (Western Hudson Bay and Southern Beaufort Sea) no longer appear to be viable due to reduction in sea ice habitat, polar bears as a species do not appear to be threatened by extinction in the foreseeable future from either a demographic or an ecological perspective. Ecological perspectives that suggest the reductions to survival and recruitment rates for two populations (Western Hudson Bay and Southern Beaufort Sea) have occurred because of a long-term decline in sea ice due to climate warming. These populations occur where summer ice coverage is seasonal (WH) or divergent (SB). The perspective that the impacts of sea ice reductions experienced in WH and SB subpopulations can be generalized to the remainder of the polar bear subpopulations depends entirely on the IPCC GCMs that predict continued reductions to sea ice due to CO2 driven climate change. Current and historical polar bear subpopulation performance demonstrates that viable polar bear subpopulations have persisted and generally increased throughout the current period of climate warming. The mean generation time of polar bears as defined by the IUCN/SSC Redbook criteria and the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) is 12 not 15 years. The time-frame for three generations for polar bears is 36 not 45 years as indicated by the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialists Group. Based on the assumption of a linear relationship of population numbers to sea ice habitat, extrapolation of IPCC GCM sea ice predictions over a thirty-six year interval does not support the contention that polar bears are threatened with extinction over the next three generations. Extrapolation of IPCC GCM sea ice predictions over a hundred year interval does not support the contention that polar bears are threatened with extinction in the foreseeable future. Population viability analyses (PVA), using demographic estimates from polar bear populations where the data are sufficient, indicate that population status is affected by both anthropogenic removals and vital rates. PVAs that employ current demographic and removal rates indicate that most polar bear populations could sustain the current removal rate indefinitely. Management action for populations where removal rates exceed the estimated sustainable levels has occurred and is ongoing. The popular notion that polar bears are declining or already expatriated worldwide has been initiated and perpetuated by environmental organizations and individuals who apparently believe that current subpopulation numbers and trends are an insufficient basis for an appropriate status determination. These individuals and organizations suggest that an ecological consideration constitutes more appropriate methodology to assess status of polar bears and presumably all species. Observations of natural mortality, intra-specific aggression, poor condition, and even healthy bears in good condition on ice floes have been cited as evidence of a population impacts on polar bears due to declining sea ice. Anecdotal information, although useful and interesting, is not equivalent to scientific information based on valid statistical analysis of sample data. Simultaneously, traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) from Inuit has been largely ignored because TEK is mostly oral, and because TEK generally does not support the assertion that polar bear populations are in general, or even local decline....... ------- There is much more. Dr. Mitchell Taylor is/was Polar Bear Biologist, Department of the Environment, Government of Nunavut , Igloolik , Nunavut , Canada. Who do you trust, people on the ground like Dr Taylor and the Inuit or politically motivated "environmental" activists using wildlife as a figleaf? Patrick Moore, too, a founder of Greenpeace, states in this interview HIS scepticism about the purported threat to polar bears. radio4scienceboards.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=witter&action=display&thread=525Polar bears survived the Arctic warming of 1918 to 1940. They will survive the current one. Mankind is their worst enemy, not the climate.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 10, 2011 21:02:48 GMT 1
"she and her acolytes simply deny every shred of scientific evidence that is presented"
Show me some evidence of weather and climate that in any way departs from the long historical record and I will certainly consider it.
Louise has already tried to pass off insurance claims as a proxy for increased storminess because there just isn't any REAL evidence for increased storminess. In fact accumulated cyclone energy worldwide is at its lowest for quite a while.
She natters on about the Arctic (like ALL alarmists) because there is sod all of any note happening elsewhere! A slight reduction in summer sea-ice is ALL that there is to report that's why they make such a meal of it. Look at the Pacific if you REALLY want to understand the role of water on this planet's climate, not the Arctic Ocean.
I care about the environment and until recently was a long term finacial supporter of Greenpeace (if that convinces you of my concern for the natural world) but I am not going to let emotion and moralising get in the way of understanding the actualité, sorry, abacus.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 21, 2011 9:06:41 GMT 1
|
|