Envoronmentalists Confound Again!

[Keepitsimple]

The squeaky wheel gets the grease again. It'll be shouted from on high all over the world...the Polar Bear is disappearing - but it's a lie. How do these nutbar environmentalists get so much media attention with such claptrap? Is it just lazy journalism yet again?

Now it's the polar bear, granted mostly symbolic protection by the United States this week as the highest-profile potential casualty of global warming as its mostly Canadian domain disappears with the Arctic Ocean ice melt.

Ironically, the polar bear's primary diet is the seal, and it has a particular affinity for the young pups it grabs by the head and chews, a death surely more prolonged than the fatal whack of a sealers' hakapik.

The "threatened" status afforded the Canadian great white is intriguing. One might not associate that alarmist term with an animal whose Arctic population has doubled to 25,000 bears in the last 40 years, with only two of the 13 pockets of population experiencing any decline and the rest enjoying a boom.

Yet somehow, despite that population surge, its long history of surviving even warmer climates and having lived off much reduced sea ice, the polar bear is now the world's photogenic canary in the global-warming coal mine.

Link: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/column...37-1b4310255b2e

Edited May 17, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[Oleg Bach]

The squeaky wheel gets the grease again. It'll be shouted from on high all over the world...the Polar Bear is disappearing - but it's a lie. How do these nutbar environmentalists get so much media attention with such claptrap? Is it just lazy journalism yet again?

Link: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/column...37-1b4310255b2e

Just get rid of the America trophy hunters who are part of an "industry" 3 and a half million bucks is not an industy to the locals or anyone else..Any spoiled cowardly man that wants to spend 40 thousand buck on a hunting trip so he can pop a naive distant bear on the horizon is not a man but a worm...tell the Amercians to find other ways of proving manhood..It is the seal population that has to be managed...and the bears will live..although I have seen some disturbing images of skeletal white creatures..they will surive..Canada is not to be plundered in any manner from here on in. I don't care if their are ten million bears..let them be.

[jdobbin]

This link doesn't seem to be working.

[sharkman]

Ah, the MSM. They all jump on a story and run with it based on people they trust, forgetting these people have agendas.

I saw that same story in the Vancouver Province today. The editorial cartoon, however, was a polar bear standing on a rapidly melting mini iceburg. Oh well, wait a few more years until the ice up there is seriously growing again and they'll be shrieking about global freezing.

[Alta4ever]

Nothing like the facts getting in the way of an enviornmentalist's agenda.

[eyeball]

The fact is, the population has grown because trophy hunting has been plummeting for years. This is what happens when you protect something. You've got to love it when a plan works.

Don't be surprised if the numbers continue to climb as yet another country creates protective legislation that outlaws the import of polar bear parts.

Meanwhile...

Global alarm sounded over dramatic decline in bird, fish, animal population

Human activity is wiping out close to one per cent of every other species on Earth every year, a global environmental report said Friday.

The report, compiled by the World Wildlife Fund, the Zoological Society of London and the Global Footprint Network, said the population of animals, birds and fish has dropped by a third in the last 35 years.

"You'd have to go back to the extinction of the dinosaurs to see a decline as rapid as this," said Jonathan Loh, editor of the report.

Edited May 17, 2008 by eyeball

[msj]

Oh, I don't know. Let's do something crazy like ask an actual scientist who studies these things:

Ask the Experts: Are Polar Bear Populations Increasing?

I bolded some parts to keep it simple for those who need it simple...

Dr. Derocher is a polar bear scientist with the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada. He also serves on PBI's Scientific Advisory Council.

Question: The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has proposed that the polar bear be listed as a threatened species. Yet some news reports state that polar bear numbers are actually increasing. For example, the following paragraph appeared on the Fox News Web site:

"In the 1950s the polar bear population up north was estimated at 5,000. Today it's 20- to 25,000, a number that has either held steady over the last 20 years or has risen slightly. In Canada, the manager of wildlife resources for the Nunavut territory of Canada has found that the population there has increased by 25 percent."

If this is true, then why are scientists worried about population declines?

Answer from Dr. Derocher: The various presentations of biased reporting ignore, or are ignorant of, the different reasons for changes in populations. If I thought that there were more bears now than 50 years ago and a reasonable basis to assume this would not change, then no worries. This is not the case.

The bottom line here is that it is an apples and oranges issue. The early estimates of polar bear abundance are a guess. There is no data at all for the 1950-60s. Nothing but guesses. We are sure the populations were being negatively affected by excess harvest (e.g., aircraft hunting, ship hunting,self-killing guns, traps, and no harvest limits). The harvest levels were huge and growing. The resulting low numbers of bears were due only to excess harvest but, again, it was simply a guess as to the number of bears.

After the signing of the International Agreement on Polar Bears in the 1970s, harvests were controlled and the numbers increased. There is no argument from anyone on this point. Some populations recovered very slowly (e.g., Barents Sea took almost 30 years) but some recovered faster. Some likely never were depressed by hunting that much, but the harvest levels remained too high and the populations subsequently declined. M'Clintock Channel is a good example. The population is currently down by over 60% of historic levels due only to overharvesting. Some populations recovered as harvests were controlled, but have since declined due to climate-related effects (e.g., Western Hudson Bay). In Western Hudson Bay, previously sustainable harvests cannot be maintained as the reproductive and survival rates have declined due to changes in the sea ice.

At this point, we lack quantitative data for an overall assessment of trend in Canada or Nunavut as a whole. There is, however, very strong evidence for a decline in Western Hudson Bay and the Southern Beaufort Sea based on quantitative studies. More recently, scientists working in the Southern Hudson Bay have reported a major decline in the condition of polar bears. A decline in condition was the precursor to the population decline in Western Hudson Bay. There is clear suggestion of a population decline due to over-harvest in Baffin Bay, Kane Basin and possibly Norwegian Bay.

The point is that you cannot simply summarize the status of polar bears—the information lies in the individual populations. You cannot put the various time periods together into a simplistic overview. Sea ice is declining but again, it is not declining the same everywhere. Some small areas of multi-year ice may improve habitat for polar bears. This latter point, however, does not mean that the habitat in all areas will improve and the predictions are very clear that the primary habitat of polar bears is at risk.

We can control harvests through management and these efforts are underway for several of the over-harvested populations. So far, I have not seen any movement on serious consideration of reducing greenhouse gases in North America (or other countries with few exceptions). Climate warming is not under control and I do not see the management changes coming to effect the needed changes in climate change emissions.

Look at the messengers: lobby groups for big business say there is no problem. Yes, conservation groups moved the issue forward for listing under the Endangered Species Act but this was already an issue that was founded on scientific information. The IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group was moving on a Vulnerable designation (the same as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act) before anybody heard of actions from environmental groups. Sea ice change and habitat loss is the key driving force. Ignore the bears for a moment and look at the evidence for sea ice change: NASA is a key player in looking at the actual decreases in sea ice. It is an easy matter to put the dots together: no habitat, no seals; no seals, no bears. This never was an issue of polar bears alone. The only effective conservation approach is to protect the habitat and this is an issue of climate change. You can distort the issue any way you so desire. At the end of the day, the sea ice is disappearing. Take away the habitat and the species follows shortly thereafter (or before).

Comparing declines caused by harvest followed by recovery from harvest controls to declines from loss of habitat and climate warming are apples and oranges. Ignorant people write ignorant things.

[Alta4ever]

Oh, I don't know. Let's do something crazy like ask an actual scientist who studies these things:

Ask the Experts: Are Polar Bear Populations Increasing?

I bolded some parts to keep it simple for those who need it simple...

I would love to see were the polar bears were living when the Vikings were farming in Greenland.

[jbg]

This link doesn't seem to be working.

Since the NP is, I believe, a pay site, paying your subscription bill would work wonders.

[jbg]

I would love to see were the polar bears were living when the Vikings were farming in Greenland.

In the Copenhagen zoo, no doubt.

[msj]

I would love to see were the polar bears were living when the Vikings were farming in Greenland.

Good thing I bolded those parts for you.

Maybe I should go back and bold some more....

[Alta4ever]

Good thing I bolded those parts for you.

Maybe I should go back and bold some more....

Bold why, the scientist is speculating as well, he said he had no data from the 50s.

The fact of the matter is that the population is up.

[msj]

Bold why, the scientist is speculating as well, he said he had no data from the 50s.

The fact of the matter is that the population is up.

What do you not understand by his use of the words "1970's" and "30 years?"

You do realize that 30 years ago places us in 1977/78?

It seems to me that it is explicitly stated and implied that the 1950's and 1960's were guesses and data collection improved during the 1970's.

No, I'm not going back to bold the article again.

[Alta4ever]

What do you not understand by his use of the words "1970's" and "30 years?"

You do realize that 30 years ago places us in 1977/78?

It seems to me that it is explicitly stated and implied that the 1950's and 1960's were guesses and data collection improved during the 1970's.

No, I'm not going back to bold the article again.

How can they claim the population was down 60% in the 70's when they had only guesses of what the population was in the 50s and 60s.?

I see holes in you artical.

[msj]

How can they claim the population was down 60% in the 70's when they had only guesses of what the population was in the 50s and 60s.?

I see holes in you artical.

So you don't understand what the words "currently down by over 60% of historic levels" means?

It means that the current population (in whatever particular area he's talking about) is down currently (as in now - as in some time during the 2000's) as compared to historical levels which, presumably, would be based on historical data rather than, you know, historical guesses.

Now, if historical data only goes back to the 1970's then that would be the historical data used for comparison purposes.

[Alta4ever]

So you don't understand what the words "currently down by over 60% of historic levels" means?

It means that the current population (in whatever particular area he's talking about) is down currently (as in now - as in some time during the 2000's) as compared to historical levels which, presumably, would be based on historical data rather than, you know, historical guesses.

Now, if historical data only goes back to the 1970's then that would be the historical data used for comparison purposes.

The only historical data they have is the last 30 years in their words it has

"Today it's 20- to 25,000, a number that has either held steady over the last 20 years or has risen slightly. In Canada, the manager of wildlife resources for the Nunavut territory of Canada has found that the population there has increased by 25 percent."

The rest of the data is guess work.

Your artical is full of holes

[msj]

The only historical data they have is the last 30 years in their words it has

"Today it's 20- to 25,000, a number that has either held steady over the last 20 years or has risen slightly. In Canada, the manager of wildlife resources for the Nunavut territory of Canada has found that the population there has increased by 25 percent."

The rest of the data is guess work.

Your artical is full of holes

What you don't understand about directly quoting a Fox article to then discuss it well, I can't explain that.

Maybe you are unable to see the quotation marks?

Maybe the sentence that precedes the paragraph, which states "For example, the following paragraph appeared on the Fox News Web site:" is too difficult?

Maybe the sentence after the quoted paragraph that asks the question: "If this is true, then why are scientists worried about population declines?" and then leads into the scientist's reply is just too much?

But that's enough hand holding. I'm not interested in teaching reading comprehension....

Edited May 17, 2008 by msj

[Alta4ever]

What you don't understand about directly quoting a Fox article to then discuss it well, I can't explain that.

Maybe you are unable to see the quotation marks?

Maybe the sentence that precedes the paragraph, which states "For example, the following paragraph appeared on the Fox News Web site:" is too difficult?

But that's enough hand holding. I'm not interested in teaching reading comprehension....

Obviously 'm not the one having reading comprenhension problems.

They are talking about historical levels, but they have no data that acurately shows what the historical levels are, they admit this in the artical, but you seem to miss this point. Although they do know they have fairly acturate data from 1970 on they are showing a population increase/steading between then and now. So without a longer time horizon on data how can they acurately gauge what the historical average was before it was effected from hunting and habitat change?

Your arctical is full of holes.

[Wild Bill]

Good thing I bolded those parts for you.

Maybe I should go back and bold some more....

I can understand how data from years ago may not be as precise as that available today. What puzzles me is how in any argument about the environment it is always assumed that when the data is questionable it means that the "green" argument MUST be true!

If we cannot be sure that the bear population was only 5000 how can you state that it was actually more to bolster your argument? It is equally likely that it was less, or perhaps even 5000 was true?

If you don't accept the initial data then you can state it to be ANYTHING YOU WANT! In which case, it means nothing!

Edited May 17, 2008 by Wild Bill

[geoffrey]

Population levels are largely cyclical in any ecosystem. I'm not too concerned unless there was a major die off or a major population explosion. Clearly, niether is happening.

They are cute and make good poster boys for the green movement. They aren't actually at any risk.

[msj]

I can understand how data from years ago may not be as precise as that available today. What puzzles me is how in any argument about the environment it is always assumed that when the data is questionable it means that the "green" argument MUST be true!

If we cannot be sure that the bear population was only 5000 how can you state that it was actually more to bolster your argument? It is equally likely that it was less, or perhaps even 5000 was true?

If you don't accept the initial data then you can state it to be ANYTHING YOU WANT! In which case, it means nothing!

No, what is amazing is how you can misrepresent what the scientist is stating.

Yes, he mentions changes in sea ice and its current effects on populations. He also mentions harvesting of polar bears as major issues.

And, of course, he also discusses how the data prior to the 1970's is just not reliable.

What puzzles me is how people like you always assume the 1950's/60's numbers are right and then use this questionable data as meaning the "let's pollute more without considering consequences" argument MUST be true!

[sharkman]

I can understand how data from years ago may not be as precise as that available today. What puzzles me is how in any argument about the environment it is always assumed that when the data is questionable it means that the "green" argument MUST be true!

If we cannot be sure that the bear population was only 5000 how can you state that it was actually more to bolster your argument? It is equally likely that it was less, or perhaps even 5000 was true?

If you don't accept the initial data then you can state it to be ANYTHING YOU WANT! In which case, it means nothing!

msj, this comment is not misrepresenting what the scientist is saying. That's because he is not referring specifically to what any specific scientist is saying.

Wild Bill, I agree, the Green club ALWAYS skews the numbers when needed, and then shrieks about it in an attempt to manipulate opinion.

Edited May 17, 2008 by sharkman

[msj]

Obviously 'm not the one having reading comprenhension problems.

They are talking about historical levels, but they have no data that acurately shows what the historical levels are, they admit this in the artical, but you seem to miss this point. Although they do know they have fairly acturate data from 1970 on they are showing a population increase/steading between then and now. So without a longer time horizon on data how can they acurately gauge what the historical average was before it was effected from hunting and habitat change?

Your arctical is full of holes.

They have data that starts to become reliable starting sometime in the 1970's for a variety of different areas showing a variety of different factors for the current challenges that polar bears are facing.

In this article historic does not mean going back as far as possible regardless of the accuracy of the data.

It means having a historic record: that is, having a reliable data set that goes back at least a few years.

The fact remains the OP of this thread is bogus. The claim that "[t]he "threatened" status afforded the Canadian great white is intriguing. One might not associate that alarmist term with an animal whose Arctic population has doubled to 25,000 bears in the last 40 years, with only two of the 13 pockets of population experiencing any decline and the rest enjoying a boom" is unreliable for reasons already mentioned by the scientist.

Sure, we can argue about what challenges polar bears are facing and will face in the coming decades until we're blue in the face. It's not going to change the current reality in the Arctic anyway.

One more thing - it is entirely possible for polar bear populations to increase over the past 30 years and yet decline over the next 30 years. All it takes is less harvesting (hunting) by humans during the past 30 years and less ice and significant changes to ice flow over the next 30 years.

[msj]

msj, this comment is not misrepresenting what the scientist is saying. That's because he is not referring specifically to what any specific scientist is saying.

Wild Bill, I agree, the Green club ALWAYS skews the numbers when needed, and then shrieks about it in an attempt to manipulate opinion.

Of course it misrepresents what the scientist is stating.

Wild Bill just assumes that the scientist is using unreliable data to support the "green" side.

Read the article again - the scientist clearly believes that global climate change is a reality and clearly believes that humans activity is a part of it. I would think that his belief is based on more than unreliable polar bear data from the 1950's and '60's.

He also discusses a variety of factors and CURRENT conditions based on reliable data for which he can make claims regarding changes in sea ice and its apparent effect on polar bears in certain areas (amongst a variety of things he discusses).

The fact remains - it is the OP that has been shown to be based on unreliable data.

It is the OP that deserves contempt for trying to compare apples to oranges in order to argue a point that just cannot be justified given the lack of data.

[Wild Bill]

Of course it misrepresents what the scientist is stating.

Wild Bill just assumes that the scientist is using unreliable data to support the "green" side.

Read the article again - the scientist clearly believes that global climate change is a reality and clearly believes that humans activity is a part of it. I would think that his belief is based on more than unreliable polar bear data from the 1950's and '60's.

He also discusses a variety of factors and CURRENT conditions based on reliable data for which he can make claims regarding changes in sea ice and its apparent effect on polar bears in certain areas (amongst a variety of things he discusses).

The fact remains - it is the OP that has been shown to be based on unreliable data.

It is the OP that deserves contempt for trying to compare apples to oranges in order to argue a point that just cannot be justified given the lack of data.

Well, at least we agree on the 5000 figure as being unreliable data! However, when YOU state "I would think..." we're talking opinion, not science. The fact that the man in question has impressed you cuts no ice with assuming he's right. That's just not science. He is right or he is wrong. It's up to him to prove his premise, not for others to prove him wrong.

I'm still waiting for proof that climate change is the fault of Man. Or that polar bear populations are truly under threat. I don't believe someone just because they are impressive. I wised up after voting for Mulroney! Reputation can offer confidence but not command blind belief.

And yes, I wasn't really targeting your scientist hero specifically, just commenting on what I see as a common tactic of many green spokespeople. We can agree that a specific datum is questionable. If they offer it as contributing to a proof they'd need more to be convincing.