Ocean acidity increasing at unprecedented rate

[Jack Weber]

Shady... you, "said what needed to be said"? Really? Is there a problem? Is there a reason you won't/can't actually articulate an interpretation of the referenced article you linked to? I mean, you must think the article conveys something I might have concern/difficulty with... after all, you called me out over it, by simply offering a linked reference, a one sentence quote and a statement that you expected I would reply to your post with a, as you stated, "character assassination pointed towards the site, and the writer of the article".

is there a problem? Is there a reason you've put more effort into a pissant whine over forum rules and my posting suspension, than you have provided to offer any of your own commentary/interpretation of the article you link reference... that you presume to call me out on? Is there a problem?

How 'bout that "professorial" sanctimony??

Ya' diggin' that,Waldo???

Let's await the person in question calling me a "coward",shall we???

[TimG]

Doesn't mean the North is not warming - it just highlights how the activists go overboard in their claims.

The trouble is no one cares about polar bears unless they can make money off them. For example, the polar bear researchers that alarmists often quote depend entirely on government funding so they have a huge incentive to create a crisis in order to attract that funding.

I find it rather pathetic that alarmists bleat constantly about fossil fuel money when the biggest corrupting influence on science comes from big government.

Edited April 6, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

I find it rather pathetic

no! What is truly pathetic is your constant nattering denier drumbeat; however, I am heartened to realize, over your most recent posts, we can see you've devolved to your true conspiracy self... in this most recent diatribe you've called in "big government" corrupting science... the "biggest corrupter of all", you say! And, of course, you fall-back to your favoured go-to against scientists; in this case, dishonest "fund seeking scientists", fraudulently doing research to invent crisis... for the sake of funding.

do various governments provide funding for polar bear research? Yes, certainly... obviously... and an easy googly will also show you major polar bear research funding being provided by the likes of high-profile corporate sponsors, like Coca-Cola, Volkswagen, Canada Goose, Holt Renfrew, Lowepro, and quite literally a dozen others to varying degrees and levels. Notwithstanding the green-washing efforts of Exxon actually funding polar bear research... notwithstanding the likes of funding from the World Wildlife Fund, Canadian Wildlife Federation, National Fish & Wildlife Association, and the International Fund for Animal Welfare, etc. All that from a single googly search.

yes, truly... you are pathetic.

[TimG]

do various governments provide funding for polar bear research? Yes, certainly... obviously... and an easy googly will also show you major polar bear research funding being provided by the likes of high-profile corporate sponsors, like Coca-Cola, Volkswagen, Canada Goose, Holt Renfrew, Lowepro, and quite literally a dozen others to varying degrees and levels.

And none of that funding would be there if there was not 'crisis' that required 'research' which gives the sponsors good PR for funding it. You can deny it but it is a indisputable fact: scientist's jobs depend on convincing people that their research is worth funding. If that means they need to exaggerate a minor problem and pretend it is a catastrophe they will. Nobody wants to be unemployed and one of the joys of environmental science: making crap up to ensure continued employment is easy to do.

You are also a pathetic hypocrite: the only reason you care what alarmist scientists says is because they support your ideological agenda. You smear and denigrate any scientific that dare to repudiate your alarmist creed. So don't pretend you care about objective science. You are a religious wacko and "agenda driven science" is a nothing but tool used to push religion on others. You are not capable of understand basic scientific concepts.

Edited April 6, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

making crap up to ensure continued employment is easy to do.

what's it really like in the TimG bubble?

[waldo]

You are also a pathetic hypocrite: the only reason you care what alarmist scientists says is because they support your ideological agenda. You smear and denigrate any scientific that dare to repudiate your alarmist creed. So don't pretend you care about objective science. You are a religious wacko and "agenda driven science" is a nothing but tool used to push religion on others. You are not capable of understand basic scientific concepts.

given your post edit I missed this swill the first go-round. You certainly know nothing of objective science. Objective science doesn't exist in your narrow, skewed, fake-skeptics world... it doesn't exist within your favoured denialsphere.

as I said a few posts back... when you can't actually argue anything from a scientific basis... you revert to your tried and true conspiracy self. I also suggested it wouldn't be long before you added something else to your conspiracy ramblings... that you would shortly resurrect another of your favoured past go-to's... adding in your "religious" and "zeolot" labeling. Well done!

[TimG]

when you can't actually argue anything from a scientific basis

I always argue from a scientific basis with people that can actually provide responses that demonstrate that they understand the argument being made (even if they disagree with it). I just don't waste my time arguing with clueless ideological hacks who can only repeat propaganda they do not understand. Edited April 6, 2012 by TimG

[WWWTT]

The trouble is no one cares about polar bears unless they can make money off them.

Wasn't there a conservative politician that wanted to make the polar bear Canadas national animal?And she started dishing on the beaver?

Thats actually kind of ironic that the polar bear is the Earths largest land carnivour and in many ways is seen as a powerfull animal but environmentalists portray this animal as a weak victim of circumstance beyond its controll.However the beaver is very successfull with a unique ability to modify their environment to allow this.

Well anyways there are many creatures on this Earth that evolve or have become extinct and to always blame humans may be un called for.I know humans have caused the extinction of many species.Directly and indirectly by habitat encrouchment and the introduction of foreign species.

Actually its in my opinion that it is arogant of humans to make the claim that we can cause a complete global change in climatethat can last hundreds of years.

WWWTT

[Michael Hardner]

yes, truly... you are pathetic.

what's it really like in the TimG bubble?

I just don't waste my time arguing with clueless ideological hacks who can only repeat propaganda they do not understand.

Drifting to insults now....

[waldo]

Drifting to insults now....

the principal insult is TimG's to this board - as was done here, as is done repeatedly, anytime substantive discussion begins on something, TimG purposely railroads the thread into one of his conspiracy flavoured rants. As I said, this time he pulled in "big government" as the largest corrupter of science, while at the same time falling back to his standard attack on the honesty and integrity of scientists.

[waldo]

I always argue from a scientific basis with people that can actually provide responses that demonstrate that they understand the argument being made (even if they disagree with it).

I will gladly resurrect many, many threads where you have "gone silent... gone mia" when you haven't been able to argue from science - when you can't argue from science. All one needs to do is pointedly ask you to offer alternative(s) to anthropogenic sourced CO2 as the principal causal tie to the relatively recent warming... we could then bump that up to climate sensitivity if you'd like.

[waldo]

Thats actually kind of ironic that the polar bear is the Earths largest land carnivour and in many ways is seen as a powerfull animal but environmentalists portray this animal as a weak victim of circumstance beyond its control.

the polar bear is most certainly susceptible to timing impacts of earlier ice-breakup and later ice-freeze... both of these climate change attributed circumstances are impacting on the seal-hunting period that ultimately impacts the birth weights and health of polar bear cubs... ultimately affecting their survivability and impacting the overall population status of polar bears in general.

Actually its in my opinion that it is arogant of humans to make the claim that we can cause a complete global change in climate that can last hundreds of years.

that 'complete global change in climate' you describe has attribution cause(s)... for you to simply dismiss the prevailing principle attribution is... human arrogance.

[Michael Hardner]

the principal insult is TimG's to this board - as was done here, as is done repeatedly, anytime substantive discussion begins on something, TimG purposely railroads the thread into one of his conspiracy flavoured rants. As I said, this time he pulled in "big government" as the largest corrupter of science, while at the same time falling back to his standard attack on the honesty and integrity of scientists.

It's beside the point. His presence here may be a metaphorical insult, but the insults you give here are real and not pardoned by your point of view on things.

[TimG]

Thats actually kind of ironic that the polar bear is the Earths largest land carnivour and in many ways is seen as a powerfull animal but environmentalists portray this animal as a weak victim of circumstance beyond its control.

Large mega fauna are often the least able to adapt. The earth is littered with the fossils of mega-fauna that don't exist today. They were replaced by smaller animals that eventually grew to fill the niche left by the extinct species. Extinction is nature's way. Even if it could be established that the polar bear is endangered - I don't see why we should care. Edited April 6, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

Even if it could be established that the polar bear is endangered - I don't see why we should care.

I don't see why we should care... what you think, particularly when you're prepared to showcase such a callous response.

[waldo]

His presence here may be a metaphorical insult, but the insults you give here are real and not pardoned by your point of view on things.

metaphorical? ... there's certainly nothing metaphorical about these recent spews:

You are also a pathetic hypocrite:

You are a religious wacko

clueless ideological hack

which posts are you reading... anyway?

[bush_cheney2004]

... Extinction is nature's way. Even if it could be established that the polar bear is endangered - I don't see why we should care.

Of course...polar bears are a recent adaptation of garden variety brown bears traceable to an extinct species in Ireland!

Plus they are not 'endangered'.

[Michael Hardner]

metaphorical? ... there's certainly nothing metaphorical about these recent spews:

which posts are you reading... anyway?

I quoted them above.

[waldo]

an earlier related post:

- considerable

scientific research of polar bear population exists

, notwithstanding the anecdotal observances.

According to a 2009 report by the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, of the 19 recognized sub-populations of polar bears, 8 are in decline, 1 is increasing, 3 are stable and 7 don’t have enough data to draw any conclusions.

from the previous linked polar bear status table, one of the notes associated with the Western Hudson Bay sub-population group identifies a possible northern shift in the distribution of polar bears... of course, relative to decreasing ice, earlier ice-breakup and resulting nutritionally-stressed polar bears. Clearly, unless one has a Simple agenda, given bear mobility and climate change ice impacts, no single polar bear sub-population grouping analysis/review, in isolation, can be presumed to offer a sweeping generalized commentary on overall polar bear status/population.

in any case, one comment coming forward on that recent Nunuvat aerial survey:

Andrew Derocher - research scientist - UofA Biological Sciences:

It’s premature to draw many conclusions... some details in the survey point 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. This is a clear indication that this population is not sustaining itself in any way, shape, or form.

follow-up related article: Polar bear populations remain on thin ice, U of A researchers say

Lost in the debate, says Stirling, is the fact that the polar bears of western Hudson Bay might be producing only 20-50 per cent as many cubs as they did 30 years ago when the bears had a month or more time to hunt seals on the sea ice.

Now that global warming is forcing the bears to spend more time on land where there is virtually no food, females are on average 30 to 40 kilograms lighter than they were in the early 1980s and producing far fewer cubs, say Stirling. Those cubs that are born are now less likely than they were in the past to live beyond two years, the age at which they became independent adults.

That disturbing trend, Stirling notes, is acknowledged in the latest report by the Nunavut government.

“It clearly states that relatively few cubs of the year and yearlings were observed in western Hudson Bay in comparison to the recent polar bear surveys in Foxe Basin in 2009 and 2010.”

“The report also acknowledges that average litter sizes were the lowest recorded in recent years amongst the three Hudson Bay sub-populations.”

Stirling says he saw this first-hand in November when he participated in an aerial survey of polar bears waiting to return to the ice in western Hudson Bay. In the area between the Ontario-Manitoba border and the Nelson River, he counted 107 bears, but saw only two family groups. Normally, he would expect to see 20-25 mothers with cubs.

“No matter what the size of the polar bear population in western Hudson Bay is, reproduction and survival of cubs are probably no longer high enough to sustain a harvest. In fact, they may not be capable of sustaining an unharvested population.”

Derocher says the recent Nunavut government estimate may be inflating the numbers because the aerial survey area is greater than that covered by more accurate long-term mark and recapture studies. It may have also included animals from the southern Hudson Bay region, which sometimes move into western Hudson Bay.

The bottom line, he says, is that the breakup of the ice is already an average of three weeks earlier than it was only 30 years ago, freeze-up is later, and the duration of the open water is steadily increasing. Being creatures that need ice as a platform to hunt seals, a primary source of food, polar bears in this rapidly warming region are extremely vulnerable.

[waldo]

I caught the following documentary a few days ago on CBC's, 'The Nature of Things'... Polar Bears: A Summer Odyssey: spectacular photography... if you're inclined, the link presents the complete show as an online video (45 minutes) - "the story of a young polar bear's epic migration through the icy waters of Hudson Bay and his subsequent adventures on land, where he must spend the ice-free season. It is his first summer alone without his mother to guide and feed him. His struggle to survive is set against the biggest environmental story of our time: climate change."

[bleeding heart]

So CBC is in on the massive, fat-cat scientist conspiracy. They probably support such religious tomfoolery as peer review, and other such baleful leftist phenomena.

[waldo]

yabut, yabut... I'm always somewhat dumbfounded when some decry the lack of any substantive programming on CBC TV - the Nature of Things consistently presents topical... sometimes provoking content. Of course, an added bonus with Suzuki causing some of the usual suspects to hyperventilate and rant on!