Global Warming wipes out all polar bears except the increasing number of them

posted at 8:30 am on April 6, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

Well, I certainly hope you conservative, Earth hating, pollution and Big Oil loving cretins are happy. You’ve finally killed off all the polar bears. Global warming is not only making the planet hotter and melting the ice caps and leading to women wanting to vote, but it’s wiped out the habitat of one of the gentle giants of the northern climes. Now there won’t be any more polar bears outside of zoos and the planet is a poorer place for it since you…

oh, wait.

Healthy polar bear count confounds doomsayers

The debate about climate change and its impact on polar bears has intensified with the release of a survey that shows the bear population in a key part of northern Canada is far larger than many scientists thought, and might be growing.

The number of bears along the western shore of Hudson Bay, believed to be among the most threatened bear subpopulations, stands at 1,013 and could be even higher, according to the results of an aerial survey released Wednesday by the Government of Nunavut. That’s 66 per cent higher than estimates by other researchers who forecasted the numbers would fall to as low as 610 because of warming temperatures that melt ice faster and ruin bears’ ability to hunt. The Hudson Bay region, which straddles Nunavut and Manitoba, is critical because it’s considered a bellwether for how polar bears are doing elsewhere in the Arctic.

When this story came over the transom, I had a conversation with a friend where we both came to the same speculative conclusion. (Disclosure: I’m not a zoologist. Duh.)

Polar bears have been around for a long time. And with apologies to the “Earth is 6,000 years old” crowd, by ‘long time’ I’m talking a lot longer than people. The planet constantly goes through massive climate change periods, where “constant” means over a period of hundreds of millions or billions of years. There have been ice ages. There have been hothouse periods. The ice sheets have advanced and retreated. And somehow the polar bears marched on.

Do you suppose they have some sort of racial memory of warmer times before? Is it possible that they’ve seen this movie before, and when they can’t hunt for seals through holes in the ice, they switched to hunting from shore? Do they generally move south when it gets warm and cross breed with other bears to keep the line going?

The fact is, the Earth has been swinging wildly in terms of climate since long before we figured out how to bang the rocks together and make a spark. And the polar bears are still here. Could be that we’re just not giving them enough credit in terms of their ability to adapt and survive as one of the planet’s foremost apex predators. Food for thought, anyway.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Well first, the only countries polar bears live in are prosperous northern hemisphere lands: USA, Canada, Russia, Scandanavian countries”

radjah shelduck on April 6, 2012 at 8:48 AM

There are no polar bears in Finland, we have 3 and they are at a zoo.

Polar Bears in Rauna Zoo

There are no polar bears in Sweden either, other than zoos or animal parks.

Brown Bears in Sweden

There are five nations with polar bears: U.S. (Alaska), Canada, Russia, Greenland, and Norway. Polar bears do not live in Antarctica. Penguins do. I believe Denmark has some wild polar bears too.

pabo on April 6, 2012 at 10:36 AM

…Global warming can kiss my beautiful azz.

DHChron on April 6, 2012 at 9:03 AM

I find your ideas interesting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on April 6, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Male polar bears hunt, kill and eat the young of their own species.

Yet everyone whines and cries about the poor, poor polar bears.

What’s the big fuss, for goodness’ sake? They’re not “smarter than your average bear” if they attempt to eliminate their own kind. Sheesh.

Grace_is_sufficient on April 6, 2012 at 9:53 AM

I tend to say the same thing about the pro-choice crowd…

affenhauer on April 6, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Another number, reported by the Canada National Post, for the bears is 2100 in the 3 norther regions. I checked on this last week after seeing an article by a professor in Edmonton. He was pushing the bears are disappearing meme, too. I wish more of them would go out into the wilds and do field studies.

Kissmygrits on April 6, 2012 at 9:16 AM

I wish more of them would come into the population centers and universities and dine.

PrettyD_Vicious on April 6, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Further to the other discussion, Inuit used whatever they could get. Many had hunted bear, both polar and barren-land grizzly, with the 30-30, and yes, even with the .22.

Yoop on April 6, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Interesting, maybe that documentary wasn’t BS.

Oldnuke on April 6, 2012 at 10:39 AM

They’re not “smarter than your average bear” if they attempt to eliminate their own kind. Sheesh.
Grace_is_sufficient on April 6, 2012 at 9:53 AM

I tend to say the same thing about the pro-choice crowd…
affenhauer on April 6, 2012 at 10:38 AM

doubleplus+++
TOUCHE!

connertown on April 6, 2012 at 10:44 AM

That was wolves moron, and it was from helicopters, Palin hunts bears with just her “bare” hands..:)

idesign on April 6, 2012 at 8:49 AM

Chuck Norris had a naughty dream about her during the 2008 Presidential race, that was enough to imbibe her with certain hunting abilities many of us can only find in comic books…. and the Conservative blogosphere.

StompUDead on April 6, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Jazz, I am a zoologist, and I always wondered why there seems to be more press about polar bears disappearing from climate change than there is coverage of the much more likely possibility that we lose rhinos, elephants, orangutans, tigers, etc. in the wild. And I think there is one very likely reason this is so: it’s easier for the West to blame itself about polar bears than the other animals I mentioned.

Why? Well first, the only countries polar bears live in are prosperous northern hemisphere lands: USA, Canada, Russia, Scandanavian countries. So the big white bears are directly under our protection, unlike rhinos and tigers which for all our interest are ultimately dependant on developing lands to look out for them.

But it goes a step farther. If the purported demise of polar bears can be wholly blamed on emissions, then the finger for the declining bears can be pointed entirely at the US and other developed nations since we produce most of the emissions. With animals like elephants, it’s quite different. How can you blame the good old USA for the slaughter of pachyderms when by banning importation of ivory and prosecuting those who bring it into our land as contraband, we’ve done just about everything we can do to help those animals? (To say nothing of the fact that Americans contribute the most money to conservation organizations trying to save the beasts.) Elephants are in decline basically because of things totally out of our western hands–African and Asian countries encroaching on their habitats and killing adults for ivory to sell to nations where laws against it are absent or unenforced.

That’s the magic of the polar bear to some people. It’s the one large endangered mammal that they can totally blame on the USA if it disappears.

radjah shelduck on April 6, 2012 at 8:48 AM
——

I agree completely. I would also add my continued irritation with lefties who don’t give a darn about US species that really are crashing, like some species of upland game birds (bobwhites, prairie chickens). In fact, because of climate change hysteria, these lefties are perfectly willing to throw these birds under the bus by building wind farms near them. And the wind farms are to save polar bears, who are not in decline. It’s infuriating.

juliesa on April 6, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Male bears of other species also eat cubs. Male cats do this too, including house cats.

juliesa on April 6, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Placing polar bears on the ESL was a pure political move and not as a result of ANY serious research. (Seriously, six dead polar bears was all it took to get them listed. They were never necropsied, no population sampling, and no one with any clout seems to want to gainsay the enviro-whackjobs. It is similar to the Mohammad cartoon controversy: Any wildlife biologist who gets even an inkling of press saying that “…maybe things are (not?) so bad”, suddenly has research funding dry up and has to teach the 8AM MWF class as well as the TTh 9PM-1045PM class

MunDane68 on April 6, 2012 at 8:46 AM

And yet, the people who want more data before they act are the group that are anti-science according to the AGW crowd. Gosh I miss the days when you actually had to understand the scientific method to get a doctorate rather than parrotting the popular theory of the day.

talkingpoints on April 6, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Polar bear range and population expanding.

Black bear range and population expanding into suburbs of major cities.

Mountain Lion populations on the rise.

Jaguars sighted into TX and AZ.

Wolf population on the rise not just out west but in places like MN and WI.

Feral hogs cross-breeding with pet hogs from other countries to get the US a nastier wild population that is bigger and bolder, nastier and worse tempered than before. Coming to a neighborhood near you, soon.

The Browning Company reintroduces the Auto 5.

Soon all of North America will be Browning Country.

And not one moment too soon.

ajacksonian on April 6, 2012 at 11:05 AM

They wanted the “shield of factual science” to cover their deceit, but you can’t turn a virgin into a prostitute and still call it what it was -and so science now joins, the news median, education, the churches, weather, the entire grant process, the political parties, th UN, NASA, ecology and the environment itself, etc, as tainted – don’t trust until you verify!

Don L on April 6, 2012 at 11:07 AM

HAHAHAHAHA!
Oh man – JAZZ SHAW – seriously the best headline of the day.
I’d buy ya a beer if you were round my neck of the woods.
Thanks for that. ;)

whatthecrap on April 6, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Here we go again —- introducing facts and logic. This has to stop or the huggers will resort to more “scientific evidence” to prove their case, evidence not yet manufactured. Excellent blog.

gwilliam on April 6, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Wolf population on the rise not just out west but in places like MN and WI.

ajacksonian on April 6, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Here in SW ND, just N. of Lemmon SD, maybe 8-10 years ago, I saw in broad daylight crossing the road maybe 15 feet from my car a young male wolf.
He stopped to look at me & I stopped & go out of the car & looked at him.
He wasn’t worried at all. He then slowly walked away.
During that time within several months there were other local wolf sightings.
We also get moose down here.

I would also add my continued irritation with lefties who don’t give a darn about US species that really are crashing, like some species of upland game birds (bobwhites, prairie chickens). In fact, because of climate change hysteria, these lefties are perfectly willing to throw these birds under the bus by building wind farms near them. And the wind farms are to save polar bears, who are not in decline. It’s infuriating.

juliesa on April 6, 2012 at 10:53 AM

I would gather that a lot of critters round my area were never in huge abundance anyway, like the sage grouse here. Then you turn the whole place into a monoculture ecosystem, have the govt introduce the Chine pheasant, then protect it & try telling us all the pheasant doesn’t affect the native birds at all.
My a$$ they don’t.
It’s all politics & $$.
Science never enters into the equation.

Badger40 on April 6, 2012 at 11:29 AM

I hear they’re even tasty, if slow smoked with Hickory.

kirkill on April 6, 2012 at 9:46 AM

My Dad spent a lot of time in Alaska and has hunted just about everything up there. As he tells it, nobody up there eats polar bear. He asked one of his Eskimo friends about that once after they had been polar bear hunting (with 30.06 I believe he said) so the other guy sliced out a steak from the deaed bear and threw it in boiling water for a couple hours while they drank. My Dad said even after boiling, the meat was like biting into a thick chunk of sandpaper – one of the bears’ insulation qualities.

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 11:34 AM

People think the Earth is only 6000 years old? If that is the case then there is no need to apologize, even sarcastically, to people that indoctrinated.

Back on topic. The scare tactics from the Goreical and his minions are being picked apart by real science more and more.

wrath187 on April 6, 2012 at 11:36 AM

If contraception wasn’t so expensive there would be fewer polar bears to become extinct.
Government intervention is needed.

starboard lookout on April 6, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Male polar bears have been known to eat young polar bear cubs for various reasons.

stukinIL4now on April 6, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Yes – but mainly to enhance their own “reproductive rights”. If an adult male finds a female with cubs, he will kill the cubs so the female goes back into heat and he produces the next batch to reproduce his own line. Survival of the fittest and most ruthless.

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Gosh I miss the days when you actually had to understand the scientific method to get a doctorate rather than parrotting the popular theory of the day.

talkingpoints on April 6, 2012 at 10:58 AM

It’s called Post Normal Science and the Precautionary Principle insists we do something with out all that mundane research.

chemman on April 6, 2012 at 11:44 AM

I read a while back that a US Fish and Wildlife Services agent was tasked with doing an aerial survey in the Alaskan Arctic to get a polar bear count. He was afraid of flying over water. So instead of flying over the ice floes, where the bears were, they flew over the shoreline and inland. Surprise! Didn’t see many bears.

A Canadian biologist specializing in polar bears, Mitch Taylor, has been saying for years that polar bear populations are not only stable, but growing. Ignored, of course. This is old news, that has gone unreported.

iurockhead on April 6, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Take that, Coke, you miserable lie pushers.

sadatoni on April 6, 2012 at 12:03 PM

The pheasant populations in the Midwest used to be tremendous, and pheasant hunting was one of the great annual traditions.

But then along came ethanol subsidies, and farmers plowed up every spare acre of land to plant it in row crops. And now one is hard-pressed to remember the last time he saw a pheasant (years, probably); and pheasant hunting has all but disappeared, since the chances of even finding a bird are pretty slim.

J Baustian on April 6, 2012 at 12:07 PM

“but it’s wiped out the habitat of one of the gentle giants of the northern climes.”

I have no doubt that Gaia worshipers believe this – except the ones (like Timothy Treadwell*) who changed their minds right before getting eaten.

*Yes, I know Treadwell was eaten by a Grizzly but that was probably only because he ran out of gas money before making it to the Arctic.

slug on April 6, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Polar bears prefer warm weather too…whodathunkit.

Wyznowski on April 6, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Take that, Coke, you miserable lie pushers.

sadatoni on April 6, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Maybe they’re dying off because they’ve gotten too fat drinking all that Coke – which also causes globull warming from the carbonation (CO2)…. //

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 12:14 PM

The “threatened” increasing population of polar bears is clearly algoreistic, a “scientific truth” so complicated none of us without formal training (or funding) should try to make sence of it. Just trust! al would never lead us wrong.

StevC on April 6, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Global warming is not only making the planet hotter and melting the ice caps and leading to women wanting to vote free contraception

FIFY

disa on April 6, 2012 at 12:29 PM

The debate about climate change and its impact on polar bears has intensified with the release of a survey that shows the bear population in a key part of northern Canada is far larger than many scientists thought, and might be growing.

This is a single survey in one small area. It’s amazing to see the right not understand the relevance of a sampling size.

It’s called Post Normal Science

chemman on April 6, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Yes, we really need to keep using this term as often as we can so that blind followers of CAGW will learn that the people pushing CAGW aren’t real scientists – they’re Post Normal Scientists.

Surveys that ask people about trusting “scientists” should ask about trusting Post Normal Scientists.

blink on April 6, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Actually, members of the US Academy of Sciences support global warming science across every discipline, including top physicists and biologists. So it’s appropriate to wonder why surveys indicate that right-wingers don’t trust science.

Our country’s very future relies on our ability to out-thin the Chinese and other competitors, as reflected in science and technology. It’s unfortunate that such a large part of the population is out of touch and will probably continue to fall behind.

bayam on April 6, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Our country’s very future relies on our ability to out-thin the Chinese and other competitors, as reflected in science and technology. It’s unfortunate that such a large part of the population is out of touch and will probably continue to fall behind.

bayam on April 6, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Except the gaiantists despise advances in science and technology, unless it’s another insolvent wind or solar project. They also, to your previous point, have zero problems using flawed data to advance their thesis. And we’re talking flawed before it ever gets put into a GIGO algorhtym. Literally half of all temperature gathering stations are in locations such that their results are incapable of gathering data accurate enough to predict climate changes by their own admission.

Much like Obamacare isn’t about Health Care, AGW isn’t about Science. It’s about power and control.

BKennedy on April 6, 2012 at 1:13 PM

But then along came ethanol subsidies, and farmers plowed up every spare acre of land to plant it in row crops. And now one is hard-pressed to remember the last time he saw a pheasant (years, probably); and pheasant hunting has all but disappeared, since the chances of even finding a bird are pretty slim.

J Baustian on April 6, 2012 at 12:07 PM

I could care less if the pheasant dies out here.
I live in Big C0@k country: SW ND. And I am effing tired of the damned things.
The last many winters have taken care of them quite a bit, plus I believe disease also helped take them down.
They’re not native here. Let them die.

Actually, members of the US Academy of Sciences support global warming science across every discipline, including top physicists and biologists. So it’s appropriate to wonder why surveys indicate that right-wingers don’t trust science.

Our country’s very future relies on our ability to out-thin the Chinese and other competitors, as reflected in science and technology. It’s unfortunate that such a large part of the population is out of touch and will probably continue to fall behind.

bayam on April 6, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Who are these people? How many ‘top’ scientists are part of these organizations?
I imagine these ‘societies’ are like the AMA: hardly any of the profession bother to join.
I used to be a member of the GSA. And the NSTA.
Not anymore. I do not agree with their positions. And I’ll tell you that there are a lot of worthless professional societies out there ready to take your dues & spout off a load of nonsense that isn’t scientifically based at all.
And just who is a ‘top’ scientist in their field?
Guys like James Hansen? Guys who control who gets their research published?
Like these people are the smartest in their field?
WTF says so?
And would you like to know the real reason we’re not competitive in science & technology any more?
We give away our secrets & education. Or we SELL it. And then the people in those countries go & do their own thing.
There’s no way to keep the monopoly on that stuff anymore.
And Americans have become so damned spoiled & managed by their govt that they are fricking lemmings with no guts, motivation or brains.
That’s what Progressives have done for us.
Now go crawl back under your damned rock.

Badger40 on April 6, 2012 at 1:19 PM

top physicists and biologists

bayam on April 6, 2012 at 1:01 PM

BTW A lot of people in the agriculture industry who are considered the ‘top’ in their expertise fields don’t know anything when it comes down to it.
People who will come to your ranch & advise you on best practices.
Who cannot make their knowledge fit the real world.
That is what academia is full of.
A bunch of grant takers who produce nothing but hysteria to try & get more funding.

Badger40 on April 6, 2012 at 1:22 PM

BTW A lot of people in the agriculture industry who are considered the ‘top’ in their expertise fields don’t know anything when it comes down to it.

But this isn’t the agricultural industry. These aren’t people who attended college, graduated with high honors, and then achieved nothing (yes such people definitely exist). These are high achievers in their respective fields- and the kind of intelligence behind the most successful new companies in this country, such as Google and Microsoft.

Bill Gates and Larry Page aren’t among those doubting climate science.

bayam on April 6, 2012 at 1:26 PM

bayam on April 6, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Not as if they’re biased or anything – the US National Academy of Sciences is a government founded, non-profit organization that depends on research funding and donations for it’s survival. Since the only way to get any of that money these days is to say you support AGW, it’s no surprise that many of their 2200 members would toe the government line on AGW. And currently headed by a guy with electircal engineering degrees who claims to be an atmospheric and climate scientist because his entire career is based on ozone depletion and AGW.

When libs counted fewer bears in the Hudson Bay region – they made a huge point of it as that region was noted as “the bellweather of the polar bear population” – when the population appeared low there it was cause for putting the bear on the ESL.
Now that the same studies / counts show a large population there you hypocritical libtards try to claim it’s only one small area, yadda, yadda. Other studies throughout the Arctic region have clearly shown that polar bears are NOT in danger of extinction and algore and others blatantly lied about it. Now that the proof is coming out idiots like you have no choice but to become DENIERS of actual science.

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Bill Gates and Larry Page aren

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 1:32 PM

faulty post

Bill Gates and Larry Page aren’t among those doubting climate science.

bayam on April 6, 2012 at 1:26 PM

And they aren’t climate scientists either – any more than algore is.
Just can’t get away from the irrelevant name-dropping can you?

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Healthy polar bear count confounds doomsayers

BUSH’S FAU…….um…..nevermind.

Tim_CA on April 6, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Sarah Palin on Polar Bears…
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/opinion/05palin.html?_r=1

lovingmyUSA on April 6, 2012 at 1:44 PM

http://nasonline.org/about-nas/membership/

US National Academy of Sciences – currently has 2200 members. You have to be “elected” into membership by the current members – so if you agree with their beliefs, especially regarding AGW, you won’t get in. Total consensus achieved by selecting only true believers to be members.

In comparison, the anti-AGW / anti-Kyoto petition has over 31,000 signatures.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 1:45 PM

If we had polar bears all the way down to Florida, the church of Climatism would still be whining about them.

Perfect example of Warmist propaganda using polar bears to try and glean sympathy for their global scam.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLt0myO8XsA

Axion on April 6, 2012 at 1:45 PM

US National Academy of Sciences – currently has 2200 members. You have to be “elected” into membership by the current members – so if you don’t agree with their beliefs, especially regarding AGW, you won’t get in. Total consensus achieved by selecting only true believers to be members.
dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Had to fix it – fat fingers.

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Bill Gates and Larry Page aren’t among those doubting climate science.

bayam on April 6, 2012 at 1:26 PM

And they aren’t climate scientists either – any more than algore is.
Just can’t get away from the irrelevant name-dropping can you?

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Are you suggesting that leading scientists at top research universities question climate science? What’s your point?

Gates isn’t a ‘scientist’ but few would question that he’s one of the smartest guys in the world. Funny that you think he’s somehow comparable to a politician like Al Gore.

bayam on April 6, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Gates isn’t a ‘scientist’ but few would question that he’s one of the smartest guys in the world. Funny that you think he’s somehow comparable to a politician like Al Gore.

bayam on April 6, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Smart people can have stupid politics.

Intelligence and wisdom are two different things.

BKennedy on April 6, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Personally I can’t wait to divide the country and go our separate ways. You guys can drill up your a88es and tell your kids the world is 6k old and there’s a man in the sky keeping watch where you put your nono parts.

Isserley on April 6, 2012 at 2:00 PM

My, my…why so bitter?

RadioAngel on April 6, 2012 at 2:27 PM

…with apologies to the “Earth is 6,000 years old” crowd…

Now you mock and exhibit disdain for the religious beliefs of a certain segment of devout Christian Americans, Jazz?

What crawled up your arse, Jazz?

Having a bad day, Jazz?

Boo Hoo, Jazz.

Take it out on your dog.

FlatFoot on April 6, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Darn it. I told my grandniece not to feed these to the polar bears: http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l06gcveftp1qzb1qio1_250.jpg

Now they’re multiplying like rabbits.

dikehopper on April 6, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Does this mean we can expect even more of them to be hanging out around our Nissan Leaves trying to mate with them?

J.E. Dyer on April 6, 2012 at 2:57 PM

My, my…why so bitter?

RadioAngel on April 6, 2012 at 2:27 PM

The most likely explanation is that the troll has found no place to put its nono parts.

BKennedy on April 6, 2012 at 3:33 PM

The increase in the number of polar bears is being caused by global warming you fools! And any decrease is also caused by global warming. Fools! In fact, when it comes to the worlds problems as a whole it is directly attributable to either global warming, Rethuglicans/Repukes(name your term!)or lastly greedy money grubbing Joos.

Sincerely,

Group Think

wtng2fish on April 6, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Are you suggesting that leading scientists at top research universities question climate science? What’s your point?

Gates isn’t a ‘scientist’ but few would question that he’s one of the smartest guys in the world. Funny that you think he’s somehow comparable to a politician like Al Gore.

bayam on April 6, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Are you that clueless and/or biased?
Yes – thousands of leading scientists worldwide are saying AGW is a fraud. Your started this with your claim that the 2200 scientists in the NAS have a consensus in favor of AGW – my obvious counter is there are far more than that 2200 who say otherwise.

You have regularly tried to deny the validity of any AGW denier who is NOT a climate scientist – so you don’t get a pass on using non-climate scientists who believe in AGW. It doesn’t matter how smart a business man Gates is – he’s not a climate scientist – and in fact he’s not even a college graduate.
And your side are the ones who believe everything algore “the politician” says about AGW – and in comparison he’s gotten extremely rich running this scam – so by your definition he is also apparently a “smart guy”.

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Of course it is the white Bears that have caused this embarrassment to the Environmental Sociologists every where.

BL@KBIRD on April 6, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Healthy polar bear count confounds doomsayers

So the lunatics ranting and raving in the sandwich board signs proclaiming that “The end is near” ala Al Gore and the global warmers are confused?

Well, you don’t say, never saw that one coming!!!

RJL on April 6, 2012 at 4:43 PM

That’s 66 per cent higher than estimates by other researchers who forecasted the numbers would fall to as low as 610 because of warming temperatures that melt ice faster and ruin bears’ ability to hunt.

Ah, more experts! Nothing makes Polar bears’ hunting easier than having to get through ten feet of ice in search of their prey.
/Sarcasm

RJL on April 6, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Are you that clueless and/or biased?
Yes – thousands of leading scientists worldwide are saying AGW is a fraud. Your started this with your claim that the 2200 scientists in the NAS have a consensus in favor of AGW – my obvious counter is there are far more than that 2200 who say otherwise.

At least you’re clearing stating the argument you’re trying to make- that more scientists find fault in climate science than support it. Of course you know better and are being completely dishonest- there isn’t a major research university in this country with a simple majority of scientists contesting the science. Not even respected institutions that lean right, including Notre Dame. The consensus is clear and you’re attempts to spread confusion and doubt are transparent.

bayam on April 6, 2012 at 5:54 PM

The fact is, the Earth has been swinging wildly in terms of climate since long before we figured out how to bang the rocks together and make a spark. And the polar bears are still here. Could be that we’re just not giving them enough credit in terms of their ability to adapt and survive as one of the planet’s foremost apex predators. Food for thought, anyway.

Or (perish the thought), the massive “climate change” that everyone’s been hollering about … isn’t as massive as the Cassandras have been predicting?

Naaaaaaah.

/s (do I really need this?)

nukemhill on April 6, 2012 at 6:31 PM

bayam on April 6, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Now you’re lying – there are lots of real scientists who understand AGW is a fraud. Over 31,000 have signed the petition stating as much, and every major point from algore’s garbage movie and the IPCC report have been debunked as false and/or unsubstantiated and/or nothing but non-peer reviewed anecdotes calimed as “studies”.

Get a clue – how do “research universities” get their money to stay alive? The research universities who support AGW do so because that’s the only way you can guarantee a steady flow of research money. Follow the money trail libtard.

I’ll repeat blink’s question that you just can’t answer – Why do you hate real science?

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 6:47 PM

bayam on April 6, 2012 at 5:54 PM

google “James Hansen NASA ethics” and see what comes up.
Look up the AGW email publications.
Go look at the actual data of temperatures.
Maybe you’ll get a clue that the AGW doomsayers have serious ethics problems and they’re all getting rich off this scam – which means what they say can’t be trusted.
I’ll bet you fall for scams all the time.

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 6:58 PM

The planet constantly goes through massive climate change periods, where “constant” means over a period of hundreds of millions or billions of years.

Yes, and, of course, there are massive extinctions every time there are “massive” climate changes.

Those of us who are concerned about anthropogenic climate change aren’t concerned about whether the Earth will survive sudden, massive changes in climatic patterns. It is how WE (humans – not polar bears) will survive.

Once again, the denialism crowd tries to put all manner of irrelevancies front and center.

oakland on April 6, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Over 31,000 have signed the petition stating as much

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 6:47 PM

When you count the number of the “31,000″ that aren’t scientists at all, or are not atmospheric or climatic scientists, or aren’t even real people, or who signed their names fraudulently, there just aren’t many at all.

Now, look at all of the scientific professional societies that HAVE signed on to the notion that humans are deeply involved in affecting climate change, then your list of those that haven’t is virtually nil.

oakland on April 6, 2012 at 7:05 PM

The consensus is clear and you’re attempts to spread confusion and doubt are transparent.

bayam on April 6, 2012 at 5:54 PM

There are professionals confusion-generators that do just that. They hold “conventions” at which only climate change denialists are invited. And, of course, there is no actual science that comes out of those.

After a year and a half of requesting and waiting to hear from folks what data has been “falsified” or what monitoring stations are susceptible to the “urban heat island effect”, I still haven’t received a single reply (other than, of course, ad-hominen attacks). Still waiting…………….

oakland on April 6, 2012 at 7:12 PM

bayam on April 6, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Go look at NASA’a own charts – temperatures have leveled off since 2000.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

Try getting information from someone other than the Dem controlled media – what’s happening now is not unusual.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/12/global-temperature-chart-not-gore-s-movie

oakland on April 6, 2012 at 7:01 PM

If that were really true, then you would want to ensure we have the ability to adapt to either more cold or more warmth. But you AGW doom&gloom crowd won’t allow that. Regardless of whther AGW has any validity, we do absolutely know that the earth’s climate has and is always changing. So wasting money on trying to control something we can’t control does not allow us to adapt and increasing the cost of energy ensures that more people will die no matter which direction the temperature goes.

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 7:14 PM

When you count the number of the “31,000″ that aren’t scientists at all, or are not atmospheric or climatic scientists, or aren’t even real people, or who signed their names fraudulently, there just aren’t many at all.

oakland on April 6, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Definitive proof of this allegation, please. Specifics. List all of the ones who are not scientists. List all of those who are not real people. Please give the total that reduces the “31,000″ to “aren’t many at all”.

I think you are lying. If you can’t supply the specifics to prove all of the above allegations then you are lying. That is all you have left.

Yoop on April 6, 2012 at 7:16 PM

After a year and a half of requesting and waiting to hear from folks what data has been “falsified” or what monitoring stations are susceptible to the “urban heat island effect”, I still haven’t received a single reply (other than, of course, ad-hominen attacks). Still waiting…………….

oakland on April 6, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Here’s one report.
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

Go try google for yourself – there’s plenty more.

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Go look at NASA’a own charts – temperatures have leveled off since 2000

Now, look up the definition of “climate”.

The temperatures rose quite dramatically, starting in the mid-90s. We’ve had the two highest average temperature years in the “aughts” (’05 and, I believe, ’10).

Skeptics (bless them) and denialists said that the temperatures would start dropping in the “aughts” as the solar activity declined. Solar activity declined and the world average temperatures have remained well above norms. And, the norms are becoming every year that passes is in the top 10 hottest (thus displacing an existing). Add to that, the temperature anamolies (high and low) continue at record levels (check the CEI).

So, with solar output in a minimum phase, the average world temperatures maintain record and near-record highs year after year. And, if this year continues in the present trend, you will see another top 10 year (if not a record year).

oakland on April 6, 2012 at 7:21 PM

http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html

Go try google for yourself – there’s plenty more.

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 7:20 PM

You’re looking in the wrong place. Refer to the link above.

Now, where’s the “falsified data”?

oakland on April 6, 2012 at 7:27 PM

When you count the number of the “31,000″ that aren’t scientists at all, or are not atmospheric or climatic scientists, or aren’t even real people, or who signed their names fraudulently, there just aren’t many at all.

Now, look at all of the scientific professional societies that HAVE signed on to the notion that humans are deeply involved in affecting climate change, then your list of those that haven’t is virtually nil.

oakland on April 6, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Part 1 is pure BS and you know it – if you’ve ever done any research on your own instead of just spouting Dem/algore/AGW talking points. I’ve already posted a couple links earlier that show you’re lying about that. Go look for yourself.

Part 2 is also BS, and I’ve already posted links that prove that as well. You and bayam claim “professional societies” like the US National Academy of Sciences. guess what – most of their members are also NOT climate scientists either. Even the head of the NAS claims to be a climate scientist when in fact his degrees are in electrical engineering. When you go over the IPCC list and the members of your professional societies on the AGW side there very few with real climate science background – and all of those are dependent on government research grants for their income.

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 7:28 PM

oakland on April 6, 2012 at 7:27 PM

So what? There are lots of reports and web sites.
Did you happen to actually read the page you just linked to?
They’ve reduced the number of sensors from over 6000 down to about 1500. Funny how now that they’ve done that the reported temperatures have leveled off – since about year 2000. They can try to spin it any way they want, but that tells me the warming trend determined by all those prior improperly placed sensors that they have now removed is essentially false.

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 7:33 PM

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Scientific American did a study about this. They found that most of the signers of the little cards that were sent them were not professional scientists. Many were medical doctors, dentists, weathermen, and research scientists that didn’t do relevant research. They found fictitious names. They did find, I believe Dr. Seitz. They promulgators of the list simply took anyone who signed and returned the card as a “scientist”. And, when SI called a number of these signers, they found a lot of them didn’t remember even signing such a card.

The professional societies have those that are in-field (like the National Academies of Science). These are real scientists doing real research and analysis of evidence that points overwhelmingly in one direction – human influence in significant climate change is extremely probably (above 90 percent). Yes they get government money – but many operate from private grants (you know, the same as the Heritage Foundation does).

oakland on April 6, 2012 at 7:37 PM

When you count the number of the “31,000″ that aren’t scientists at all, or are not atmospheric or climatic scientists, or aren’t even real people, or who signed their names fraudulently, there just aren’t many at all.

oakland on April 6, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Definitive proof of this allegation, please. Specifics. List all of the ones who are not scientists. List all of those who are not real people. Please give the total that reduces the “31,000″ to “aren’t many at all”.

I think you are lying. If you can’t supply the specifics to prove all of the above allegations then you are lying. That is all you have left.

Yoop on April 6, 2012 at 7:16 PM

I’m still waiting for a list of 25,000+ names of signers who are not scientists, are not atmospheric or climatic scientists, are not real people, or who are frauds. Names of the 25,000+ people, with proof, please.

Yoop on April 6, 2012 at 7:39 PM

They’ve reduced the number of sensors from over 6000 down to about 1500

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 7:33 PM

So what? How many should there be?

Did you see why they removed them? Which ones shouldn’t they have removed?

oakland on April 6, 2012 at 7:40 PM

I’m still waiting for a list of 25,000+ names of signers who are not scientists, are not atmospheric or climatic scientists, are not real people, or who are frauds. Names of the 25,000+ people, with proof, please.

Yoop on April 6, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Find the list of the “31000″ and you’ll have it.

oakland on April 6, 2012 at 7:41 PM

oakland on April 6, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Maybe you should go look up the definition of climate. Do you know what the base unit of measure of time for climate science is? 10,000 years – at least it was until the AGW crowd figured out that inconveniently hurt their scam claims.
Do you know the difference between “climate” and changing weather patterns? EVERY year is different based on the interaction of solar activity, jet stream, ocean currents, and many other variables.
Do you also not understand that we have been coming out of an ice age over the last 50,000 years or so? What happens in that cycle? Guess what – it gets warmer!!!

Do you even understand what you’re writing?

Solar activity declined and the world average temperatures have remained well above norms.

Really can you be any more dishonest? You basically agreed right there that temperatures have stabilized and are not still climbing.

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 7:42 PM

So what? How many should there be?

Did you see why they removed them? Which ones shouldn’t they have removed?

oakland on April 6, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Are you really that blind? The sensors they removed because they were poorly placed already contaminated the data set that was used for all the years that showed increasing temperature. Really – try to think a bit.

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 7:46 PM

In 2001, Scientific American reported:

Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[22]

oakland on April 6, 2012 at 7:51 PM

Really can you be any more dishonest? You basically agreed right there that temperatures have stabilized and are not still climbing.

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Temperatures are not “stabilized”. The anomalies continue, and increase year by year (see the CEI).

The basic unit of time that constitutes “climate” is a 30-year period and it’s averages (temperature, rainfall, humidity, etc). This is common knowledge. And, it’s common knowledge that the past thirty years have shown a very definite trend in anomalous highs and lows)but mostly highs. The time period from 1980 to the present has no match in recorded history for average worldwide temperatures.

But if you really want the real story, look at the CEI, which is based on a number of indicators (as climate change is the real issue of concern in global warming).

oakland on April 6, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Are you really that blind? The sensors they removed because they were poorly placed already contaminated the data set that was used for all the years that showed increasing temperature. Really – try to think a bit.

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Read the entire page. You’ll get an education.

oakland on April 6, 2012 at 7:59 PM

When you count the number of the “31,000″ that aren’t scientists at all, or are not atmospheric or climatic scientists, or aren’t even real people, or who signed their names fraudulently, there just aren’t many at all.

oakland on April 6, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Again – your denial is based on complete BS. The people making big money from AGW are scared to death of the scientists who have actual ethics.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Read the entire page. You’ll get an education.

oakland on April 6, 2012 at 7:59 PM

I did – you need an education and you need to learn logic.

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 8:02 PM

oakland on April 6, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Wow – you just don’t have a clue at all. You just believe whatever algore and the other scammers tell you to continue their power and money grab.

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 8:06 PM

In 2001, Scientific American reported:

Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[22]

oakland on April 6, 2012 at 7:51 PM

You are actually using an 11 year old “study” that was statistically debunked right after it was presented? You are beyond belief and not really worth anymore effort.

You stated, unequivocally, that “When you count the number of the “31,000″ that aren’t scientists at all, or are not atmospheric or climatic scientists, or aren’t even real people, or who signed their names fraudulently, there just aren’t many at all”.

You cannot prove your own statement. You lied, and you knew that when you wrote it.

Yoop on April 6, 2012 at 8:10 PM

You cannot prove your own statement. You lied, and you knew that when you wrote it.

Yoop on April 6, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Of course – lying is the liberal way.

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 8:22 PM

Of course – lying is the liberal way.

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 8:22 PM

The real concern is that “oakland” is a teacher. Think of someone this deceitful teaching in a classroom.

Yoop on April 6, 2012 at 8:27 PM

So oakland does as oakland always does. Once caught in a flagrant lie he bails. He’ll show up again after he thinks everyone has forgotten.

Yoop on April 6, 2012 at 8:53 PM

But this isn’t the agricultural industry. These aren’t people who attended college, graduated with high honors, and then achieved nothing (yes such people definitely exist). These are high achievers in their respective fields- and the kind of intelligence behind the most successful new companies in this country, such as Google and Microsoft.

Bill Gates and Larry Page aren’t among those doubting climate science.

bayam on April 6, 2012 at 1:26 PM

So you think people involved in crop science, grazing science & animal science aren’t high achievers in their fields?
You think these people achieved nothing bcs they got an ag degree?
WTF is wrong with you?
Are you f#$%ing retarded or something?
Crop science, & all sorts of other ag science degrees are actually real f%^&ing degrees.
Bill Gates BTW is a guy with a great idea & used it to make a huge company & make lots of cash.
Being smart like that does not translate to being smart in other areas.
I’ve watched the science many of these scammers have put out for over a decade. A lot of it is GARBAGE.
They make conclusions that are not possible to make given REAL data.
They’re making MONEY at this & getting POWER & position out of it.
It is a SCAM.
And there are always plenty of suckers who are ready to believe people like Al Gore.
Hell look at all the people who STILL fawn over how great Bill Clinton is.
A lying philanderer who stuck a cigar in a woman’s tw@t in the effing WHITE HOUSE.
And now you very same people love an incompetent bumbling fool like Obama.
It’s maddening to see such abject stupidity on display.

Badger40 on April 7, 2012 at 12:05 AM

He’ll show up again after he thinks everyone has forgotten.

Yoop on April 6, 2012 at 8:53 PM

EVERY single damned time.
Gets old.

Badger40 on April 7, 2012 at 12:06 AM

Think of someone this deceitful teaching in a classroom.

Yoop on April 6, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Well I am trying to counter some of these morons.
I may not have the exposure to numbers like oakhead does.
But I’ll damned sure do my best to help my kids think for themselves.
I give them BOTH sides.
They make up their own minds.
Guess which side 95+% choose?
It isn’t hard to guess.
They realize AGW is a SCAM.

Badger40 on April 7, 2012 at 12:09 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3