Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Polar bears - THE science.
#1
Hi All,
I thought this worth attaching as Polar bears have become so "iconic" for the AGW cause.

Apologies it is a bit late, but better late than never.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#2
Yes, it is interesting.

I've contacted the SPPI folks on the error in the first paragraph of the report, which reads:

Quote:Globally,more than one third of the nineteen subpopulations of polar bears are increasing or stable,
while the remaining third have insufficient data available; its status in the central Arctic Basin, the
largest of the nineteen designated regions, is completely unknown.

It should read, "Globally, more than TWO thirds ..." as it somewhat does in the first paragraph after Figure 1 in the report.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#3
Good spot JohnWho,
I had mentally corrected it when reading.
(I'd remembered reading 75% to 80% of polar bear populations (which I thought there were 20 of) were increasing or stable)
That'll teach me to speed read through things.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#4
I read further down and it explains the first paragraph better:

Quote:Globally, less than one third of the nineteen populations are currently estimated as declining, more than
one third are increasing or stable, while the remaining third have insufficient data available to estimate
population trends

The first paragraph is poorly worded but not incorrect.

I've had recent discussions with warmers about polar bears. This should come in handy. They've cited work which came to different conclusions.

I have accused them of not caring about polar bears at all other than as a symbol. If they really cared, they would put hunting as the #1 threat instead of "global warming".

The polar bear population declined during a cooling period in the 50s and 60s...due to hunting. Their numbers were estimated to be around 5000 total. The international agreement to limit hunting was brought to bear (heh) in the early 70s...and the bear population increased 5-fold....during a warming period. It has apparently remained stable between 20,000 and 25,000 since the late 80s.

Just using these numbers and when they occurred, one would be tempted to say polar bears thrive during warming periods. Smile But really, it's about the hunting.

I also find it very interesting that a species we think came into existence due to their ability to adapt to rapid climate change is now somehow threatened by rapid climate change. ??

Something else I love pointing out is that humans are the only species on the planet that cares about polar bears. ...That includes polar bears. (They will kill each other given the opportunity) Mother Nature also doesn't care about polar bears (or any other species). Most things that have lived on this planet have gone extinct and the rest are sure to follow eventually. That includes polar bears and there is nothing we can do about it. The polar bear has no intrinsic value other than the value humans place upon it. (They are so pretty) So any "plight" they may be going through is one completely invented by us.
Reply
#5
(02-20-2010, 09:11 AM)HarpoSpoke Wrote: But really, it's about the hunting.

(They are so pretty)

Hunting restrictions put in place BEFORE the greenies made them "iconic"..

It helps to remember they are the top of the food chain there,
for a reason...
[Image: polarbear-7-jpeg.jpg]

If you want to play them along abit about how cuddly polar bears are,
then show some of these playfull images.
http://s53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/De...r%20bears/
Actually taken over week, the same polar bear came back daily to play with the dogs, not harming the dogs at all, just playing.
The pictures also show the size of polar bears..

The iceberg photos are pretty cool as well
(stripes are from frozen melt water, sometimes containing algae, or other "colourings").
Then show what plar bears are really like, as above.
Happy hunting.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#6
@ HarpoSpoke - I disagree, the first paragraph in Derek's link is poorly worded:
Quote:Globally,more than one third of the nineteen subpopulations of polar bears are increasing or stable, while the remaining third have insufficient data available; its status in the central ArcticBasin, the largest of the nineteen designated regions, is completely unknown.

It should read ..."more than TWO thirds of the nineteen..."

Susan Crockford has responded to me, and is correcting it on the website. She also says that we (Derek) must have an old version of the PDF because it has been corrected in the current version of the PDF.

I've asked her for a link to the corrected version.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#7
(02-20-2010, 03:53 PM)JohnWho Wrote: @ HarpoSpoke - I disagree, the first paragraph in Derek's link is poorly worded:
Quote:Globally,more than one third of the nineteen subpopulations of polar bears are increasing or stable, while the remaining third have insufficient data available; its status in the central ArcticBasin, the largest of the nineteen designated regions, is completely unknown.

It should read ..."more than TWO thirds of the nineteen..."

Susan Crockford has responded to me, and is correcting it on the website. She also says that we (Derek) must have an old version of the PDF because it has been corrected in the current version of the PDF.

I've asked her for a link to the corrected version.

Well that's interesting. I read the body of the report to mean that about one third was increasing or stable, about one third was declining, and one third had insufficient data.

Did I read this wrong? "Globally, less than one third of the nineteen populations are currently estimated as declining, more than
one third are increasing or stable, while the remaining third have insufficient data available to estimate
population trends"


It appears to have 3 distinct descriptions along with a very liberal use of the word "third". Smile
Reply
#8
HarpoSpoke -

Read the first paragraph in the beginning of the Summary for Policy Makers where it says:
Quote:Globally,more than one third of the nineteen sub populations of polar bears are increasing or stable, while the remaining third have insufficient data available; its status in the central Arctic Basin, the largest of the nineteen designated regions, is completely unknown

That is where it is phrased incorrectly, not further in the report under Figure 1.

In any event, Susan Crockford says that she is working on getting it corrected.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#9
(02-20-2010, 08:10 PM)JohnWho Wrote: HarpoSpoke -

Read the first paragraph in the beginning of the Summary for Policy Makers where it says:
Quote:Globally,more than one third of the nineteen sub populations of polar bears are increasing or stable, while the remaining third have insufficient data available; its status in the central Arctic Basin, the largest of the nineteen designated regions, is completely unknown

That is where it is phrased incorrectly, not further in the report under Figure 1.

In any event, Susan Crockford says that she is working on getting it corrected.

I guess I'll have to see the corrected version. I agree the first part appears to be worded badly, but disagree it should say "two thirds" due to the paragraph later in the text. I would love it to be "two thirds"...but only if that is correct.
Reply
#10
I would tend to agree with HarpoSpoke, if a third does not have sufficient or reliable enough data to determine whether the result is stable or increasing then the wording appears bad.
Unless the data available for the third in question does exclude declining within it's uncertainties, which is probably the case,
and therefore the cause of the confusion.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#11
C'mon HarpoSpoke -

let me simplify it for you:

"...more than one third of the nineteen subpopulations of polar bears are increasing or stable, while the remaining third..."

They, Susan, recognizes that this is confusing - because "more than one third" plus "the remaining third" does not logically add up to 100%.

As I've pointed out a number of times, further in the text they correct the comment (just below Figure 1) when they say:

Quote:Globally, less than one third of the nineteen populations are currently estimated as declining, more than
one third are increasing or stable, while the remaining third have insufficient data available to estimate
population trends

which does show 3 thirds.

Remember, that first sentence is in the SPM - while a "policy maker" might skim through the document, they actually might read that first part so the statement should be as complete as possible.

I only pointed this out to them, but in my opinion, they should change that first statement in the SPM to read:

"more than one third of the nineteen subpopulations of polar bears are increasing or stable, less than one third is declining, while the remaining third have insufficient data available..."
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#12
(02-21-2010, 07:32 AM)JohnWho Wrote: C'mon HarpoSpoke -

let me simplify it for you:

"...more than one third of the nineteen subpopulations of polar bears are increasing or stable, while the remaining third..."

They, Susan, recognizes that this is confusing - because "more than one third" plus "the remaining third" does not logically add up to 100%.

As I've pointed out a number of times, further in the text they correct the comment (just below Figure 1) when they say:

Quote:Globally, less than one third of the nineteen populations are currently estimated as declining, more than
one third are increasing or stable, while the remaining third have insufficient data available to estimate
population trends

which does show 3 thirds.

Remember, that first sentence is in the SPM - while a "policy maker" might skim through the document, they actually might read that first part so the statement should be as complete as possible.

I only pointed this out to them, but in my opinion, they should change that first statement in the SPM to read:

"more than one third of the nineteen subpopulations of polar bears are increasing or stable, less than one third is declining, while the remaining third have insufficient data available..."

Ok...I thought you were saying something different that I was saying due to your first post.

Quote:@ HarpoSpoke - I disagree, the first paragraph in Derek's link is poorly worded:

I actually quoted the later text in my first post.

Sounds like we are saying the same thing. Smile The opening statement should mention all 3 different groups.
Reply
#13
Thumbs Up 
Hooray!

[Image: cheers2qu2.gif]
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#14
Whew!

I was wondering if you guys were going to be Polarized over some words.

Smile
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#15
Any excuse to have a beer.

Smile
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#16
Blind alleys can be as productive, or more productive than the main highway,
especially as back tracking can lead to new directions.
Unlike the main highway.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#17
Uh, I'm against drinking and driving.

Smile

But, yes, one can learn even when not moving forward - on that point, I agree.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#18
(02-21-2010, 07:19 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote: Whew!

I was wondering if you guys were going to be Polarized over some words.

Smile

<rimshot>
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Global polar bear population larger than previous thought – almost 30,000 Sunsettommy 0 464 02-27-2017, 09:40 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  If experts had been right about sea ice, there would be no polar bears in Churchill Sunsettommy 0 969 11-03-2016, 07:23 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  The slaughter of polar bears that rarely gets mentioned (ca. 1890-1930) Sunsettommy 0 2,182 09-27-2012, 11:15 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy



Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)