Well that would be because it is wrong....
http://globalwarmingisreal.com/2008/03/10/scientist-on-western-hudson-bay-polar-bear-population-i-consider-myself-a-historian/
It was predictable Four, that you would fall for the sceptic propaganda line yet again. It would help if you checked these things for yourself rather than jumping aboard a superficially promising opportunity to expose your sceptic views again.
I stick with my original judgement - he is talking rubbish from a convenient position of ignorance.
Your link seems rather bereft of real evidence either way since it says no-one actually tried to count them till recently, which seems fair enough.
There seems little evidence to suggest they are in catastrophic decline, or that any decline there is must be largely due to less ice/warming.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html
Mitchell Taylor, who has studied the animals for 30 years, was told his views 'are extremely unhelpful’
A picture is worth a thousand words Four....
I don't see too much evidence of increasing populations there do you? The areas with the biggest populations all in decline and one of the smallest showing an increase.
Go figure.
Sorry Gandalf, but you forget the first rule of the fully paid up AGW sceptic - if you don't like the data and evidence that proves it's wrong
Meanwhile, back at the ranch ....... problems with the Berkeley Group who are not, so far, reaching the conclusions they were meant to reach
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/mar/31/scienceofclimatechange-climate-change-scepticism
And Wattsy's response:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/response_to_muller_testimony.pdf
Is your post Proxy PROPAGANDA?.
Propaganda? For whom?
The Berkeley project was critisced by some at its inception because it was seen as having a preconceived agenda - to prove there is no AGW.
Rather ironic that those who initially lauded it are now up in arms because their initial conclusions are not what they were paid to produce .....
Cheers.
Edited by user 01 April 2011 21:22:10(UTC) | Reason: Not specified
[/quote]Typical shin kicking post from you DEV unfortuneately.
Edited by user 01 April 2011 21:35:19(UTC) | Reason: Not specified
The point I was making was that you said he agreed they were declining but he does not.
Perhaps you need to read the article more carefully? The relevant sentence says:
Of the eight allegedly declining populations, two of them, including Baffin Bay, are non-contentious: sceptics concede that the two sub-populations, representing 16.4 per cent of the bear population, are declining
So he is conceding that there are areas with declining numbers of polar bears - that was the point I was making.
There is scarcely any point in discussing this drivel. It is abundantly clear from the tone of his post that he is out to score cheap points, which he fails to do if you understand anything about the points under discussion.
If we cut the c**p you will cling to anything that sets out to rubbish AGW whatever its merits. A modicum of understanding of the issues, as opposed to swallowing whole the nonsense of apologists for the sceptic or denier fratnernity, would at least avoid you making more daft posts.
[/quote]
While Watts thought the BEST project would find what he wants he appluades it, the minute it doesn't he comes out all guns blazing. Like I say, hilarious
Honeslty, WUWT gets more and more like Denial Depot with every passing day
[/quote]I don't know why you bring wuwt or anything typical of such into a post of mine?.
I have no time for such sites.
In all my posts here I can be sure I have never quoted or referanced from either anti or pro agw sites.
Unlike some here.
The plain fact that agw is over rated.(a scientific fact)is good enough for me.
Edited by user 01 April 2011 21:38:54(UTC) | Reason: Not specified
WUWT, again, you do seem to spend an awful lot of time reading it considering you hate it so much!Despite the loud shouty posts, the polar bear thing still seems rather a poor choice for a global warming icon.It's not proven any Arctic warming/ice loss is a direct consequence of CO2 and it's not certain whether the long term population is declining or not (see your link, they weren't monitored even 30 years ago and even now are no doubt very hard to count in the vast frozen wildrness which is supposed to be shrinking alarmingly.)Then it's not proven that they can't cope perfectly well with warmer conditions.It's known there have been periods at least similarly 'less cold' in the past, and they are still here.
Then the alarmist pressure groups won't listen to anything which does not suit their agenda so best to take their propagandalf with a pinch of salt I think.
Edited by user 01 April 2011 21:46:53(UTC) | Reason: Not specified
WUWT, again, you do seem to spend an awful lot of time reading it considering you hate it so much!
Hate? What gives you that impression? It's hilarious
Edited by user 02 April 2011 08:15:08(UTC) | Reason: Not specified
Their total acceptance of and lack of questioning on the issue of AGW effects astounds me.
Mabey they have an agenda?.I don't know.
Edited by user 01 April 2011 22:06:54(UTC) | Reason: Not specified
I sense the sceptic in you trying to impose itself - come back Jekyll and Hyde...
Seriously, does it not cross your mind that perhaps the evidence is strong enough for WWF and Greenpeace to be responding in the only logical way?
Amazing as it may be, out in the real world and away from the Internet bubble AGW has long been accepted by the mainstream as fact.
If it looks like a polar bear, growls like a polar bear, swims like a polar bear....... perhaps it is indeed a polar bear....
Presented? I have no problem with.
Promoted?.causes me a problem.
I accept science as much as you do I am sure.
Neither of us are scientists.We do form an opinion on the subject in question though, based upon information supplied by the scientific community.
I think the broad range of complicated studies involved in climate research are not yet amalgamated enough despite the efforts of the IPCC. to give a definitive forward account or forecast for the future climate on this planet.This imo is blatantly evident.
Some organisations, I believe are more than ready though, to exploit and magnify this uncertainty to suit their own needs and will promote this uncertainty and fear of the future which is naturally inherent in most of us to their own ends.
Their total unsceptical acceptance of science when it seems to suit their needs is not progressive or positive.In fact I believe it might have a detrimental effect(as has already become evident through unscientific promotions)(bio ethanol being one)upon the developement of humankind.
I hope this basic tad of a rant will sufffice as the view of a sceptic and not a denier.
Edited by user 02 April 2011 15:38:41(UTC) | Reason: Not specified
The climate refugees that never had to leaveMaybe it was all just a scare tactic?http://asiancorrespondent.com/52189/what-happened-to-the-climate-refugees/
Who says that there aren't 50 million environmental refugees around the world today? I wouldn't be surprised if it's more than that.
Anyway, what some people don't want you to know the actually claim was that there were already 25 million environmental refugees back in 1995, and that this number could well double by 2010.
http://www.osce.org/eea/14851
(the map, btw, seems to be totally irrelevant to the 50 million claim, simply showing the regions most at risk)
If Wattsy and Co keep getting their knickers so tightly twisted like this, they're going to end up doing themselves an injury!
Edited by user 16 April 2011 12:15:48(UTC) | Reason: Not specified
WHATS UP WITH YOU GUY'S?.WUWT.SEEMS TO BE THE BIG ISSUE.IT'S A BLOG SITE FOR GODS SAKE.Millions,dread.knickers and stuff.Mabey if we paid more attention to real issues something could be done.agw CO2 schmobble.
Edited by user 16 April 2011 12:53:05(UTC) | Reason: Not specified
I could post the map they helpfully included, which has recently been hidden since it is now plainly hilarious scaremongering.Among many islands they said would have refugees leaving in droves, were the Hebrides, Shetland and Orkney.Probably the models said they would become uninhabitable due to increased frequency and ever more northerly track of hurricanes.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/un_50million_11kap9climat.png
Hardly worth getting out of bed for, is it?
(and as for the Northern Isles being shown as being vulnerable to rising sea levels - they are. This does not mean sea levels are rising, but if they did rise, many populated islands would be affected)
Heck the mentions are too frequent for sure... but WUWT has a massive readership and they are consistently misinformed by Watts and co. It's depressing.
Sounds familiar - link50 million environmental refugees by 2020
I'm guessing it was this that prompted to the anti-science lobby to mess up their pants and go on to misinform everyone else
There's no indication as to why 2020 was mentioned, though I suppose it would have raised questions had it been said that the number of refugees were expected to double between 1995 and 2010 ...... when this is 2011? Clearly the reference is to Myers and his prediction stands.
Not sure when we'll know what the actual current figure is though. Myers published his prediction in 2005 and at that time the most recent figures were already 10 years old.
For all we know the real number today is 100 million.
Edit: what's really interesting though is that no-one has disputed the figure of 25 million in 1995, nor suggested a reason why that figure would not be higher today
Edited by user 17 April 2011 16:14:08(UTC) | Reason: Not specified