Sometimes it's better to keep the mystery unexplained.
Posted 06 April 2012 - 03:44 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.
Do, or do not, there is no try. ~ A little green alien
Posted 06 April 2012 - 06:09 PM
OverSword, on 06 April 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:
I can hardly wait to hear our local UM warming experts refute this.
Refute? Sheesh, all I had to do was read the article. You may have noticed this paragraph:
The studys conclusions drew concern from Andrew Derocher, a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta who has been studying polar-bear populations for years. Prof. Derocher said the 1,013 figure is derived from a range of 717 bears to 1,430. Its premature to draw many conclusions, he said, adding that there were no comparative figures and the upper end of the range, 1,430, was highly unlikely.
I suppose I could also point out that said study was conducted in one area and not over the entire artic, but I doubt the nay-sayers would find that of any signifigance.
On the other hand I do hope there was increase in the population of polar bears, they are so damn cute. How would Coca-Cola sell their soda without them?
No solid link between climate change and Polar Bear population has ever been shown.
It's possible that warming is good for them.
The bears were merely tools for GW proponents to use to reach the "hearts" of your schoolchildren.
Really? There seems to be a lot of in-depth information on the web regarding the issue.
Seems a bit more than just reaching hearts of school children.
To me its just more damning evidence that they have not got a clue and instead of going for the obvious theory, Earth's climate has always been volatile and always will be, they have to
turn it into a trillion dollar market... typical humans!
Let's just ignore 60 plus years of recorded carbon increase in the atmosphere.
Let me ask, and seriously, can anyone here (talking to you folk who don't believe in man-made climate change) even know what ppm stands for?
Science suffers not for your willful ignorance. The world marches on...
What does parts per million have to do with polar bears? Polar bear population has been growing since they outlawed polar bear hunting about 40 years ago.
And why would a few ppm of carbon effect anything? 380ppm of carbon in the atmosphere is equivalent to 0.038% of the atmosphere, which is obviously a dramatic change from 60 years ago when it was at 0.031%.
Of course this trace gas increasing by 0.007% over 60 years is the biggest threat humanity has ever faced. Now, who wants to buy carbon credits from me?
Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.
Posted 09 April 2012 - 08:21 PM
No. No. No. I've seen many videos and "experts" who showed videos and pictures of smimming polar bears as proof. What doubt can there be?? Less ice = less polar bears. Al Gore told me they can't live on land.
(AP) JUNEAU, Alaska — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article.
Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.
At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche
Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker
Some days it's not worth it to gnaw through the leather straps.
Posted 09 April 2012 - 09:28 PM
I'm not a fan of bears, polar or otherwise, they scare the stuffings out of me.
I've seen video of polar bears struggling to find food. Couldn't it be that the warmer (?) weather makes food more readily available, hence more bears? Or maybe it's something even more simple. That in the search for food the bears tend to migrate to areas where they are more easily seen, hence the illusion of more bears?
Either way, the polar bear question does not answer the AGW question IMO. LOL
And all dead years draw thither, and all disastrous things...
The Garden of Proserpine by Algernon Charles Swinburne