Polar bear researchers urge governments to act now and save the species

Feb 04, 2013

(Edmonton) A University of Alberta polar bear researcher along with eleven international co-authors are urging governments to start planning for rapid Arctic ecosystem change to deal with a climate change catastrophe for the animals.

U of A professor Andrew Derocher co-authored a policy perspective in the journal Conservation Letters urging governments with polar bear populations to accept that just one unexpected jump in trends could send some polar bear populations into a precipitous decline.

"It's a fact that early break-up and late ice freeze-up and the overall reduction in ice pack are taking their toll," said Derocher. "We want governments to be ready with conservation and management plans for polar bears when a worst case scenario happens."

The on polar bears are clear from both observational and modeling studies in many parts of the distribution. Earlier studies by Derocher and his colleagues show that one very bad ice year could leave hundreds of Hudson Bay polar bears stranded on land for an extended period. Derocher noted "Such an event could erase half of a population in a single year".

"The management options for northern communities like Churchill would range from doing nothing, to feeding the bears, moving them somewhere else or euthanizing them," said Derocher.

The concerned researchers say they're not telling governments what to do. The authors, however, want policy makers and to start planning polar bear for both the predicted escalation of Arctic warming and for an off the charts .

"You're going to make better decisions if you have time to think about it in advance: it's a no brainer," said Derocher. Further, "consultation with northern residents takes time and the worst time to ask for input is during a crisis".

The researchers say the options for polar bear management include feeding and releasing the bears when freeze ups allow the animals to get to their hunting grounds. Derocher calls this a wild bear park model, but the paper reports the cost could run into the millions and could have ramifications for the long term behaviour of the animals.

The authors of the paper say government should be aware of the fall-out from climate change and human safety in the north is going to be an increasing challenge..

"Around the world are an iconic symbol so any tragedy would produce massive attention," said Derocher. "If the warming trend around Hudson's Bay took an upward spike, the population of 900 to 1000 bears in western would be on the line, so there has to be a plan."

The paper is titled; Rapid ecosystem change and polar bear conservation. It was published online as an accepted article January 25, 2013 in Conservation Letters.

Explore further: New VertLife project will sprout a forest of family trees

More information: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10… /conl.12009/abstract

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Polar bear births could plummet with climate change

Feb 08, 2011

University of Alberta researchers Peter Molnar, Andrew Derocher and Mark Lewis studied the reproductive ecology of polar bears in Hudson Bay and have linked declining litter sizes with loss of sea ice.

Is cannibalism in polar bears on the rise?

Dec 09, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- A series of photographs of cannibalism in polar bears have been released, and the researchers who witnessed the act think the rate of cannibalism may be increasing. They observed three instances ...

Polar bear habitats expected to shrink dramatically

Oct 20, 2011

Habitats of polar bears are expected to shrink dramatically over the coming decades, the International Union for Conservation of Nature warned Thursday, urging immediate action to save the Arctic animals.

Recommended for you

Tropical fish a threat to Mediterranean Sea ecosystems

16 hours ago

The tropical rabbitfish which have devastated algal forests in the eastern Mediterranean Sea pose a major threat to the entire Mediterranean basin if their distribution continues to expand as the climate ...

Moroccan city outlaws olive trees

16 hours ago

A Moroccan city has banned olive trees because of pollen-linked allergies and set an end-of-the-year deadline for residents to remove them, media reports said Thursday.

User comments : 78

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

FrankHerbertWhines
1.9 / 5 (18) Feb 04, 2013
the sky is falling.
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (13) Feb 04, 2013
The national razor is coming.
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (22) Feb 04, 2013
Polar bear researchers urge governments to act now and save the species
What a bunch of crap.

"... There are far more polar bears alive today than there were 40 years ago. ... In 1973, there was a global hunting ban. So once hunting was dramatically reduced, the population exploded."
- Zac Unger on NPR

The Inconvenient Truth About Polar Bears

djr
3.9 / 5 (18) Feb 05, 2013
"What a bunch of crap." It is so easy to dismiss the work of the science community. Here is a pretty comprehensive assesment of the current situation with regard the polar bear populations.http://www.alaska...e-arctic

The conclusion of this article would suggest that calling this work a "bunch of crap" is very ignorant and dismissive.

"If sea ice is substatially reduced from their environment, they wont survive"

SteveS
4.2 / 5 (15) Feb 05, 2013
@Ubavontuba

You obviously feel that Zac Unger and NPR are reliable sources, so you must agree with the full quote.

"…So once hunting was dramatically reduced, the population exploded. This is not to say that global warming is not real or is not a problem for the polar bears. But polar bear populations are large, and the truth is that we can't look at it as a monolithic population that is all going one way or another."
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (16) Feb 07, 2013
"What a bunch of crap." It is so easy to dismiss the work of the science community.
I do not dismiss anyone's work lightly.

Here is a pretty comprehensive assesment of the current situation with regard the polar bear populations.
The article certainly gives some conservative data, which it even concedes is outdated, and then asks the ridiculous question: "Would it make a big difference if we were a little off?".

And it goes on to speculate on ridiculous AGW fear-mongering assertions. For instance, it predicts "by 2050, sea ice in the arctic will be gone,.." Even if this did happen, it would only be gone for a brief period in the summer melt season.

No seriously objective scientist would tolerate such sloppiness.

The conclusion of this article would suggest that calling this work a "bunch of crap" is very ignorant and dismissive.

"If sea ice is substatially reduced from their environment, they wont survive"
More fear-mongering crap.

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (17) Feb 07, 2013
@Ubavontuba

You obviously feel that Zac Unger and NPR are reliable sources, so you must agree with the full quote.
I'm not obligated to agreee with all of it. After all, it was written by a self-described environmentalist who went up there to try and eulogize expected declining bear populations. Clearly, he was dissappointed his plan didn't work out (but he was glad the bears are okay).

Even so, I will agree the bear population deserves monitoring.

Counter_Dick
4 / 5 (16) Feb 07, 2013
And it goes on to speculate on ridiculous AGW fear-mongering assertions. For instance, it predicts "by 2050, sea ice in the arctic will be gone,.." Even if this did happen, it would only be gone for a brief period in the summer melt season.


And what even makes YOU qualified enough to say that ALL climate scientific research is a "bunch of crap"? Well, have you done your own research lately? If so, then I (and everyone here) would love to hear your counter-research, supporting your arguments and your hypothesis about a "bunch of crap". Go away, and learn something about science, and then come back when you're well informed.
poopergonstupid
4.3 / 5 (17) Feb 07, 2013
And it goes on to speculate on ridiculous AGW fear-mongering assertions. For instance, it predicts "by 2050, sea ice in the arctic will be gone,.." Even if this did happen, it would only be gone for a brief period in the summer melt season.


Please provide proof of your claims.
- The world is cooling
- The population of polar bears is growing
- There's no such thing as anthropogenic climate change
- The Arctic ice isn't melting

What's that? You have no proof? Oh dear. Should've known.
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (17) Feb 07, 2013
Who is the author of of UbVonTard's latest stupidity.

From UbVonTard's own reference.

Zac Unger has worked as a firefighter and paramedic for the Oakland Fire Department.

I'll stick with the opinion of Arctic Ecologists thanks. They are scientists, not firefighters.
VendicarE
4 / 5 (16) Feb 07, 2013
UbVonTard isn't intellecutally capable of distinguishing between climate and weather.

He now shows that his failure is mirrored by his inability to distinguish between a scientific expert and a fireman.

"it was written by a self-described environmentalist" - UbVOnTard
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (17) Feb 08, 2013
And what even makes YOU qualified enough to say that ALL climate scientific research is a "bunch of crap"?
When did I supposedly make that claim?

Well, have you done your own research lately? If so, then I (and everyone here) would love to hear your counter-research, supporting your arguments and your hypothesis about a "bunch of crap". Go away, and learn something about science, and then come back when you're well informed.
Perhaps you might consider following your own advice. Science isn't about being agreeable.

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (16) Feb 08, 2013
Please provide proof of your claims.
- The world is cooling
This isn't a claim of mine, but for the past decade this appears to be the case:

http://www.woodfo...13/trend

- The population of polar bears is growing


http://www.npr.or...p;f=1025

- There's no such thing as anthropogenic climate change
When did I supposedly make this claim?

- The Arctic ice isn't melting
Currently it's freezing, as we're in the accumulation phase:

http://arctic.atm...ive.html

What's that? You have no proof? Oh dear. Should've known.
LOL. Try again.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (17) Feb 08, 2013
Who is the author of of UbVonTard's latest stupidity.

From Uba's own reference.

Zac Unger has worked as a firefighter and paramedic for the Oakland Fire Department.

I'll stick with the opinion of Arctic Ecologists thanks. They are scientists, not firefighters.
Okay then, provide some current polar bear population studies.

ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (17) Feb 08, 2013
UbVonTard isn't intellecutally capable of distinguishing between climate and weather.
...claims the idiot spambot which claimed one regional warm spell proved global warming.

He now shows that his failure is mirrored by his inability to distinguish between a scientific expert and a fireman.
When did I claim the author was a scientific expert?

"it was written by a self-described environmentalist" - Uba
Oh, I get it. Vendispambot doesn't understand what "self-described" means. LOL.

But it doesn't even know "it's" is a valid word, so why should I be surprised? LOL.

SteveS
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 08, 2013
Okay then, provide some current polar bear population studies.


http://www.grida....ic_1004#
djr
4.7 / 5 (14) Feb 09, 2013
Uba - "This isn't a claim of mine, but for the past decade this appears to be the case:"

But for the past 20 years it has been warming - http://www.woodfo...13/trend

See how that game can be played?

And for the past 5 years it has been warming - http://www.woodfo...13/trend

See how that game can be played. Yes there is a plateau - and for 15 or 20 years temperatures have not been going up in the way models would suggest they would have. There is clearly a problem. But there was also a plateau from 1940 to 1980. Other indicators are suggesting that warming is continuing - ice sheets, glaciers, ocean levels etc. Which way will things go? My money is on a continuing up trend - let's let the scientists do their job - and keep studying the issues. As you finally point out - "Even so, I will agree the bear population deserves monitoring
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (14) Feb 10, 2013
Yes there is a plateau - and for 15 or 20 years temperatures have not been going up in the way models would suggest they would have. There is clearly a problem. But there was also a plateau from 1940 to 1980.
Right. It's interesting, but this was before "AGW" was to have had any significant effect.

The significant cooling from 1945 is particularly interesting.

Other indicators are suggesting that warming is continuing - ice sheets, glaciers, ocean levels etc. Which way will things go? My money is on a continuing up trend
I'm leaning toward cooling (at least for awhile), but time will tell.

let's let the scientists do their job - and keep studying the issues. As you finally point out - "Even so, I will agree the bear population deserves monitoring
Right. So long as they apply the scientific method, and stop jumping to preconceived conclusions.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (12) Feb 10, 2013
Okay then, provide some current polar bear population studies.


http://www.grida....ic_1004#
The mark-recapture method has a lot of problems. Even they admit it. And, they couldn't even account at all for 7 sub-populations.

And this study is refuted here.

An interesting article about it is here.

And another article (more critical of the mark-capture method) is here.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (11) Feb 10, 2013
@djr:

Other indicators are suggesting that warming is continuing - ice sheets, glaciers, ocean levels etc.
I thought you might find it interesting that the Northern Hemisphere snow cover extant is setting records this year:

"The Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent (SCE) during December 2012 was much above average. ...the largest December SCE on record for the hemisphere."

http://www.ncdc.n.../2012/12

ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) Feb 10, 2013
Without implementation of cold fusion we cannot do anything with beers anyway, global warming the less.
djr
4.7 / 5 (13) Feb 10, 2013
"Right. So long as they apply the scientific method, and stop jumping to preconceived conclusions."

It seems very clear from where I sit that you exhibit exactly the problem you decry. You attack many articles that discuss global warming, and every time you are claiming that their science is flawed. Do you see how we may perceive a very high level of pre-judgement? I do not do the same thing. I do not attack multiple articles that disagree with my position - which is that global warming is a serious problem - and that we are wise to do everything we can to study this problem, and to reduce our green house gas emissions as fast as we can. If the science tells us that actually we have made a mistake - and there is no problem - all we have done is developed some really cool new technologies that will serve us well as we move forward anyway. Cont.
djr
4.6 / 5 (12) Feb 10, 2013
cont. Let's take as an example your citing the northern hemisphere SCE. Look carefully at the article you cited. In the 40 year period referenced by this article - there is clearly no trend in the SCE data - it is pretty random - some years up, others down. On the other hand - the sea ice extent shows an undeniable trend - down all the way. What piece of data do you choose to select as support for your position? - the one that does not show a trend. Interesting right? Equally - the data presented by numerous folks on this article suggests that polar bear populations rebounded after the hunting ban - but are now on net declining. You choose to select the fact that the populations rebounded after the hunting ban, but disregard more recent data - suggesting the populations on net are in decline. You asked one poster for more recent data - that data was presented - and you were immediately able to dismiss that data - by claiming there is a problem with the way the data is collected!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (11) Feb 10, 2013
"Right. So long as they apply the scientific method, and stop jumping to preconceived conclusions."

It seems very clear from where I sit that you exhibit exactly the problem you decry. You attack many articles that discuss global warming, and every time you are claiming that their science is flawed.
Generally, because they jump to preconceived conclusion.

Do you see how we may perceive a very high level of pre-judgement?
How is it a prejudgment if I explain the reasons why I think they're wrong and support my reasoning with verifiable data?

I do not do the same thing.
Actually you do, by supposing they're right without any critical thought.

I do not attack multiple articles that disagree with my position - which is that global warming is a serious problem
What articles have you seen which disagree with your position?

Continued...

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (11) Feb 10, 2013
- which is that global warming is a serious problem
This is the very epitome of a preconceived conclusion. I, on the other hand, generally refuse to state whether I believe it's a problem, or not. Instead, I focus on the qualities of the science presented.

Do you understand the difference?

- and that we are wise to do everything we can to study this problem,
Study? ...certainly. Become unreasonably proactive prematurely? ...no.

and to reduce our green house gas emissions as fast as we can.
And what if it turns out this very act is "the problem?"

If the science tells us that actually we have made a mistake - and there is no problem - all we have done is developed some really cool new technologies that will serve us well as we move forward
At what cost? How many people are you willing to let die of starvation, or freeze to death, for this mistake? How many economies are you willing to destroy? Yours?

continued...

djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2013
"What articles have you seen which disagree with your position?"

While they are certainly in the minority - there are periodically articles on Physorg that challenge the current consensus - and I read them with interest. As you point out - there is a temperature plateau at the moment - which may undermine the whole consensus on global warming - I am open to see.

At what cost? How many people are you willing to let die of starvation, or freeze to death, for this mistake? How many economies are you willing to destroy? Yours?

This is a bizarre line of attack from you. How is developing clean, cheap energy sources going to destroy economies? Germany is an example of the strongest economy in Europe, and they are leading the charge into transitioning to renewables. Look at Beijing. Look at the brown cloud over Denver. How many lives are you willing to destroy with your arrogance.

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 10, 2013
Let's take as an example your citing the northern hemisphere SCE. Look carefully at the article you cited. In the 40 year period referenced by this article - there is clearly no trend in the SCE data - it is pretty random - some years up, others down.
Actually, if you apply the dataset to a trend graph, you will find it is slowly trending up. Here's more on this:

"Northern Hemisphere winter snow cover extent has only changed slightly in the 47-year record, with a seasonal increase of about 0.1 percent per decade."

http://www.ncdc.n.../2012/13

On the other hand - the sea ice extent shows an undeniable trend - down all the way.
Sure, but what makes you think this is necessarily a bad thing? ...or even abnormal?

What piece of data do you choose to select as support for your position?
What position are you talking about? The only "position" I've expressed here is that I think the proactive call and sloppy "science" in this article, is crap.

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 10, 2013
You choose to select the fact that the populations rebounded after the hunting ban, but disregard more recent data - suggesting the populations on net are in decline.
Incorrect. Did you even look at all of the data I provided? I definitely stressed current data. Only some of the articles I selected mentioned the hunting ban. All were about current circumstances. And I never personally said a word about it.

You asked one poster for more recent data - that data was presented - and you were immediately able to dismiss that data - by claiming there is a problem with the way the data is collected
The poster in question never responded, and the data presented is the same flawed data this article is founded upon.

Again, did you even look at the data? Or are you coming to the preconceived conclusion that I must be wrong?

djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 10, 2013
"which is that global warming is a serious problem" - "This is the very epitome of a preconceived conclusion"

I don't see acknowledging the current scientific consensus on a subject as forming a preconceived conclusion - other than the conclusion that they know more about this than I - so I will defer to their understanding. I do the same thing every time I go to the doctor, the optometrist, the dentist, the accountant etc.

"And what if it turns out this very act is "the problem?""

Please provide any evidence that may suggest that reducing our green house gas emissions is "the problem"

Cont.
djr
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 10, 2013
"I definitely stressed current data."

Please take a moment to re-reference this current data that claims that polar bear numbers are currently increasing.

I will take a moment to post the data that shows that on net - current polar bear numbers are declining. http://www.polarb...s-report
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (11) Feb 10, 2013
"What articles have you seen which disagree with your position?"

While they are certainly in the minority - there are periodically articles on Physorg that challenge the current consensus - and I read them with interest.
Can you provide some examples?

As you point out - there is a temperature plateau at the moment - which may undermine the whole consensus on global warming - I am open to see.
I'm glad to hear it. This is my "position," as well.

At what cost? How many people are you willing to let die of starvation, or freeze to death, for this mistake? How many economies are you willing to destroy? Yours?

This is a bizarre line of attack from you. How is developing clean, cheap energy sources going to destroy economies?
I have no problem with the development of new technologies. But I do have a problem with the proactive regulation of greenhouse gasses and other unnecessary environmental regulations - as suggested in this article.

djr
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 10, 2013
Cont. - In the world that I live in - we face some significant problems - and I am willing to call them exactly that - problems. There are 7 billion of us living on this planet - and the ecosystems are showing stress - as a result of the pressure. I could point to the declining fish populations, the declining habitat that is leading to population decreases in the great Apes, orangutans, lions, tigers, elephants etc. Many people in our world are undernourished, and many die from preventable diseases - but without the necessary medical resources to combat them. We are making progress in many areas - but still face many threats (google - world grain reserves). Our greatest hope is in science - but we have to be willing to let the scientists do their job - and not attack them - instead trust the process of science to continue to what it has done so far - develop solutions. Do you see the fundamental difference in our attitudes? How many deaths will you take responsibility for.
djr
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 10, 2013
Can you provide some examples?

I am not willing to take the time to dig - is it your position that Physorg has never published an article that challenges the current consensus? I remember many - and I remember the deniers jumping on the articles and stating that the scientists would surely be blacklisted for such heresy. I read the articles and purposely did not comment.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (11) Feb 10, 2013
Germany is an example of the strongest economy in Europe, and they are leading the charge into transitioning to renewables.
And I applaud their efforts.

Look at Beijing. Look at the brown cloud over Denver. How many lives are you willing to destroy with your arrogance.
This isn't about greeenhouse gasses, but smog (they aren't the same thing). Denver has long since cleaned up their air and Beijing has heard the call to action.

In the world that I live in - we face some significant problems
Certainly. Therefore we shouldn't expend valuable resources on yet to be defined, or non-problems.

TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (10) Feb 10, 2013
"So why not pack a few off to Antarctica, where the sea ice will never run out?

"Once dismissed as wrongheaded and dangerous, assisted colonization -- rescuing vanishing species by moving them someplace new -- is now being discussed by serious conservationists.

""Antarctic penguins and seals aren't adapted to surface predators," explained Steven Amstrup, the chief U.S. Geological Survey polar-bear researcher. "The bears would have a field day for a while, because they could walk right up to them and eat them. For a short period of time, it would be great, but in the end the whole system would probably collapse."
http://www.wired....Page=all

-Baloney. There are plenty of seals and penquins. The world is now a park. Evolution is ENDED. It is about time we begin managing it as such.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (11) Feb 10, 2013
be willing to let the scientists do their job - and not attack them
Trust? Did you not learn any of the lessons imparted from history?

- inOur greatest hope is in science - but we have to stead trust the process of science to continue to what it has done so far - develop solutions.
Strictly speaking, science is about comprehension, not (generally speaking) solutions. "Solutions" is where we leave science and enter engineering and politics.

Do you see the fundamental difference in our attitudes?
Indeed. You want to sit on the sidelines and let others do your thinking for you. Maybe you live in a place where democracy and citizen responsibility isn't the norm?

How many deaths will you take responsibility for.
All of them. This is why I insist on good science and sensible solutions.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (11) Feb 10, 2013
"Can you provide some examples?"

I am not willing to take the time to dig
Of course not.

- is it your position that Physorg has never published an article that challenges the current consensus? I remember many - and I remember the deniers jumping on the articles and stating that the scientists would surely be blacklisted for such heresy. I read the articles and purposely did not comment.
If the science and conclusions of these articles is bad, I'm just as likely to comment in them, as any other.

djr
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 10, 2013
"This isn't about greeenhouse gasses, but smog"

But you are the one belly aching about environmental regulations - which are the very regulations that have cleared up so much of the smog that used to plague the U.S. and cause so many deaths.

"Of course not." So you give me shit because I am not willing to take an hour to sift through old Physorg articles (sorry I have a life) - and then in the next paragraph you acknowledge that these articles exist -

"If the science and conclusions of these articles is bad, I'm just as likely to comment in them, as any other." What a jerk. And I was willing to provide current data showing bear numbers to be on the decline - and asked you to substantiate your earlier claim - and "of course not" of course applies to you.
djr
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 10, 2013
"Indeed. You want to sit on the sidelines and let others do your thinking for you."

So when you get sick - I take it you don't go to the doctor. Oh - what is that - you do go to the doctor. Wow - what a jerk - sitting on the sidelines and letting others do your thinking for you!!!!!
Sinister1811
3 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2013
"So why not pack a few off to Antarctica, where the sea ice will never run out? "Once dismissed as wrongheaded and dangerous, assisted colonization -- rescuing vanishing species by moving them someplace new -- is now being discussed by serious conservationists.


I've often wondered the same thing. Not just with polar bears, but other threatened Arctic species as well. Would they even survive in Antarctica? Would they be able to adapt to a different diet and environment? And then there's the possibility that they could become an invasive/feral species. It's certainly an interesting thought. Surely they could set up an isolated or contained area.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2013
"This isn't about greeenhouse gasses, but smog"

But you are the one belly aching about environmental regulations - which are the very regulations that have cleared up so much of the smog that used to plague the U.S. and cause so many deaths.
Strawman. This isn't what I said. I said I'm against unnecessary regulation. Clearly, smog prevention and regulation is necessary.

"Of course not." So you give me shit because I am not willing to take an hour to sift through old Physorg articles (sorry I have a life) - and then in the next paragraph you acknowledge that these articles exist -
I will acknowledge there are a few articles which raise doubt about specific aspects of the accepted AGW science, but I don't recall any articles which deny that "global warming is a serious problem."

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2013
"If the science and conclusions of these articles is bad, I'm just as likely to comment in them, as any other."

What a jerk. And I was willing to provide current data showing bear numbers to be on the decline - and asked you to substantiate your earlier claim - and "of course not" of course applies to you.
How is me saying that I'm fairly and equally as likely to express my opinions about one form of bad science as another, make me a jerk - especially when doing so would go against your preconceived notions as to my "position?" And what's that have to do with you trying to make a point, yourself?

It looks to me like you're trying to paint me as "the bad guy" to cover up your own weaknesses.

Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 11, 2013
Without implementation of cold fusion we cannot do anything with beers anyway, global warming the less.


Too bad no one can show that cold fusion works. And I can do lots with beers!

Besides how will cold fusion help considering why you think the warming is occurring.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (11) Feb 11, 2013
"Indeed. You want to sit on the sidelines and let others do your thinking for you."

So when you get sick - I take it you don't go to the doctor. Oh - what is that - you do go to the doctor.
Of course I go to the doctor, listen to what she has to say, do a little research on my own, and then with as much information as reasonable I make my medical and health decisions. Sometimes (if it's relatively serious) I'll even seek additional expert medical opinions.

What do you do? Maybe you just put on earphones while the doctor is talking so you don't have to hear her?

Wow - what a jerk - sitting on the sidelines and letting others do your thinking for you!!!!!
This seems to be your problem.

ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (9) Feb 11, 2013
And I can do lots with beers!
LOL. Forget the bears, save the beers!

No, wait... we need the beers to drink during a Bears vs. Packers game, so save the Bears too!

Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (11) Feb 11, 2013
Again the same graph from uba. Here is the truth about that graph: http://www.skepti...faq.html
DruidDrudge
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 11, 2013
Okay then, provide some current polar bear population studies.


http://www.grida....ic_1004#

Hugo Ahlenius is a GIS consultant. Whos data do you think he was mapping?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (12) Feb 11, 2013
Again the same graph from uba. Here is the truth about that graph: http://www.skepti...faq.html
LOL. So the temperatures aren't doing what they predicted, so they rationalize up a snow job to state it's still getting warmer even when it clearly isn't? That's hilarious. Next they'll be selling ice to the Inuit, in winter! LOL.

I guess "global warming" isn't about the temperatures anymore... it's a matter of faith.

Please leave your offerings in the collection plate. LOL.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (11) Feb 11, 2013
Okay then, provide some current polar bear population studies.


http://www.grida....ic_1004#

Hugo Ahlenius is a GIS consultant. Whos data do you think he was mapping?
The map appears to be a copy of one created by the Polar Bear Specialist Group of the IUCN/SSC.

http://pbsg.npola...map.html

DruidDrudge
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 11, 2013
"I definitely stressed current data."

Please take a moment to re-reference this current data that claims that polar bear numbers are currently increasing.

I will take a moment to post the data that shows that on net - current polar bear numbers are declining. http://www.polarb...s-report

You have presented a propaganda piece as evidence of ?? what exactly?
DruidDrudge
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 11, 2013
Okay then, provide some current polar bear population studies.


http://www.grida....ic_1004#
Yes, I see. but these are clearly special interest groups. They dont even pretend to be objective.
http://www.ec.gc....FF4B8173
might be more objective. Perhaps I misunderstood your point?


ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 11, 2013
"which is that global warming is a serious problem" - "This is the very epitome of a preconceived conclusion"

I don't see acknowledging the current scientific consensus on a subject as forming a preconceived conclusion - other than the conclusion that they know more about this than I - so I will defer to their understanding.
You're not simply acknowledging "the consensus." You're expressing unyielding and intolerant conclusions of faith (i.e. preconceived conclusions).

I do the same thing every time I go to the doctor, the optometrist, the dentist, the accountant etc.
So you'd never question a medical or financial decision made on your behalf? I suppose then you've never seen an article about the horrors of medical errors?

Continued...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2013
"And what if it turns out this very act is "the problem?""

Please provide any evidence that may suggest that reducing our green house gas emissions is "the problem"
I didn't say it is the problem.

But just for fun (tongue in cheek), Anthropomorphic CO2 may save us from an overdue iceage:

http://www.mires-...0_08.pdf

And, of course, some claim severe economic consequences with relatively little benefit:

http://news.heart...tabs_4=2

But these aren't arguments I'm prepared to make. I'm only suggesting there may be unexpected consequences.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (9) Feb 11, 2013
"I definitely stressed current data."

Please take a moment to re-reference this current data that claims that polar bear numbers are currently increasing.

I will take a moment to post the data that shows that on net - current polar bear numbers are declining. http://www.polarb...s-report
LOL. Again, this is the same old data based upon the 2009 meeting of IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group.

Did you not read any of my posts and references?

djr
4 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2013
"You have presented a propaganda piece as evidence of ?? what exactly?"

Scientific data that supports the position that polar bear numbers are in decline. As usual the deneir community is immediate in dismissing any information that disagrees with their prejudged position.
djr
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2013
Did you not read any of my posts and references?

Yes - and I asked you to re-reference the current data that you are claiming supports the notion that polar bear communities are increasing. The silence was deafening.
djr
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2013
"I didn't say it is the problem."

You said - "And what if it turns out this very act is "the problem?"

So you are allowed to suggest that responding to the best current scientific information on a global issue such as climate change could turn out to be "the problem" (your words). When asked to provide any support to said proposition - you hide behind "I did not say it is the problem". No - you just asked a question - how convenient. Join the Fox news strategy. So in conclusion - I am willing to accept the findings of the science community - in the same way as I am willing to accept the finding of the medical community regarding my health care. You are not. We have a conclusion. I have a life - and feel stupid for wasting time arguing with you. You have your prejudged position - and I have mine. Mine happens to line up with conclusions of tens of thousands of scientists who are trained in the subject. I will waste no more time.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2013
"So why not pack a few off to Antarctica, where the sea ice will never run out? "Once dismissed as wrongheaded and dangerous, assisted colonization -- rescuing vanishing species by moving them someplace new -- is now being discussed by serious conservationists.


I've often wondered the same thing. Not just with polar bears, but other threatened Arctic species as well. Would they even survive in Antarctica? Would they be able to adapt to a different diet and environment? And then there's the possibility that they could become an invasive/feral species. It's certainly an interesting thought. Surely they could set up an isolated or contained area.
Google the text for the article which explains current thinking on this. Sooner or later some wealthy radical will probably do it anyway.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2013
Did you not read any of my posts and references?

Yes - and I asked you to re-reference the current data that you are claiming supports the notion that polar bear communities are increasing. The silence was deafening.

Then you should clean out your ears and get your eyeglasses checked. I posted a study which refutes the PBSG findings, and two additional articles, as well.

Try again.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2013
"I didn't say it is the problem."

You said - "And what if it turns out this very act is "the problem?"

So you are allowed to suggest that responding to the best current scientific information on a global issue such as climate change could turn out to be "the problem" (your words).
I'm "allowed" to say whatever I want. It's called "Free Speech" for a reason.

But, I only suggested that artificially reducing CO2 may have unexpected consequences.

For instance, THIS PIECE (generously presented by Maggnus) implies that if it weren't for CO2 artificially holding up temperatures, we'd be spiraling into an iceage, right now!

When asked to provide any support to said proposition - you hide behind "I did not say it is the problem".
I didn't "hide" behind anything. I simply clarified my position, as you obviously misunderstood it.

Continued...

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2013
No - you just asked a question - how convenient.
So you expect everything anyone says to be completely unequivocal? That's "Black & White" thinking.

Join the Fox news strategy.
Ad hominem.

So in conclusion - I am willing to accept the findings of the science community - in the same way as I am willing to accept the finding of the medical community regarding my health care.
Which simply serves to prove your own foolishness.

You are not.
Didn't you read how I assess my personal medical information?

We have a conclusion. I have a life - and feel stupid for wasting time arguing with you.
You are what you are, I suppose.

You have your prejudged position - and I have mine.
You obviously have yours, anyway. I'm not so certain (an example of full spectrum thinking).

Mine happens to line up with conclusions of tens of thousands of scientists who are trained in the subject. I will waste no more time.
So you think consensus is proof? LOL.

djr
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2013
Then you should clean out your ears and get your eyeglasses checked. I posted a study which refutes the PBSG findings, and two additional articles, as well.

As stipulated - I asked nicely if you would repost said reference - I don't think that is asking too much - just wanting to get quick clarification - the silence was deafening - you are not willing to commit yourself - what a coward.

I'm "allowed" to say whatever I want. It's called "Free Speech" for a reason.

Absolutely - and Fox is allowed to just ask - if it is possible that President Obama might not have a birth certificate - or any number of other absurdities. You sir are a coward.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2013
"Then you should clean out your ears and get your eyeglasses checked. I posted a study which refutes the PBSG findings, and two additional articles, as well."

As stipulated - I asked nicely if you would repost said reference - I don't think that is asking too much - just wanting to get quick clarification - the silence was deafening - you are not willing to commit yourself - what a coward.
It's just as easy for you to go back and look it up as me. So it looks like the coward who is unwilling to commit, is yourself.

"I'm "allowed" to say whatever I want. It's called "Free Speech" for a reason."

Absolutely - and Fox is allowed to just ask - if it is possible that President Obama might not have a birth certificate - or any number of other absurdities. You sir are a coward.
Sure. They have that right. Why should this surprise you? Where do you live? Do they not have free speech rights there? That's sad.

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2013
Nature has spoken.

It's a horribly overspecialized species that was bound to go extinct anyway. What makes human hierarchical structures responsible for every species on the planets survival???
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2013
I have to give you credit for one thing Uba. You are a master of using a mix of half-truths, cheery-picked data and obfustication to set up strawman arguments and misdirection.

Frankly I am convinced you do not actually believe that antopogentic CO2 loading of the atmosphere is not occuring, you just get a charge out of provoking arguments.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 11, 2013
Nature has spoken.

It's a horribly overspecialized species that was bound to go extinct anyway. What makes human hierarchical structures responsible for every species on the planets survival???
This, I'll disagree with.

We have the responsibility to protect the environment, not just for selfish survival reasons, but because we alone have the means.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (9) Feb 11, 2013
I have to give you credit for one thing Uba. You are a master of using a mix of half-truths, cheery-picked data and obfustication to set up strawman arguments and misdirection.
Generally, I feel my arguments are based upon solid science and sound reasoning.

Frankly I am convinced you do not actually believe that antopogentic CO2 loading of the atmosphere is not occuring, you just get a charge out of provoking arguments.
Certainly man is contributing to atmospheric CO2 content. Whether the contribution is particularly significant, is the issue.

And yes, I do enjoy a stimulating discussion.

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2013
We have the responsibility to protect the environment, not just for selfish survival reasons, but because we alone have the means.


Well that's one opinion and an example of one value set. It certainly isn't a moral imperative or true.

I for instance think we have a responsibility to let nature sort itself out like it has for billions of years without interfering in every little aspect of it and calling it preserving the "natural order"....nothing could be more ridiculous....
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 12, 2013
We have the responsibility to protect the environment, not just for selfish survival reasons, but because we alone have the means.


Well that's one opinion and an example of one value set. It certainly isn't a moral imperative or true.

I for instance think we have a responsibility to let nature sort itself out like it has for billions of years without interfering in every little aspect of it and calling it preserving the "natural order"....nothing could be more ridiculous....
I suppose that viewpoint has some validity. And I admit I'm glad there haven't been any bears around here for more than a century, but I still disagree. The economic benefits to keeping them are substantial.

Hunters and guides would certainly miss the opportunity, as would nature documentarians and photographers (just to name a few).

Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2013
We have the responsibility to protect the environment, not just for selfish survival reasons, but because we alone have the means.



I agree, well said.
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2013
It's just as easy for you to go back and look it up as me. So it looks like the coward who is unwilling to commit, is yourself.

I asked nicely if you would clarify a point. Your unwillingness to do so makes it clear to the board that you do not have a point - you are wrong - it has been demonstrated that you are wrong - but you persist - and refuse to answer the question because you are wrong. Enough time wasted.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 12, 2013
Nature has spoken.

It's a horribly overspecialized species that was bound to go extinct anyway. What makes human hierarchical structures responsible for every species on the planets survival???
Because they might come in handy some day.
Modernmystic
1.1 / 5 (8) Feb 12, 2013
Nature has spoken.

It's a horribly overspecialized species that was bound to go extinct anyway. What makes human hierarchical structures responsible for every species on the planets survival???
Because they might come in handy some day.

I suppose the billions of species that went extinct before 10,000 years ago might come in handy some day too...but that's just not how things work.

If you personally value them, then I encourage you to be about saving them. Don't foist your values on others though under the guise of some quasi religious crusade about "nature" or "the environment" or some other amorphous non-entity. Be real enough to make it about what it is...YOUR own personal values because human concepts can't hold values or make judgements.
djr
4.4 / 5 (9) Feb 12, 2013
It's a horribly overspecialized species that was bound to go extinct anyway. What makes human hierarchical structures responsible for every species on the planets survival???

Modernmystic is righ - it is about personal values - and we should recognize that. However - personal values - and the future of our species, and the planet we live on, and the other species we share the planet with intersect. So - when we noticed that our actions were causing degradation of the ozone - we studied the situation - and personal values then came in to the decision to change our behavior - because ozone is beneficial to our existence. We have many such issues to study - acid rain, arsenic in our water supplies etc. etc. And glibly saying that we should not take any responsibility for the extinction of the tigers (for example) is an interesting values statement. I want to live in a world where we care about everything - don't you?
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2013
And I agree with djr. I agree that my own personal values intersect with a LOT of environmental issues.

I'm concerned with AGW, with deforestation, with the abysmal management of Yellowstone Park ecosystems, I recycle, I'm going to put up two wind turbines this summer on my property, and many other issues which impact the biosphere to a greater or lesser extent.

I'm not concerned however about "everything". I can't be and be sane quite honestly. I think it would suck if polar bears go extinct, but it's extremely low on my radar of "issues" to be concerned with. I want to be about fixing that problem, not the symptoms (and their extinction is a symptom). I don't know why we can't start a genetic database of all threatened species so we can bring them back after we get over the technological "hump" and start using cleaner tech that puts less stress on the biosphere. That's what I'd advocate at this point for anyone truly concerned with these matters.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 12, 2013
I suppose the billions of species that went extinct before 10,000 years ago might come in handy some day too...but that's just not how things work.
We gots to work with what we have. And we should soon be able to reconstruct many of them.And we should, as we need to know as much about everything as we can.
Don't foist your values on others though under the guise of some quasi religious crusade about "nature" or "the environment" or some other amorphous non-entity. Be real enough to make it about what it is
Have I ever struck you as the quasipseudoreligionist tree hugger type? This is PRAGMATISM.

We are discovering new uses for species every day. Polar bears might be an irreplaceable part of their environment. We need to know as much about life as we possibly can and really shouldnt be so cavalier about letting a valuable source of knowledge disappear.

Did you know that you can get Hypervitaminosis A from eating polar bear liver?
djr
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2013
"I'm not concerned however about "everything"

You approach sounds very pragmatic - and of course I agree - that as an individual - one has to be selective with time and energy. That is not incompatible with a moral - and reasoned life. What I meant by using the term 'everything' was more that science is interested in everything - that is almost a part of the definition. Then we get to decide how much energy we have - and where we will focus that energy. Of course species extinction is a part of the normal process of evolution. That does not mean we should not be studying the environment, ecosystems etc. and trying to understand our impact on it all. I think we are in agreement.
deepsand
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2013
At what cost? How many people are you willing to let die of starvation, or freeze to death, for this mistake? How many economies are you willing to destroy? Yours?

What costs that would result from the inability and/or unwillingness to grasp the fundamental errors inherent in your position that global cooling is imminent are you willing to accept?