New Research Finds Polar Bear Numbers Up 42% Since 2004 – Survival Rates Unaffected By Sea Ice Avail

[Nickyjo]

Apparently SIX published papers showing Polar Bear populations stable or increasing was too much for warmists to handle, they avoid this thread totally.

Snicker........

Obviously, the increase in polar bear population is a signal we should use more fossil fuels. Who can argue with that?

 

[Somerville]

He keeps ignoring this over and over since it make clear she is well aware of the science and have been involved in research in the Polar region for many years.

From her website Polar Bears Science


35 years of Experience- Check
PHD in Zoology- Check
adjunct professor at the University of Victoria, British Columbia- Check
Published a number of research papers, articles and book- Check

In her link is the list of research she has published.

It is clear that she is QUALIFIED in Polar Bear research and debate.

Always enjoy checking the 'facts' posted by some people.

If one takes the time to read the descriptions of the research papers listed by Dr Crockford, one will find that her specific field of research is evolutionary- and Archaeozoology, not research based on present-day findings. She has published no peer-reviewed papers on modern polar bears.

For instance, a few of the papers listed on her website:
**Crockford, S. J. 2012. Annotated map of ancient polar bear remains of the world.

*Nishida, S., West, D., Crockford, S. and Koike, H. 2012. Ancient DNA analysis for the sea otter (Enhydra lutris) from archaeological sites on Adak, Aleutian Islands.

**Crockford, S.J. and G. Frederick 2011. Neoglacial sea ice and life history flexibility in ringed and fur seals.

*Crockford, S.J., Frederick, G. & Wigen, R. 2002. The Cape Flattery fur seal: An extinct species of Callorhinus in the eastern north Pacific? Canadian Journal of Archaeology

**Crockford, S.J. 2012. Directionality in polar bear hybridization. Comment (May 1) to Hailer et al. 2012. “Nuclear genomic sequences reveal that polar bears are an old and distinct bear lineage.”

**Crockford, S.J. 2004. Animal Domestication and Vertebrate Speciation: A Paradigm for the Origin of Species. Ph.D. dissertation

Crockford is an adjunct professor at UBC but she does not teach any courses on modern polar bear environments and consequences for the species. She teaches a course for Anthropology students on animal domestication and speciation and advises on matters of paleozoology and archaeozoology.

 

[Jack Hays]

Always enjoy checking the 'facts' posted by some people.

If one takes the time to read the descriptions of the research papers listed by Dr Crockford, one will find that her specific field of research is evolutionary- and Archaeozoology, not research based on present-day findings. She has published no peer-reviewed papers on modern polar bears.

For instance, a few of the papers listed on her website:
**Crockford, S. J. 2012. Annotated map of ancient polar bear remains of the world.

*Nishida, S., West, D., Crockford, S. and Koike, H. 2012. Ancient DNA analysis for the sea otter (Enhydra lutris) from archaeological sites on Adak, Aleutian Islands.

**Crockford, S.J. and G. Frederick 2011. Neoglacial sea ice and life history flexibility in ringed and fur seals.

*Crockford, S.J., Frederick, G. & Wigen, R. 2002. The Cape Flattery fur seal: An extinct species of Callorhinus in the eastern north Pacific? Canadian Journal of Archaeology

**Crockford, S.J. 2012. Directionality in polar bear hybridization. Comment (May 1) to Hailer et al. 2012. “Nuclear genomic sequences reveal that polar bears are an old and distinct bear lineage.”

**Crockford, S.J. 2004. Animal Domestication and Vertebrate Speciation: A Paradigm for the Origin of Species. Ph.D. dissertation

Crockford is an adjunct professor at UBC but she does not teach any courses on modern polar bear environments and consequences for the species. She teaches a course for Anthropology students on animal domestication and speciation and advises on matters of paleozoology and archaeozoology.

And yet she has consistently been right and her critics have consistently been wrong.

 

[Threegoofs]

He keeps ignoring this over and over since it make clear she is well aware of the science and have been involved in research in the Polar region for many years.

From her website Polar Bears Science


35 years of Experience- Check
PHD in Zoology- Check
adjunct professor at the University of Victoria, British Columbia- Check
Published a number of research papers, articles and book- Check

In her link is the list of research she has published.

It is clear that she is QUALIFIED in Polar Bear research and debate.

I asked.. just link to a peer reviewed published paper that she wrote about Polar Bear ecology or populations, or anything relevant to the topic.

You could never produce a single one. So you put me on ‘ignore’!

You just spit up that she’s written papers. And you seem to think adjunct professors are at the top of the scientific food chain....

 

[Tim the plumber]

For him its simply the politics of envy hiding behind a thin green veil of faux environmental concern on this or any other aspect of this agenda. This time its polar bears that are the guilt trip for extracting the filthy lucre from the evil rich whatever the reality of their situation may be. He is the quintessential alarmist cliche and the best advert for our skepticism we could ever wish for

Yep, I keep saying it, the person who has done most on DP to advance the Skeptic message.

 

[Threegoofs]

Yep, I keep saying it, the person who has done most on DP to advance the Skeptic message.

You are also welcome to show this ‘expert’ is a recognized expert among other experts.

But I’d imagine you’ll just stick with your fantasies and name calling.

 

[Tim the plumber]

You are also welcome to show this ‘expert’ is a recognized expert among other experts.

But I’d imagine you’ll just stick with your fantasies and name calling.

Has your post in any way any sort of relavance to mine at all?

Which expert I am I refering to? I certainly don't think you are an expert on anything at all.

What names have I called anybody?

 

[Somerville]

Has your post in any way any sort of relavance to mine at all?

Which expert I am I refering to? I certainly don't think you are an expert on anything at all.

What names have I called anybody?

I'll just type some words here and of course, the fact they aren't related to any other commenter's words means they don't really mean anything - just because I like to type.

Seems to be a standard response when a challenge is laid down.

 

[Somerville]

And yet she has consistently been right and her critics have consistently been wrong.

Oh please inform the ignorant as to just how adjunct professor Crockford has been right and her critics have "consistently been wrong".

Why is it that so many of the 'experts' who deny the reality of AGW receive stipends and "research grants" from certain organisations? One of the constantly repeated assertions by the 'sceptics' has to do with how much money is going to those scientists who have shown AGW to be a real threat, all the while they fail to acknowledge the millions going to those scientists who are said to back the denialist claims. Anybody else wonder why that is?

 

[Jack Hays]

Oh please inform the ignorant as to just how adjunct professor Crockford has been right and her critics have "consistently been wrong".

Why is it that so many of the 'experts' who deny the reality of AGW receive stipends and "research grants" from certain organisations? One of the constantly repeated assertions by the 'sceptics' has to do with how much money is going to those scientists who have shown AGW to be a real threat, all the while they fail to acknowledge the millions going to those scientists who are said to back the denialist claims. Anybody else wonder why that is?

Early in this century the "experts" were predicting the imminent collapse of the polar bear population. Crockford said that was nonsense, and the polar bears were doing just fine. Since then polar bear populations have grown substantially; she was right and they were wrong. That's the sin they cannot forgive: she embarrassed them.

 

[Jack Hays]

Why is it that so many of the 'experts' who deny the reality of AGW receive stipends and "research grants" from certain organisations? One of the constantly repeated assertions by the 'sceptics' has to do with how much money is going to those scientists who have shown AGW to be a real threat, all the while they fail to acknowledge the millions going to those scientists who are said to back the denialist claims. Anybody else wonder why that is?

Your claim is false.

 

[Threegoofs]

Has your post in any way any sort of relavance to mine at all?

Which expert I am I refering to? I certainly don't think you are an expert on anything at all.

What names have I called anybody?

Oh. I forgot.

You’re not addressing the thread topic, you just wanted a place to whine.

Carry on.

 

[Threegoofs]

Early in this century the "experts" were predicting the imminent collapse of the polar bear population. Crockford said that was nonsense, and the polar bears were doing just fine. Since then polar bear populations have grown substantially; she was right and they were wrong. That's the sin they cannot forgive: she embarrassed them.

You forgot to append the link to the peer reviewed paper she has published on the topic of polar bear populations.

But using your logic, I should be the commissioner of baseball because I regularly win my fantasy baseball league.

 

[Jack Hays]

You forgot to append the link to the peer reviewed paper she has published on the topic of polar bear populations.

But using your logic, I should be the commissioner of baseball because I regularly win my fantasy baseball league.

She was right; they were wrong.

 

[Threegoofs]

She was right; they were wrong.

Well, as the links I posted before showed...she isn’t right. Polar bear populations are not rising. Estimates of populations are rising, but it’s also clear that populations are declining in more places than increasing.

But you wouldn’t know. Scientific American is apparently inferior to your blogs filled with adjunct professors on Heartlands payroll who pretend to be experts in things they don’t study. Heck - even you gave up pretending she’s an expert.

 

[Jack Hays]

Well, as the links I posted before showed...she isn’t right. Polar bear populations are not rising. Estimates of populations are rising, but it’s also clear that populations are declining in more places than increasing.

But you wouldn’t know. Scientific American is apparently inferior to your blogs filled with adjunct professors on Heartlands payroll who pretend to be experts in things they don’t study. Heck - even you gave up pretending she’s an expert.

You have it exactly wrong, and you are contradicted by your own links. She's an expert.

 

[Threegoofs]

You have it exactly wrong, and you are contradicted by your own links. She's an expert.

Feel free to post that link to a paper. Any time now.

 

[SirGareth]

LOL.

The Inuit, who have a heavily vested interest in keeping their legal ability to hunt polar bears active, publicly say that bear populations are doing great.

"Damn Inuits, Kill an Eskimo, save a bear"

It's far far worse than that, look:

Hunting Polar Bear in The Arctic - Canada North Outfitting


Canada "Oh Canada" Say it ain't so....say it ain't so...... Ay?

This is like citing Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump as the source for a study that says exporting elephant ivory from Africa is a totally benign policy.

The truth shall set you free.....but only if you have some brains.....sorry

"Nevertheless, after 45 years of living with elephants, seeing the damage elephants do to their habitats, and managing elephant populations in several of Zimbabwe's national parks in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s I believe the probability is very great that exactly the same thing has happened to all the other elephant-occupied habitats in Kruger between 1960 and 2005.
Taking this idea one step further, thinking and intelligent people upon reading this small dissertation will (surely?) also understand that the 1967 culling-maintenance target of 7000 elephants represented far too many for even the originally healthy Kruger habitats to support. And that today's still growing elephant population of 11 500 in Kruger, and the continuance of a no-culling policy in what is now a seriously degrading habitat, is totally unacceptable."

Kruger Park Times | On Elephant Numbers in Kruger | Online News Publication...

 

[Threegoofs]

"Damn Inuits, Kill an Eskimo, save a bear"

It's far far worse than that, look:

Hunting Polar Bear in The Arctic - Canada North Outfitting


Canada "Oh Canada" Say it ain't so....say it ain't...... Ay?

Hitting the bottle on the Lord’s Day, eh?

 

[Jack Hays]

Feel free to post that link to a paper. Any time now.

Irrelevant guild hall credentialism. Her expertise is established by the accuracy of her findings and predictions.

 

[Grand Mal]

LOL.

The Inuit, who have a heavily vested interest in keeping their legal ability to hunt polar bears active, publicly say that bear populations are doing great.

This is like citing Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump as the source for a study that says exporting elephant ivory from Africa is a totally benign policy.

And the Inuit, who live on land, are saying there's too many bears because the bears can't get out on the ice. And a study found that polar bears living near Barents Sea have increased because they normally would be out on the ice on Barents Sea. And there's starting to be cross-breeding between polar bears and grizzly bears. More cross-breeding- it happened before but rarely. They don't normally live in the same territory.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...hybrid-shot-dead-in-canada-brings-new-global/

 

[Tim the plumber]

Oh. I forgot.

You’re not addressing the thread topic, you just wanted a place to whine.

Carry on.

If you actually read the other guys post, have a little think about it, then work out what to say back you will seem less foolish. Just a tip.

 

[SirGareth]

And the Inuit, who live on land, are saying there's too many bears because the bears can't get out on the ice. And a study found that polar bears living near Barents Sea have increased because they normally would be out on the ice on Barents Sea. And there's starting to be cross-breeding between polar bears and grizzly bears. More cross-breeding- it happened before but rarely. They don't normally live in the same territory.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...hybrid-shot-dead-in-canada-brings-new-global/

But the bears want the Inuits out on the ice so they can occupy their houses and eat their garbage, lets put it to a challenge: the Bears vs the Eskimos

I'm giving the Bears 2-1 odds if the government confiscates Eskimo rifles to keep them safer.

 

[SirGareth]

Hitting the bottle on the Lord’s Day, eh?

While not admitting a thing, even in my most inebriated moment, I'm still far better informed, more lucid, more intelligent, and far more clever than you.

No comment on unsustainable elephant populations in Africa?

I gave you access to the thoughts of a man who has managed elephant populations in African reserves for 45 years.

You do realize that elephants in Africa live in reserves (think super large zoos) and as such must be managed, or don't you?.

If you are opposed to shooting them to manage their numbers I will be more than happy to recommend you for the job of rolling 6 foot condoms over the penises of horny bulls.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Obviously, the increase in polar bear population is a signal we should use more fossil fuels. Who can argue with that?

Ha ha, never said that at all and YOU know it since you didn't quote me saying that.