Polar Bear Population Reaches "Carrying Capacity"

[EdwinWillers]

Dr. Susan J. Crockford, a zoologist with more than 35 years of experience, found numerous signs that the polar bear population was reaching its limit.“We have at least two reports in the peer-reviewed literature that state flat-out that the presumed negative effects of declining sea ice on a population’s size are indistinguishable from a population that is as large as it can get,” Crockford wrote in a blog post.

Read more: Polar bear population reaches its limits | The Daily Caller

Of course, she's just a zoologist; she probably knows squat about CO2 and anomalies and probably couldn't tell you either whether we're cooling, warming, or merely changing.

Just curious to know who the anti-deniers of the global warming hoax are here.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Of course, she's just a zoologist; she probably knows squat about CO2 and anomalies and probably couldn't tell you either whether we're cooling, warming, or merely changing.

Just curious to know who the anti-deniers of the global warming hoax are here.

The polar bears are one of the many creatures the animal rights/eco-terrorists/natural resource deniers like to throw at Canada all the time - love the commercials from GreenPeace and others with the poor momma polar bear and her cubs stranded on a tiny ice floe with the sad music in the background. Almost as good as Paul McCartney coming over to protect the seals.

 

[Fisher]

So polar bears are doing it like bunny rabbits, good news for them and us (well the male them's. The female thems are stuck with a bunch of cubs, no payments, and a playa polar daddy).

That said, what exactly are "anti-deniers of the global warming hoax"? Isn't is easier to say, "People who reject AGW"?

 

[mbig]

Of course, she's just a zoologist; she probably knows squat about CO2 and anomalies and probably couldn't tell you either whether we're cooling, warming, or merely changing.

Just curious to know who the anti-deniers of the global warming hoax are here.

Actually, for you and the Other Warming denialist Right wing Blog-citers... I've never seen a post in this section on Polar Bears.

However, much to your Unwitting Regret (so sorry), YOUR article Confirms Shrinking/Shrunken Sea Ice. Which IS posted on daily.
"Carrying Capacity" more fully being.. "of the extant/shrunken Ice mass"

And I LAUGH at the GOP Brown-shirts/HACKS here trying to marginalize 95% of Climate Scientists when it's They who are the Flat-earthers.
In this particular string it'll be right back to "Obama sucks" (and the "Lets talk Beer" string) for these Non-science/pure-politicos who make up the heart of the denialist movement.

 

[Middleground]

Of course, she's just a zoologist; she probably knows squat about CO2 and anomalies and probably couldn't tell you either whether we're cooling, warming, or merely changing.

Just curious to know who the anti-deniers of the global warming hoax are here.

Okay, it seems that the polar bears of Davis Inlet are doing spiffingly.

So what about the populations in the rest of the arctic?

 

[EdwinWillers]

So polar bears are doing it like bunny rabbits, good news for them and us (well the male them's. The female thems are stuck with a bunch of cubs, no payments, and a playa polar daddy).

That said, what exactly are "anti-deniers of the global warming hoax"? Isn't is easier to say, "People who reject AGW"?

Yes, it would be a lot easier - but remember, this is AGW; complexity and obscurity is everything.

 

[EdwinWillers]

The polar bears are one of the many creatures the animal rights/eco-terrorists/natural resource deniers like to throw at Canada all the time - love the commercials from GreenPeace and others with the poor momma polar bear and her cubs stranded on a tiny ice floe with the sad music in the background. Almost as good as Paul McCartney coming over to protect the seals.

LOL - but think about it - you can't argue with smarmy syrup.

 

[code1211]

So polar bears are doing it like bunny rabbits, good news for them and us (well the male them's. The female thems are stuck with a bunch of cubs, no payments, and a playa polar daddy).

That said, what exactly are "anti-deniers of the global warming hoax"? Isn't is easier to say, "People who reject AGW"?

I get confused with multiple negatives, but deniers of the AGW hoax would be those reject the Hoax.

Anti deniers would be those who assert the hoax.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Yes, it would be a lot easier - but remember, this is AGW; complexity and obscurity is everything.

I get confused with multiple negatives, but deniers of the AGW hoax would be those reject the Hoax.

Anti deniers would be those who assert the hoax.

:yt

:applaud :applaud

 

[code1211]

Actually, for you and the Other Warming denialist Right wing Blog-citers... I've never seen a post in this section on Polar Bears.

However, much to your Unwitting Regret (so sorry), YOUR article Confirms Shrinking/Shrunken Sea Ice. Which IS posted on daily.
"Carrying Capacity" more fully being.. "of the extant/shrunken Ice mass"

And I LAUGH at the GOP Brown-shirts/HACKS here trying to marginalize 95% of Climate Scientists when it's They who are the Flat-earthers.
In this particular string it'll be right back to "Obama sucks" (and the "Lets talk Beer" string) for these Non-science/pure-politicos who make up the heart of the denialist movement.

The basis of the 95%, actually it's 97% is in described in this article:

Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change

The basis of that is in this cut and paste:

<snip>
From the 11,994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.
<snip>

This incredibly biased and agenda driven study conclude that 97% of 32.6% is 97% of all scientists. Interesting bit of math to arrive at this, but typical of the math used to support AGWScience.

There is more ice in the Arctic Sea than any year since 2007. The Antarctic continues its cooling trend.

 

[Fisher]

I get confused with multiple negatives, but deniers of the AGW hoax would be those reject the Hoax.

Anti deniers would be those who assert the hoax.

But are they denying the hoax or denying that it is a hoax? That is where the confusion comes in that choice of phrases.

Either way, yeah for polar bears, Coke commercials, and bear skin rug makers.

 

[code1211]

Okay, it seems that the polar bears of Davis Inlet are doing spiffingly.

So what about the populations in the rest of the arctic?

The Polar Bear population had about doubled since the 1960's a few years ago. Not very conclusive, though. The population estimates are not absolutely scientific with a bunch of SWAG going into it.

 

[rjay]

Of course, she's just a zoologist; she probably knows squat about CO2 and anomalies and probably couldn't tell you either whether we're cooling, warming, or merely changing.

Just curious to know who the anti-deniers of the global warming hoax are here.

The "anti-deniers of the global warming hoax" - got it the ones who trust the scientific community.
therefore the "deniers of the global warming hoax" are those that trust the same percentage of scientists who insist that smoking tobacco has no harmful effects.

glad that is cleared up

 

[EdwinWillers]

Okay, it seems that the polar bears of Davis Inlet are doing spiffingly.

"Spiffingly?"

So what about the populations in the rest of the arctic?

Well the article didn't mention the rest of the Arctic - just "certain areas" in the Arctic - presumably those areas she'd studied - specifically the Davis Straits - which I *assume* is a rather large area to support over 2,000 polar bears, but then, I don't know; I'm no zoologist.

But what are your thoughts? Do you think there is any correlation - or no correlation between this region of polar bears in the Arctic and "the rest of the Arctic?"

Interestingly, because the AGW and Greenpeace crowd believed the AGW hoax and observed declining numbers of polar bears worldwide, *naturally* they assumed it HAD to be because of AGW (like everything else bad in our world today). So they got polar bears put on the endangered species list - which prevented man from hunting them anymore; and since that time, lo and behold, polar bear populations have increased dramatically. Apparently their [then] imminent demise and current abundant numbers today had little, if anything whatsoever to do with AGW.

Go figure...

 

[Threegoofs]

Charismatic megafauna as a bellwether for climate. There's a sucker born every day.

The real issue lies with CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature rising on both the surface and the ocean, not to mention dramatic reductions in ice coverage and massive amounts of thawing permafrost in the arctic. If the polar bears like that, good for them. Bad for farmers in temperate zones, and the people who rely on their crops.

 

[Threegoofs]

So they got polar bears put on the endangered species list - which prevented man from hunting them anymore; and since that time, lo and behold, polar bear populations have increased dramatically.

Go figure...

Hmmm. Sounds like a correlation that may be a causation.

 

[Fisher]

Charismatic megafauna as a bellwether for climate. There's a sucker born every day.

The real issue lies with CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature rising on both the surface and the ocean, not to mention dramatic reductions in ice coverage and massive amounts of thawing permafrost in the arctic. If the polar bears like that, good for them. Bad for farmers in temperate zones, and the people who rely on their crops.

Well the magnetic poles are reversing so the antarctic will be the arctic soon enough anyways, proving the adage once again that when God shuts a door, he opens a window. The only real question is will we start talking with funny accents once our toilets swirl in the opposite direction--I am pretty sure there is a link between the two. I should say yes in advance so the right people will give me a research grant like the AGW folks did and do.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Charismatic megafauna as a bellwether for climate. There's a sucker born every day.

"Climate?" But I thought.... meh. Nevermind.

The real issue lies with CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature rising on both the surface and the ocean, not to mention dramatic reductions in ice coverage and massive amounts of thawing permafrost in the arctic. If the polar bears like that, good for them. Bad for farmers in temperate zones, and the people who rely on their crops.

So... tell it to stop.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Hmmm. Sounds like a correlation that may be a causation.

Correlatively speaking then, doing so becomes causative?

 

[Threegoofs]

Well the magnetic poles are reversing so the antarctic will be the arctic soon enough anyways, proving the adage once again that when God shuts a door, he opens a window.

Fascinating.

And you know about magnetic pole reversal from..scientists, I presume?

But you are selective on what science you believe, apparently. Weird.

 

[mbig]

The basis of the 95%, actually it's 97% is in described in this article:[./b]

Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change
The basis of that is in this cut and paste:
<snip>
From the 11,994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.
<snip>
This incredibly biased and agenda driven study conclude that 97% of 32.6% is 97% of all scientists. Interesting bit of math to arrive at this, but typical of the math used to support AGWScience.
There is more ice in the Arctic Sea than any year since 2007. The Antarctic continues its cooling trend.

I'm quite aware of that it's "97%"!
I posted it many times. Was just being Conservative.

Of course, I also posted a SECOND study of "97%-98%"
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...an-causes-survey-finds-12.html#post1061977662

OK Let's skip Cook!
......

Expert credibility in climate change
William R. L. Anderegg a , 1 , James W. Prall b , Jacob Harold c , and Stephen H. Schneider a , d , 1
Contributed by Stephen H. Schneider, April 9, 2010 (sent for review December 22, 2009)

Abstract

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest Striking Agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of Anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions.

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and
(ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.​

OOOPS!

 

[Threegoofs]

Correlatively speaking then, doing so becomes causative?

I'm guessing this sentence comes from too many IPA's. If not, I'd love to see what you DO come up with after a night at the Mayor of Old Town.

 

[EdwinWillers]

I'm guessing this sentence comes from too many IPA's. If not, I'd love to see what you DO come up with after a night at the Mayor of Old Town.

Stellas, actually.

 

[EdwinWillers]

But are they denying the hoax or denying that it is a hoax? That is where the confusion comes in that choice of phrases.

Either way, yeah for polar bears, Coke commercials, and bear skin rug makers.

Actually, not bear skin rug makers - illegal to hunt them.

 

[Threegoofs]

I'm quite aware of that it's "97%"!
I posted it many times. Was just being Conservative.

Of course, I also posted a SECOND study of "97%-98%"
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...an-causes-survey-finds-12.html#post1061977662

OOOPS!

Well, to be honest, that number is down, because the Oreskes study looking at 900+ papers from 1994-2004 showed that NONE rejected the concept of AGW. That was the original study the deniers were pissed about.