Polar Bear Population Reaches "Carrying Capacity"

[EdwinWillers]

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.

Thank you for doing your part to fulfill the purpose of this thread. :thumbs:

 

[EdwinWillers]

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!

Of all the logical fallacies, I probably love the "appeal to authority" ones the best.

 

[Fisher]

Fascinating.

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

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

I see you like to run with a false premise, but your support of AGW has established that already. No, I know about magnetic reversal from aviation--specifically that the numbers on runways are based in the heading of a runway magnetically and that airports are starting to have to renumber their runways because magnetic north is moving in order to keep the system working. It is how you set the directional heading on old school dial direction indicators, but they tend to vibrate out of sync so you have the back up compass on the dash to recalibrate periodically in flight, usually after ATC has yelled at you for being off course after their first friendly nudge :2wave:

 

[EdwinWillers]

< snip >
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.

"Don't you mess with my beer Willis!"

 

[Fisher]

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

I'll print me up a First Nations ID card. I will claim to be Métis. :tongue4:

 

[Threegoofs]

I see you like to run with a false premise, but your support of AGW has established that already. No, I know about magnetic reversal from aviation--specifically that the numbers on runways are based in the heading of a runway magnetically and that airports are starting to have to renumber their runways because magnetic north is moving in order to keep the system working. It is how you set the directional heading on old school dial direction indicators, but they tend to vibrate out of sync so you have the back up compass on the dash to recalibrate periodically in flight, usually after ATC has yelled at you for being off course after their first friendly nudge :2wave:

Ah, yes. So science has nothing to do with it.

How silly of me.

 

[Fisher]

Ah, yes. So science has nothing to do with it.

How silly of me.

Nope. Magnetism existed before scientists, so yes how silly of you.

 

[Middleground]

"Spiffingly?"

Yeah, I know it's not a word. I tend to make up my own from time-to-time... some thread OPs simply bring out the best--or worst, depending on perspective--out of me.

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.

That's right, only the Davis Inlet was mentioned. So then, why did that little tidbit of information lead you to believe that those who are concerned about polar bear population are a bunch of propagandist/alarmists? You do know that the Arctic is much larger than the Davis Inlet, no?

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?"

Found this interesting tidbit of information:

Polar bears are found in 19 subpopulations around the Arctic. Of the 19 recognized polar bear subpopulations, scientists only have enough data to make accurate determinations about 12. Of those 12, eight are in decline, three are stable, and only one is increasing. Animal populations decline for all sorts of reasons, and in the case of polar bears, being hunted by people is certainly one cause for concern. What’s also clear, however, is that the loss of sea ice is partly to blame for declines in at least four polar bear subpopulations. Sea ice is absolutely critical to the health of polar bears. They use it as a platform for hunting their prey, giving birth to their young, and traveling from one place to the next. Because of climate change, that platform of sea ice is melting, fast. And as climate change accelerates, polar bear habitat will be put in ever increasing danger.

Isn't it interesting that you got your information from a site that only cared to cherry pick the one subpopulation that is doing okay? Maybe you should get your information elsewhere, or, just as important, try to be more critical than the regular drooling spoon-fed crowd.

https://realitydrop.org/#myths/76?article=71794&user=neil

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.

Wow. Better take off that tinfoil toque, eh.

 

[EdwinWillers]

I'll print me up a First Nations ID card. I will claim to be Métis. :tongue4:

TooShay.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Yeah, I know it's not a word. I tend to make up my own from time-to-time... some thread OPs simply bring out the best--or worst, depending on perspective--out of me.

Well I'm glad I was able to bring out the best--or worst of you.

That's right, only the Davis Inlet was mentioned. So then, why did that little tidbit of information lead you to believe that those who are concerned about polar bear population are a bunch of propagandist/alarmists? You do know that the Arctic is much larger than the Davis Inlet, no?

No! Really? :thinking:

Found this interesting tidbit of information:

Polar bears are found in 19 subpopulations around the Arctic. Of the 19 recognized polar bear subpopulations, scientists only have enough data to make accurate determinations about 12. Of those 12, eight are in decline, three are stable, and only one is increasing. Animal populations decline for all sorts of reasons, and in the case of polar bears, being hunted by people is certainly one cause for concern. What’s also clear, however, is that the loss of sea ice is partly to blame for declines in at least four polar bear subpopulations. Sea ice is absolutely critical to the health of polar bears. They use it as a platform for hunting their prey, giving birth to their young, and traveling from one place to the next. Because of climate change, that platform of sea ice is melting, fast. And as climate change accelerates, polar bear habitat will be put in ever increasing danger.

Isn't it interesting that you got your information from a site that only cared to cherry pick the one subpopulation that is doing okay? Maybe you should get your information elsewhere, or, just as important, try to be more critical than the regular drooling spoon-fed crowd.

Cherry pick?? Maybe I should've posted the entire extant research that exists in the world today on the topic? Would that help?

Isn't it interesting how you helped do your part to fulfill the purpose of this thread? :thumbs:

 

[mbig]

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.

Thank you for doing your part to fulfill the purpose of this thread. :thumbs:

In case everyone else hasn't noticed..
This guy's posts are ALL empty frauds.
Like he's posted/Drunk a 24 pack in His "Let's Talk Beer" string intermingled/muddled with posts elsewhere.
NO Answer of course.

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

[PNAS Study]

OOOPS!

Of all the logical fallacies, I probably love the "appeal to authority" ones the best.

Ooooph!
That's not how it was used.
I understand you're Intimidated by Real links, as opposed to Your OP, 'Daily Caller'; but my second study was merely meant to answer Code1211's inference that the consensus count was just based on One study.
So posting a Second study, is not merely "appeal to authority" it's simple rebuttal.
Tho you got to utter A fallacy, THEE Fallacy was all yours.

 

[Middleground]

Cherry pick?? Maybe I should've posted the entire extant research that exists in the world today on the topic? Would that help?

It would help if you didn't rant about Greenpeace/GW alarmists all the being misinformed. But glad you are now armed with facts and know better than to think polar bears populations in the Arctic are healthy. Happy I could help you with that.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Of all the logical fallacies, I probably love the "appeal to authority" ones the best.

In case everyone else hasn't noticed..
This guy's posts are ALL empty frauds.
Like he's posted/Drunk a 24 pack in His "Let's Talk Beer" string intermingled/muddled with posts elsewhere.
NO Answer of course.

Of all the logical fallacies, I probably love the "appeal to authority" ones the best - especially those where the appeal is to one's own peers for help and support. :lamo

I understand you're Intimidated by Real links, as opposed to Your OP, 'Daily Caller'

'Daily Caller' isn't real? :thinking:

Keep 'em coming. You never know, you might just sway me to the 'science' of AGW yet. :thumbs:

 

[davidtaylorjr]

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.

All I know is I saw an interview with one of the camera guys that were shooting the polar bears for Gore's documentary. We all remember the polar bear "stuck" on the ice, the camera guy said it was just the way it was shot. There was plenty of ice and the bear actually swam out to that spot for a while and came back.

It's all a hoax.

 

[EdwinWillers]

It would help if you didn't rant about Greenpeace/GW alarmists all the being misinformed. But glad you are now armed with facts and know better than to think polar bears populations in the Arctic are healthy. Happy I could help you with that.

Who was ranting? And who said they were misinformed? The polar bear population increase and the hunting ban was a point to which the article alluded, and one with which I happen to think is a reasonable conclusion.

Polar bear populations were declining... fact.
The Greenpeace / AGW crowds were successful helping get polar bears on the endangered species list... fact.
The Greenpeace / AGW crowds have appealed consistently to the plight of the polar bear in support of their AGW position... fact.
Now, polar bear populations - at least in some areas, are growing - and growing to the extent they've reached the limit beyond which their environment can sustain them... fact.
Not all polar bear populations are increasing... fact. But some are... fact.
How much of the population increase is due to the ban on hunting them? Unknown... fact. Is some of it due to the hunting ban? It's not irrational to believe it is.
Is arctic ice disappearing? Some say yes; some say no; some say it's too early to make definitive statements.
Is arctic ice that has disappeared never going to come back on nature's own? Ever? That's the premise of the AGW crowd. Are they right? We don't know; we can't know.

The anti-denialists -- and I call them that because they usually seem less interested in the discussion (for them it's a foregone conclusion they're right) and more interested in bashing those who disagree with them (as has already happened several times in this thread) -- the anti-denialists have taken what was a simple article, based on one zoologist's observations - scientific observations - and so blown it out of proportion as to characterize it, and us, as phony, two-bit denialists of everything that is sacred to them.

Goodness. And I'm the one ranting?

 

[EdwinWillers]

All I know is I saw an interview with one of the camera guys that were shooting the polar bears for Gore's documentary. We all remember the polar bear "stuck" on the ice, the camera guy said it was just the way it was shot. There was plenty of ice and the bear actually swam out to that spot for a while and came back.

It's all a hoax.

I believe it's all a hoax too.

Is there some basis for it? I won't deny there is. But the problem is is that from the beginning they made it a political issue. They've spun it from the very start as this mega-crisis that demands government intervention. Baloney.

Most of the "science" has been debunked - whether or not they believe it.
Certainly all the conclusions the "science" has fabricated have all the earmarks of expanding government powers to address.

The hoax is that AGW has virtually zilch to do with the earth and everything to do with those who would, if we let them, run it.

 

[Ben K.]

Of all the logical fallacies, I probably love the "appeal to authority" ones the best.

You should probably look up what the appeal to authority fallacy is before you accuse people of it.

 

[EdwinWillers]

You should probably look up what the appeal to authority fallacy is before you accuse people of it.

If you think I was incorrect in using it, or that I don't understand what it means (and that would appear to be the premise of your own accusation), please - point out why. Maybe you're right.

 

[Ben K.]

The fallacy of appeal to authority is in play when the authority in question are not experts in the field argued, or if no consensus actually exists in the field of the authority. Using authority that are experts in the field and in which he shows a consensus is strong logical evidence in inductive reasoning and argument.

 

[Middleground]

Who was ranting? And who said they were misinformed? The polar bear population increase and the hunting ban was a point to which the article alluded, and one with which I happen to think is a reasonable conclusion.

Polar bear populations were declining... fact.
The Greenpeace / AGW crowds were successful helping get polar bears on the endangered species list... fact.
The Greenpeace / AGW crowds have appealed consistently to the plight of the polar bear in support of their AGW position... fact.
Now, polar bear populations - at least in some areas, are growing - and growing to the extent they've reached the limit beyond which their environment can sustain them... fact.
Not all polar bear populations are increasing... fact. But some are... fact.
How much of the population increase is due to the ban on hunting them? Unknown... fact. Is some of it due to the hunting ban? It's not irrational to believe it is.
Is arctic ice disappearing? Some say yes; some say no; some say it's too early to make definitive statements.
Is arctic ice that has disappeared never going to come back on nature's own? Ever? That's the premise of the AGW crowd. Are they right? We don't know; we can't know.

The anti-denialists -- and I call them that because they usually seem less interested in the discussion (for them it's a foregone conclusion they're right) and more interested in bashing those who disagree with them (as has already happened several times in this thread) -- the anti-denialists have taken what was a simple article, based on one zoologist's observations - scientific observations - and so blown it out of proportion as to characterize it, and us, as phony, two-bit denialists of everything that is sacred to them.

Goodness. And I'm the one ranting?

Did you read the paragraph I posted? Because it seems like you didn't.

Corrected for accuracy:

Polar bear populations were are declining... fact.
The Greenpeace / AGW crowds were successful helping get polar bears on the endangered species list... fact.
The Greenpeace / AGW crowds have appealed consistently to the plight of the polar bear in support of their AGW position... fact.
Now, polar bear populations - at least in some one areas, are is growing - and growing to the extent they've reached the limit beyond which their environment can sustain them... fact.
Not all polar bear populations are increasing... fact. But some are one is... fact.
How much of the population increase is due to the ban on hunting them? Unknown... fact. Is some of it due to the hunting ban? It's not irrational to believe it is. Err... they are still being hunted.
Is arctic ice disappearing? some all reputible scientific organizations say yes; some try to mislead, misguide, cherry pick and say no; some say it's too early to make definitive statements who says this?.
Is arctic ice that has disappeared never going to come back on nature's own? Ever? That's the premise of the AGW crowd. Are they right? We don't know; we can't know. Of course we can know. 98% of climate scientists worldwide agree that it is fact. I don't understand how anyone can ignore this true fact.

 

[Jack Hays]

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.

 

[head of joaquin]

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.

Ah, the factoid meme -- first used extensively by Reagan (remember trees pollute) and now standard operating procedure for conservative anti-science hacks who can't argue any scientific issue on the merits. Take a scientific fact and use it in another context or for a purpose that is unrelated to its impact.

Polar bear populations in a particular place tell us nothing about global warming trends, except maybe that pack is melting at historic rates and that may lead to all sorts of anomalies.

 

[code1211]

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!

Can you produce the actual survey and not just some hacks estimate of what the consensus might be if he actually had access to real and actual figures.

By the by, the link from the previous post to which you routed me did not work.

 

[EdwinWillers]

The fallacy of appeal to authority is in play when the authority in question are not experts in the field argued, or if no consensus actually exists in the field of the authority. Using authority that are experts in the field and in which he shows a consensus is strong logical evidence in inductive reasoning and argument.

Heavy sigh...

An appeal to authority is never a valid logical argument, regardless how "authoritative" the experts may seem or how numerous they be. Experts can be wrong, regardless how many of them may agree.

Moreover, feeling one has to appeal to an authority does very little to promote one's argument as a strong argument; and in fact resorting to such appeals only works to diminish the overall strength of it.

 

[code1211]

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.

Temperature on both the surface and the ocean are falling. Arctic Sea ice extent is greater this year than any of the last 6.

Corn and soy beans are both improved over last year in the USA. Cotton and wheat are both lower; a mixed bag there.

It's not particularly warm in the arctic even when the ice is melting.

Bears are excellent swimmers and do pretty well on land, water or ice. They are number 2 on the food chain if they live in a neighborhood with men. If not, they're number 1.