• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Polar Bears Are Thriving

Crockford's critics have put themselves on the wrong side of the data. That's not a fight they can win.
 
[h=2]Polar bear habitat update: abundant sea ice across the Arctic, even in the Barents Sea[/h]Posted on March 12, 2019 | Comments Offon Polar bear habitat update: abundant sea ice across the Arctic, even in the Barents Sea
Abundant ice in Svalbard, East Greenland and the Labrador Sea is excellent news for the spring feeding season ahead because this is when bears truly need the presence of ice for hunting and mating. As far as I can tell, sea ice has not reached Bear Island, Norway at this time of year since 2010 but this year ice moved down to the island on 3 March and has been there ever since. This may mean we’ll be getting reports of polar bear sightings from the meteorological station there, so stay tuned.
walking-bear-shutterstock_329214941_web-size.jpg

Sea ice extent as of 11 March 2019, from NSIDC Masie:
masie_all_zoom_4km-2019-march-11.png

Much of the ice that was blown out of the Bering Sea early in the month has returned and ice in the Gulf of St. Lawrence on the East Coast of Canada is the highest its been in years, threatening to impede ferry traffic between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, as it did in 2015 and again in 2017. The fishing season off Newfoundland might also be delayed by the heavy ice, as it was in 2017.
Continue reading



 
The proof is in the silence of her critics, who literally no longer have a case to make, and the robust population of thriving polar bears.

The silence is just their unwillingness to communicate with an idiot. I do the same; why waste their time on morons dealing in pseudo-science, and who delight in fooling the gullible? I'm not pointing any fingers you understand.
 
The silence is just their unwillingness to communicate with an idiot. I do the same; why waste their time on morons dealing in pseudo-science, and who delight in fooling the gullible? I'm not pointing any fingers you understand.

Translation:

I have no cogent argument to offer, getting lazy and throw insults around instead which is all I can do.
 
Polar Bears International - Ask The Experts

Not thriving. Recovering from over hunting among other things. The fact that the population appears stable is a bad sign. The population would be exploding if climate change weren't taking a toll.

"After the signing of the International Agreement on Polar Bears in the 1970s, harvests were controlled and the numbers increased. There is no argument from anyone on this point. Some populations recovered very slowly (e.g., Barents Sea took almost 30 years) but some recovered faster. Some likely never were depressed by hunting that much, but the harvest levels remained too high and the populations subsequently declined. M'Clintock Channel is a good example. The population is currently down by over 60% of historic levels due only to overharvesting. Some populations recovered as harvests were controlled, but have since declined due to climate-related effects (e.g., Western Hudson Bay). In Western Hudson Bay, previously sustainable harvests cannot be maintained as the reproductive and survival rates have declined due to changes in the sea ice."
 
Polar Bears International - Ask The Experts

Not thriving. Recovering from over hunting among other things. The fact that the population appears stable is a bad sign. The population would be exploding if climate change weren't taking a toll.

"After the signing of the International Agreement on Polar Bears in the 1970s, harvests were controlled and the numbers increased. There is no argument from anyone on this point. Some populations recovered very slowly (e.g., Barents Sea took almost 30 years) but some recovered faster. Some likely never were depressed by hunting that much, but the harvest levels remained too high and the populations subsequently declined. M'Clintock Channel is a good example. The population is currently down by over 60% of historic levels due only to overharvesting. Some populations recovered as harvests were controlled, but have since declined due to climate-related effects (e.g., Western Hudson Bay). In Western Hudson Bay, previously sustainable harvests cannot be maintained as the reproductive and survival rates have declined due to changes in the sea ice."

Hudson Bay polar bear habitat is highest in more than two decades for this time of year

Posted on November 22, 2018

EXCERPT:

More ice in Hudson Bay and adjacent regions than we’ve seen at this time of year for more than two decades: not since 1993 has there been as much polar bear habitat in the 2nd-last week of November.
and,

Last problem bear report of the season from Churchill (week 20 or after 5 months on land for most bears):
LINK
 
Hudson Bay polar bear habitat is highest in more than two decades for this time of year

Posted on November 22, 2018

EXCERPT:


and,


LINK

One geographically limited statistical outlier certainly doesn't disprove the averages. On average, there is less ice and the bear population overall hasn't recovered from the days when polar bears were over hunted. All things being equal, there should be many more times the number of polar bears than there currently are. One reason for this is warmer winters.
 
One geographically limited statistical outlier certainly doesn't disprove the averages. On average, there is less ice and the bear population overall hasn't recovered from the days when polar bears were over hunted. All things being equal, there should be many more times the number of polar bears than there currently are. One reason for this is warmer winters.

I posted it because your link mentioned part of the Hudson bay, the same areas even.

Go to this long polar bear thread that shows the evidence that Polar Bear population has been on the increase since 2004:

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

LINK
 
I posted it because your link mentioned part of the Hudson bay, the same areas even.

Go to this long polar bear thread that shows the evidence that Polar Bear population has been on the increase since 2004:

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

LINK

Your link is to your own thread here on DP. The only link I saw in that thread was to a website called "No Tricks Zone." They are not a reputable source and are well known for spreading provably false information.
 
Your link is to your own thread here on DP. The only link I saw in that thread was to a website called "No Tricks Zone." They are not a reputable source and are well known for spreading provably false information.


The number and distribution of polar bears in the western Barents Sea

Traditional Ecological Knowledge of Polar Bears in the Northern Eeyou Marine Region, Québec, Canada + Supplementary Appendix 1

Inuit perspectives of polar bear research: lessons for community-based collaborations

These are three examples of the many published papers posted in the link itself, too bad your bigotry got in the way. Too bad you are too lazy to notice what they linked to, therefore you have no argument against it.

The evidence is clear, there has been an increase in Polar Bear numbers.

Cheers.
 
The silence is just their unwillingness to communicate with an idiot. I do the same; why waste their time on morons dealing in pseudo-science, and who delight in fooling the gullible? I'm not pointing any fingers you understand.

Sorry, but the record is clear. She has uniformly been right, and her critics have uniformly been wrong. Their silence is the silence of embarrassed exposure and damaged reputations. Until they concede their error and acknowledge her mastery, they remain compromised and lacking in credibility.
 
Sorry, but the record is clear. She has uniformly been right, and her critics have uniformly been wrong. Their silence is the silence of embarrassed exposure and damaged reputations. Until they concede their error and acknowledge her mastery, they remain compromised and lacking in credibility.

Ah yes, the siren call of a climate change denier. What 'mastery', exactly? 'No Tricks Zone'. Seriously? Perhaps the New York Post would be a better source; y'know, aliens in your cornflakes and WW2 bombers found on the Moon, etc.
 
Ah yes, the siren call of a climate change denier. What 'mastery', exactly? 'No Tricks Zone'. Seriously? Perhaps the New York Post would be a better source; y'know, aliens in your cornflakes and WW2 bombers found on the Moon, etc.

Well, she’s got a blog.

And published papers on evolutionary theory, a couple of which sorta mentioned polar bears, so that makes her a towering expert on population biology in denier minds.
 
Back
Top Bottom