“The study shows that “the bear population is not in crisis as people believed. There is no doom and gloom.”
The Globe and Mail reports:
The debate about climate change and its impact on polar bears has intensified with the release of a survey that shows the bear population in a key part of northern Canada is far larger than many scientists thought, and might be growing.
The number of bears along the western shore of Hudson Bay, believed to be among the most threatened bear subpopulations, stands at 1,013 and could be even higher, according to the results of an aerial survey released Wednesday by the Government of Nunavut. That’s 66 per cent higher than estimates by other researchers who forecasted the numbers would fall to as low as 610 because of warming temperatures that melt ice faster and ruin bears’ ability to hunt. The Hudson Bay region, which straddles Nunavut and Manitoba, is critical because it’s considered a bellwether for how polar bears are doing elsewhere in the Arctic…
With so much money going into climate change projects, most of which generate speculative, if not fraudulent results, only to be funded yet again, charlatans are bound to arrive with their hats upturned.
Those involved in the polar bear stunt will be scapegoated to prove that research malpractice is ‘an isolated event’ and that the investigation ‘proves that authorities are vigilant’.
That multiple agencies are involved in the investigation is not surprising. They all want to get credit for being so vigilant that they can detect an isolated event. This will in turn help bolster the credibility of other ‘unrelated’ claims made by the agencies involved.
As I expected Keith failed to point out where the first sentence says “global warming doesn’t exist”.
LMAO.
From Wiki:
The “projection” is the mathematical model that failed to match reality. It is the part of the hypothesis that is testable. Without it the hypothesis is not testable and therefore not science.
AHA, proof of evolution. We must all embrace this. By the way, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that’s for sale!
Keith, you’re splitting hairs. That doesn’t win you any converts. It makes you a troll.
And while I don’t have the data available, doesn’t that paper predict monotonic warming on the order of 3C/century? That most certainly has not happened, with a sharp rise in the 80s and 90s and a leveling off in the 00s. The prediction is actually quite off.
While accurate predictions do not prove a model valid. Failed predictions do prove it wrong.
Keith, no it doesn’t. However, that’s a strawman argument and you know it.
What it does do is provide good evidence about what is NOT happening. It is a direct counter to the “my daughter will never see a polar bear” propaganda THAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY BELIEVE.
Actually Greg no they don’t. A projection is not a hypothesis.
The hypothesis was melting ice in that region would drive down the bear population. I’m sure you all here see no difference but that’s why its important to pay atttention in science class
For example: If that was the case AGW would be a proven hypothesis because 30 year projections match the exact temperature rise.
1. J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”, Science, vol. 213, 1981, pp. 957-966.
So why don’t we all be nicey nice and stop argueing about AGW since its a proven hypothesis…right?
Actually the scientist had to put forth a hypothesis to make their projection. Unless of course they were reading tea leaves. It might be a good idea to look up the definition of what a scientific hypothesis is before making a fool of yourself.
I will bold what you left out, including your claim, to keep the context.
Perhaps you could point out where the first sentence says “global warming doesn’t exist”?
Actually that isn’t a hypothesis. That fact that you think so shows a profound lack of understanding of scientific method.
Nobody is making that claim? Really please explain the relevance of the first paragraph of this article on polar bear population: “The debate about climate change…..” Hmmmmmmmm
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Web site (the horses mouth not the ideologs:
Factors such as low population density, inaccessible habitats, movement of bears across international borders and budget constraints limit scientists’ abilities to accurately and precisely measure the number of polar bears. Furthermore, according to an essay by Scott L. Schliebe, polar bear project leader for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, more sophisticated satellite and thermal technology exists today
The situation is further complicated by the fact that relatively little data, if any, reflect the entire population of polar bears as a whole. Instead, scientists tend to group them into subpopulations, known as “stocks” or “populations,” based on habitat.
One USGS study from 1984-2004 showed that the number of polar bears in the West Hudson Bay stock, in Canada, decreased from 1,194 polar bears in 1987 to 935 in 2004, a 22 percent drop. USGS documented reductions in the weight of adult bears and the survival rate of newborn cubs along with this population decrease, which correlated with a loss of sea ice. A 2007 USGS report on the status of polar bears in Alaska’s Southern Beaufort Sea found a similar decrease in cub survivorship.
Case settled!
Yawn
Arguments like yours get no traction because you failed to address the science. Paul Penrose pointed out that” this only speaks to the supposed sensitivity of the Polar Bear population to slightly increased warmth”. You failed to comprehend what the article or Paul said. Instead you throw out this red herring.
No one made that claim Keith. No one. Let me make it simple for you Keith. The subject is warming and its impact on polar bears. Science is about putting forth a hypothesis and testing that hypothesis against reality. Some scientist put forth a hypothesis that the polar bears in the Hudson Bay region would decline. They didn’t. From the article:
The scientist hypothesis failed the reality test. What part of that don’t you understand Keith?
Weeeeeellllllllll, guess it’s time to come up with a way to get rid of the extra bears in order to bolster the AGW argument. Perhaps they can come up with something as effective as the Windmills have been in wiping out the raptor population in every area they operate. Maybe they can secretly shoot one or two and give Orcas a tasted for them so the Orcas can snag the bears off the ice and stop embarrassing the AGW scientists.
Arguments like mine will get no traction with people who don’t know care or read about the science.
If a 1000 bears in a small survey proves global warming doesn’t exist. Then does record hot temps in a small area at the same time prove it does? e.g. “More than 7500 daily record temperatures in more than 540 places were set in March”
The answer is No and No to real scientists and some silly combination of Yes and No to ideologs like yourself
Keith,
This is only in a very small survey area, not the entire Arctic. There are a lot more polar bears than 1,000. And this only speaks to the supposed sensitivity of the Polar Bear population to slightly increased warmth. Which is important since they have been used as the poster child for catastrophic global warming. Your straw-man argument won’t get you much traction here.
Excelsior!!!!!
Actually, polar bears recently evolved an ability to survive in a hotter climate. This means the unevolved bears are on the brink of oblivion. There should be a scientific study of this! We already have microscopes and test tubes ready to go!
Wow 1,000 polar bears in a bazillion acres of ice, proof positive that there couldn’t possbily be any ice melting anywhere in the world.
And what is the TOTAL count? Isn’t it up near 30,000?l
“Well we know the count shows more polar bears than expected, but WE STILL THINK—.”
But … that doesn’t agree with the Gospel of Al!