Poor Polar Bears

Superfreak said:
as pointed out... the 'scientific surveys' are highly questionable given the method used to calculate the population of polar bears is seriously flawed.
Click to expand...

More flawed than relying on the anecdotal reports of locals in a single location?

And, BTW, deniers definition of "flawed" is, more often than not, seriously flawed.
 
CERVIXCRUSHER9000 said:
More flawed than relying on the anecdotal reports of locals in a single location?

And, BTW, deniers definition of "flawed" is, more often than not, seriously flawed.
Click to expand...

Read the article emo.... it was other SCIENTISTS that were questioning the 'study'. There have also been other studies showing the population of polar bears has been GROWING since the 1950's and 1960's.
 
warmers love their memes

Polar bears are thriving in areas that are warming in comparison to areas that are cooling, where the populations are in decline. Look it up warmers.
3 years ago the top expert complained about the IPCC not liking his data and they instead relied on the WWF for their data.

LOL just another NGO passing as peer reviewed IPCC super science!!

Warmers are idiots. How does it feel to see everything you believe debunked and and obvious scam?
 
tinfoil said:
warmers love their memes

Polar bears are thriving in areas that are warming in comparison to areas that are cooling, where the populations are in decline. Look it up warmers.
3 years ago the top expert complained about the IPCC not liking his data and they instead relied on the WWF for their data.

LOL just another NGO passing as peer reviewed IPCC super science!!

Warmers are idiots. How does it feel to see everything you believe debunked and and obvious scam?
Click to expand...

You're such a fool...
 
I just produced a scientific survey that shows Polar bears will be extinct by tomorrow unless Watermark drowns himself in a bucket of bleach.

poor polar bears.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Wow, The Orlando Examiner, what a scholarly article.

I'm sorry but what your stating seems to contradict the bulk of peer reviewed literature on PB populations like this one.

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1133&context=j_scott_armstrong

again you're making politically motivated arguments with out being able to back it up with the science.
Click to expand...

LMAO.... as opposed to sourcing from 'defenders.org'?

Also, before I read the 23 pages.... I have to ask... did you even bother to read it? The abstract says quite clearly that out of the nine government 'reports'....

"NONE of the reports referred to sources of scientific forecasting methodology."

The abstract goes on to state...

Averaging across the two papers, 46 percent of the principles were clearly contravened and 23 percent were apparently contravened. Consequently, their forecasts are unscientific and inconsequential to decision
makers. We recommend that researchers apply all relevant principles properly when important public-policy decisions depend on their forecasts
Click to expand...
 
Rana said:
It can not refute what we see going on here in Alaska, the bears are coming closer to humans looking for food, duh!
Click to expand...

LMAO... so tell me Rana... is that because there are MORE of them than before and thus some are venturing into towns looking for food vs. fighting for other food sources such as the baby seal?

Where is your evidence that they are coming into towns due to a lack of other food sources vs. increased competition for food?

READ Motts link... the one he thought supported the nonsense coming from the government... that instead states clearly that the government reports are unscientific in their forecasting.
 
From Mott's Link...

General Assessment of Long-Term Polar Bear Population Forecasts
We examined all references cited in the nine U.S. Geological Survey Administrative Reports
posted on the iInternet at http://usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/. The reports, which
included 444 unique references, were Amstrup, Marcot, and Douglas (2007), Bergen et al (2007),
DeWeaver (2007), Durner et al. (2007), Hunter et al. (2007), Obbard et al. (2007), Regehr et al.
(2007), Rode, Amstrup, and Regehr (2007), and Stirling et al. (2007). We were unable to find references to evidence that the forecasting methods described in the reports had been validated.
Click to expand...
 
More from Mott....

Green and Armstrong (2007) examined long-term climate-forecasting efforts and were
unable to find a single forecast of global warming that was based on scientific methods. When
they audited the GCM climate modelers’ procedures, they found that only 13 percent of the
relevant forecasting principles were followed properly; some contraventions of principles were
critical. Their findings were consistent with earlier cautions. For example, Soon et al. (2001)
found that the current generation of GCMs is unable to meaningfully calculate the effects that
additional atmospheric carbon dioxide has on the climate. This is because of the uncertainty about
the past and present climate and ignorance about relevant weather and climate processes. Some
climate modelers state that the GCMs do not provide forecasts. According to one of the lead
authors of the IPCC’s AR4 (Trenberth 2007),
Click to expand...
 
More from Mott:

When we had difficulty in reaching
consensus, we moved ratings toward “0.” Principle 1.3 (Make sure forecasts are independent of
politics) is an example of a principle that was contravened in both reports (indeed, in all nine)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top