Poor Polar Bears

More from Motts:

Overall, we found that AMD definitely contravened 41 principles and apparently
contravened an additional 32 principles. The authors provided no justifications for the
contraventions. Of the 116 relevant principles, we could only find evidence that AMD properly
applied 17 (14.7 percent) (Table A4).
Click to expand...
 
More....

The AMD forecasts rely on the opinions of a single polar bear expert. The report authors
transformed these opinions into a complex set of formulae without using evidence-based
forecasting principles. In effect the formulae were no more than a codification of the expert’s
unaided judgments, which are not appropriate for forecasting in this situation.
Click to expand...
 
page 5...

Tetlock (2005) recruited 284 people whose professions included “commenting or offering
advice on political and economic trends.” He picked topics (geographic and substantive) both
within and outside of their areas of expertise and asked them to forecast the probability that
various situations would or would not occur. By 2003, he had accumulated more than 82,000
forecasts. The experts barely, if at all, outperformed non-experts; neither group did well against
simple rules.
Despite the evidence showing that expert forecasts are of no value in complex and
uncertain situations, people continue to believe in experts’ forecasts The first author’s review of
empirical research on this problem led him to develop the “seer-sucker theory,” which states that
“No matter how much evidence exists that seers do not exist, seers will find suckers” (Armstrong
1980).
Click to expand...
 
Villagers are the best forecaster, as well as the guys up on the North Slope. I don't know about their future, I just know their present is pretty dire! Their numbers are down and they aren't producing cubs as they once were.
 
Page 10....

Summary
We inspected nine administrative reports that the U.S. government commissioned. Because the
current polar bear population is not at a level that is causing concern, the case for listing depends
upon forecasts of serious declines in bear numbers in future decades. None of these reports
included references to scientific works on forecasting methods.
We found that the two reports that we judged most relevant to the listing decision made
assumptions rather than forecasts. Even if these assumptions had been valid, the bear population
forecasting procedures described in the reports contravened many important forecasting
principles. We did forecasting audits of the two key reports (Table 1).
Principles AMD H6
Contravened 41 61
Apparently contravened 32 19
Not auditable 26 15
Properly applied 17 10
Totals 116 105
Table 1: We summarize our forecasting audit ratings of the AMD and H6 reports
against relevant forecasting principles.
Decision makers and the public should require scientific forecasts of both the polar bear
population and the costs and benefits of alternative policies before making a decision on whether
to list polar bears as threatened or endangered. We recommend that important forecasting efforts
such as this should properly apply all relevant principles and that their procedures be audited to
ensure that they do so. Failure to apply any principle should be supported by evidence that the
principle was not applicable.
Click to expand...
 
Rana said:
Villagers are the best forecaster, as well as the guys up on the North Slope. I don't know about their future, I just know their present is pretty dire! Their numbers are down and they aren't producing cubs as they once were.
Click to expand...

funny... because the reports from the villagers are the ones that are stating the populations are INCREASING. Not decreasing.

It is the POLITICIANS and ENVIRONMENTALISTS that are stating the populations are decreasing.
 
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...

What is really really funny is that YOUR link states that YOUR so called 'studies' are the ones that ....

1) were politically motivated

2) lacked proper scientific forecasting methods
 
Superfreak said:
What is really really funny is that YOUR link states that YOUR so called 'studies' are the ones that ....

1) were politically motivated

2) lacked proper scientific forecasting methods
Click to expand...
I love it when their own links refute their claims.
 
Superfreak said:
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.
Click to expand...

How about the bears have learned that the stupid pink skins leave a lot of really good smelling and tasting food, just laying around in those nice shiny containers and in those huge piles of trash (which are conveniantly brought to one area in large rolling lunch wagons (dump trucks).
 
Superfreak said:
essentially he was trying to be like Nigel, attack the website my article came from (while ignoring where the OP's article came from) and then try to pretend that science was on his side.
Click to expand...
Oh gawd, ya'll are either purposefully obtuse, are missing the forest because of the trees or are unable to read. No one is denying the uncertainty of arctic ice projections but so what?

"Climate model simulations are in universal accord that greenhouse gas increases will cause Arctic sea ice cover to decline, with the greatest reductions occurring at the end of the summer melt season. The physical principles underlying this behavior are simple and well established: the decline is a consequence of the heat-trapping effect of greenhouse gases and the inherent sensitivity of sea ice to a warming climate, particularly due to the sea ice-albedo feedback. A further consistency in climate simulations is the uneven latitudinal distribution of global warming, which always has its greatest simulated impact in the high northern latitudes."

The variance being discussed here is only in the severity of the decline not the well established fact that substantial declines in sea ice are occurring and are being amplified by the ice-albedo feedback affect. The degree of variability in the data does not change the fact that they are in agreement in which direction the decrease in arctic sea ice is being driven but ya'll want to see what you want and the hell with the facts.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/docs/USGS_PolarBear_DeWeaver_GCM-Uncertainty.pdf
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh gawd, ya'll are either purposefully obtuse, are missing the forest because of the trees or are unable to read. No one is denying the uncertainty of arctic ice projections but so what?

"Climate model simulations are in universal accord that greenhouse gas increases will cause Arctic sea ice cover to decline, with the greatest reductions occurring at the end of the summer melt season. The physical principles underlying this behavior are simple and well established: the decline is a consequence of the heat-trapping effect of greenhouse gases and the inherent sensitivity of sea ice to a warming climate, particularly due to the sea ice-albedo feedback. A further consistency in climate simulations is the uneven latitudinal distribution of global warming, which always has its greatest simulated impact in the high northern latitudes."

The variance being discussed here is only in the severity of the decline not the well established fact that substantial declines in sea ice are occurring and are being amplified by the ice-albedo feedback affect. The degree of variability in the data does not change the fact that they are in agreement in which direction the decrease in arctic sea ice is being driven but ya'll want to see what you want and the hell with the facts.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/docs/USGS_PolarBear_DeWeaver_GCM-Uncertainty.pdf
Click to expand...

I love it when their own lack of reading comprehension refutes their claims...
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh gawd, ya'll are either purposefully obtuse, are missing the forest because of the trees or are unable to read. No one is denying the uncertainty of arctic ice projections but so what?

"Climate model simulations are in universal accord that greenhouse gas increases will cause Arctic sea ice cover to decline, with the greatest reductions occurring at the end of the summer melt season. The physical principles underlying this behavior are simple and well established: the decline is a consequence of the heat-trapping effect of greenhouse gases and the inherent sensitivity of sea ice to a warming climate, particularly due to the sea ice-albedo feedback. A further consistency in climate simulations is the uneven latitudinal distribution of global warming, which always has its greatest simulated impact in the high northern latitudes."

The variance being discussed here is only in the severity of the decline not the well established fact that substantial declines in sea ice are occurring and are being amplified by the ice-albedo feedback affect. The degree of variability in the data does not change the fact that they are in agreement in which direction the decrease in arctic sea ice is being driven but ya'll want to see what you want and the hell with the facts.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/docs/USGS_PolarBear_DeWeaver_GCM-Uncertainty.pdf
Click to expand...

wow... that is a truly pathetic attempt at spin....

This thread was started on the topic of 'polar bears in danger'. That is the point I refuted. Then you came trotting along with your holier than thou bullshit of 'that website is hardly scientific, me have a link to grand website with bucco info of scientific quality'

The fact that your website showed a study that said EXACTLY what I was saying and EXACTLY what the article you mocked stated was quite amusing.

Now you are trying to spin this into a discussion solely on the quantity of sea ice?

As I stated... quite pathetic.

Admit it... you didn't even READ the link you provided.... did you?
 
Onceler said:
I love it when their own lack of reading comprehension refutes their claims...
Click to expand...

Ironic.... given that you too have failed to grasp the topic of this thread. You too fail to grasp that his link had little to do with sea ice and everything to do with the polar bear population being in 'danger' according to government 'studies'.

'studies' which were found to be politically motivated and lacking scientific standards for forecasting.

apparently you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills.
 
Superfreak said:
Ironic.... given that you too have failed to grasp the topic of this thread. You too fail to grasp that his link had little to do with sea ice and everything to do with the polar bear population being in 'danger' according to government 'studies'.

'studies' which were found to be politically motivated and lacking scientific standards for forecasting.

apparently you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills.
Click to expand...

I take it back. It's, like, 10 degrees where I am today, so I no longer believe in warming.
 
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...

For Lorax and Mott... just in case you forgot what Mott posted....

His point was on "peer reviewed literature on PB populations like this one..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top