Climate Change Kills Polar Bears hahahahahahahah

[fred smith]

Check it out... The climate is really causing strange things to happen like in this video!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNfwnJ9I4Xc

[Dr. McCoy]

[finley]

[Blaquesmith]

Climate change doesn't kill polar bears. Icecaps melting sometimes isolate polar bears, and those are doomed (they are not amphibians, after all). I don't understand how there are people who can't believe the tangible proof that the climate is changing.

[fred smith]

So, Blaquesmith, are there more or fewer polar bears in the world? Or is this concern best left "intangible" because the numbers don't add up?

[urodacus]

I don't know, Fred Perhaps you'd best go out and count them all for us to show there are no ill effects.

Off you go!

[fred smith]

I don't know,

You SAID it.

Fred Perhaps you'd best go out and count them all for us to show there are no ill effects.

Okay.

Off you go!

Sure thing.

Okay, 15 second later and I am back.

Here you go.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... le4099460/

[Fortigurn]

Okay, 15 second later and I am back.

Here you go.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... le4099460/

Ok, so you quote a news article which cites a study which actually shows the polar bear population is in trouble.

The study’s conclusions drew concern from Andrew Derocher, a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta who has been studying polar-bear populations for years. Prof. Derocher said the 1,013 figure is derived from a range of 717 bears to 1,430. “It’s premature to draw many conclusions,” he said, adding that there were no comparative figures and the upper end of the range, 1,430, was highly unlikely.

Prof. Derocher also said some details in the survey pointed to a bear population in trouble. For example, the survey identified 50 cubs, which are usually less than 10 months old, and 22 yearlings, roughly 22 months old. That’s nearly one-third the number required for a healthy population, he said. “This is a clear indication that this population is not sustaining itself in any way, shape, or form.”

So much for proving there are no ill effects.

[Mucha Man]

Yes, but had you spent 30 seconds Fred you might have gotten past the misleading title. Here's the real issue:

There’s much at stake in the debate. Population figures are used to calculate quotas for hunting, a lucrative industry for many northern communities. Hunting polar bears is highly regulated but Inuit communities can sell their quota to sport hunters, who must hunt with Inuit guides. A polar-bear hunting trip can cost up to $50,000. Demand for polar-bear fur is also soaring in places like China and Russia and prices for some pelts have doubled in the past couple of years, reaching as high as $15,000.

The Nunavut hunting quota in the western Hudson Bay area fell to 8 from 56 after the 2004 report from Environment Canada. The Nunavut government increased it slightly last year but faced a storm of protest. Over all, about 450 polar bears are killed annually across Nunavut. Mr. Gissing said a new quota is expected to be announced in June.

Hmm, so the people who stand to benefit monetarily from higher polar bear numbers are saying, oh my god, that those numbers are higher than the evil commie scientists with their professional studies. No, better to rely on the anecdotal evidence of hunters.

Now, I have spent a fair bit of time in the north, unlike any of you lot, and while I have respect for hunters and fishers, I know most of them are prone to exaggeration and self-serving stories. They also tend to be dismissive of scientists and their quotas, even though such systems have created decades of sustainable subsistence hunting and fishing.

I know who I trust in this debate.

[Mucha Man]

Okay, 15 second later and I am back.

Here you go.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... le4099460/

Ok, so you quote a news article which cites a study which actually shows the polar bear population is in trouble.

The study’s conclusions drew concern from Andrew Derocher, a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta who has been studying polar-bear populations for years. Prof. Derocher said the 1,013 figure is derived from a range of 717 bears to 1,430. “It’s premature to draw many conclusions,” he said, adding that there were no comparative figures and the upper end of the range, 1,430, was highly unlikely.

Prof. Derocher also said some details in the survey pointed to a bear population in trouble. For example, the survey identified 50 cubs, which are usually less than 10 months old, and 22 yearlings, roughly 22 months old. That’s nearly one-third the number required for a healthy population, he said. “This is a clear indication that this population is not sustaining itself in any way, shape, or form.”

So much for proving there are no ill effects.

Indeed. I had to do some research on pb last summer and found that most scientists believed the current population is fine, possibly even larger than expected (yes, many freely admitted that) but will start to face a serious threat in the coming decades. Polar bears are fairly long-lived creatures so of course it is going to take time for numbers to drop.