Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your first link studied 9 bears in a single location. The graphic in that link shows three areas with declining population, one with increasing population, six areas with a stable population, and seven areas with insufficient data. For some reason, a disclaimer at the bottom says the population from Gulf of Bothnia was removed from the graph. The polar bear population in that area is considered stable.
From other articles:
Quote:
"The consequences of changing sea ice conditions are different in different regions of the Arctic, and not all polar bear populations will respond in the same way. Direct counts of polar bear numbers are also hard to come by in the more remote parts of the Arctic, which means that scientists know a lot more about some polar bear populations than others."
If they're studying those bears in areas of decline, but not in others (like the 9 bears in your Guardian link) then the results are going to be very skewed.
Quote:
"After declining throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, polar bear numbers in Western Hudson Bay, probably the most studied subpopulation, are now thought to be stable, though considerably lower than 25 years ago. Polar bears in the M’Clintock Channel seem to be on the rise, albeit from much reduced numbers compared to the 1970s.
Scientists don’t have enough data in the remaining nine populations to say whether polar bear numbers have gone up or down (Arctic Basin, Barents Sea, East Greenland, Kara Sea, Lancaster Sound, Laptev Sea, Norwegian Bay, Viscount Melville Sound and the Chukchi Sea)."
Again, you can't study a small subset of locations and determine anything other than what is happening to the bears in that location.
For those polar bears in the three oft-studied areas, yes, the decrease in sea ice is affecting their populations. I'm not a "denier", and I do the best I can to reduce my own carbon footprint. I think there's a lot we can do as a country to improve/limit our effect on the environment. But I also get pretty aggravated when climate change alarmists try to make things seem like eminent disaster with selective facts. Until there can be more honesty, we're going to continue to see push-back from those who are more pragmatic.
I could post name after name of prominent scientists who had little to no formal education in the field they went on to make HUGE scientific discoveries. Them not having the approved "pedigree", the proper education in their field of scientific discovery in no way minimizes their serious contributions to science.
Attack and refute the science. Do NOT attack and attempt to denigrate the source of that science or their source of funding behind their science.
03-22-2019, 06:21 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by KS_Referee
I could post name after name of prominent scientists who had little to no formal education in the field they went on to make HUGE scientific discoveries. Them not having the approved "pedigree", the proper education in their field of scientific discovery in no way minimizes their serious contributions to science.
Attack and refute the science. Do NOT attack and attempt to denigrate the source of that science or their source of funding behind their science.
If someone makes a false claim about the credentials then it is fair game. So zip it! I thought you were going to put him on ignore.
Yes it's easy to prove your claims about her as being wrong.
I proved wrong your claims that Crockford is "one of the top polar bear scientists in the world".
That was very easy to prove wrong.
Why can't you guys answer a question?...you don't think she's a scientist...and other people do.....what about her science..is she right or wrong
Both polar bear scientists are saying the same exact thing...in 2015 the population was right at 26,000
How is she wrong?
No matter how you shake the numbers...either global warming has had no effect on polar bear population
...or the population increased
03-22-2019, 06:23 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by KS_Referee
I could post name after name of prominent scientists who had little to no formal education in the field they went on to make HUGE scientific discoveries. Them not having the approved "pedigree", the proper education in their field of scientific discovery in no way minimizes their serious contributions to science.
And how many more are just the opposite. Better to stick with the experts first and foremost.
03-22-2019, 06:27 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrie22
Why can't you guys answer a question?...
Both polar bear scientists are saying the same exact thing...in 2015 the population was right at 26,000
How is she wrong?
No matter how you shake the numbers...either global warming has had no effect on polar bear population
...or the population increased
Great so she is right about citing a number. Awesome, now admit she is not an expert on polar bears and certainly not one of the top, she is not a climatologists, and the the implication about polar bear populations has no relevance of whether GLOBAL WARMING is a LIE as the thread started out suggesting. It is so curious why you accept her but not everyone else who actually is a climate scientist and polar bear expert.
Have you read any of the other articles by National Geographic, et al. that talk about polar bears actually being endangered and going extinct? Or did you just read this one link?
I called you out for making a false claim about Crockford.
Instead of thanking me for providing evidence as to why Crockford is not one of the top polar bear scientists you instead moved the goal posts to an entirely different subject.
I don't care to refute if she can count or not.
I said she's a polar bear scientist..and she is....a scientist is someone that studies something
..does she study polar bears?...absolutely
"A scientist is someone who conducts scientific research to advance knowledge in an area of interest. "
"Susan Janet Crockford (born 1954) is a Canadian zoologist, author, and blogger specializing in Holocene mammals. She is currently an adjunct professor in Anthropology at the University of Victoria"
"Crockford received her Bachelor of Science in Zoology at the University of British Columbia in 1976 and her doctorate in Interdisciplinary Studies from the University of Victoria in 2004.[2] Differing from a normal Zoology degree, she chose to focus on speciation in mammals, with a focus on thyroid function."
Now rather that attack her title...which is lame....show where her science is wrong
Have you read any of the other articles by National Geographic, et al. that talk about polar bears actually being endangered and going extinct? Or did you just read this one link?
Polar bears are not endangered and going extinct. Their status is no longer endangered; it's been moved down to vulnerable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
