| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bznoo
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:16 am Post subject: The Central Facts About "Polar Bears Responding To New Dange |
 |
|
18 October 2008
You have said: "You would think that if the polar bears, walruses, and
sea birds have the good sense to respond to new conditions and new
dangers, then humanity can respond as well."
The facts are that polar bears are not intelligent beings. Accordingly,
they act not by a conscious effort of will but by instinct. They cannot
display "good sense". By natural selection, as they evolved from the
brown bear, their coats became white, they became larger and more
resistant to cold, and they migrated northward on to the Arctic ice-cap
during their hunting season.
The chief danger to polar bears has nothing whatever to do with "global
warming" - indeed, a recent survey (Norris, 2001) for the World Wide
Fund for Nature shows that in those parts of the Arctic that have warmed
the population of polar bears has increased; in those parts that have
neither warmed nor cooled the population is stable; and in those parts
that have cooled the population has fallen.
Polar bears, like us, are warm-blooded animals, and, like us, they
prefer warmer weather.
The recent bitterly cold winter in the Arctic drove many starving bears
to approach human habitations in the hope of finding food.
The real danger to polar bears is hunting. The chief reason for the
increase in their population since the Second World War is that both the
hunting of polar bears and the culling of the seals on which they feed
have been subjected to legislative control. The protection of polar
bears and their food supply has worked, is working, and will continue to
work.
Once again, you have addressed a non-problem by suggesting that the
polar bears are at risk (which they are not) because of anthropogenic
"global warming", which will be entirely harmless to them, even if the
Arctic ice-cap entirely melts away, as it did 125,000 years ago and may
well have done during the two-thirds of the past 10,000 years when
global temperatures were warmer than they are today.
But the key question is this: Does the polar bear exhibit the key
characteristic of a species at risk?
Your advisors might have asked that question.
And what is the key characteristic of a species at risk? It is, of
course, declining population.
However, the population of polar bears is not plummeting. Instead, there
are five times as many polar bears in the Arctic today than there were
in the 1940s. As you may think, that is hardly the profile of a species
facing imminent extinction as its habitat shrinks away. Polar bears do
not breed on the Arctic ice-cap, but in land-based dens. Though their
current staple diet is seal-blubber, their land-based origins are still
evident in the fact that their favorite delicacy is blueberries, which
do not grow on the Arctic ice-cap, but only on land. Even if the ice-cap
vanished, as it has done before, the polar bears would not vanish.
There is no scientific basis for your attribution of a non-existent
threat of extinction of polar bears to the non-problem of anthropogenic
"global warming".
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/an_open_letter_from_the_viscou_2.html
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"From 1870 to 1900, we had global cooling, then we had significant
global warming from about 1910 to 1945. That global warming is not
accompanied by any significant rise in CO2, so you can>t blame CO2. Then
CO2 increased while we had global cooling. You can>t blame that on CO2.
It>s only been the last 30 years there>s been correlation between CO2
and global warming" Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology,
Western Washington University |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
bnzoo
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 6:23 am Post subject: Re: The Central Facts About "Polar Bears Responding To New D |
|
|
"rpautrey2" <rpautrey2@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:08762969-1a9e-479d-9611-d523e425a8aa@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Bozo,
Who are you preaching to and
what point are you trying to make?
Paul
*************************************************
Huh?
I thought it was obvious that I don>t believe wacko AGW alarmists trying
to convince us all that the sky is falling!!
My point is that the current AGW hoax is just another money-making scam
just like, inter alia, the debunked Montreal Protocol on the ozone
hole,
which continues to break new records for size despite reduced levels of
so-called "ozone-destroying gasses"!!!!
This Year>s Ozone Hole Has Broken New Records For Area And Depth
So much for the wacko Montreal Protocol!
October 27, 2008
QUOTE: NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
scientists report this year>s ozone hole in the polar region of the
Southern Hemisphere has broken records for area and depth.
QUOTE: And here is something even odder. Now that we>ve agreed that our
wicked gases were mostly to blame, and spent all the money to cut them
out, the panic over the ozone hole above us has vanished - even though
that hole is getting bigger almost by the year.
QUOTE: Shouldn>t we panic even more now, or was that past panic just a
tool? And did it panic us into doing stuff that was actually a bit dumb?
Scientists now debate that very point.
Another fiercely-defended scientific consensus is questioned - billions
of dollars later:
A University of Waterloo scientist says that cosmic rays are a key cause
for expanding the hole in the ozone layer over the South Pole - and
predicts the largest ozone hole will occur in one or two weeks.
Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy who studies ozone
depletion, said that it was generally accepted for more than two decades
that the Earth>s ozone layer is depleted by chlorine atoms produced by
sunlight-induced destruction of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the
atmosphere. But more and more evidence now points to a new theory that
the cosmic rays (energy particles that originate in space) play a major
role.
Lu is predicting an even bigger hole than the one NASA measured just two
years ago:
NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
scientists report this year>s ozone hole in the polar region of the
Southern Hemisphere has broken records for area and depth.
This may surprise you, because - as CNN notes - the man-made gases we
primarily blamed for the ozone hole were phased out a long time ago:
Those gases originate from man-made products like chlorofluorocarbons,
or CFCs, which were phased out under a global agreement two decades ago
but continue to linger in the atmosphere.
And here is something even odder. Now that we>ve agreed that our wicked
gases were mostly to blame, and spent all the money to cut them out, the
panic over the ozone hole above us has vanished - even though that hole
is getting bigger almost by the year.
Shouldn>t we panic even more now, or was that past panic just a tool?
And did it panic us into doing stuff that was actually a bit dumb?
Scientists now debate that very point.
There>s a warning here. That said:
The hole in the ozone layer that appears over the polar regions each
spring will gradually begin to shrink and should close completely within
50 years, according to new estimates of the impact of a world ban on
ozone-destroying chemicals.
UPDATE
This news will, of course, come as yet another surprise to our friend
Professor Barry Brook, Director of the Research Institute for Climate
Change and Sustainability at the University of Adelaide.
Brook, after all, is the expert who told global warming guru Ross
Garnaut:
The destruction of stratospheric ozone by various gases was successfully
halted bythe 1987 Montreal protocol.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/a_hole_lot_of_warming_lessons/
*****************************************************
On Oct 27, 12:47 am, "bznoo" <bz...@rs.com> wrote:
[quote]18 October 2008
You have said: "You would think that if the polar bears, walruses, and
sea birds have the good sense to respond to new conditions and new
dangers, then humanity can respond as well."
The facts are that polar bears are not intelligent beings.
Accordingly,
they act not by a conscious effort of will but by instinct. They
cannot
display "good sense". By natural selection, as they evolved from the
brown bear, their coats became white, they became larger and more
resistant to cold, and they migrated northward on to the Arctic
ice-cap
during their hunting season.
The chief danger to polar bears has nothing whatever to do with
"global
warming" - indeed, a recent survey (Norris, 2001) for the World Wide
Fund for Nature shows that in those parts of the Arctic that have
warmed
the population of polar bears has increased; in those parts that have
neither warmed nor cooled the population is stable; and in those parts
that have cooled the population has fallen.
Polar bears, like us, are warm-blooded animals, and, like us, they
prefer warmer weather.
The recent bitterly cold winter in the Arctic drove many starving
bears
to approach human habitations in the hope of finding food.
The real danger to polar bears is hunting. The chief reason for the
increase in their population since the Second World War is that both
the
hunting of polar bears and the culling of the seals on which they feed
have been subjected to legislative control. The protection of polar
bears and their food supply has worked, is working, and will continue
to
work.
Once again, you have addressed a non-problem by suggesting that the
polar bears are at risk (which they are not) because of anthropogenic
"global warming", which will be entirely harmless to them, even if the
Arctic ice-cap entirely melts away, as it did 125,000 years ago and
may
well have done during the two-thirds of the past 10,000 years when
global temperatures were warmer than they are today.
But the key question is this: Does the polar bear exhibit the key
characteristic of a species at risk?
Your advisors might have asked that question.
And what is the key characteristic of a species at risk? It is, of
course, declining population.
However, the population of polar bears is not plummeting. Instead,
there
are five times as many polar bears in the Arctic today than there were
in the 1940s. As you may think, that is hardly the profile of a
species
facing imminent extinction as its habitat shrinks away. Polar bears do
not breed on the Arctic ice-cap, but in land-based dens. Though their
current staple diet is seal-blubber, their land-based origins are
still
evident in the fact that their favorite delicacy is blueberries, which
do not grow on the Arctic ice-cap, but only on land. Even if the
ice-cap
vanished, as it has done before, the polar bears would not vanish.
There is no scientific basis for your attribution of a non-existent
threat of extinction of polar bears to the non-problem of
anthropogenic
"global warming".
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/an_open_letter_from_the_viscou...
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"From 1870 to 1900, we had global cooling, then we had significant
global warming from about 1910 to 1945. That global warming is not
accompanied by any significant rise in CO2, so you can>t blame CO2.
Then
CO2 increased while we had global cooling. You can>t blame that on
CO2.
It>s only been the last 30 years there>s been correlation between CO2
and global warming" Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus
Geology,
Western Washington University[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Tunderbar
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:36 pm Post subject: Re: The Central Facts About "Polar Bears Responding To New D |
|
|
On Dec 9, 5:07 am, Lone Ranger
<snowball2...@bigfoot.com.spamalamadingdong> wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:47:45 +1100, "bznoo" <bz...@rs.com> wrote:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/an_open_letter_from_the_viscou...
However, the population of polar bears is not plummeting. Instead, there
are five times as many polar bears in the Arctic today than there were
in the 1940s.
Says who? Source? I have seen claims like this being made several
times, but I can>t find any credible source to back it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#Controversy_over_species_prot...
Some estimates of the global population were around 5,000-10,000 in
the early 1970s; other estimates were 20,000-40,000 during the 1980s.
Current estimates put the global population at between 20,000 and
25,000.
There are several reasons for the apparent discordance between past
and projected population trends: First, estimates from the 1950s and
1960s were based on stories from explorers and hunters rather than on
scientific surveys. Second, controls of harvesting were introduced
that allowed this previously-overhunted species to recover. Third, the
recent effects of global warming have affected sea ice abundance in
different areas to varying degrees.
...
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ask-the-experts/population/
Ask the Experts: Are Polar Bear Populations Increasing?
Answered by Dr. Andrew Derocher
Some recent media reports have cited inaccurate data concerning
polar bears. For clarification on polar bear numbers, we turned to Dr.
Andrew Derocher, Chair of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group.
Dr. Derocher is a polar bear scientist with the University of Alberta
in Edmonton, Canada. He also serves on PBI>s Scientific Advisory
Council.
Question: The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has proposed that the polar
bear be listed as a threatened species. Yet some news reports state
that polar bear numbers are actually increasing. For example, the
following paragraph appeared on the Fox News Web site:
"In the 1950s the polar bear population up north was estimated at
5,000. Today it>s 20-25,000, a number that has either held steady
over the last 20 years or has risen slightly. In Canada, the manager
of wildlife resources for the Nunavut territory of Canada has found
that the population there has increased by 25 percent."
If this is true, then why are scientists worried about population
declines?
Answer from Dr. Derocher: The various presentations of biased
reporting ignore, or are ignorant of, the different reasons for
changes in populations. If I thought that there were more bears
now than 50 years ago and a reasonable basis to assume this
would not change, then no worries. This is not the case.
The bottom line here is that it is an apples and oranges issue. The
early estimates of polar bear abundance are a guess. There is no
data at all for the 1950-60s. Nothing but guesses. We are sure the
populations were being negatively affected by excess harvest
(e.g., aircraft hunting, ship hunting, self-killing guns, traps, and
no harvest limits). The harvest levels were huge and growing. The
resulting low numbers of bears were due only to excess harvest but,
again, it was simply a guess as to the number of bears.
After the signing of the International Agreement on Polar Bears in the
1970s, harvests were controlled and the numbers increased. There is
no argument from anyone on this point. Some populations recovered
very slowly (e.g., Barents Sea took almost 30 years), but some
recovered faster. Some likely never were depressed by hunting that
much, but the harvest levels remained too high and the populations
subsequently declined. M>Clintock Channel is a good example. The
population is currently down by over 60% of historic levels due only
to overharvesting. Some populations recovered as harvests were
controlled, but have since declined due to climate-related effects
(e.g., Western Hudson Bay). In Western Hudson Bay, previously
sustainable harvests cannot be maintained as the reproductive
and survival rates have declined due to changes in the sea ice.
At this point, we lack quantitative data for an overall assessment of
trend in Canada or Nunavut as a whole. There is, however, very strong
evidence for a decline in Western Hudson Bay and the Southern Beaufort
Sea based on quantitative studies. More recently, scientists working
in the Southern Hudson Bay have reported a major decline in the
condition of polar bears. A decline in condition was the precursor to
the population decline in Western Hudson Bay. There is clear
suggestion of a population decline due to over-harvest in Baffin Bay,
Kane Basin and possibly Norwegian Bay.
The point is that you cannot simply summarize the status of polar
bears - the information lies in the individual populations. You cannot
put the various time periods together into a simplistic overview. Sea
ice is declining but again, it is not declining the same everywhere.
Some small areas of multi-year ice may improve habitat for polar
bears. This latter point, however, does not mean that the habitat in
all areas will improve and the predictions are very clear that the
primary habitat of polar bears is at risk.
We can control harvests through management and these efforts are
underway for several of the over-harvested populations. So far, I
have not seen any movement on serious consideration of reducing
greenhouse gases in North America (or other countries with few
exceptions). Climate warming is not under control and I do not see the
management changes coming to effect the needed changes in climate
change emissions.
Look at the messengers: lobby groups for big business say there is no
problem. Yes, conservation groups moved the issue forward for listing
under the Endangered Species Act, but this was already an issue that
was founded on scientific information. The IUCN/SSC Polar Bear
Specialist Group was moving on a Vulnerable designation (the same as
Threatened under the Endangered Species Act) before anybody heard
of actions from environmental groups. Sea ice change and habitat loss
is the key driving force. Ignore the bears for a moment and look at
the evidence for sea ice change: NASA is a key player in looking at
the actual decreases in sea ice. It is an easy matter to put the dots
together: no habitat, no seals; no seals, no bears. This never was an
issue of polar bears alone. The only effective conservation approach
is to protect the habitat and this is an issue of climate change. You
can distort the issue any way you so desire. At the end of the day,
the sea ice is disappearing. Take away the habitat and the species
follows shortly thereafter (or before).
Comparing declines caused by harvest followed by recovery from
harvest controls to declines from loss of habitat and climate warming
are apples and oranges. Ignorant people write ignorant things.
--
Hi-Yo, Silver! Away!
--
The Curse of Tecumsehhttp://www.snopes.com/history/american/curse.htm
[/quote]
google is your friend: try "polar bear population increase" |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Tunderbar
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:39 pm Post subject: Re: The Central Facts About "Polar Bears Responding To New D |
|
|
On Dec 9, 5:07 am, Lone Ranger
<snowball2...@bigfoot.com.spamalamadingdong> wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:47:45 +1100, "bznoo" <bz...@rs.com> wrote:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/an_open_letter_from_the_viscou...
However, the population of polar bears is not plummeting. Instead, there
are five times as many polar bears in the Arctic today than there were
in the 1940s.
Says who? Source? I have seen claims like this being made several
times, but I can>t find any credible source to back it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#Controversy_over_species_prot...
Some estimates of the global population were around 5,000-10,000 in
the early 1970s; other estimates were 20,000-40,000 during the 1980s.
Current estimates put the global population at between 20,000 and
25,000.
There are several reasons for the apparent discordance between past
and projected population trends: First, estimates from the 1950s and
1960s were based on stories from explorers and hunters rather than on
scientific surveys. Second, controls of harvesting were introduced
that allowed this previously-overhunted species to recover. Third, the
recent effects of global warming have affected sea ice abundance in
different areas to varying degrees.
...
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ask-the-experts/population/
Ask the Experts: Are Polar Bear Populations Increasing?
Answered by Dr. Andrew Derocher
Some recent media reports have cited inaccurate data concerning
polar bears. For clarification on polar bear numbers, we turned to Dr.
Andrew Derocher, Chair of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group.
Dr. Derocher is a polar bear scientist with the University of Alberta
in Edmonton, Canada. He also serves on PBI>s Scientific Advisory
Council.
Question: The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has proposed that the polar
bear be listed as a threatened species. Yet some news reports state
that polar bear numbers are actually increasing. For example, the
following paragraph appeared on the Fox News Web site:
"In the 1950s the polar bear population up north was estimated at
5,000. Today it>s 20-25,000, a number that has either held steady
over the last 20 years or has risen slightly. In Canada, the manager
of wildlife resources for the Nunavut territory of Canada has found
that the population there has increased by 25 percent."
If this is true, then why are scientists worried about population
declines?
Answer from Dr. Derocher: The various presentations of biased
reporting ignore, or are ignorant of, the different reasons for
changes in populations. If I thought that there were more bears
now than 50 years ago and a reasonable basis to assume this
would not change, then no worries. This is not the case.
The bottom line here is that it is an apples and oranges issue. The
early estimates of polar bear abundance are a guess. There is no
data at all for the 1950-60s. Nothing but guesses. We are sure the
populations were being negatively affected by excess harvest
(e.g., aircraft hunting, ship hunting, self-killing guns, traps, and
no harvest limits). The harvest levels were huge and growing. The
resulting low numbers of bears were due only to excess harvest but,
again, it was simply a guess as to the number of bears.
After the signing of the International Agreement on Polar Bears in the
1970s, harvests were controlled and the numbers increased. There is
no argument from anyone on this point. Some populations recovered
very slowly (e.g., Barents Sea took almost 30 years), but some
recovered faster. Some likely never were depressed by hunting that
much, but the harvest levels remained too high and the populations
subsequently declined. M>Clintock Channel is a good example. The
population is currently down by over 60% of historic levels due only
to overharvesting. Some populations recovered as harvests were
controlled, but have since declined due to climate-related effects
(e.g., Western Hudson Bay). In Western Hudson Bay, previously
sustainable harvests cannot be maintained as the reproductive
and survival rates have declined due to changes in the sea ice.
At this point, we lack quantitative data for an overall assessment of
trend in Canada or Nunavut as a whole. There is, however, very strong
evidence for a decline in Western Hudson Bay and the Southern Beaufort
Sea based on quantitative studies. More recently, scientists working
in the Southern Hudson Bay have reported a major decline in the
condition of polar bears. A decline in condition was the precursor to
the population decline in Western Hudson Bay. There is clear
suggestion of a population decline due to over-harvest in Baffin Bay,
Kane Basin and possibly Norwegian Bay.
The point is that you cannot simply summarize the status of polar
bears - the information lies in the individual populations. You cannot
put the various time periods together into a simplistic overview. Sea
ice is declining but again, it is not declining the same everywhere.
Some small areas of multi-year ice may improve habitat for polar
bears. This latter point, however, does not mean that the habitat in
all areas will improve and the predictions are very clear that the
primary habitat of polar bears is at risk.
We can control harvests through management and these efforts are
underway for several of the over-harvested populations. So far, I
have not seen any movement on serious consideration of reducing
greenhouse gases in North America (or other countries with few
exceptions). Climate warming is not under control and I do not see the
management changes coming to effect the needed changes in climate
change emissions.
Look at the messengers: lobby groups for big business say there is no
problem. Yes, conservation groups moved the issue forward for listing
under the Endangered Species Act, but this was already an issue that
was founded on scientific information. The IUCN/SSC Polar Bear
Specialist Group was moving on a Vulnerable designation (the same as
Threatened under the Endangered Species Act) before anybody heard
of actions from environmental groups. Sea ice change and habitat loss
is the key driving force. Ignore the bears for a moment and look at
the evidence for sea ice change: NASA is a key player in looking at
the actual decreases in sea ice. It is an easy matter to put the dots
together: no habitat, no seals; no seals, no bears. This never was an
issue of polar bears alone. The only effective conservation approach
is to protect the habitat and this is an issue of climate change. You
can distort the issue any way you so desire. At the end of the day,
the sea ice is disappearing. Take away the habitat and the species
follows shortly thereafter (or before).
Comparing declines caused by harvest followed by recovery from
harvest controls to declines from loss of habitat and climate warming
are apples and oranges. Ignorant people write ignorant things.
--
Hi-Yo, Silver! Away!
--
The Curse of Tecumsehhttp://www.snopes.com/history/american/curse.htm
[/quote]
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080508132549.htm
Federal Polar Bear Research Critically Flawed, Forecasting Expert
Asserts
ScienceDaily (May 10, 2008) — Research done by the U.S. Department of
the Interior to determine if global warming threatens the polar bear
population is so flawed that it cannot be used to justify listing the
polar bear as an endangered species, according to a study being
published later this year in Interfaces, a journal of the Institute
for Operations Research and the Management Sciences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 30, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ordered the Interior
Department to decide by May 15 whether polar bears should be listed
under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. (Note regarding
decision: On May 15, 2008 the polar bear was listed as a 'threatened
species' under the Endangered Species Act.)
Professor J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School says, “To list a
species that is currently in good health as an endangered species
requires valid forecasts that its population would decline to levels
that threaten its viability. In fact, the polar bear populations have
been increasing rapidly in recent decades due to hunting restrictions.
Assuming these restrictions remain, the most appropriate forecast is
to assume that the upward trend would continue for a few years, then
level off.
“These studies are meant to inform the US Fish and Wildlife Service
about listing the polar bear as endangered. After careful examination,
my co-authors and I were unable to find any references to works
providing evidence that the forecasting methods used in the reports
had been previously validated. In essence, they give no scientific
basis for deciding one way or the other about the polar bear.”
Prof. Armstrong and colleagues originally undertook their audit at the
request of the State of Alaska. The subsequent study, “Polar Bear
Population Forecasts: A Public Policy Forecasting Audit,” is by Prof.
Armstrong, Kesten G. Green of Monash University in Australia, and
Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. It is
scheduled to appear in the September/October issue of the INFORMS
journal Interfaces.
Professor Armstrong is author of Long-Range Forecasting, the most
frequently cited book on forecasting methods, and Principles of
Forecasting. He is a co-founder of the Journal of Forecasting, the
International Journal of Forecasting, the International Symposium on
Forecasting, and forecastingprinciples.com.
The authors examined nine U.S. Geological Survey Administrative
Reports. The studies include “Forecasting the Wide-Range Status of
Polar Bears at Selected Times in the 21st Century” by Steven C.
Amstrup et. al. and “Polar Bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea II:
Demography and Population Growth in Relation to Sea Ice Conditions” by
Christine M. Hunter et al.
Prof. Armstrong and his colleagues concluded that the most relevant
study, Amstrup et al. properly applied only 15% of relevant
forecasting principles and that the second study, Hunter et al. only
10%, while 46% were clearly contravened and 23% were apparently
contravened.
Further, they write, the Geologic Survey reports do not adequately
substantiate the authors’ assumptions about changes to sea ice and
polar bears’ ability to adapt that are key to the recommendations.
Therefore, the authors write, a key feature of the U.S. Geological
Survey reports is not scientifically supported.
The consequence, they maintain, is significant: The Interior
Department cannot use the series of reports as a sound scientific
basis for a decision about listing the polar bear as an endangered
species.
Prof. Armstrong testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on
Environment & Public Works on January 30, 2008 in a hearing,
“Examining Threats and Protections for the Polar Bear.” A portion of
the testimony can be viewed on a website partly supported by Prof.
Armstrong and questioning climate change http://theclimatebet.com/. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Lone Ranger
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:07 pm Post subject: Re: The Central Facts About "Polar Bears Responding To New D |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:47:45 +1100, "bznoo" <bznoo@rs.com> wrote:
[quote]http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/an_open_letter_from_the_viscou_2.html
However, the population of polar bears is not plummeting. Instead, there
are five times as many polar bears in the Arctic today than there were
in the 1940s.
[/quote]
Says who? Source? I have seen claims like this being made several
times, but I can>t find any credible source to back it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#Controversy_over_species_protection
Some estimates of the global population were around 5,000-10,000 in
the early 1970s; other estimates were 20,000-40,000 during the 1980s.
Current estimates put the global population at between 20,000 and
25,000.
There are several reasons for the apparent discordance between past
and projected population trends: First, estimates from the 1950s and
1960s were based on stories from explorers and hunters rather than on
scientific surveys. Second, controls of harvesting were introduced
that allowed this previously-overhunted species to recover. Third, the
recent effects of global warming have affected sea ice abundance in
different areas to varying degrees.
....
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ask-the-experts/population/
Ask the Experts: Are Polar Bear Populations Increasing?
Answered by Dr. Andrew Derocher
Some recent media reports have cited inaccurate data concerning
polar bears. For clarification on polar bear numbers, we turned to Dr.
Andrew Derocher, Chair of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group.
Dr. Derocher is a polar bear scientist with the University of Alberta
in Edmonton, Canada. He also serves on PBI>s Scientific Advisory
Council.
Question: The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has proposed that the polar
bear be listed as a threatened species. Yet some news reports state
that polar bear numbers are actually increasing. For example, the
following paragraph appeared on the Fox News Web site:
"In the 1950s the polar bear population up north was estimated at
5,000. Today it>s 20-25,000, a number that has either held steady
over the last 20 years or has risen slightly. In Canada, the manager
of wildlife resources for the Nunavut territory of Canada has found
that the population there has increased by 25 percent."
If this is true, then why are scientists worried about population
declines?
Answer from Dr. Derocher: The various presentations of biased
reporting ignore, or are ignorant of, the different reasons for
changes in populations. If I thought that there were more bears
now than 50 years ago and a reasonable basis to assume this
would not change, then no worries. This is not the case.
The bottom line here is that it is an apples and oranges issue. The
early estimates of polar bear abundance are a guess. There is no
data at all for the 1950-60s. Nothing but guesses. We are sure the
populations were being negatively affected by excess harvest
(e.g., aircraft hunting, ship hunting, self-killing guns, traps, and
no harvest limits). The harvest levels were huge and growing. The
resulting low numbers of bears were due only to excess harvest but,
again, it was simply a guess as to the number of bears.
After the signing of the International Agreement on Polar Bears in the
1970s, harvests were controlled and the numbers increased. There is
no argument from anyone on this point. Some populations recovered
very slowly (e.g., Barents Sea took almost 30 years), but some
recovered faster. Some likely never were depressed by hunting that
much, but the harvest levels remained too high and the populations
subsequently declined. M>Clintock Channel is a good example. The
population is currently down by over 60% of historic levels due only
to overharvesting. Some populations recovered as harvests were
controlled, but have since declined due to climate-related effects
(e.g., Western Hudson Bay). In Western Hudson Bay, previously
sustainable harvests cannot be maintained as the reproductive
and survival rates have declined due to changes in the sea ice.
At this point, we lack quantitative data for an overall assessment of
trend in Canada or Nunavut as a whole. There is, however, very strong
evidence for a decline in Western Hudson Bay and the Southern Beaufort
Sea based on quantitative studies. More recently, scientists working
in the Southern Hudson Bay have reported a major decline in the
condition of polar bears. A decline in condition was the precursor to
the population decline in Western Hudson Bay. There is clear
suggestion of a population decline due to over-harvest in Baffin Bay,
Kane Basin and possibly Norwegian Bay.
The point is that you cannot simply summarize the status of polar
bears - the information lies in the individual populations. You cannot
put the various time periods together into a simplistic overview. Sea
ice is declining but again, it is not declining the same everywhere.
Some small areas of multi-year ice may improve habitat for polar
bears. This latter point, however, does not mean that the habitat in
all areas will improve and the predictions are very clear that the
primary habitat of polar bears is at risk.
We can control harvests through management and these efforts are
underway for several of the over-harvested populations. So far, I
have not seen any movement on serious consideration of reducing
greenhouse gases in North America (or other countries with few
exceptions). Climate warming is not under control and I do not see the
management changes coming to effect the needed changes in climate
change emissions.
Look at the messengers: lobby groups for big business say there is no
problem. Yes, conservation groups moved the issue forward for listing
under the Endangered Species Act, but this was already an issue that
was founded on scientific information. The IUCN/SSC Polar Bear
Specialist Group was moving on a Vulnerable designation (the same as
Threatened under the Endangered Species Act) before anybody heard
of actions from environmental groups. Sea ice change and habitat loss
is the key driving force. Ignore the bears for a moment and look at
the evidence for sea ice change: NASA is a key player in looking at
the actual decreases in sea ice. It is an easy matter to put the dots
together: no habitat, no seals; no seals, no bears. This never was an
issue of polar bears alone. The only effective conservation approach
is to protect the habitat and this is an issue of climate change. You
can distort the issue any way you so desire. At the end of the day,
the sea ice is disappearing. Take away the habitat and the species
follows shortly thereafter (or before).
Comparing declines caused by harvest followed by recovery from
harvest controls to declines from loss of habitat and climate warming
are apples and oranges. Ignorant people write ignorant things.
--
Hi-Yo, Silver! Away!
--
The Curse of Tecumseh
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/curse.htm |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
