Environmentalists can't do math

[Thundery wintry showers]

Polar bear numbers are at a record high worldwide. They have increased in the range of 500% in the last 60 years. This was 'science' or what is passed off as science used to determine that the Polar bears were endangered.

Don't know where you're getting your data from- my searches on the 'net suggest, for instance at http://environment.newscientist.com/channe...-change/dn11656 that polar bear numbers are actually open to question. It does put into serious question the media's exaggerated stories about how global warming is killing polar bears though.

The story was that a slight rise in CO2 would overide all the natural factors and the Earth would continue to warm until we all fried. Now the story is that the Earth would be undergoing unprecedented warming except the natural factors are preventing it.

Maybe the environmental extremists who want to see motorists treated as the Jews were treated under the Nazis would have subscribed to the former theory, but few climate scientists would have. Common sense dictates that unless the rate of anthropogenic warming is excessive, there will always be fits and bursts in the warming trend due to natural variability. Again, I contend that there's more to anthropogenic forcing than CO2, which is a point that some environmentalists in particular tend to lose sight of, and which thus gets used as a straw man attack on the concept of AGW.

On fossil fuels, the major problem is that it won't require them to run out before it requires large price hikes, it just requires demand to start exceeding supply- and we're already starting to feel the effects even now. In addition, as there's a significant chance that burning fossil fuels could be impacting climate, finding more and more reserves and pumping them out at maximum push strikes me as excessively risky. I have offered various suggestions on no regrets policies to challenge the idea that we can't reduce consumption without it having disastrous effects on humans- which in turn could help slow the rate of any human-induced warming and help us move more quickly towards sustainable living.

[bluecon]

And now the Inuit are out of a job. No more Polar Bear hunting for the Americans and no money for the Inuit. Aren't the enviros wonderful.

"As Nunavut government biologist Mitch Taylor observed in a front-page story in the Nunatsiaq News last month, "the Inuit were right. There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears.""

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=515154

Other research referred to in the book shows that since the Sixties global polar bear numbers have increased from 5,000, says Lomborg.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007...ge.conservation

I think the widespread use of the catalytic convertor lead to the vilifying of harmless CO2. The cat turns poisonous CO into harmless CO2. This is more about ending the use of oil than saving the Planet. Even taking oil out of the picture look at China with all the new coal fired plants, there is no way greenhouse gas emmissions will be reduced and if the scientist are right we are all doomed.

The fact remains that in the last ten years there has been a huge increase in greenhouse gas emmissions and none of the predicted result of a rapidly warming Earth.

[Thundery wintry showers]

The fact remains that in the last ten years there has been a huge increase in greenhouse gas emmissions and none of the predicted result of a rapidly warming Earth.

Common sense dictates that unless the rate of anthropogenic warming is excessive, there will always be fits and bursts in the warming trend due to natural variability.

[Devonian]

And now the Inuit are out of a job. No more Polar Bear hunting for the Americans and no money for the Inuit. Aren't the enviros wonderful.

"As Nunavut government biologist Mitch Taylor observed in a front-page story in the Nunatsiaq News last month, "the Inuit were right. There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears.""

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=515154

Other research referred to in the book shows that since the Sixties global polar bear numbers have increased from 5,000, says Lomborg.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007...ge.conservation

I think the widespread use of the catalytic convertor lead to the vilifying of harmless CO2. The cat turns poisonous CO into harmless CO2. This is more about ending the use of oil than saving the Planet. Even taking oil out of the picture look at China with all the new coal fired plants, there is no way greenhouse gas emmissions will be reduced and if the scientist are right we are all doomed.

The fact remains that in the last ten years there has been a huge increase in greenhouse gas emmissions and none of the predicted result of a rapidly warming Earth.

Debatable, give we are at an end point (look, it really cooled like mad from 1998-2000...). Indeed, what is the trend since 2000???

Edited May 18, 2008 by Devonian

[bluecon]

Common sense dictates that unless the rate of anthropogenic warming is excessive, there will always be fits and bursts in the warming trend due to natural variability.

We will have GW as a result of increased greenhouse gasses except when the normal forces of nature cause the temperature to drop as they always have and a soon as the normal forces of nature cause the temperature to rise a tiny amount as they always we know this is actually caused by a slight increase in harmless CO2.

Your clutching at straws. More and greater cooling on the way despite the huge increase in CO2. You can't really have it both ways and be credible.

[laserguy]

One question, why do all the claims of global cooling start from 1998? Do you want to know the answer

Dontcha know!? Only kidding Dev,you as well as I know that the exceptional warmth of 1998 was a result of that year's mega El Nino joining forces with the culmination of a very protracted period of high solar activity,as reported in this contempory link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

Times have changed of course,and whilst the heat of that year doesn't dissipate 'overnight' we are just,but definitely seeing the effects of solar minima after such a high and prolonged peak,coupled with a return to La Nina dominance. There's only one way to go from here and it won't suit the globo-warmthinking types one bit. Me neither,but there you go. Seems the 'enviros' and governments have achieved many of their aims in their 'allocated time' before they knew full well that the signs and omens would not play in their favour. Very soon they'll have some explaining to do,mind you they've already embarked on that road with all the stuff about expecting warming to stop,only to be resumed after a long,long ten years and so many more gigatonnes of CO2 in the meantime. Trust me,the world will be very,very different in ten years and the last thing on any rational mind will be global warming.

Funny how the alarmists (well,some of them that are so far gone)who say the anthro CO2 signal can and will eventually swamp natural influence are so quick to blame 'unusual' natural events for recent stasis of temps,but any rise is of course all our fault. Sorry for the delay in responding by the way. I was just about to do that yesterday when the neanderthal thug next door went berserk,threatened to kill the missus and kicked our front door in! Police all over the place,there was! Ah it's a long story,the details of which have no place on n-w. All part of life's rich and varied tapestry,etc!

[Thundery wintry showers]

We will have GW as a result of increased greenhouse gasses except when the normal forces of nature cause the temperature to drop as they always have and a soon as the normal forces of nature cause the temperature to rise a tiny amount as they always we know this is actually caused by a slight increase in harmless CO2.

Your clutching at straws. More and greater cooling on the way despite the huge increase in CO2. You can't really have it both ways and be credible.

Here's an analogy to show how heavily flawed this line of argument is:

When we warm during the first half of the year because of synoptics it always gets stupidly blamed on increasing daylight, except when the synoptics cause temperatures to drop. March 2008 was cooler than January 2008 despite much more daylight, therefore increased daylight doesn't cause warming. More and greater cooling to come between April and June despite the huge increase in daylight. Pointing at the Easter northerly and the January SW'lys is clutching at straws. You can't have it both ways and be credible.

[bluecon]

Here's an analogy to show how heavily flawed this line of argument is:

When we warm during the first half of the year because of synoptics it always gets stupidly blamed on increasing daylight, except when the synoptics cause temperatures to drop. March 2008 was cooler than January 2008 despite much more daylight, therefore increased daylight doesn't cause warming. More and greater cooling to come between April and June despite the huge increase in daylight. Pointing at the Easter northerly and the January SW'lys is clutching at straws. You can't have it both ways and be credible.

I would just like an explanation how we can have huge and it was a huge increase in AGW gasses in the last ten years and at the same time the Earth would have a slight cooling. In no way does this match up to what the 'scientists' have been telling the population.

[Thundery wintry showers]

There are a number of possible reasons, here's a selection:

1. The scientific argument doesn't say that pumping out greenhouse gases results in an immediate temperature response, rather there is a lag in the system, so increased CO2 etc. would mean a gradual rise in temperature over many decades.

2. AGW progressing at 0.2-0.3C/decade, consistent with IPCC reports, could easily be offset by short-term natural forcing (ENSO, sunspots, atmospheric circulation etc) producing 0.3C worth of cooling. Thus we would see a stall or slight cooling over that decade, followed by abrupt warming when the natural forcing stopped biasing towards anomalous coolness.

3. The extent of AGW could in itself be being overestimated- say with a trend of 0.1C/decade rather than 0.2-0.3C/decade, meaning that for a given decade to show no trend or a slight cooling, only >= -0.1C of natural forcing is required.

[Just Before Dawn]

And now the Inuit are out of a job. No more Polar Bear hunting for the Americans and no money for the Inuit. Aren't the enviros wonderful.

"As Nunavut government biologist Mitch Taylor observed in a front-page story in the Nunatsiaq News last month, "the Inuit were right. There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears.""

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=515154

Other research referred to in the book shows that since the Sixties global polar bear numbers have increased from 5,000, says Lomborg.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007...ge.conservation

The problem with statistics is that they can be used to show anything. The Alaskan population is believed (roughly) to be around 3000. That's in two populations - the Beaufort Sea population (shared with Canada - where hunting is permitted) and the Bering Sea Population (Shared with Russia, where hunting is banned and has been since the 1960's). THat's based on Canadian and US Dept of the Interior census results (which I trust rather more than the Sainted Mr Lomborg's fag-packet calculations) The Alaskan populations are believed to have bottomed out in the 1980's (when the first controls on hunting were introduced) and have risen since. As they have in Norwegian and Danish territories since they were banned from being hunted under the EC Habitats Directive. Funny that. If you stop hunting them, their numbers go up. Also, unsurprisingly happened with Wolverine too (although they got much closer to extinction before hunting was banned). Unrestricted hunting of Polar Bears results in their decline, and controls on hunting allow for their recovery.

Had it not been for the pioneering work of Soviet ecologists in the 1960's, polar bears would be extinct now, so fast was their population falling in the first half of the last century. The inuits would have found something else to hunt (they've done so in Russia and the EU controlled areas) as they found other seabirds to hunt and collect once they'd destroyed the Great Auk.

For what it's worth, I don't believe any change in the status of Alaskan polar bears is necessary at this point in time and the global warming arguments remain, for me dubious, but lets not mix the hunting arguments up with those relating to global warming. they're different, the impacts are different as are the implications.

Edited May 19, 2008 by Just Before Dawn

[bluecon]

We shoot plenty of Polar Bears in Canada and still have half the worlds population. Regulated hunting is the best means of ensuring the survival of the species. In Russia the Polar Bears are shot illegally, and if they were worth 25 thoousand dollars there would be more of them.

"Hunters in Nunavut are celebrating an increase in the polar bear quota for 2005, prompted by reports that the animals are prowling the streets of some Arctic communities. The territory's government has approved a 28-per-cent increase in the polar bear quota for this year.

That will let Inuit hunters shoot 115 more bears, for a total of 518. Some will be harvested for their meat and pelts, and others will be killed in sport hunts."

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...hunt050110.html

Declaring that the Polar bear is going extinct is more junk science from the 'scientific community'.

[The PIT]

One thing that puzzles me is that we have some scientists that say adding more CO2 doesn't result in a linear temperature increase and eventually the temperature increase will level off while IPCC gives the impression that constantly adding CO2 will result in a steady increase of temperature. One of these is wrong which one???

[Just Before Dawn]

We shoot plenty of Polar Bears in Canada and still have half the worlds population. Regulated hunting is the best means of ensuring the survival of the species. In Russia the Polar Bears are shot illegally, and if they were worth 25 thoousand dollars there would be more of them.

"Hunters in Nunavut are celebrating an increase in the polar bear quota for 2005, prompted by reports that the animals are prowling the streets of some Arctic communities. The territory's government has approved a 28-per-cent increase in the polar bear quota for this year.

That will let Inuit hunters shoot 115 more bears, for a total of 518. Some will be harvested for their meat and pelts, and others will be killed in sport hunts."

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...hunt050110.html

Declaring that the Polar bear is going extinct is more junk science from the 'scientific community'.

Regulated hunting didn't do much for the Wolverine, though did it? As I said, the ban on Polar Bear hunting in Danish and Norwegian territories has resulted in the fastest growing populations in the world and the Inuit populations are still there - so the best way of ensuring the survival of this species as with lots of other large predatory animals with huge ranges is to ban hunting and properly police it. Whether the Polar Bear is at that point, that's a reasonable question to ask, as I said, I suspect polar bear populations may be able to take limited legal hunting, but to suggest it's the best way of protecting the species doesn't hold up to scrutiny IMHO - it's a trade off between human interests and animal inerests - nothing wrong with that it's hardly unique to this situation - but I get a bit sick of ecologists being bad mouthed. Yes we don't always get it right, but it's easy to forget the snow leopards, the siberian tiger, the white rhino, the Spectacled bear, the phillipines monkey-eagle who are still here, no matter how tenuously because of their work in the face of a whole range of other vested interests, including hunting, regulated or otherwise.

Edited May 19, 2008 by Just Before Dawn

[bluecon]

Regulated hunting didn't do much for the Wolverine, though did it? As I said, the ban on Polar Bear hunting in Danish and Norwegian territories has resulted in the fastest growing populations in the world and the Inuit populations are still there - so the best way of ensuring the survival of this species as with lots of other large predatory animals with huge ranges is to ban hunting and properly police it. Whether the Polar Bear is at that point, that's a reasonable question to ask, as I said, I suspect polar bear populations may be able to take limited legal hunting, but to suggest it's the best way of protecting the species doesn't hold up to scrutiny IMHO - it's a trade off between human interests and animal inerests - nothing wrong with that it's hardly unique to this situation - but I get a bit sick of ecologists being bad mouthed. Yes we don't always get it right, but it's easy to forget the snow leopards, the siberian tiger, the white rhino, the Spectacled bear, the phillipines monkey-eagle who are still here, no matter how tenuously because of their work in the face of a whole range of other vested interests, including hunting, regulated or otherwise.

What is the problem with the wolverine? As far as I know they are trapping them and have been for centuries.

Canada routinely has controlled hunts for Polar Bears and also has half the worlds population. Before the enviros passed this law the bears were very valuable and well worth the inuit protecting. What does that tell you?

This Polar Bear going extinct racket is just more junk science.

[Just Before Dawn]

What is the problem with the wolverine? As far as I know they are trapping them and have been for centuries.

Canada routinely has controlled hunts for Polar Bears and also has half the worlds population. Before the enviros passed this law the bears were very valuable and well worth the inuit protecting. What does that tell you?

Wolverine populations are declining everywhere except for Northern Europe and one population in Canada as a result of the shotgun and snare brigade - in Russia, the US, the population is crashing. In Eastern Canada it's believed to be extinct. In N Europe it's stable and slowly increasing, and the Ontario population is expanding in range, though stable in number in part thanks to a reduction in habitat disturbance. In Europe Hunting wolverine is banned. What that tells me is what I posted earlier. Treating a species of large carnivore as a resource to be exploited is a less effective conservation measure as banning hunting and policing it properly.

It's a perfectly fair argument about Polar Bear as to whether their numbers are at such a level that they can't support some limited hunting - as I said, I believe that they probably can, but lets not pretend this is some highly effective conservation measure to compare with a hunting ban - it isn't. You only have to look at whaling to see that isn't the case.

Edited May 20, 2008 by Just Before Dawn

[Bobby]

IPCC gives the impression that constantly adding CO2 will result in a steady increase of temperature

No. The IPCC charts only show the average trend expected. They could hardly predict every little up tick and every little down tick along the way could they?

For example, if they say the Earth will warm 0.3c a decade, they don't mean every single decade will be 0.3c warmer than the last. Some will be much warmer, say 0.7c warmer than the last. Other may be cooler than the last, say -0.1c cooler. And the warming may be quicker later on than earlier on. But the AVERAGE warming per decade they predict will be 0.3c.

Edited May 20, 2008 by Magpie

[bluecon]

Wolverine populations are declining everywhere except for Northern Europe and one population in Canada as a result of the shotgun and snare brigade - in Russia, the US, the population is crashing. In Eastern Canada it's believed to be extinct. In N Europe it's stable and slowly increasing, and the Ontario population is expanding in range, though stable in number in part thanks to a reduction in habitat disturbance. In Europe Hunting wolverine is banned. What that tells me is what I posted earlier. Treating a species of large carnivore as a resource to be exploited is a less effective conservation measure as banning hunting and policing it properly.

It's a perfectly fair argument about Polar Bear as to whether their numbers are at such a level that they can't support some limited hunting - as I said, I believe that they probably can, but lets not pretend this is some highly effective conservation measure to compare with a hunting ban - it isn't. You only have to look at whaling to see that isn't the case.

Do you have any idea how large Northern Ontario is? It is nothing but trees and rocks and lakes for a thousand miles with hardely any people living there. Inaccurate like the rest of the post. The science has been proven in Canada that you can shoot hundreds of Polar Bears every year and maintain a healthy population and your opinion is just an opinion and not based on science. They have been killing the Polar Bears for centuries and they are at record numbers and they did survive the Ice Age unlike so many other large NA mammals. Extinctions are not something new. Millions of creatures have gone extinct throughout history.

Edited May 20, 2008 by bluecon

[stewfox]

I can't offer a view either way on the polar bears as I don't know enough about the ins and outs- but declining polar bear populations is certainly something the media like to use to promote scare stories, whether founded or not.

The media never

Thought the last two polar bears drowned in feb 07 ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-43...elting-ice.html

Ps Ive read somewhere Polar bear numbers are up

Edited May 20, 2008 by stewfox