• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Research Finds Polar Bear Numbers Up 42% Since 2004 – Survival Rates Unaffected By Sea Ice Avail

Its pretty well accepted your posting here is a train wreck.

I mean, I guess you have Jack and Tommy on your side, but that actually just reinforces how little you have here.

LOL every new poster that has gone into this forum has commented just how worthless your posts here are, while Jack's, Tommy's, LoPs, and flogger's posts are full of factual info. So keep up the bad work. :lol:
 
LOL every new poster that has gone into this forum has commented just how worthless your posts here are, while Jack's, Tommy's, LoPs, and flogger's posts are full of factual info. So keep up the bad work. :lol:

[emoji849]

If you even knew what was going on, that might be relevant.

I mean... do you even know why she’s not considered an expert? Are you aware that she was systematically dismantled in s published article?
 
[emoji849]

If you even knew what was going on, that might be relevant.

I mean... do you even know why she’s not considered an expert? Are you aware that she was systematically dismantled in s published article?

The article actually avoided the substance of her work. It was a personal smear.
 
The article actually avoided the substance of her work. It was a personal smear.

The article was quite pointed at discussing the substance...err...LACK of substance in her work.

But the point is that PoS doesn’t know anything about it.
 
The article was quite pointed at discussing the substance...err...LACK of substance in her work.

But the point is that PoS doesn’t know anything about it.

No. They attacked her credentials and (snicker) her readership, but they avoided most substance because that's where she had humiliated them.
 
No. They attacked her credentials and (snicker) her readership, but they avoided most substance because that's where she had humiliated them.

They pointed out she HAS no substance

Not. One. Published. Study. On. Polar. Bears.
 
They pointed out she HAS no substance

Not. One. Published. Study. On. Polar. Bears.

To which the appropriate reply is: so what? Their entire critique was guildhall credentialism, eliding the fact that she was right and they were wrong.
 
The only thing "dead" is the professional credibility of Crockford's critics.

You mean the ones who collect the data that she relies on to ‘prove’ them wrong?

She’s a joke in all scientific circles except the politically motivated denier crowd.
 
You mean the ones who collect the data that she relies on to ‘prove’ them wrong?

She’s a joke in all scientific circles except the politically motivated denier crowd.

Where they were wrong was not in counting, but in predicting catastrophic population decline, which is the opposite of what happened.
 
Where they were wrong was not in counting, but in predicting catastrophic population decline, which is the opposite of what happened.

No- no one knows if there’s a population decline, and the decline is linked to dropping sea ice, which may not have hit the tipping point.

d616f361b42b60bf6897f8f12c172d6c.jpg


But your idiot blogger says populations are fine, and you lap it up like the denier you are.
 
No- no one knows if there’s a population decline, and the decline is linked to dropping sea ice, which may not have hit the tipping point.

d616f361b42b60bf6897f8f12c172d6c.jpg


But your idiot blogger says populations are fine, and you lap it up like the denier you are.

The "experts" predicted catastrophic population decline. What actually happened is the opposite. Those same "experts" who used to ostentatiously feature polar bear population counts, now say they can't do that. Why? Because to cite numbers would expose them as the fools they are.
 
The "experts" predicted catastrophic population decline. What actually happened is the opposite. Those same "experts" who used to ostentatiously feature polar bear population counts, now say they can't do that. Why? Because to cite numbers would expose them as the fools they are.

Yes, we know.

It’s a giant global conspiracy, and only non-expert bloggers paid by Heartland and oil companies are correct. [emoji849]
 
Yes, we know.

It’s a giant global conspiracy, and only non-expert bloggers paid by Heartland and oil companies are correct. [emoji849]

No, there's no conspiracy; her opponents would probably look less like fools if there were. There are only embarrassed academics who have painted themselves into a corner and can't find their way out without recanting and apologizing.
 
No, there's no conspiracy; her opponents would probably look less like fools if there were. There are only embarrassed academics who have painted themselves into a corner and can't find their way out without recanting and apologizing.

Cool story bro
 
No- no one knows if there’s a population decline, and the decline is linked to dropping sea ice, which may not have hit the tipping point.

d616f361b42b60bf6897f8f12c172d6c.jpg


But your idiot blogger says populations are fine, and you lap it up like the denier you are.

According to your own graphic the polar bear population is stable, with 2 regions experiencing a rise. Way to go in contradicting yourself. :lamo
 
[h=2]Polar bear spotted on Bear Island (Barents Sea) this winter for the first time in 8 years[/h]Posted on July 31, 2019 | Comments Offon Polar bear spotted on Bear Island (Barents Sea) this winter for the first time in 8 years
A polar bear was spotted this year on Bear Island (Bjørnøya) in the southern Barents Sea on 8 March by the crew at the Meteorological Station. The last time these workers had seen a polar bear was 2011 but this year extensive Barents Sea ice literally brought a bear to their doorstep, similar to the way that sea ice brings bears to southern Labrador and Newfoundland in late winter and spring.
bear-island-8-march-2019_first-bear-seen-by-meteorological-institute-station-crews-since-2011_bjc3b8rnc3b8ya-meteorological-station-photo.jpg

After below-average ice cover around Svalbard for most of the winter months of January and February, by early March the ice had expanded so far to the south it reached Bjørnøya. It was the kind of ice that hadn’t been seen in decades and almost immediately, a polar bear was spotted on shore. Given the length of time that the ice surrounding the island persisted, it is likely more bears came ashore but were not seen: the Meteorological Station at the north end of the island is the only place that people live over the winter (see maps below).
Continue reading
 
[h=2]USA finally updates Endangered Species Act after 45 years & the decision is final[/h]Posted on August 12, 2019 | Comments Offon USA finally updates Endangered Species Act after 45 years & the decision is final
Just out this morning:
Today, U.S. Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt unveiled improvements to the implementing regulations of the ESA designed to increase transparency and effectiveness and bring the administration of the Act into the 21st century.” USFWS Press Release, 12 August 2019.
Although much hue-and-cry will be written by conservation organizations and the media (here is one), I am providing for easy reference here links to the original press releases and documents issued this morning by the Department of the Interior and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. I am also providing pdf copies of the official documents to appear shortly in the Federal Register and quote the above USFWS press release in full.
polar_bear_resting_but_alert_original-usfws.jpg

It remains to be seen whether polar bears or other Arctic species of interest to me and readers of this blog will be affected. The new changes affect both the listing and delisting process as well as designation of critical habitat.
Continue reading



 
Back
Top Bottom