fayfreethinkers.com

This week, the UK Daily Mail published photos of polar bears stranded on ice floes in the Arctic.


Determined to deny the existence of global warming, Rush Limbaugh said on Friday that the bears were “just playing around…just like your cat goes to its litter box”:

This whole thing is totally misleading. They’re not even stranded on an ice floe that’s broken apart. They’re just out there just playing around. They’re just out there. You know, just like your cat goes to its litter box. When’s the last time your cat got stranded in its litter box? Just like your pit bull attacks and kills the neighbor’s baby horse, whatever, I mean these things happen. It’s called nature.

This isn’t “nature.” It’s human-induced global warming. In recent months, scientists have found that:

– Polar bears “are drowning because climate change is melting the Arctic ice shelf. Researchers were startled to find bears having to swim up to 60 miles across open sea to find food. They are being forced into the long voyages because the ice floes from which they feed are melting, becoming smaller and drifting farther apart.”

Read the rest here.

DOUG
And how would Limbaugh have any way of knowing what the bears are doing just from seeing this picture?

Have you noticed that the declining world polar bear population claim is pure conjecture, and not supported by any reliable survey? The claim seems to be based on anecdotal evidence. The main threat seems to be, not global warming, but over-harvesting by Innuits, according to the stuff I've seen.

The best info I could find came out a couple months ago: Polar bears: The current facts I seems biased - it notes reductions in population but doesn't acknowlege increases! They frame it as "reduced" or "not reduced." Duh. Assuming "not reduced" is a euphamism for "increased" (since it is unlikely to have exactly the same population as historic comparison), the bottom line is: Of thirteen known Canadian Polar Bear populations, 6 are increasing, 6 are declining, and one is unknown due to lack of data.

Notice that most alarmists (for good reason apparently) do not depend on historical data for their polar bear qua endangered species claim. They use predictions of polar bear populations. Predictions made, of course, by global warming alarmists.

Hogeye wrote:Have you noticed that the declining world polar bear population claim is pure conjecture, and not supported by any reliable survey?

DOUG
No, I have noticed that the claim is based on facts.

Hogeye wrote:The claim seems to be based on anecdotal evidence. The main threat seems to be, not global warming, but over-harvesting by Innuits, according to the stuff I've seen.

DOUG
You didn't see your own source that you cited above?

Hogeye wrote: The best info I could find came out a couple months ago: Polar bears: The current facts I seems biased - it notes reductions in population but doesn't acknowlege increases! They frame it as "reduced" or "not reduced." Duh.

DOUG
Oh, so when a population is not reduced we ASSUME it is increasing and not just remaining stable? You should not make that assumption. Your own source estimates that of the 13 populations, TWO are estimated to probably increase in size. The rest are either estimated to be decreasing or said to remain stable, with one "data deficient."

Hogeye wrote:Assuming "not reduced" is a euphamism for "increased" (since it is unlikely to have exactly the same population as historic comparison), the bottom line is: Of thirteen known Canadian Polar Bear populations, 6 are increasing, 6 are declining, and one is unknown due to lack of data.

Your source says:

To summarize the above table:
Of the 13 Canadian polar bear populations, the current trends for the 11 populations not known to be severely reduced from historic levels are:
five populations declining,
five populations stable and
one population is data deficient.
In the next 10 years, five polar bear populations have an estimated high/very high risk of decline, six have a low/very low risk and there is currently no estimate for two populations.

DOUG
You are importing an "increase" where the source says "stable"--an unwise assumption, as explained above.

And what does your source have as the first threat listed for polar bears?

Threats

The main threats to the continued survival of polar bear populations are:
Global warming (especially the melting of sea ice, and changes to marine food supply and availability);

DOUG
So why do you say

Hogeye wrote:The main threat seems to be, not global warming, but over-harvesting by Innuits, according to the stuff I've seen.

Your source lists global warming as #1 on the list of threats, but it does NOT say that over-hunting (which is listed) is a greater threat.

And note, it DOES say, contrary to your own claim, that global warming IS a threat to polar bears.

So once again does a source you cite state the opposite of what you claim as your own thesis? I would appear so.

The source I cited does give "over-hunting" as a major cause of decline.

A study that avoids the use of the word "increasing" in its survey of population counts, calling it "not reduced" is very suspicious. Obviously they have an agenda in their framing. It seems reasonable to switch to non-biased framing and use the term "increased."

The study gives, from past population counts, 6 habitats where population in reduced, 6 where it increased, and one undetermined. These are based on actual surveys. The estimation, the prediction they give without basis or rationale, is that only two will increase in the future. Another indication of bias?

Note that the summary Doug quotes is not from the actual study (whice used the euphemism "not reduced" probably to mean increased). The summary was written by some "Save the Polar Bear" guy, who chooses to interpret "not reduced" as "stable." Now, of course, neither me nor the Save the Polar Bear guy know exactly what the report writers meant by "not reduced." Literally it means stable or increasing. Due to the bias clues mentioned, I suspect that it most likely means "increasing."

It would be interesting to find the original 190 page report. Who knows - maybe the Save the Polar Bear writer is the culprit for the bias. Maybe they did use "increased" in the original report.

Hogeye wrote:The source I cited does give "over-hunting" as a major cause of decline.

Yes, I said that.

Hogeye wrote:A study that avoids the use of the word "increasing" in its survey of population counts, calling it "not reduced" is very suspicious. Obviously they have an agenda in their framing. It seems reasonable to switch to non-biased framing and use the term "increased."

Maybe a better interpretation is that the population is not getting lowered but is also not increasing. How about that?

Hogeye wrote:The study gives, from past population counts, 6 habitats where population in reduced, 6 where it increased, and one undetermined.

NONE were reported increased. They are categorized as not reduced. You are making an assumption that is beneficial to your position and then putting words in their mouths. That does not help your case, to make things up.

Hogeye wrote:These are based on actual surveys. The estimation, the prediction they give without basis or rationale, is that only two will increase in the future. Another indication of bias?

And you claim they have no basis for their estimation because..? Sounds like you just want to ignore the research and/or put words in where they do not exist.

Hogeye wrote:Note that the summary Doug quotes is not from the actual study (whice used the euphemism "not reduced" probably to mean increased).

The summary I quote? YOU cited it! AND you called it "The best info I could find."

Hogeye wrote:The summary was written by some "Save the Polar Bear" guy, who chooses to interpret "not reduced" as "stable." Now, of course, neither me nor the Save the Polar Bear guy know exactly what the report writers meant by "not reduced." Literally it means stable or increasing. Due to the bias clues mentioned, I suspect that it most likely means "increasing."

a. If you don't know what is meant by "not reduced," why do you assume it means "increased"?
b. The chart I cite says:

(extracted from IUCN 2006, Polar Bear Specialist Group Proceedings from 2005 meeting). Much of the data in the IUCN Proceedings were provided by the Government of Nunavut which participated fully in the production of the status report.

That sounds like it is not just paraphrasing and twisting words, as you are doing.
c. "Stable" is in the column of projections. The actual counts show no populations increasing.

Doug wrote:NONE were reported increased. They are categorized as not reduced. You are making an assumption that is beneficial to your position and then putting words in their mouths.

Right - I'm am taking into account their obvious bias, and adjusting accordingly. Instead of taking symmetrical categories (reduced, approx the same, increased) they telegraphed their bias by using "reduced" and "not reduced." I'm compensating for that. Bottom line: Just as I cannot be sure the 6 populations in question increased, you cannot be sure they didn't. The claim that the polar bear population is decreasing worldwide is unsubstantiated. Even those who count them admit they really don't know how many there are - the suckers are hard to spot from airplanes or otherwise locate.

Doug wrote:And you claim they have no basis for their estimation because..?

I made no such claim. I did claim that they gave no basis for their estimation. This estimation is not an actual population count, and should not be construed as such.

Doug wrote:The summary I quote? YOU cited it!

Yes, while pointing out how bad and biased it was. Just because I cite something doesn't mean I endorse it. In this case, I had to cull the facts out from the propaganda. Apparently for polar bear population info, there is a derth of reliable information. Not surprising, since it has been politicized so much. Politicization makes for bad science, whether you're talking about euthanasia, cancer cures, or global warming.

I agree that the chart is "extracted from IUCN 2006," but the summary was by the Save the Polar Bears guy. The chart does not claim that five populations were stable - on the contrary it says that they were "not reduced." The Save the Polar Bears guy is the one who erroneously assumes they were stable rather than increasing. He's the one you quoted summarizing the table.

Doug wrote:"Stable" is in the column of projections.

Right; not in the column of actual counts. "Stable" is a mere projection, one with unknown basis.

Doug wrote:The actual counts show no populations increasing.

False; the actual counts were reported as "not reduced." So they might be increasing - we don't know because of their biased reporting categorization which "censored" the increasing category by lumping it in with about the same in thier laughable "not reduced" category.

Doug wrote:NONE were reported increased. They are categorized as not reduced. You are making an assumption that is beneficial to your position and then putting words in their mouths.

Hogeye wrote:Right - I'm am taking into account their obvious bias, and adjusting accordingly.

You are assuming it's biased because you don't like what they are saying.

Hogeye wrote:Instead of taking symmetrical categories (reduced, approx the same, increased) they telegraphed their bias by using "reduced" and "not reduced." I'm compensating for that.

You are committing the fallacy of appeal to ignorance. You don't know whether there is a bias, so you conclude there is one. And so you then put words in their mouths. That's deliberate distortion.

Hogeye wrote:Bottom line: Just as I cannot be sure the 6 populations in question increased, you cannot be sure they didn't.

The report was first cited BY YOU and you called it "The best info I could find." But the report makes specific statements. Just because you don't like what it says, after YOU CITED IT, don't complain about bias without any evidence of bias and then change the statements in the report to "compensate."

Doug wrote: You are committing the fallacy of appeal to ignorance. You don't know whether there is a bias, so you conclude there is one. And so you then put words in their mouths. That's deliberate distortion.

DAR
Doug is so polite.

Doug is very polite - and thorough - which is why I am happy to let HIM (and Darrel) deal with Hogeye. If the Inuit are "over harvesting" polar bears when taking out the same number they always have, something else is reducing the populations so that the same number subtracted becomes "over harvesting". Polar bears who normally swim up to 50 miles in frigid waters drown when there are no ice floes within 50 miles (that's full adults, youngsters can't swim anything like 50 miles). You can "not reduce" a population for awhile by having enough babies to replace the drowning adolescents, but only as long as the adult females can continue to have babies. Then the population goes from "not reduced" to extinct in less than a decade.

Yes, Barbara, but there is no evidence that female polar bears won't continue to have babies. Your scenerio is sheer speculation. Furthermore, bears are omnivorous. There is no evidence that seals won't/aren't replaced by e.g. blueberries in the bear's diet, even if their habitat changes to land. Obviously polar bears adapted and survived in previous warm periods.

Doug wrote:You are assuming it's biased because you don't like what they are saying.

No, I concluded that the report is biased by the non-symmetrical manner of categorization. And I concluded that the article about the report is biased due to the erroneous assumption of the writer, who assumes populations were stable rather than increasing, even though the study said "not reduced" which allows for both.

Doug, if I had stated that the population of polar bears was definitely increasing, then I would have fallen for the appeal to ignorance fallacy. But I made clear from the gitgo that the increase was a hypothesis based on the article's clearly biased categorization. And at least twice I emphasized that we really do not know from the report. To wit:

Hogeye wrote: Polar bears: The current facts It seems biased - it notes reductions in population but doesn't acknowlege increases! They frame it as "reduced" or "not reduced." Duh. Assuming "not reduced" is a euphamism for "increased" (since it is unlikely to have exactly the same population as historic comparison), the bottom line is: Of thirteen known Canadian Polar Bear populations, 6 are increasing, 6 are declining, and one is unknown due to lack of data.

...
I'm compensating for that. Bottom line: Just as I cannot be sure the 6 populations in question increased, you cannot be sure they didn't.

...
the actual counts were reported as "not reduced." So they might be increasing - we don't know because of their biased reporting categorization which "censored" the increasing category by lumping it in with about the same in thier laughable "not reduced" category.

Neither you nor I know when the "not reduced" means stable and when it means increasing. Which makes the "study" almost useless. It appears to be an underhanded way to avoid acknowleging increases. What were the writers thinking? Did they really expect people not to notice the biased categorization? Were they trying to spin it to collect future research grants?

Adult polar bears come from adolescent polar bears. If adolescent polar bears drown, then there won't be any adult polar bears to have those babies once the current crop of adults die. Polar bears already eat whatever berries are available along the shorelines during the short arctic summer, but berries are not high fat, high protein food. High fat, high protein foods are necessary for bears.

The adolescent polar bears that migrate inland don't drown. Bears stranded on icecaps make good propaganda pictures, but are mere anecdotal evidence - they don't tell us e.g. the percent of bear population that gets stranded. Most of them migrate inland, of course.

Barbara, I think you can be fairly confident that, since polar bears survived the Medieval Warm Period, which lasted for centuries, they'll survive the late 20th century warm period.

(Aren't you happy for the baby seals, who are now less likely to be eaten by the mean old bears? )

Doug wrote:You are assuming it's biased because you don't like what they are saying.

Hogeye wrote:...Doug, if I had stated that the population of polar bears was definitely increasing, then I would have fallen for the appeal to ignorance fallacy. But I made clear from the gitgo that the increase was a hypothesis based on the article's clearly biased categorization. And at least twice I emphasized that we really do not know from the report.

Oh? See what you have written:

Doug wrote:NONE were reported increased. They are categorized as not reduced. You are making an assumption that is beneficial to your position and then putting words in their mouths.

Hogeye wrote:Right...

Hey, you can be honest. Who said you can't!?

Polar bears evolved to live off the seal population (which is having it's own problems with the ice melting, since hiding under the ice - the momma seal makes an airhole for the baby - is how seal young survive the many things, including people, out to kill them) and their habitat is totally coastal arctic. They need a very high fat diet (for example, polar bear milk is 40% fat, compared to human milk of 4% fat) to survive. The worst feeding time for the polar bear is the summer when the ice melts and they have to scavenge the shorelines for the low-fat, low-protein berries, eggs, and shellfish available that time of year. If the bears move inland, their best prey (closest to the protein and fat content and easiest to catch) is humans, and they will be slaughtered if they make that change in their diets. Either way, global warming means polar bears become extinct in the wild.

Inuit Say Global Warming Destroying Their Way of Life

http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/020907EB.shtml

"A delegation of Inuit is to travel to Washington, DC, to provide
first-hand testimony of how global warming is destroying their way of life,
and to accuse the Bush administration of undermining their human rights."

Last time it warmed, the Vikings came. This time, a free trip to Washington! Do the wise Inuit scientists know whether the warming is mainly natural like the MWP? Is this just a photo op for alarmists?