Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Environment

Environment Environmental Politics Forum - Environmental issues, global warming, pollution, and proposals


Thanks Tree39Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 17th, 2016, 10:32 AM   #61
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 56,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by coke View Post
Here is one let me know if you need any more shock articles on the Polar Bear. Furthermore what the hell are you talking about a sub popultion for? Were talking about the species. Not a sub species, not a sub population. Also to make extinction claims then build the "sub population" straw man makes no sense. Either the species is going extinct or its not. The claims, as the one I just posted have been nothing but exaggerations intended to shock the public when the fact is the species as a whole is doing fine. Furthermore when you look at population studies there are several factors to consider. For instance, last year a massive amount of deer died in Illinois. The total was around 155,000.00. We have to do something!! Oh, wait that was the number harvested in hunting. See the below Salon article for an example of truth twisting.



http://www.salon.com/2014/11/18/alas...alarming_rate/
I'm slow.

What truth was twisted in the Salon article?
imaginethat is offline  
Old September 17th, 2016, 10:47 AM   #62
Senior Member
 
baloney_detector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 4,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by coke View Post
Here is one let me know if you need any more shock articles on the Polar Bear. Furthermore what the hell are you talking about a sub popultion for? Were talking about the species. Not a sub species, not a sub population. Also to make extinction claims then build the "sub population" straw man makes no sense. Either the species is going extinct or its not. The claims, as the one I just posted have been nothing but exaggerations intended to shock the public when the fact is the species as a whole is doing fine. Furthermore when you look at population studies there are several factors to consider. For instance, last year a massive amount of deer died in Illinois. The total was around 155,000.00. We have to do something!! Oh, wait that was the number harvested in hunting. See the below Salon article for an example of truth twisting.



http://www.salon.com/2014/11/18/alas...alarming_rate/
Once again, those alleged "outright lies" happen to be...?

I'm not going to bother with your distractions until you adequately answer this question.

And if you cannot adequately answer this question, then you are apparently making a claim that you do not have any evidence to support.


Moreover, here is one summary concerning the uncertainty of historic polar bear population estimates:

Quote:

The Great Polar Bear Population Puzzle

Terence P. Jeffrey | Wednesday May 21, 2008 9:13 AM


Before anybody tries to change the world to save polar bears, which the Department of Interior listed as “threatened” last week, somebody should figure out how many polar bears there are.

When the world’s foremost polar bear scientists gathered in Alaska in 1965 for their first international meeting, they confronted a cold fact: They did not know.

Edward Carlson, then-chief of wildlife research at the U.S. Department of Interior, opened the session by quoting a speech by Sen. E.L. “Bob” Bartlett, D-Alaska, who hosted the conference.

“I am informed that at the present time there are no accurate or reliable figures available on the total world polar bear population or on the size of the annual kill,” Bartlett had said.

The Canadian delegation, according to the meeting’s proceedings, summarized the varying extant estimates.

“Scott and others (1959) concluded that about 2,000 to 2,500 polar bears existed near the Alaskan coast,” said the Canadians. “By extrapolation, they arrived at a total polar bear population of 17,000 to 19,000 animals. Vspensky (1961) estimated the world polar bear population at 5,000 to 8,000 animals. Harington (1964) … believes the world polar bear population is well over 10,000.”

That was state-of-the-art polar-bear science four decades ago.

In 1968, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), following up on the Alaska meeting, convened the “first official meeting” of its global Polar Bear Specialist Group. “Top on the list of research priorities is the urgent need for more precise knowledge about the size of the world’s polar bear population,” said a report on the meeting in the IUCN Bulletin.

In 1970, after IUCN’s second global polar bear meeting, the scientists said in a statement that “insufficient data were presented on which to base precise estimates on the abundance of the species.”

In 1972, they said, “No estimate of the total bear population was made by the meeting, but bears in some regions were reported as abundant and in certain regions as needing greater protection.”

In 1993, their press release noted, “The state of knowledge of individual subpopulations ranges from good to almost nothing.” Then it said that “the world population of polar bears was thought to be between about 21,000 and 28,000.”

In other words, it “was thought” in 1993 that the lower range for the polar bear population was 2,000 bears greater than the upper range estimated in 1959.

In 1997, the experts lifted the lower range by 1,000 bears and dropped the upper range by 1,000. “In summary,” said their release, “the world population of polar bears was thought to be between about 22,000 and 27,000.”

In 2001, they restated the same lower-range estimate: “The current minimum estimate of the total number of polar bears occupying the 20 distinct populations in the circumpolar Arctic is 22,000.”

At their 2005 meeting, the last with published proceedings, the experts had an interesting discussion about what kinds of estimates should be including in a “status” table describing the polar bear population.

“There was considerable debate and disagreement about the use of point estimates for subpopulations that we really do not know much about,” said the proceedings.

“There was further discussion and some agreement that there should be separate columns for estimates based on science and estimates based on something else,” it said.

“Something else”? What “something” other than science might a polar bear scientist be tempted to use in estimating the polar bear population?

Well, “TEK” for one. “There was some confusion as to how the estimates based on TEK were derived,” said the proceedings.

Now, “TEK” may look like an acronym for something technical — but it isn’t. It is “traditional ecological knowledge” — or what local people say about polar bears. In some cases, researchers run “simulations based on the minimum size necessary to support local knowledge of subpopulation trends,” said the proceedings, noting that estimates like these “have unknown and in most case inestimable errors.”

In the end, the scientists wisely punted on presenting a conclusion about the polar-bear population trend for six of the 19 subpopulations they now believe exist, saying the data was “deficient” in these areas. “No subpopulation inventories have been conducted in East Greenland and therefore the size of the population is not known,” said their population “status table,” for example.

However, the report did say: “The total number of polar bears worldwide is estimated to be 20,000-25,000.”

Almost 50 years ago, polar bear scientists first estimated there might be as many as 19,000 polar bears. Three years ago, they estimated there might be as few as 20,000.

...


The Great Polar Bear Population Puzzle | Human Events

And, here is another summary concerning the uncertainty of historic polar bear population estimates:

Quote:

Magic Number: A sketchy "fact" about polar bears keeps going ... and going ... and going

By PETER DYKSTRA

(Last revised July 23, 2008)


When Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced the listing of the polar bear as a threatened species in May, the political trench warfare over global warming flared up anew.

Environmental groups professed surprise that a reluctant Bush Administration acted at all. Global warming deniers said the decision was ludicrous. They cited a polar bear population — a five-fold increase since the 1970s, a doubling since the 1950s, a quadrupling since the 1960s.

After wading through about thirty such references from readers of our CNN blog and hearing them from multiple radio and TV pundits, I got to thinking: Are any of these numbers true? And where do they come from? I embarked on a global quest, traveling by phone, email and Google, to find the truth.

My first stop was Bjorn Lomborg's 2007 book, Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming." Lomborg, the Danish economist whose work provides a torrent of talking points for Conservative pundits, says there were "probably 5,000" polar bears in the 1960's.

The book's footnotes cryptically attribute the Number to "Krauss, 2006."

Lomborg confirmed for me that the "Krauss" in question is Clifford Krauss, a reporter for The New York Times, who wrote on May 27, 2006, about the conflict between polar bear protectors and trophy hunters: "Other experts see a healthier population. They note that there are more than 20,000 polar bears roaming the Arctic, compared to as few as 5,000 40 years ago."

Krauss, now a Houston-based correspondent for The Times, told me he couldn't recall the source of the 5,000 number, but said that he understood the number to be "widely accepted." Lomborg also emailed me a reference for another, different figure he said he'd discovered after the book's publication: A report from the Soviet Ministry of Agriculture's S.M. Uspensky, who surveyed nesting sites on a portion of Russian turf and extrapolated an Arctic-wide population of 5,000 to 8,000 in 1965 (See page 11 of the Proceedings of the First International Scientific Meeting on the Polar Bear in Fairbanks, AK.)

(Let us pause for a moment of irony: Critics of the polar bear decision, predominantly political Conservatives, are apparently placing their chips on a fact that traces its lineage back to two info sources that rarely make the conservative bibliography: The New York Times and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.)

Here's a quick tour of a few other reports of polar bear prosperity:

In a May 20 Los Angeles Times opinion piece, Jonah Goldberg took a whack at what he sees as quasi-religious overtones to conservation. Part of his backup? "Never mind that polar bears are in fact thriving — their numbers have quadrupled in the last 50 years."

James Taylor of the Heartland Institute cited a London Daily Telegraph article that "confirmed the ongoing polar bear population explosion" in a Sept 11, 2007, blog.

But the March 9, 2007, story that Taylor referenced actually makes no mention of global bear populations — quoting one scientist as observing strong growth in one local population, in Davis Strait; and another scientist reporting global warming-related declines in the local population in Hudson's Bay.

Taylor adds a new number into the mix from a March 26, 2008, posting at the Heartland site: "The global polar bear population has doubled since 1970, despite legal polar bear hunting."

A May 12 New York Post op-ed piece by S.T. Karnick introduces still another number — this time with a source:

"The world polar-bear population is at a modern high — and growing. Mitch Taylor, a polar-bear biologist with Canada's Federal Provincial Polar Bear Technical Committee, notes that the bears now number about 24,000 — up about 40 percent from 1974, when fears arose about the bear's ability to survive overhunting by Canadian Eskimos and aboriginals."

From James Delingpole, a Times of London blogger, similar numbers, but different dates. And no source. "In 1950, let us not forget, there were about 5,000 polar bears. Now there are 25,000."

When we get to the retail level, the Arctic Urban Myth turns truly funky. We blogged about the polar bear ruling on CNN's SciTechBlog, and about 30 of the 350 responses cited some variation of the number. Here are some examples:

"Common Sense: Who are we kidding. There were 5,000 bears in 1970 and now there are 26,000. Most populations are growing. This is obvious global warming politics."

"Jay Merr: The global population of polar bears is 22,000, about double what it was just four decades ago. The environmentalists have taken control of the government and global warming is the scam of the century."

"Gary: There are 5 times more polar bears now, than there was in 1960. Where is the problem?"

"PJ: Fact: the polar bear population is larger than in the 1970s up from 12,000 or less in 1960s to 25,000 today; might as well call white Americans 'threatened' their population is going down."

"PJ: They don't need protection at all, their population has increased more since the 1970s than the human population of any country on earth!"

But polar bear researchers say those old estimates were no better than guesses.

Steven Amstrup, who led the USGS research on the current status of polar bears, emailed me from the field: "How many bears were around then, we don't really know because the only studies of bears at that time were in their very early stages — people were just beginning to figure out how we might study animals scattered over the whole Arctic in difficult logistical situations. Some estimated that world population might have been as small as 5000 bears, but this was nothing more than a WAG. The scientific ability to estimate the sizes of polar bear populations has increased dramatically in recent years."

(Editor's note: "WAG" is scientific jargon for "Wild-Ass Guess.")

Andrew Derocher of the University of Alberta added, "I have seen the figure of 5,000 in the 1960/70s but it is impossible to give it any scientific credibility. No estimation of any population was attempted until the early 1970s and even then, this was done very crudely for perhaps 10% of the global population and the estimates were highly questionable."

Thor Larsen of Norway's University of Life Sciences was actively involved in bear research back then. He recalls "Most data on numbers from the late 1960s and early 1970s were indeed anecdotal, simply because proper research was lacking. As far as I can remember, we did stick to a world-wide 'guestimate' of 20-25,000 bears in these years."

Another veteran bear researcher, Ian Stirling, emailed me, "Any number given as an estimate of the total population at that time would simply have been a guess and, in all likelihood, 5,000 was almost certainly much too low."

These and other scientists agree that polar bear populations have, in all likelihood, increased in the past several decades, but not five-fold, and for reasons that have nothing to do with global warming. The Soviets, despite their horrendous environmental legacy on many issues, banned most polar bear hunting in 1956. Canada and the U.S. followed suit in the early 1970s — with limited exceptions for some native hunting, and permitted, high-priced trophy hunts. And a curtailment of some commercial seal hunting has sparked a seal population explosion — angering fishermen, but providing populations in eastern Canada and Greenland with plenty of polar bear chow, leading in turn to localized polar bear population growth in spite of the ice decline.

The scientists also caution that we still don't have a firm count on these mobile, remote, supremely camouflaged beasts.

All this uncertainty over the numbers — past and present — even gave some conservative bloggers pause.

Human Events editor Terry Jeffrey acknowledged the absolute uncertainty of polar bear numbers in a May 21 blog. Even so, isn't that reason to do nothing? he asked. "Before anybody tries to change the world to save polar bears ... somebody should figure out how many polar bears there are."

I hope this thoroughly clears things up.


Society of Environmental Journalists: SEJournal excerpts
Thanks from imaginethat

Last edited by baloney_detector; September 17th, 2016 at 10:51 AM.
baloney_detector is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Environment

Tags
big, lie



Thread Tools
Display Modes



Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.