Extreme weather

[faberryman]

The Myth That the Polar Bear Population Is Declining
The story of a resurgent polar bear population deserves to be told and applauded.
Monday, September 9, 2019
Quote: "Data from conservation groups and the government show that the polar bear population is roughly five times what it was in the 1950s and three or four times what it was in the 1970s when polar bears became protected under international treaty.

In fact, though polar bears were placed under the protection of the Endangered Species Act in 2008 over concerns that its Arctic hunting grounds were being reduced by a warming climate, the polar bear population has been stable for the last three decades."


https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-polar-bear-population-is-declining/

So according to the author, what will the effect of climate change be on the polar bear population, if any, at the turn of the century?

[Alan Klein]

So according to the author, what will the effect of climate change be on the polar bear population, if any, at the turn of the century?

I'd be more concerned about how the human race will be doing around the turn of the century.   I'm sure the bears will be fine.

[faberryman]

I'd be more concerned about how the human race will be doing around the turn of the century.   I'm sure the bears will be fine.

You are not very good at hiding the fact that you are not answering the question. But it comes as no great surprise to anyone around here.

[Alan Klein]

You are not very good at hiding the fact that you are not answering the question. But it comes as no great surprise to anyone around here.

I have no idea what the author thinks about the bear population around the turn of the century.  My view is they'll be fine.  I'd be more concerned with how we'll be doing next year because of Covid 19. 

[faberryman]

I have no idea what the author thinks about the bear population around the turn of the century.

Yeah, actually reading the articles you link to is kind of burdensome.

[LesPalenik]

I have no idea what the author thinks about the bear population around the turn of the century.  My view is they'll be fine.  I'd be more concerned with how we'll be doing next year because of Covid 19.

If people kept the same social distancing as the bears, Covid-19 wouldn't be a problem.

[Alan Klein]

Yeah, actually reading the articles you link to is kind of burdensome.

Frank,  I read the article again.  It says nothing about what's going to happen at the turn of the century.  It does say that the polar bears are doing great, have expanded their numbers.  Maybe another read would help you. https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-polar-bear-population-is-declining/

[faberryman]

Frank,  I read the article again.  It says nothing about what's going to happen at the turn of the century.  It does say that the polar bears are doing great, have expanded their numbers.  Maybe another read would help you. https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-polar-bear-population-is-declining/

Exactly. It is irrelevant to the discussion of the effect of climate change on the polar bear.

[Alan Klein]

Exactly. It is irrelevant to the discussion of the effect of climate change on the polar bear.

You changed the goal posts.  The argument presented for year since the climate change debate started was that polar bears were already decreasing in population due to global warming.  That's false.  It's lies and hysteria like this that make thinking people doubt the whole argument. 

[LesPalenik]

Can polar bears contract an infectious disease?

[TechTalk]

I don't expect you to reply because...

Because I'm wholly unimpressed by your assertions...

However, as a result of my general interest in science and my great respect for the 'methodology of science', I began doing internet searches to find answers to some puzzling issues that were never raised during the media interviews of climate scientists.

there are many issues which caused me to change my mind as a result of my own investigations.

and completely underwhelmed by your efforts and findings as a scientific investigator from the University of Google when compared to actual scientists working for years in their fields.

*As an aside, to enhance your credibility, you might want to focus more of your "investigations" on the voluminous reams of data scientists have collected rather than "media interviews of climate scientists" if you intend to undermine their credibility or findings. There are a great many scientists and researchers around the world contributing to the field; few of them do media interviews.

because it's clear I have successfully debunked...

Debunked what? I wrote that science has always had to contend with the same issues that you point to as problematic for climate scientists.

your alarmists arguments

What arguments? I never presented any scientific findings or conclusions. Again, I wrote that science has has always engaged with "enormous complexity", "numerous influencing factors", "chaotic nature", "factors which are either unknown or not sufficiently understood", and most of all uncertainty. If that's what you consider to be "alarmists arguments", so be it.

and it must be very upsetting for you.   

I'm feeling cool, calm, and collected, but your concern is appreciated as always. Although I was a bit disgusted and disappointed by your desire to bolster your argument by attempting to diminish the reputation for honest science and a lifetime of work by a long deceased but distinguished and respected scientist with an isolated quote from an article in the 1980s, which you presented without context from an article in the 90s which ignored the original context in which he was discussing his frustration and distaste for "soundbite science and journalism by pointing out that nobody gets enough time in the media either to cover all the caveats in depth, (i.e., "being honest") or to present all the plausible threats (i.e., "being effective")" and without presenting his reply to the article's author who initially falsely embellished, then retracted, then purposely distorted the original context in his usage of the quote. I understand that you likely will defend the way in which you used it until your last breath and will enjoy the endless repetition of it, but it does you no good service. This type of tactic generally harms the practitioner more than the target in the long run.

[Alan Klein]

Because I'm wholly unimpressed by your assertions...

and completely underwhelmed by your efforts and findings as a scientific investigator from the University of Google when compared to actual scientists working for years in their fields.

*As an aside, to enhance your credibility, you might want to focus more of your "investigations" on the voluminous reams of data scientists have collected rather than "media interviews of climate scientists" if you intend to undermine their credibility or findings. There are a great many scientists and researchers around the world contributing to the field; few of them do media interviews.

Debunked what? I wrote that science has always had to contend with the same issues that you point to as problematic for climate scientists.

What arguments? I never presented any scientific findings or conclusions. Again, I wrote that science has has always engaged with "enormous complexity", "numerous influencing factors", "chaotic nature", "factors which are either unknown or not sufficiently understood", and most of all uncertainty. If that's what you consider to be "alarmists arguments", so be it.

I'm feeling cool, calm, and collected, but your concern is appreciated as always. Although I was a bit disgusted and disappointed by your desire to bolster your argument by attempting to diminish the reputation for honest science and a lifetime of work by a long deceased but distinguished and respected scientist with an isolated quote from an article in the 1980s, which you presented without context from an article in the 90s which ignored the original context in which he was discussing his frustration and distaste for "soundbite science and journalism by pointing out that nobody gets enough time in the media either to cover all the caveats in depth, (i.e., "being honest") or to present all the plausible threats (i.e., "being effective")" and without presenting his reply to the article's author who initially falsely embellished, then retracted, then purposely distorted the original context in his usage of the quote. I understand that you likely will defend the way in which you used it until your last breath and will enjoy the endless repetition of it, but it does you no good service. This type of tactic generally harms the practitioner more than the target in the long run.

You presented no facts in your counter-argument against Ray's factual points and statistics, only insults.  You could do better than that.

[Ray]

*As an aside, to enhance your credibility, you might want to focus more of your "investigations" on the voluminous reams of data scientists have collected rather than "media interviews of climate scientists" if you intend to undermine their credibility or findings. There are a great many scientists and researchers around the world contributing to the field; few of them do media interviews.

Enhancing my credibility is not my main concern. I'm not a climatologist and do not need to defend my reputation, as Michael Mann did, by taking a critic of his research to court for defamation.

You seem to have misunderstood my position. I no longer rely upon media reports for information about climate issues, although the media, and the interviews of certain scientists, did spark my interest in the subject many years ago.

As I've tried to explain, as a result of my own investigations using the internet, which was initially created so scientists could share their research and avoid unnecessary duplication, it became clear to me that the media was presenting a very biased and one-sided view of the situation.

This is perhaps not surprising. The media has a tendency to focus on bad news because bad news tends to grab people's attention more than good news, and the media are businesses that strive for popularity in order to make a profit, or continue to get government support.

My sources of information on the internet are research articles available through Google Scholar, as well as government sponsored agencies such as BOM, NOAA, and the IPCC.

Everything I know about climate is from scientists working in the field of climatology, either directly or indirectly. I try to consider all points of view or interpretations of the data, which includes the interpretations of extreme skeptics as well as extreme alarmists, and those in between. Got it? 

[TechTalk]

You presented no facts in your counter-argument against Ray's factual points and statistics, only insults.  You could do better than that.

I wasn't making a counterargument. I have no interest in engaging in a rambling discussion of ocean pH levels or a game of my facts are better than your facts, thanks.

All of my responses have been addressed to the broader topic of whether or not science has always had to contend with the same issues that he points to as problematic for climate scientists. Along the lines of my most recent statements which you quoted in your reply...

"Debunked what? I wrote that science has always had to contend with the same issues that you point to as problematic for climate scientists." or "What arguments? I never presented any scientific findings or conclusions. Again, I wrote that science has has always engaged with "enormous complexity", "numerous influencing factors", "chaotic nature", "factors which are either unknown or not sufficiently understood", and most of all uncertainty. If that's what you consider to be "alarmists arguments", so be it."

My most recent reply was largely addressing the last line of his reply to me as shown below.

I don't expect you to reply because it's clear I have successfully debunked your alarmists arguments, and it must be very upsetting for you.   

In addition, I included a response to a quote that I felt was misleading and distorted by lack of any context or proper context and which by implication disparaged the lifelong career and honesty of a dedicated and respected scientist who has long since deceased. I did begin with an honest opinion of his scientific investigations relative to those of career scientists.

If you view the entirety of my reply as "only insults" that's naturally up to you.

[Ray]

All of my responses have been addressed to the broader topic of whether or not science has always had to contend with the same issues that he points to as problematic for climate scientists.

The answer is obviously 'no'. The complexity and chaotic nature of climate has always existed, and ancient civilizations were aware of the differences of climate in different regions, but only recently have the causes and drivers of changes in climate been investigated as a major scientific discipline, using numerous other related disciplines and, of course, relying greatly on computer modelling.

Not all issues addressed by science are equally complex. For example, during the times of Galileo, Aristotle's theory that objects fall at a speed proportional to their mass, was generally accepted as true. It is claimed that Galileo 'falsified' this theory by dropping two objects of different weight from the leaning Tower of Pisa, and observing that they both landed on the ground at the same time.

This process of falsification is a very significant part of the 'methodology of science', in order for a high degree of certainty to be achieved. All the products of science which we use with confidence, rely upon this procedure of setting up experiments which can either confirm or falsify the scientific theories used to produce the products.

Are you listening, Greta Thunberg? 

[TechTalk]

Are you listening, Greta Thunberg? 

There is no reason for her to listen to your opinions. She, like everyone else, has access to information from actual scientists working in the field.

Take Dr. Jenkins as an example of where to look for expert opinion and where not... https://undsci.berkeley.edu/us101/balance

[Alan Klein]

There is no reason for her to listen to your opinions. She, like everyone else, has access to information from actual scientists working in the field.

Take Dr. Jenkins as an example of where to look for expert opinion and where not... https://undsci.berkeley.edu/us101/balance

Thinking of depending on experts reminds me of a quotation:


"I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University."

William F. Buckley, Jr.

[TechTalk]

Thinking of depending on experts reminds me of a quotation:


"I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University."

William F. Buckley, Jr.

"I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to William F. Buckley, Jr."

Me

[TechTalk]

Got it? 

Oh yeah. I could see where you were coming from and where you were heading from the beginning; as if, you were driving a flaming chariot.

[Alan Klein]

"I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to William F. Buckley, Jr."

Me

Well, I agree with that.