Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Terror of the north on the brink

BRODIE FENLON

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 1:06 PM EST 29/12/07

Bush administration to decide within days if polar bear should be classified as threatened species ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. siren call from Canada writes: Sounds like a difficult call for the government, especially with their poor grasp of environmental issues and perceived hostility to first nations.

    '.... Ottawa is reviewing its own designation of the polar bear under the federal Species at Risk Act. Early in the new year, a committee will recommend to Environment Minister John Baird whether the bear, last assessed in 2002, should be upgraded from its current status as a species of 'special concern.'

    I wonder how many Liberals are on that committee? Someone to blame it on if it goes wrong, I guess. Don't the federal bureaucrats and our politicians, already on the payroll, form a committee on any topic anymore?

    Just listen to the science, Baird.
  2. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: This story relates that '... the population of polar bears has jumped to 2,100 animals from around 800 in the mid-1980s.'

    http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b839-b71a9e5df868&k=5287

    Which does not seem to indicate much of a problem.
  3. siren call from Canada writes: GlynnMhor, the National Post also reported that Jews in Iran were being forced to wear identifiable clothing. Jewish politicians in Iran refuted the story. Turns out the National Post was running an opinion piece written by the chief propagandist for the former Shah of Iran.

    The National Post was also sued by Reuters news service for re-writing their stories about Palestine. Seems the National Pest was regularly taking out words like 'Hamas' or 'Hezbollah' and inserting the word, 'terrorist group'

    I'll take my information with a little less salt from the G&M, rather than the sea of salt needed to believe the National Pest.

    NICE effort at derailing the thread and throwing out red herrings though.

    Gotta fight fight fight that global warming information.

    And who cares about Polar Bears?
    Or seals?
    Or people in the arctic, like the Inuit?
  4. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Here we are again and now the polar bears... as for taking less grain of salt from the Globe and Mail, this truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black!
  5. siren call from Canada writes: Jean Malice, I give up:
    Who/what is the kettle and who/what is the pot in your analogy?

    Or is it a metaphor?

    Or perhaps, a completely senseless last ditch effort from one who has put much time into denying anthropogenic global warming?
  6. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: For a story about polar bear populations, the actual population of polar bears would seem NOT to be a 'red herring'.

    Whatever you think the relevance of Iran, jews, Hamas, etc, is to polar bears is a mystery to anyone reading the thread, but I have the impression you want to try to say that you think the NP is fibbing or something. Here's a selection of other sources concerning overall bear populations (not just from studies involving some local subpopulations) that all say the bear population is on the rise.

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2007/01/16/polar-bear.html

    http://tinyurl.com/2k3v6v

    http://tinyurl.com/39olxs

    http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ask-the-experts/population/
  7. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: siren call from Canada writes: 'Jean Malice:
    Who/what is the kettle and who/what is the pot in your analogy?'

    I suspect she takes issue with the fact that you tell me I'm derailing the thread with bear population info, while you introduce jews, iranians, terrorists, and what all else into the discussion.

    As far as I am aware, no polar bears live where any of these people reside, so the term 'red herring' applies fairly well.
  8. siren call from Canada writes: The study by biologist Peacock, hired by the government of Nunavut, surveys the bears of Davis Inlet and the data looks good. Although the numbers look good, Peacock is cautious:

    'The study will wrap up later this year, but Peacock said that due to the amount of data collected, the final report is not expected until 2009.'

    Also apparently linked to this study:

    'But officials will soon be heading to communities that hunt from the Western Hudson Bay and Baffin Bay, and the Kane Basin polar bear populations.

    Awa says new information about the Greenland hunt and studies by the Canadian Wildlife Service have sparked concerns about the health of polar bear populations in those areas.

    He says it'll be up to the communities to decide whether hunting quotas there should be decreased.'
  9. siren call from Canada writes: GlynnMhor, you know perfectly well that you were deriding the information for coming from the G&M while suggesting National Pest was a more worthy source.

    I simply related the information about NP's middle east reporting policy and general veracity.

    Isn't it about time you introduced the hockey graph, Gore's mansion and the little ice age into this discussion?

  10. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: What can be discerned from the sometimes conflicting information is that while certain populations may be declining, the polar bear is, overall, in good shape.

    It does not provide a very good 'poster beastie' to be misused by the AGW panic-mongers. After all, even the issue of sea ice in the arctic ocean subtends perhaps 10% of the globe's surface area, and only some of that area suffers declining bear populations, what we're dealing with is local weather conditions, not global climate.
  11. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: siren call from Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor, you know perfectly well that you were deriding the information for coming from the G&M...'

    Suggesting there is contradicting information available is hardly 'deriding'. Moreover, given the wealth of such information, taking one and only source as 'gospel' would be foolish.

    'I simply related the information about NP's middle east reporting policy and general veracity.'

    To what purpose? The middle east can have no relevance to the bear issue.

    'Isn't it about time you introduced the hockey graph, Gore's mansion and the little ice age into this discussion?'

    And this is just more nonsense. Are you trying to be sarcastic? If so, you just seem ridiculous.

    Like I just said to Elief on another thread, serious people would take you more seriously if you were more serious yourself.
  12. martha stewart from Canada writes: Same old trick: 'Driving the American proposal are declines in some polar bear populations, notably in the western Hudson Bay area'

    This is the southernmost population in the world, the one most impacted by any warming - including past warm eras. It is the absolute worst case scenario, yet it is being used as an example for the whole population. Bait and switch.

    Most polar bear populations are thriving and at historic highs. This concern is based on what MIGHT happen. The potential ramifications of this listing are potentially enormous because GHG global warming will be the cause for their decline - if that happens.

    Googling 'taylor polar bear' takes one to some current Canadian polar bear information.
  13. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: martha stewart from Canada writes: 'This is the southernmost population in the world, the one most impacted by any warming - including past warm eras.'

    If you were up on your climate science, you would know that the polar regions are expected to experience the most dramatic changes.
  14. Open Mike from Vancouver, Canada writes: 'I imagine someone's going to try to test the water [by] trying to say that opening a power plant in Louisiana is jeopardizing the species in the Arctic because it's contributing to global warming.'

    LOL!!!!! A Bush administration official who, however out-of-the-mouths-of-babes unwittingly, has finally---finally!---understood the problem! Halle-freekin'-lujah! But given his boss's, um, ideas on the subject, this could cost the poor devil his job if he's not careful.

    Oh, yeah, polar bears. Well, as well as global warming, those pesky scientists have discovered that ambushing an animal at a great distance with a high-technology weapon which the animal can't match hasn't conferred manhood since since Wilma kicked Fred Flintstone's lazy butt out the door and Freddo tried to recoup virility points by hopefully lobbing his spear at a stegosaur. A spear, incidentally, would be a lot more sporting than a high-powered rifle, since it would bring the animal close enough to have a frank and fruitful exchange with the intrepid hero---who's flown all that way just to try to kill it---about who's actually tougher than who. Sorry about that, lads; just have to find those knightly qualities another way than standing hundreds of meters away chucking bullets into an animal that can't shoot back.

    Besides, whose bears are they, anyhow?
  15. CD W from Canada writes: Anyone been counting the soviet polar bears? Just wondering.
  16. garlick toast from Canada writes: this is a sport?
  17. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Siren Call, I hear you... the ambulance is coming for you! EOM
  18. evelyn robinson from Canada writes: Canada and Nunavit; hang your heads in shame. Greed and not concern for the polar bears is disgusting. I am thoroughly ashamed of anyone who wishes to support those who pay to kill these beautiful endanged animals.
  19. L Harder from Canada writes: The graph of sea ice minimums is very useful, showing a fairly steady decline over time. If this continues then we may lose some populations altogether.

    Bush's dilemma is because of his lack of credibility. If he had actually listened to the science and was seen to be doing something about global warming, then the political ramifications of this decision are non existent.

    What a disasterous legacy
  20. Andrew Wetzler from United States writes: As one of the conservationists who brought the petition to list the polar bear, I can assure you that the science here is rock solid. L Harder is right that you only have look at sea ice trends in the Arctic to see where the polar bear is headed. As for Mr. Vickery, who is quoted above, he is being, at best, misleading about the potential for politics to play a role in the U.S. government's decision. I just posted a blog entry explaining both these points in greater detail here: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/awetzler/hughvickeryneedstoget_a_cl.html
  21. Behind Space from Canada writes: It's a pity that the inuit etc will not be able to follow their traditional hunts etc, but they need to understand the problem of the declining populations...perhaps if we can explain to them that stopping now could help ensure their future generations will at least have polar bears around, if not allow their hunts to resume...
  22. Ian St. John from Canada writes: 'Andrew Wetzler from United States writes: As one of the conservationists who brought the petition to list the polar bear, I can assure you that the science here is rock solid.' However, we need to distinguish between 'endangered' and 'doomed'. 'L Harder is right that you only have look at sea ice trends in the Arctic to see where the polar bear is headed.' But this is somewhat myopic since it only tracks one change and not the entire ecosystem. Another reference shows that walruses have to stay on land as sea ice retreats and thus may become the 'alternate menu' to keep a portion of the population thriving. 'As for Mr. Vickery, who is quoted above, he is being, at best, misleading about the potential for politics to play a role in the U.S. government's decision.' Certainly it is a political decision since it isn't about the science but about whether we want to preserve them. A political decision, by definition. 'I just posted a blog entry explaining both these points in greater detail here: ' Andrew. G&M editing mangles urls with underscores since it takes them as an embedded editing mark for underscore. Converting such links with www.tinyurl.com is easy, reduces characters and avoids these problems.
  23. CD W from Canada writes: so has anyone still got around to counting the soviet polar bears? And I read that polar bears are hunted by inuit who claim a permanent neccesity to do so or they will lose their culture and have to sue someone for a cash payout.
  24. Jasper the Black Lab from Vancouver, Canada writes: Uh, Red Fox...Inuit and Ugly Americans shoot polar bears. It is explained in the article, if you can read.
  25. Andrew Wetzler from United States writes: Thanks for the info Ian, I've been wondering how to do that! As for your point about sea ice, the sad fact is that there is very little evidence that polar bears can survive in an environnent without significant sea ice coverage--in fact, polar bears are not found in places that do not have sea ice for much of the year.
  26. The Bubble from Canada writes: GlynMhor is unreal. What possible motive would he have to post like he does? To refute everything about global warming like he does is surreal. I suppose the Globe and Mail could be lying about everything but it's not in the best interests of it's owners to be a complete propoganda machine for the left, it has to generate advertising. If the Globe was lying, there would be an awful lot of legal actions because if all this global warming was just a hoax, it would be a bigger hoax than going into Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction. To characterize what the majority of peole think as a left wing hoodwink is simply surreal.
  27. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: The Bubble from Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor is unreal. What possible motive would he have to post like he does?'

    I dislike being lied to, and people really DO have the right to know the truth.
  28. Behind Space from Canada writes: The Bubble, it's easier for him to write here than to submit to a scientific journal. The peer-reviews would tear him apart.
  29. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Behind Space and his peeeeer reviewed dogma: if peer review itself was a proof of truth any scientific debate would have stopped a long time ago! grow up and inform yourself...

    'The peer review issue became fashionable among the small group identified by Wegman (43 climate scientists) because it appears they were able to control the process by peer reviewing each others work. This gave them ascendancy in climate science even though many of them were specialists in other areas.

    The assumption that peer review guarantees the authenticity of a work is foolish. As long as who is doing the peer review is kept secret it cannot be a trusted system. The fact people are afraid to point out problems underlines the competitive and confrontational nature of research today. It also underscores the smallness of the community involved and the potential for dominance by cliques. The other problem you must consider is all the papers rejected because they did not fit the views of a reviewer.(...)' T.B.
  30. Behind Space from Canada writes: Jean Malice and his fear of science, peer-reviews is something that separates science from things like internet blogs. Peer-reviews are not meant to prove anything, but the check for the contents of the publishings, whether the findings are valid, etc.

    But just for fun, where did you get your quote there?
  31. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Behind Space from Canada writes: 'It's a pity that the inuit etc will not be able to follow their traditional hunts etc, but they need to understand the problem of the declining populations...'

    In most of the Arctic, bear populations are on the increase. Plus of course much of the panic stems from the 2007 summer sea ice anomaly, which is unlikely to be repeated any time soon. As northern hemisphere temperatures catch up to the cooling of the southern one, we'll see arctic cooling.
  32. Behind Space from Canada writes: GlynnMhor, the earth is currently in one of the 30 year cooling cycles that you keep arguing about. Unfortunately, the current trends argue that the decreases are lower in magnitude than the increases.
  33. Behind Space from Canada writes: In any case GlynnMhor, I'll let others argue with you. You already proven yourself to have a complete misunderstanding of the global warming concept. It's a waste of my time to keep correcting you.
  34. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Behind Space, they were peer reviewed papers reeling against seafloor spreading and plate tectonics etc... I guess they must ALL be the truth. What a wonderful world where one thing and its contrary are equal truths! You are the one afraid of science since for you it is already settled and should not be ever un-settled! Please do not project your own guilt upon others... Funny how your so called majority consensus seems always sooo threatened by one or two posters opinion! If it truly was a consensus, not merely its ad nauseam self repeating in the press, who would care about our opinion? Your uneasiness betrays your fear of being proven wrong and just like many cowards you hope the quantity will outdo the quality of thinking! You very well know who the initials T.B. stand for Dr. Tim Ball who like any university graduate trying to publish his first paper knows very well where not offer a manuscript... But that you would not know: you have been told to attack names, not understand their thinking, good Pavlovian dog!
  35. Bill Needle from Canada writes: They taste real good. It will be a shame to see them absent from the NWT and Nunavut restaurant menus.
  36. evelyn robinson from Canada writes: The Nunavit government is not objecting because of the Inuit hunts of these animals for food; it is for the up to 25 thousand being paid to SPORT hunt these bears by Americans. An American decision would not affect the Inuit hunting polar bears in Canada. That is a Canadian jurisdiction not American. Think people
    Hopefully, the USA will save us from our own greed and stupidity for once.
  37. Kevin Desmoulin from TO, Canada writes: CANADIANS OBJECT

    In fact, the most vociferous objections, apart from those of the burgeoning oil and gas industry, came from Canadians, including the government of Nunavut, the Inuvialuit Game Council, the president of an Ontario-based Arctic travel company and several other aboriginal agencies.

    Their chief concern was the impact the listing will have on the sport hunt of polar bears by American tourists, who can pay up to $25,000 for a guided hunt. (Sport hunting of polar bears is not permitted in U.S. territory.)

    If this is their chief concern I would they say Yes They are endangered, put them of the list, They are threatened by hunting also as environmental changes.

    I have to no problem with hunting but only for food, not for sport.
    They can have ecotourism ventures to replace this.
    Such backwards thinking.
  38. Behind Space from Canada writes: Once again Jean Malice, peer-review does not ensure truth, as I already said, it ensures that the arguments are properly developed. Perhaps before you learn to argue, you should learn to read.
  39. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Behind Space, trying to wiggle out of it... Basta EOM
  40. Behind Space from Canada writes: Jean Malice, you really are dumb. Go reread my posts at 2:28 and 3:12. Who's wiggling now?
  41. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Beahind, arguments need no peers. Perhaps it's only because you think you're losing the arguments here that you wish to call upon reinforcements.
  42. Peter Walker from Calgary, Canada writes: I think that the Bush Administration itself is a threatened species!!

    Quite unlike the Polar bear, we can see the end of that Administration coming soon.

    However, like the effects of the climate changing (as opposed to global warming) which we can see but cannot predict in the future, the effect of Bush Administration's policies will be felt for many years - with uncertainty - in the future!

    The Polar bears will adapt, like the seals, walrus' and everything else. That is evolution!!
    The Bush Administration is unable to adapt.
  43. Behind Space from Canada writes: GlynnMhor, your comment just goes to show your complete lack of understanding of scientific publishing.
  44. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Jean is right, Behind; you're just trying to wriggle out.
  45. Behind Space from Canada writes: Wow GlynnMhor and Jean, you are both illiterate. Have fun on these forums though. New Years celebrations don't prepare themselves =)
  46. ALASTAIR JAMES BERRY from nanaimo bc canada, Canada writes:
    I thought that Polar bear hunting was the sole economic activity supporting GJOA HAVEN, an aboriginal community that has expanded rapidly under this stimulus and now numbers, I am told, more than 1000 souls............. It would seem a shame to throw this thriving community on charitable 'hand-outs' for survival, if polar bear hunting is criminalized.
  47. Anders Robichaud from Iqaluit, Canada writes: In the mid 90s I worked as an Intern in Resolute Bay which offers up more polar bear sport hunts than any other community in Nunavut. At the time, Americans were not allowed to bring their bear hides back to the States because Polar Bears are classified as marine mammals and were thus protected under the US Marine Mammal Protection Act. A special exemption is now in place to allow bears pelts from Canada

    Prior to the exemption, sport hunters were still lining up to come North in hopes of shooting a bear in order to complete their quests to bag one of each registered North American big game species (a accomplishment known as the North American Grand Slam) These hunters were not allowed to bring back any portion of their kills and settled for photographs and videos of their hunts.

    So long as there is a glut of rich American sportsmen with a desire to kill the largest four legged predators in the world, there will be a market for polar bear hunts in Canada's North regardless of whether or not the pelts are allowed back into the States. In fact, it is better for the local community for those pelts to remain close to home as they are used to make the warmest clothing imaginable for the sizable population of subsistence hunters in the community.
  48. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Behind now claims us to be illiterate.

    Does Behind imagine personal vitriol to be a form of persuasive argument?

    In any case, I shall cease to bother replying to it unless it starts discussing actual issues instead of tossing schoolyard insults.
  49. Rona Baird-Zundel from Arvida, Canada writes: This polar bear hunt is a gimmicky social assistance program for some Inuit. The territorial government gives out a number of licences to slaughter polar bears to a few Inuits per village and the Inuit transfers the licence to the commercial guide and 'guides' the shaky American to the kill and may even shoot the animal if the American hunter sprays the landscape with his semi-automatic rifle. The outfitter takes the bulk of the Americans' money and the Inuit gets to skin the animal for the 'victorious' American hunter. The conquering 'hunter' returns home and shows off the pelt to his other Bubbas.
    Our feds could do a better job at promoting eco/photo trips rather than this grisly process or give the $25,000 per licence to Inuit villagers. Lots of seals and caribou for food. There is nothing noble about the organized killing of polar bears.
  50. harry carnie from Northern, B.C., Canada writes: Golly...Gee...I am more concerned with the extinction of INTELLIGENT LEADERS in this world of ours...........there has been little, if any, evidence over the past few years, that ANY STILL EXIST.

    Mind you, over the centuries they have proven to be very scarce...suppose extinction was inevitable.
  51. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Rona Baird-Zundel from Arvida, Canada writes:'There is nothing noble about the organized killing of polar bears.'

    There's nothing noble about most peoples' jobs either. So what?
  52. martha stewart from Canada writes: Andrew Wetzler from United States writes: 'As one of the conservationists who brought the petition to list the polar bear, I can assure you that the science here is rock solid.'

    Do you mean as 'rock solid' as the 'science' behind the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone that assured everyone that the wolves would not reduce game - notably elk - populations, I believe that kind of rock is pumice, or perhaps cheese.

    But thanks for pointing out why this listing is even being considered. Because of petitioning by activists. Science is beside the point.

    And why do you think they are focusing on the Hudson Bay population as their poster child? Would an objective scientist consider that worst case scenario to be a representative example of the whole population? No.

    Oh well. Sounds like we are in for even more polar bear propaganda this year, if that's possible...

    P.S. HUGH CAMPBELL - Did you even think about what you posted to me?
  53. Jack Robinson from London, Canada writes: Geez... who'da thought polar bearz on the precipice would generate as much or more contentious debate in these pages than the Muddled East Meltdown, machete mania in Kenya or more RCMP mayhem!

    Could it be that the cuddlesome carnivores drinking Coca Cola 'neath the twinkling Arctic Skies... Oliver Stone's not-suitable for the kiddies depiction of 'em as natural-born killers, aside... has actually registered on the retinas of Climate Change ostriches both in Washington and Ottawa?

    My Modest Proposal: air-drop blubbermeister John Baird and his Dubya Doppelganger Due North pronto... for a Darwinian lesson in food-chain economics.
  54. siren call from Canada writes: martha stewart from Canada writes: Do you mean as 'rock solid' as the 'science' behind the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone that assured everyone that the wolves would not reduce game - notably elk - populations, I believe that kind of rock is pumice, or perhaps cheese.
    ................................

    Really? Why would the scientists make such an outlandish claim?

    As I recall (from hindsight) the reintroduction was all about re balancing the ecosystem by bringing in another top predator. Seems to have been successful. Elk population have apparently been reduced by 18%.

    I recall the fuss being between ranchers (cattle and sheep) and wolf re-introducers. I believe the ranchers are compensated for animals killed by wolves, as happens here (imperfectly) when cattle are killed by grizzlies.
  55. siren call from Canada writes: Anders Robichaud from Iqaluit, Canada writes:
    Prior to the exemption, sport hunters were still lining up to come North in hopes of shooting a bear in order to complete their quests to bag one of each registered North American big game species (a accomplishment known as the North American Grand Slam) These hunters were not allowed to bring back any portion of their kills and settled for photographs and videos of their hunts.
    .................

    Thanks for your story; interesting.

    Perhaps if they are already making do with photos and videos, they can be convinced to drop as much money for an eco-tourism visit.

    Maybe stay in a (much modified) igloo to show how macho they are ...
  56. globefan EH from Canada writes: Who appointed Bush Earth Emperor? He should leave Science and Environment to those people who passed Science Class and do it for a living.

    All that he has left is to paint himself in green, he has failed at everything else and I don't even know if he has the ability to succeed on environment, not if Baird and Harper doing his will are any kind of indicator.

    Does he even know we have polar bears up here?
  57. The Bubble from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall
    You really do take the cake. I've never seen someone try to twist the truth as much as you do. Hat's off and I suppose what you say will appeal to someone inclined to want to believe your arguments but I can't recall ever seeing anything so close to actual propoganda in modern times as I have seen in your posts. They are consistent, which is your way of keeping what you say credible but it flies in the face of truth so much and it flies in the face of every news organization I have seen including the NYTimes, the CBC, CTV, a few local newspapers I watch on the internet, reality, all credible radio stations, NPR, TVO, CBC again, Most leaders of most nations and even the worst holdout governments namely Canada and the US have all submitted to Global Warming, but not
    GlynnMhor of Skywall
    Talk about having it all wrong when it comes to free speach.
  58. The Bubble from Canada writes: polar bear propoganda!
    Martha you outdo yourself.
    a big laugh on that one.
  59. martha stewart from Canada writes: siren call from Canada writes: 'Really? Why would the scientists make such an outlandish claim?'

    Well that's the million dollar question isn't it? But they did. And they told the same Big Lie to enable them to reintroduce them to the Bitterroots. Now both wolf populations have exploded (and expanded) to far higher levels than they originally said we necessary and now they are claiming that there is still not enough. Why would they make that 'outlandish claim'?

    The wolf is a tool, like the polar bear or the grizzly bear or the spotted owl, etc.

    But true, any wolf pack that starts eating beef is eliminated immediately. That was the least they could promise to do to make the reintroduction possible.
  60. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Bubble, if you think my assertions are false, then by all means you can examine them to see if they are flawed. What all those media and politicians have to do with the matter is unclear, though.

    They are of signifigance to questions about the politics surrounding the global warming scares, but not to questions of the science basis for the claims they use.
  61. The Bubble from Canada writes: GlynnMhor you are a one man propoganda machine, I think.
    Your efforts are heroic, like Don Qixote.
    I wouldn't get into details with you because your assertions, websites, insults, scoffing at the worlds scientists is insane to start with, why would you think that you would change someone's mind that knows the environment is being degraded, animals are dying. To claim this to be a big left wing propoganda campaign is fantastic. But I hope you're at least enjoying yourself.
  62. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: The Bubble from Canada writes:'I wouldn't get into details with you because your assertions...'

    Mostly, I think it's because my assertions cast doubt upon the 'received enlightenment' from the Goracle, Saint Suzuki, and the Heiligechor singing in the IPCC.
  63. Kelly Manning from Victoria, Canada writes: The National Post is one source of information, but not one I would rely on without checking facts carefully using independent sources. Other sources give very different information about polar bear populations in Canada. Apart from population declines the bears are smaller, because they can't hunt for as long as they used to when sea ice came earlier, covered more area, and lasted longer.

    http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1337/
    'In western Hudson Bay, Canada, a significant decline in population size was preceded by observed declines in cub survival and physical stature. The evidence of declining recruitment and body size reported here, therefore, suggests vigilance regarding the future of polar bears in the SBS region.'

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/06/AR2005070601899.html
    'The best longitudinal information on the effect of global warming on polar bears comes from the western coast of Hudson Bay, in the Canadian province of Manitoba. It shows a 17 percent decline in the polar bear population in the past 10 years, from 1,200 to fewer than 1,000.'...'The bears are losing their physical condition,' he said. 'It is a cumulative process that is causing a steady decline in survival, particularly for cubs and sub-adults. It is causing the population to decline.'

    By the way, there are dandelions blooming in my yard here in Victoria, BC. I cycled to the gym this morning wearing the same long sleeved white shirt I use for protection from the sun in the summer time. A t shirt under it and fleece gloves were all I needed to keep
    comfortable.
    http://www.crd.bc.ca/water/watersupplyarea/reservoirphotos.htm

    Global warming is real and not about to stop. Get used to that.

    Climate Change Deniers face the obstacle of trying to convince people that what they see in their own back yards and cities is some sort of coincidence which is going to stop at any moment.
  64. martha stewart from Canada writes: Kelly Manning - Yes but when one focuses on only one population - western Hudson Bay - and that population is the most southerly one in the world (and thus the one most impacted so far), you are not getting a picture of the whole polar bear population.

    Its sort of like thinking that all of Victoria looks like the Inner Harbour. Or that real estate prices there represent prices in Port Hardy. Etc.

    Glad its nicer there than here. But when wasn't it? Nice weather in Victoria in December is as about as remarkable there as snow is here.
  65. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Kelly Manning from Victoria, Canada writes:'Global warming is real and not about to stop.'

    It already has stopped. Some six years ago.

    look at the actual temperature record, no signifigant overall warming has occured since 2001, and southern hemisphere temperatures have been clearly cooling:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf
  66. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Kelly Manning from Victoria, Canada writes:'By the way, there are dandelions blooming in my yard here in Victoria, BC.'

    That has to do with local weather, not climate. Even in Calgary in the dead of winter there are days when cycling in light clothes is a joy.

    Not so much in Winnipeg, to be sure.
  67. The Bubble from Canada writes: I am really laughing at the responses here.
    GlynMhor your lexicon of libel and lies is ludicrous.
    Martha talk about Polar bear Propoganda.
    Are we supposed to wait until there are only a thousand, a hundred, when in your world is it time to declare them endangered? What's your number?
  68. The Bubble from Canada writes: silly people.
  69. martha stewart from Canada writes: The Bubble from Canada writes: 'The wolf is a tool?'

    Of course, in the lower 48 states. Not sure why this mystifies you. When a species gets listed, much can be done in its name. Let's say you want to preserve old-growth forests. You list the spotted owl. That automatically protects its habitat, old-growth forests. Because the wolf is more of a habitat generalist, you can lever them into saving just about any kind of 'critical habitat' you WANT. If one stray wolf wanders as far as Oregon, as one did, that state's environmental groups can start screaming for - and suing for - the 'critical habitat' the wolf 'needs.' That's how the whole game works. Some of it is legitimate, some of it definitely is not.

  70. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: The Bubble from Canada writes:'GlynnMhor your lexicon of libel and lies is ludicrous.'

    If all you have left is personal vitriol, I see no reason to even bother conversing with you.

    Meanwhile I neither lie not libel, and you'd be hard pressed to substantiate either of those.
  71. siren call from Canada writes: martha stewart from Canada writes:
    The wolf is a tool, like the polar bear or the grizzly bear or the spotted owl, etc.
    ..........................

    I'm really taken aback by your response to wolf re-introduction.

    Wolves, polar and grizzly bears are not 'used' by scientists just because they are charismatic megafauna -- they are also umbrella species that give indications about other animals and the ecosystem in general.

    Some conservationists make great use of the charismatic species for fund raising reasons and while that might be questionable -- it's also true that few people are motivated by the state/sight of earthworms (for e.g.).

    Everything I have ever read speaks to the success of wolf re-introduction. (Not familiar with the Bitteroots experience.)
  72. siren call from Canada writes: Here is typical commentary from National Geographic: 'With funding from the Park Service, Wilmers and colleagues based at Berkeley, Yellowstone, and elsewhere, set out to test the effect of reintroduction on the park's carrion-eating species. The team radio-tagged and observed wolves at kills over winter and spring between 1998 and 2001. They found that a pack of wolves, each eating only 20 pounds (9 kilograms) or so of an adult elk weighing up to 700 pounds (320 kilograms), leave rich pickings for coyotes, magpies (Pica pica), golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), and other animal scavengers. What's more, this bounty is distributed more evenly across the year: In the absence of wolves, herbivores weakened by winter hunger tend to die in a 'boom' of carrion near the end of the colder months, leaving little for smaller meat eaters during the rest of the year. Prior to wolves' reintroduction, 'It was the feast followed by the famine,' said study co-author Wayne Getz, a researcher also at the University of California, Berkeley. 'Having a large pulse of food accumulate at the end of winter is not conducive to maintaining a strong scavenger population.' Additionally, the study asserts that curtailing the elk population has benefited riverside tree species. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/12/1204_031204_yellowstonewolves_2.html
  73. siren call from Canada writes: Here's a typical report from National Geographic: 'With funding from the Park Service, Wilmers and colleagues based at Berkeley, Yellowstone, and elsewhere, set out to test the effect of reintroduction on the park's carrion-eating species. The team radio-tagged and observed wolves at kills over winter and spring between 1998 and 2001. They found that a pack of wolves, each eating only 20 pounds (9 kilograms) or so of an adult elk weighing up to 700 pounds (320 kilograms), leave rich pickings for coyotes, magpies (Pica pica), golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), and other animal scavengers. What's more, this bounty is distributed more evenly across the year: In the absence of wolves, herbivores weakened by winter hunger tend to die in a 'boom' of carrion near the end of the colder months, leaving little for smaller meat eaters during the rest of the year. Prior to wolves' reintroduction, 'It was the feast followed by the famine,' said study co-author Wayne Getz, a researcher also at the University of California, Berkeley. 'Having a large pulse of food accumulate at the end of winter is not conducive to maintaining a strong scavenger population.' http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/12/1204_031204_yellowstonewolves_2.html The study goes on to note that curtailing elk populations has also benefited some riparian tree species.
  74. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: 'Denier'? Next the yellow star...?
  75. DON BARTA from Canada writes: I firmly believe in the 'Right to Arm Bears'........
  76. Ex Drone from Ottawa, Canada writes: For Kelly Manning from Victoria, thank you for citing sources and other references. There is also the following peer-reviewed journal paper:

    I. Stirling and C.L. Parkinson. Arctic. 'Possible Effects of Climate Warming on Selected Populations of Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus) in the Canadian Arctic.' vol 59, no 3 (September 2006) p 261-275.

    http://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/publications/pdf/pubs2006/Stirling%20-%20Possible%20Effects%20of%20Climate%20Warming.pdf
  77. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: As your paper says 'selected populations'.

    Selecting only the ones in trouble, for example, and ignoring the populations that are doing very well.
  78. martha stewart from Canada writes: siren call - They are tools. You described how and why. That some can be called 'umbrella species' is a bonus. But it still works the same. I am very, very familar with the scenario in Yellowstone and its history. Yes, the reintroduction of wolves corrected a major ecological problem within the park, and some adjacent areas, created by too many elk. Until the 1960s they used to cull the herd annually (same in Banff) but the New Agers thought that wasn't nice so they stopped. The elk population then exploded. Destroying their range. When they brought the wolves back they found an incredible elk feast and that wolf population boomed. Now it is getting elk numbers down in the park towards more natural numbers. (Though any elk would probably rather be instantly killed by a bullet than ripped apart by wolves.) The range is improving. But the booming wolf population did not stay in the park or just eat elk. All game numbers except for bison are declining both in and out of the park. It was all entirely predictable. Problem is, those promoting this reintroduction didn't tell the ranchers and hunters (who had paid for all the game conservation); in fact they misled and outright lied about it. And now with the wolf population far above their original targets, they still want more. --- You will not find the real story or the whole story in National Geographic or on CNN. But this controversy is now getting to the point where the major media will be forced to cover it sooner or later.
  79. Some Guy from Canada writes: The designation for polar bears being designated a threatened species comes from the US Geological Society. They are studying two polar bear populations found in Alaska, the Southern Beaufort population shared with Canada, and the Chukchi/Bearing Sea population shared with Russia.

    The Southern Beaufort population is estimated at 1500 and is subject to international agreements on hunting with Canada. Most recent data shows it to be in decline. The Chukchi/Bearing population is estimated to be 2000. It is subject to strict hunting quotas in Alaska, but is heavily poached in Russia for traditional Chinese medicine. It is definitely in decline.

    Polar bears appear to be unable to breed except on sea ice and since sea ice in the Arctic has been in decline for more than two decades, this years anomalous decline was anomalous only in degree and not in direction, the USGS thinks that no levels of hunting are sustainable. A threatened species designation would end all legal hunting in Alaska and puts significant pressure on Canada to follow suit.
  80. Bob ImamI from Canada writes: ..//

    I just got the latest data on sea ice.

    As of today...2007 will close with 6% more sea ice than average for this time of year.

    I will repeat because somebody will deny this.

    As of today, there is 6% more sea ice than average, based on a 1979 to 2000 average sea ice data set.

    There is 1.4 MM sqkm more than average.

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

    Above is a graph.... right up to now. See how the graph shoots over zero?

    Swallow these facts like broken glass you Global Warming freaks.
    ..//
  81. Kevin Desmoulin from TO, Canada writes: Please Bob do not call people freaks, so there is more ice. just means more ice My friend, We do not know the whole picture of this or that entails.
    I just know that the weather is changing, my fair skin friends get burned so easy and so do I if I do not watch it, As someone who is dark.
    The info that you just gave could be a number of things or an anomaly.
    We just do not know.
    The story was about polar bears and the numbers of are down, animals are a good indicator of what goes on in the environment.

    Although I do look at Science and Stats, I rather use my empirical experience too. Environment Canada says the polar ice cap is melting. The government says this too, opening up our northwest passages to ships. Off hand it would the consensus is that it is melting and affecting the environment of the polar bear.
    with respect to all I humbly gave my opinion.
  82. Kevin Desmoulin from TO, Canada writes: And it sounds like the wolf reintroduction in yellowstone is a success and what they wanted to achieve. You know I rather just leave nature alone instead thinking We got the intelligence to figure it out,
    Better to just treat it gentle as other species, innocents need to live here too on this planet. WE know We have created pollution, poisons in the environment etc. I mean can we actually trust ourselves enough to not screw it and animals over again bc of our arrogant self serving view that we know it all.
  83. Journey Man from Ontario, Canada writes: To Bob ImamI from Canada:

    http://www.cita.utoronto.ca/~rjh/upmya$$.html

    That is my thermometer, holding steady at 37C...more evidence against cliamte change.
  84. Kelly Manning from Victoria, Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Kelly Manning from Victoria, Canada writes:'Global warming is real and not about to stop.'

    'It already has stopped. Some six years ago.'

    'look at the actual temperature record, no signifigant overall warming has occured since 2001, and southern hemisphere temperatures have been clearly cooling:'

    Actualy no. Each of the past 6 years has been warmer than 2001. You claim has things exactly backwards, but that seems to be a repeating theme for you.

    You are asking people to not believe what they see in their own backyards and regions and what they can confirm in a few seconds with a web search.

    11 of the warmest years have occurred in the last 13 years

    2005 was the 2nd warmest year ever, 2003 was the 3rd warmest

    'Global 10 Warmest Years Mean Global temperature (°C) (anomaly with respect to 1961-1990)
    1998 0.52
    2005 0.48
    2003 0.46
    2002 0.46
    2004 0.43
    2006 0.42
    2007(Jan-Nov) 0.41
    2001 0.40
    1997 0.36
    1995 0.28'

    Winter warmth is a relatively new situation in Victoria.

    When my mother in law was a child in the 1940s she used to skate on Rithet's Bog for weeks every year.

    In the early years of last century Victoria used to have civic works crews set bonfires to allow folks skating on Goodacre Lake in Beacon Hill Park warm themselves from the cold. Swan Lake used to be a skating destination in Colonial times but hasn't frozen over for decades.
  85. David Stanley from montreal, Canada writes: Glad to see that Nature does not take a back seat to the usual BS news around the world and at least in Canada we take Nature seriously.
    The Indians of North America the first North Americans,have long since our arrival ,told us that we should not make war with nature.That nature does not belong to man ,that there are limits , that nature is a delicate balance.
  86. gordon davies from Victoria B.C., Canada writes: If the bears have any chance of getting in the way the search for oil wee GWB will not commute its life , like the turkey he pardoned just days ago.
  87. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Kelly Manning 1) 'ever' is a strange term to use with so little record. 2) web search must at least have a URL 3) temperatures record in one spot doesn't mean Global anything: 'une hirondelle ne fait pas le printemps'... 4) Read about atmospheric circulation -Leroux- before attempting to generalize punctual information... 5) Have a good year because it's going to get colder.
  88. dennis Harris from United States writes: I find it fishy that suddenly, in just the past few years, the North is suddenly melting at an alarming rate. Is someone trying to get to the goodies under the ice?
  89. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Kevin Desmoulin from TO, Canada writes:'... so there is more ice. just means more ice... Environment Canada says the polar ice cap is melting. The government says this too... it would the consensus is that it is melting...'

    But melting would mean less ice, not more.

    While there was less ice than average this past summer, there is now more ice than average (seasonally adjusted, of course) this winter. What that tells us is that the summer melting was an anomaly, local in both time and geography. And thus it is of trivial signifigance in terms of overall global climate and in terms of overall arctic weather.
  90. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Kelly Manning from Victoria, Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor... Actualy no. Each of the past 6 years has been warmer than 2001.'

    The term 'since' does not include 2001 itself, but in any case you're seriously nitpicking.

    In your list, 2007 has been thus far cooler than any of the six preceding years, 2002-2006. Which is exactly as I said.

    Moreover, if you compare to the previous 30 years of fairly rapid warming (about 0.5 degrees for the three decades) you'll see that changes both up or down for the