• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

'inconvenient truth' EPA internal report suppressed

Beerina said:
As Julian Simon might say, "evidence"? He dealt in actual measurements of outcomes (as medical researchers might say). He was also skilled in scary predictions used as political tools, as he shot them down regularly.
Click to expand...

I'm specifically talking about the way the Endangered Species Act is written. Habitat loss for the big ursid could endanger its survival, and this habitat loss is predicted by multiple climate models produced by competing researchers using a mix of different and overlapping data sets. That isn't quite what I would call a political scare tool.

Beerina said:
If bears are threatened, then they should be losing population already. This is true. This is not happening. Therefore we revise our theory that it is about to start happening.
Click to expand...

Others contradict Taylor's claim, as was pointed out above. It isn't about revising a theory. Without reliable arctic ice, those populations, regardless of current size will be threatened. That is a key point in determining if a species deserves protection.

Lets say a particular animal requires a particular habitat to thrive. It currently has access to that habitat and is doing well. A prediction is made, using good evidence, surviving peer review and rigorous study from multiple, unconnected researchers, states that this habitat will be lost unless specific changes are made. Habitat loss is the number one cause of biodiversity loss worldwide. So, we can ignore this, dismissing it as alarmist, or actually follow the laws set in place and work towards conservation. One route leads to extinction of at least one species, but likely many more that also rely on the same habitat. The other requires potentially difficult planning and decision making as to our priorities.

Beerina said:
Now maybe it will, or maybe it won't. But how closely that parallels Jesus returning someday should, at the very lease, be a woo warning flag.
Click to expand...

Science based decision making != religion or woo.
 
kallsop said:
Polar bear expert barred by global warmists
Click to expand...

Well, more a case of "Polar bear expert barred by other polar bear experts [for being loudmouthed and intransigent on a contentious topic outside of his own field of expertise.]" (The part in brackets is my assumption.)

Anyway, this isn't a case of people refusing to listen to the expert, as "the people" here are themselves experts. Rather, some experts not wanting to work with another expert. It's academia -- such things happens.
 
Beerina said:
As Julian Simon might say, "evidence"? He dealt in actual measurements of outcomes (as medical researchers might say). He was also skilled in scary predictions used as political tools, as he shot them down regularly.

If bears are threatened, then they should be losing population already. This is true. This is not happening. Therefore we revise our theory that it is about to start happening.

Now maybe it will, or maybe it won't. But how closely that parallels Jesus returning someday should, at the very lease, be a woo warning flag.
Click to expand...

Really. You think that people are so stupid that you can just wave 'look religion scary' flags and get them to agree with you?

What people dislike about religion so much is the attitude that comes with it. That's exactly that attitude.
 
VIDEO

Thanks to the interwebs, now with video.

Don't forget now, because some of you are just not getting the message, contrary views are not welcome.
 
Carlin is an ecconomist. We don't need his input in environmental issues, beyond calculating the financial losses if a species goes extinct.
 
kallsop said:
VIDEO

Thanks to the interwebs, now with video.

Don't forget now, because some of you are just not getting the message, contrary views are not welcome.
Click to expand...
I rather enjoy(?) the way you fail to acknowledge your gaffes.

Did you not read my last post? Are you aware the buffoon is an economist who took it upon himself to write a paper about global warming science?

What if the janitor wrote an unsolicited paper? If the EPA didn't publish it, would that too be due to suppression of contrary views?
 
elbe said:
"When you have a president who backs increased ethanol subsidies"
Is that a bad thing? Just wondering.
Click to expand...
Yes. Ethanol is a terrible idea, it's an agricultural money-grab disguised as environmental policy.
 
Robster said:
The problem isn't that polar bear numbers are dropping, stable or growing right now, this season, or in recent past, but rather, whether we can expect if their source habitats, areas with positive population growth, will remain productive.

Their source habitats are very likely to be negatively changed by climate change over the next century. That is why they need to be labeled as endangered or threatened.
Click to expand...

Shifting goalposts noted.


You realize "your side" is doing crap like this on a regular basis, don't you?

Well, don't you?



Until then, it's just Chicken Little. See, science requires actual measurements and predictions. Before bear populations can decline, they have to actually decline. And they're not. In the context of the asinine levels of rhetoric, yes, this is important.
 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
Shifting goalposts noted.


You realize "your side" is doing crap like this on a regular basis, don't you?

Well, don't you?



Until then, it's just Chicken Little. See, science requires actual measurements and predictions. Before bear populations can decline, they have to actually decline. And they're not. In the context of the asinine levels of rhetoric, yes, this is important.
Click to expand...
You do realize that you've decided to stand behind the 'warming isn't happening because of polar bears' position, and that's making everything you say here a joke, right?
 
Oh, c'mon, kallsop put the words "Hope 'n Change" in his OP. That means that obviously it's got to be about Obama and the way ... have you noticed? ... that he's kinda different from all the other Presidents.
 
Beerina said:
...snip...

If bears are threatened, then they should be losing population already. This is true. This is not happening. Therefore we revise our theory that it is about to start happening.

...snip...
Click to expand...

So when a developer looks at a new site to build some homes, and people object because building those homes will destroy the habitat of a rare population of the "greater-extremist toad" the developer should use the argument "well if they were threatened they should be losing population already".
 
Beerina said:
Until then, it's just Chicken Little. See, science requires actual measurements and predictions. Before bear populations can decline, they have to actually decline. And they're not. In the context of the asinine levels of rhetoric, yes, this is important.
Click to expand...

The US Fish and Wildlife Service has done the actual measurements and predictions you speak of. They have shown that there is an actual decline. They have predicted that there will be a further decline. What more do you want? The information is even in this very short thread in a response to you, so you must be aware of it.

Careful for the goalposts when you respond.
 
Robster said:
I'm specifically talking about the way the Endangered Species Act is written. Habitat loss for the big ursid could endanger its survival, and this habitat loss is predicted by multiple climate models produced by competing researchers using a mix of different and overlapping data sets. That isn't quite what I would call a political scare tool.
Click to expand...

I take it bears cannot survive just along the northern shores of Canada and AK, and must hang out on the ice because only there can they get enough food via seals or whatever, and the shorelines just do not provide sufficient food?
 
Beerina said:
I take it bears cannot survive just along the northern shores of Canada and AK, and must hang out on the ice because only there can they get enough food via seals or whatever, and the shorelines just do not provide sufficient food?
Click to expand...

Pretty much, yeah. Polar bears have evolved to hunt stuff on ice and snow. The tactics and techniques they use are unsuited for regular beaches and shorelines. Any individual polar bear might get lucky and manage to support itself, but it would be much harder for it and lead to population reduction as a whole.

Its a question of the speed differences between seals and polar bears. Polar bears are faster than seals on land, and slower than seals in the water. Seals are never very far from water and will try to flee if a polar bear is coming, so polar bear hunting tactics rely on ambush and surprise.

The most common hunting tactic used by polar bears is finding a hole or edge of the ice where seals will occasionally pop up for air. They then wait for entended periods of time and pounce when a seal finally comes by. This gets a lot harder on a shoreline without ice, and impossible on bare land.

Next, polar bears will try to find a group of seals that has come up out of the water for a time. The polar bear will slowly try to approach the group through stealth and then pounce before the seals spot it and have a chance to escape. When doing this, the polar bears heavy white coat help it to blend in with surrounding ice and snow. If there is no ice and snow, this gets much harder.

After that, the polar bear has to rely on either seals being stupid enough to position themselves badly in regards to the sea while resting on land (being too far to run away in time, or close enough so the polar bear can mount an ambush from the water), or lucking out and finding a group of seal pups.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom