Palin and Polar Bears

[not_so_new]

Palin, thinks Polar bears are doing just fine.

Palin argued there is not enough evidence to support a listing. Polar bears are well-managed and their population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation, she said.

"She's either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading, and both are unbecoming," said Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Alaska deserves better."

I think she is intentional misleading because of the threat to oil and gas development in prime polar bear habitat.... but I will give her the benefit of the doubt and say that she is just undereducated. I agree, both are unbecoming for a potential VeeP, America deserves better.

http://www.adn.com/polarbears/story/413710.html

 

[The Painter]

Maybe the wolves are killing the polar bears.

 

[fuelair]

Palin, thinks Polar bears are doing just fine.





I think she is intentional misleading because of the threat to oil and gas development in prime polar bear habitat.... but I will give her the benefit of the doubt and say that she is just undereducated. I agree, both are unbecoming for a potential VeeP, America deserves better.

http://www.adn.com/polarbears/story/413710.html

Since I have finally heard the CNN VP question she asked a couple of weeks ago (What does VP do anyway?), I'd have to say undereducated is generous.

 

[Dr Adequate]

She may hate polar bears and cute little baby wolf cubs, but she loves fish.

Here she is hugging a salmon.

 

[fuelair]

She may hate polar bears and cute little baby wolf cubs, but she loves fish.

Here she is hugging a salmon.

[qimg]http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/6835/sarahpalinwithafishul3.jpg[/qimg]

Looks fishy to me - looks like she's either choking it or molesting it.

 

[Brainster]

Is this a skeptic board or a cheerleading squad for anything that can be brought up against Sarah Palin? From the OP:

Palin argued there is not enough evidence to support a listing. Polar bears are well-managed and their population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation, she said.

"She's either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading, and both are unbecoming," said Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Alaska deserves better."

Okay, so let's see if the cited article tells us who is right?

The bear's numbers rebounded after the 1970s, but conservation groups contend that was in response to measures taken to stop over-hunting.

Gee, sounds like someone is grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading alright, and it's not Governor Palin.

Great skepticism here occasionally. Confirmation bias is also common. Strive to overcome it more often.

 

[not_so_new]

Is this a skeptic board or a cheer-leading squad for anything that can be brought up against Sarah Palin? From the OP:





Okay, so let's see if the cited article tells us who is right?



Gee, sounds like someone is grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading alright, and it's not Governor Palin.

Great skepticism here occasionally. Confirmation bias is also common. Strive to overcome it more often.

Thanks for the lesson dad... oh wait....

Maybe this time The Exquisite Admonisher would admit HE is in fact is wrong on a given subject? Alas, somehow I doubt it.

(speaking of cheer-leading, sis, boom, ba.... GoooooooooOOOO Republicans!).

Too funny.

Anyway, in fact the article is misleading on this point, in that they didn't present the whole story. The general consensus is that most poplar bear numbers are diminishing but the real story is not a simple point A to point B journey which is why people often get confused on the subject (you sir are forgiven, Palin is not because she is using bad information as a basis for public policy).

The numbers are hard to judge because, see..... polar bears..... live on ice... that..... is disappearing.. unless you happen to live on a fantasy planet where all satellite data are fabricated as a grand plot by the vast Left Wing Environmental Conspiracy.

Because the ice is disappearing more and more bears are showing up in new areas on land or miles out to sea, places not part of their normal habitat. That is causing some issues with reporting and calculating actual present day numbers.

Also there is a whole chunk of missing data, bear census from the 50's and 60's appears to be nothing but guess work.

The 70's bear hunting limitations DID have an effect, but remember that there was very little data from the 50's and 60's to go on so even the extent of this rebound contains a little guess work of it's own.

As numbers increase it seems safe for the layperson to assume that the population is fine but, here is the tricky part. What are normal population levels?

Of course, if we limit hunting they will rebound but are they actually rebounding to natural population numbers or are they rebounding to a number that reflects new environmental conditions?

Tricky to judge so scientists have to look at the bear's past and present habitat, low and behold as stated above, the ice that is the key factor in bear hunting patterns and seal birthing is dwindling.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together here. Bear populations are effected by limited hunting opportunities as would any other creature on Earth while under decreased food supply. This is backed up by scientific evidence that the condition (weight, size, physical appearance, number of cubs born) of bears in multiple locations is diminishing which is a precursor to a larger die off of individuals.

In summation, actual numbers before the decline in sea ice are unknown. Bear population did recover after hunting restrictions but scientific findings point to the conclusion that the high water mark of the rebound population is not as high as the (admittedly unknown) high water mark before the loss of the polar bear's natural hunting environment.

Because the original population numbers are unclear we have to weigh other data, such as current bear condition, bear migrations, and natural habitat to make a best guess at this former high water mark. Calculating this data leads scientists to the strong belief that, factoring in the statistical blip from over hunting earlier in the last century, bear population is in fact diminishing from it's natural population levels.

As Dr. Andrew Derocher from Polar Bears International put it.....

Comparing declines caused by harvest followed by recovery from harvest controls to declines from loss of habitat and climate warming are apples and oranges. Ignorant people write ignorant things.

More information here.....

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ask-the-experts/population/

Again, I submit that Palin is either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading.

 

[Brainster]

As Dr. Andrew Derocher from Polar Bears International put it.....



More information here.....

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ask-the-experts/population/

Again, I submit that Palin is either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading.

Your new source once again makes it clear that Palin was right:

After the signing of the International Agreement on Polar Bears in the 1970s, harvests were controlled and the numbers increased. There is no argument from anyone on this point. Some populations recovered very slowly (e.g., Barents Sea took almost 30 years) but some recovered faster.

Jeez, I'm starting to think you've got some excellent links to debunking articles and just seem to have missed it.

 

[mhaze]

Thanks for the lesson dad... oh wait....


The numbers are hard to judge because, see..... polar bears..... live on ice... that..... is disappearing.. unless you happen to live on a fantasy planet where all satellite data are fabricated as a grand plot by the vast Left Wing Environmental Conspiracy.

Because the ice is disappearing more and more bears are showing up in new areas on land or miles out to sea, places not part of their normal habitat. .....
Again, I submit that Palin is either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading.

Your sources seem to be biased toward considering polar bears endangered. There are really no facts to support this position. Historically, polar bears have survived quite warm climates compared to today. Do your sources discuss a 100,000 view on bears? No, because that wouldn't argue for their position.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080508132549.htm

Professor J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School says, “To list a species that is currently in good health as an endangered species requires valid forecasts that its population would decline to levels that threaten its viability. In fact, the polar bear populations have been increasing rapidly in recent decades due to hunting restrictions. Assuming these restrictions remain, the most appropriate forecast is to assume that the upward trend would continue for a few years, then level off.

....After careful examination, my co-authors and I were unable to find any references to works providing evidence that the forecasting methods used in the reports had been previously validated. In essence, they give no scientific basis for deciding one way or the other about the polar bear.”

....The subsequent study, “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public Policy Forecasting Audit,” ....is scheduled to appear in the September/October issue of the INFORMS journal Interfaces.
​

 

[Dr Adequate]

Your new source once again makes it clear that Palin was right:

No, it makes it clear that the question of whether shooting fewer polar bears benefits polar bears is not the point at issue. Even Palin can understand that, so a fortori so can the scientists who told her that in the first place.

The question on which Palin disagrees with the federal government, nine federal studies, Alaska's own scientists, and the consensus of experts, is whether polar bears should be listed as threatened.

To support her stance, she claims:

I strongly believe that adding them to the list is the wrong move at this time. My decision is based on a comprehensive review by state wildlife officials of scientific information from a broad range of climate, ice and polar bear experts.​

Trouble is, the information doesn't support her and the experts think her arguments are so wrong as to be ridiculous:

The idea that polar bears can adapt to living on land or can thrive on a diet of something other than seals flies in the face of most of the report as well as the opinion of most polar bear researchers.

Andrew Derocher, a University of Alberta polar bear researcher quoted extensively in the report and chairman of the Polar Bear Specialist Group for the World Conservation Union, called it "absolutely fanciful."

"There's not a credible polar bear biologist in the world who would make that statement," he said Friday.​

On top of that, you have the fact that she's being extraordinarily coy about what the "scientific information" was, what a "comprehensive review" entailed, and who, if anyone, are the "experts" that agreed with her.

 

[Dr Adequate]

....The subsequent study, “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public Policy Forecasting Audit,” ....is scheduled to appear in the September/October issue of the INFORMS journal Interfaces.

Ah yes, good old INFORMS. The Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences is of course where all ursophiles go for the most sciencey views about bears. However this particular paper, alas, appears to be flawed. One might even go so far as to call it mendacious.

 

[mhaze]

Ah yes, good old INFORMS. The Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences is of course where all ursophiles go for the most sciencey views about bears. However this particular paper, alas, appears to be flawed. One might even go so far as to call it mendacious.

Actually, Armstrong reviewed in detail the nine studies you superficially cite as evidence for your position.

Which leads one to wonder how many microseconds of earnest critical skepticism went into your polemic.

Again, what evidence exists over say a 100,000 year timeframe of the range of habitat of the polar bear (over which it obviously survived) ?

 

[not_so_new]

Your new source once again makes it clear that Palin was right:



Jeez, I'm starting to think you've got some excellent links to debunking articles and just seem to have missed it.

Lies by omission or avoidance are still lies.

I am shocked (but I shouldn't be surprised) at your complete avoidance of the facts I posted above. But your lack of response to ANY of these points means that they still stand and must be valid because of your avoidance.

So this is how the GOP makes its argument on issues, just flat out ignore anything against their view.

Go back and actually... you know.... READ what I posted.

Furthermore, you really might want to improve your reading comprehension (or your ethics). The article you quote is from Dr. Andrew Derocher, a polar bear expert with a whole lot more knowledge on this subject than anyone on this forum.

He EXACT quote is....

Comparing declines caused by harvest followed by recovery from harvest controls to declines from loss of habitat and climate warming are apples and oranges. Ignorant people write ignorant things.

I think he was speaking of YOU Brainster.

To learn WHY this quote if for you Brainster you can just read my post above or read the whole article YOU quoted.

 

[Nogbad]

A longer term view is important. For instance arguing that bear populations are rising due to hunting restrictions begs the question regarding populations prior to hunting.

The issue is not that the bears may not survive the lack of ice but rather that the lack of ice will drive the bears onto land and as they hunt seals that land will be by the sea - where people live. Climate change regardless of whether it is natural or man made will present difficulties for the bears.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Actually, Armstrong reviewed in detail the nine studies you superficially cite as evidence for your position.

While learning surprisingly little about bears.

Which leads one to wonder how many microseconds of earnest critical skepticism went into your polemic.

As I did not time myself reading his paper, your curiousity on this subject must remain forever insatiate.

Again, what evidence exists over say a 100,000 year timeframe of the range of habitat of the polar bear (over which it obviously survived) ?

Little, I should imagine; which does not mean that we should ignore the data that is available to us.

 

[fuelair]

Your new source once again makes it clear that Palin was right:



Jeez, I'm starting to think you've got some excellent links to debunking articles and just seem to have missed it.

No, you are still taking one single point - as Palin is - and misusing it. Whether it is from ignorance or to cover up for people who do not know how to interpret the data (all of it available) I cannot be sure.
Though with republickers involved I personally know which I believe.

 

[not_so_new]

For anyone else with limited reading comprehension or who want the short version of the stand held by Polar Bears International.

Polar Bear hunting created a statistical anomaly in bear population census.

High water marks in bear population before the loss of pack ice hunting areas based on the best information available were higher than current high water mark.

The fact that bear populations are rebounding from hunting does not change the evidence that current high water marks are diminished from 50 years ago. Furthermore the rebound in bear population has slowed (or stopped) overall and as of today total population numbers are going down after the post hunting high water mark as well.

 

[Brainster]

No, you are still taking one single point - as Palin is - and misusing it. Whether it is from ignorance or to cover up for people who do not know how to interpret the data (all of it available) I cannot be sure.
Though with republickers involved I personally know which I believe.

You can certainly argue that despite the rebound in the population that the polar bears are in trouble. From what I can see from the articles, that's a little tenuous, but it's an argument worth being explored.

What is not true, however, is that Governor Palin's argument was "grossly misinformed", or "intentionally misleading". Evidence that polar bear populations have risen in the last 30 years is hard data. Speculation that their population will decline because of a comparison between skull sizes is speculation. Maybe the science is good, maybe it's bad; we will know more about that in a few years, unless some more "misleading" data arises.

 

[mhaze]

You can certainly argue that despite the rebound in the population that the polar bears are in trouble. From what I can see from the articles, that's a little tenuous, but it's an argument worth being explored.

What is not true, however, is that Governor Palin's argument was "grossly misinformed", or "intentionally misleading". Evidence that polar bear populations have risen in the last 30 years is hard data. Speculation that their population will decline because of a comparison between skull sizes is speculation. Maybe the science is good, maybe it's bad; we will know more about that in a few years, unless some more "misleading" data arises.

My point exactly. The reference I provided does not claim bear populations are going up or down:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0508132549.htm ....After careful examination, my co-authors and I were unable to find any references to works providing evidence that the forecasting methods used in the reports had been previously validated. In essence, they give no scientific basis for deciding one way or the other about the polar bear.”
​

Again, what evidence exists over say a 100,000 year timeframe of the range of habitat of the polar bear (over which it obviously survived) ?

 

[Whiplash]

Is this a skeptic board or a cheerleading squad for anything that can be brought up against Sarah Palin?

I've wondered the same thing, many times, going back to my first posts on this forum (except I'd change it to cheerleading squad for the Democratic party).

I never cease to be amazed that people who demonstrate great critical thinking skills in all other areas of these forums completely fall down and become sycophants to their parties. Blind devotion. Driven more by hatred of the other side than anything else.

I know it will not be recognized, instead, I'll just get more witty retorts and rationalizations thrown at me. I honestly believe there is something to study here, psychologically speaking.