More junk science from the “Sky is falling” Global Warming alarmists:
In the proposal, the Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledges that for seven of the 19 worldwide polar bear populations, the Service has no population trend data of any kind. Other data suggest that for an additional five polar bear populations, the number of bears is not declining and is stable. Two more of the bear populations showed reduced numbers in the past due to over hunting, but these two populations are now increasing because of hunting restrictions.
Other sources of data mentioned in a recent Wall Street Journal piece, suggest that “there are more polar bears in the world now than there were 40 years ago.” The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is 20,000 to 25,000 bears, whereas in the 1950s and 1960s, estimates were as low as 5,000-10,000 bears due to sport hunting, which has since been restricted.
A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations “may now be near historic highs.“
Maybe bears are drowning — not because their bergs are turning into swamp land, but rather that they’re getting crowded out of prime ice berg real estate, and the less dominate bears are simply being pushed off the shelf by the bigger bears? (Damn, that was a horribly convoluted sentence. But I’m not in the mood to re-write it, so I’m going to let it stand)
h/t to Ace
Wow, that’s a great argument. Since we stopped killing polar bears for sport we can afford to drown a few!
Has anyone considered the money the legions of scientists and others are getting to research and promote global warming? I’ve seen this happen before in other scientific venues. Scientists make dang good money for conducting research and reporting the results in scientific journals and otherwise promoting their results.
First a potential problem is identified and a “cause” is born. Then, there are grants or other funds that become available from a myriad of sources and all of a sudden there’s work and potential fame for the scientists who eagerly jump on the bandwagon. Studies are conducted with the purpose of confirming the thesis rather than identifying all the possible causes. Everybody gets in a frenzy and the activist organizations hold huge meetings, press conferences, etc. After all, now it’s their turn to reap the profits of bringing the message to the masses. Take a look at some of the organizations like Center for Science in the Public Interest which rake in huge sums from membership dues and they even ask people to name them in their wills. All these people along the line make money and lots of it. I have seen it first hand.
So permit me to be skeptical.
I suppose that goes for the scientists who study AIDS too? Maybe that doesn’t exist, afterall!
Dianne, your argument is possible, but how long is it prudent to wait to see if it’s a fad? Scientists have been sounding this warning for 20 years. Don’t you think that in that amount of time there would be a young scientist willing to make a name for herself by disproving global warming theories once and for all?
Of course, and they’re speaking out, but aren’t being heard and are even ridiculed. Here’s just one http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Of course there are ethical scientists and I’m not even saying the scientists working on global warming are not ethical; it’s the way the studies are conducted. I previously spoke on study protocols and how important the study design is to rule out variables while proving the objective.
Here’s something else. How ready are the ordinary masses willing to accept the studies that scientists conduct for drug studies? I’ll bet 7 out of 10 people don’t trust them because they believe they’ve colluded with the drug companies. In fact, before the studies are even conducted, the FDA must approve the protocols and there are all kinds of requirements that must be met before the study even starts. It’s a brutal process, actually and still the public doesn’t believe them. Yet, practically everybody believes the global warming studies. Who has reviewed and approved the protocols that were done for these studies? If you can show me a good scientific process from start to end, then I’ll be more inclined to believe the results.
Of course, and they’re speaking out, but aren’t being heard and are even ridiculed.
The ridicule may be justified.
You might look at this page discribing alternate AIDS theories to HIV.
The two paths of research have paralleled each other both in time and the continuation of a fringe opposition. However, there is no political and economic machine that has found profitability in opposing HIV as the source of AIDS so we don’t hear much anymore about doubt in the connection.
Dianne, I’m conscious of potential external influences to the scientific process. But this ‘controversy’ looks an awful like opposition to Natural Selection or the promise of embryonic stem cells where the loudest cry is coming from Congress, not the laboratory.
I don’t understand why you keep bringing up AIDS. It’s a killer epidemic that everybody seems to acknowledge. The U.S. (Bush) has poured more money into it in Africa than anyone has. And, further, I don’t understand what you are driving at regarding parallels to global warming. It’s a disease, not an environmental problem.
And, as regards embryonic stem cell research, the opposition to it is based on religious belief, whether that comes from Congress or Focus on the Family. The debate over global warming is not a religious debate. There is not one damn thing that is preventing any scientist from performing embryonic stem cell research. The debate is over government funding and money. Story sound familiar to my post above? Follow the money Preston and recall what I said above.
I come from a career in science, Preston. I’ve seen the good and the bad. I, myself, made lots of money in this field. I didn’t conduct the studies but I was on the frontline in submitting data to FDA and getting drugs approved by FDA. I could have gone to jail for submitting falsified data even though I didn’t conduct the studies. I negotiated with FDA over drug study protocols. I hammered our own scientists in the company I worked for that they better follow the rules and believe me took a lot of heat. I also attended those kinds of activist meetings I talked about above and saw the way things work on that end. There are so many things at play in the scientific process, it’s very difficult to make valid conclusions.
How long will you people continue to deny facts? Global warming is here, and it’s here to stay. The noted scientists and science organizations who have confirmed this are too numerous for me to delve into here, and yet some people still continue to deny it.
You know, sometimes I think that those who deny global warming are just as deluded as those who think that 9/11 was some kind of Bush/Cheney conspiracy. Cooking up half-brained theories and a mental wall to reality can be a dangerous thing indeed.
Right. This from the whackjob who thinks dogs are evil. lol!
well i dont understand why the existence of polar bears can disprove global warming. there are other factors that lead me to believe that this world will melt sooner or later.
It’s not that their evil. It’s because they’re wild animals. The viciousness hasn’t been bred out of them yet. They don’t have a choice, it’s just the way they are.
Dogs were domesticated 12,000 years ago.
Dianne (I assume?)
The parallels:
A. It is undeniable that the earth is warming
B. It is undeniable that AIDS kills people
A. There were and continue to be skeptics on the issue that HIV causes AIDS.
B. There were and continue to be skeptics on the issue that global warming is caused by human activity.
The difference:
A. AIDS skeptics are utterly marginalized and receive no publicity from the media
B. Global warming skeptics are mentioned in most stories on global warming science
A. The theory that HIV causes AIDS has no economic or political opponents.
B. The theory that global warming is manmade is opposed by
1. the oil industry and others who stand to lose their cash cow.
2. political extremists who oppose government regulation
Now, it may very well be the case that global warming is not man made but the alignment of economic and political interests with scientific ‘belief’ is convenient enough for me to be suspicious of the motives of the skeptics.
Rush Limbaugh, for one, would try to make the flipside of this argument and claim that liberals want a reason to impose governmental controls. That is an argument that suggests a certifiable level of paranoia in my opinion.
What if “Global Warming” is the only thing holding off the onset of the next ice age?
I don’t deny that the Earth is in a “warmer” cyclical trend right now. It’s been this hot before in the Earth’s history, and it’s been much hotter, too. It’s also been much, much colder.
Apparently “Global Warming” is the new term for what we simply used to call “weather”.
Actually, going on and on about Rush Limbaugh all the time as you do, Preston, suggests a certifiable level of paranoia.
We didn’t use to be able to change the weather.
Maybe it wouldn’t be a big deal if some 20% of the world didn’t end up living underwater. I guess you’re angling for some beach front property there in Austin.
Anon-
When I say ‘Rush Limbaugh’ interpret that to mean ‘right wing ideologues that talk out their asses’. Like the way ‘Kleenex’ represents tissues used to blow one’s nose, generally speaking.
Don’t project, Preston.