Starving Polar Bear Nat Geo Video/Photo Was Phony

[longknife]

I never was suckered by the bleeding heart story that went along with this story. Sometimes animals naturally become ill and are unable to go on living. I felt this was just another stupid attempt to create something about Globull Warming.

"Photographer Paul Nicklen and I are on a mission to capture images that communicate the urgency of climate change. Documenting its effects on wildlife hasn’t been easy," she wrote. "With this image, we thought we had found a way to help people imagine what the future of climate change might look like. We were, perhaps, naive. The picture went viral — and people took it literally."

Perhaps people took the gloom-and-doom climate change narrative "literally" because Nat Geo's first line of the video was, "This is what climate change looks like." To boot, the words "climate change" were even emphasized, highlighted in the magazine's signature yellow.

"In retrospect, National Geographic went too far with the caption," says Mittermeier. (You think?!)

More @ FAKE NEWS: 'Nat Geo' Photographer Admits Viral Photo Of Polar Bear 'Dying From Climate Change' Is False

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Polar bears never, ever died before we started burning coal.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I never was suckered by the bleeding heart story that went along with this story. Sometimes animals naturally become ill and are unable to go on living. I felt this was just another stupid attempt to create something about Globull Warming.

"Photographer Paul Nicklen and I are on a mission to capture images that communicate the urgency of climate change. Documenting its effects on wildlife hasn’t been easy," she wrote. "With this image, we thought we had found a way to help people imagine what the future of climate change might look like. We were, perhaps, naive. The picture went viral — and people took it literally."

Perhaps people took the gloom-and-doom climate change narrative "literally" because Nat Geo's first line of the video was, "This is what climate change looks like." To boot, the words "climate change" were even emphasized, highlighted in the magazine's signature yellow.

"In retrospect, National Geographic went too far with the caption," says Mittermeier. (You think?!)

More @ FAKE NEWS: 'Nat Geo' Photographer Admits Viral Photo Of Polar Bear 'Dying From Climate Change' Is False

As a trump supporter, I can understand how much lies upset you... hey, wait a minute...

By the way, polar bears are considered a "vulnerable species". Their population is decreasing, and their habitat is disappearing.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I never was suckered by the bleeding heart story that went along with this story. Sometimes animals naturally become ill and are unable to go on living. I felt this was just another stupid attempt to create something about Globull Warming.

"Photographer Paul Nicklen and I are on a mission to capture images that communicate the urgency of climate change. Documenting its effects on wildlife hasn’t been easy," she wrote. "With this image, we thought we had found a way to help people imagine what the future of climate change might look like. We were, perhaps, naive. The picture went viral — and people took it literally."

Perhaps people took the gloom-and-doom climate change narrative "literally" because Nat Geo's first line of the video was, "This is what climate change looks like." To boot, the words "climate change" were even emphasized, highlighted in the magazine's signature yellow.

"In retrospect, National Geographic went too far with the caption," says Mittermeier. (You think?!)

More @ FAKE NEWS: 'Nat Geo' Photographer Admits Viral Photo Of Polar Bear 'Dying From Climate Change' Is False

As a trump supporter, I can understand how much lies upset you... hey, wait a minute...

By the way, polar bears are considered a "vulnerable species". Their population is decreasing, and their habitat is disappearing.

You are wrong again about their Population level since it is at the HIGHEST in modern times. Their habitat is huge and most of it remote or inaccessible to Mankind.

Their "vulnerable" status is all political since they have increased in numbers since then.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are wrong again about their Population level since it is at the HIGHEST in modern times.

You are regurgitating false talking points. The only increases we see in local populations are due to conservation efforts, while other populations show dramatic decline due to loss of habitat.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You are wrong again about their Population level since it is at the HIGHEST in modern times.

You are regurgitating false talking points. The only increases we see in local populations are due to conservation efforts, while other populations show dramatic decline due to loss of habitat.

As usual you are wrong, let see if you disagree with WWF Global,

Polar bear status, distribution & population

"Status of the polar bear populations

Last updated 2017 with data from the IUCN Polar Bear Specialists Group

1 population was in decline
2 populations were increasing
7 populations were stable
9 populations were data-deficient (information missing or outdated)

Some populations are still hunted quite heavily, and their status is uncertain."

It is currently at the highest number since records began, which you warmists seem quiet about...…..

"22-31,000
polar bears worldwide, estimated
Source: IUCN (How is this range calculated?)"

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is currently at the highest number since records began

Which is not a true indication that the polar bear population has increased, only that our science has gotten better and we have made more observations.

And your list doesn't tell anyone anything. It lists no population numbers, doesn't state the rate of decrease, and has unknowns. You are drawing conclusions that you don't have sufficient evidence to draw.

However, scientists understand that decreasing habitat, without conservation efforts, will decrease the population. So yes, the populations are decreasing, naturally. And then you try to use the efforts of conservationists as a cudgel against them... embarrassing...

 

[Sunsettommy]

It is currently at the highest number since records began

Which is not a true indication that the polar bear population has increased, only that our science has gotten better and we have made more observations.

And your list doesn't tell anyone anything. It lists no population numbers, doesn't state the rate of decrease, and has unknowns. You are drawing conclusions that you don't have sufficient evidence to draw.

However, scientists understand that decreasing habitat, without conservation efforts, will decrease the population. So yes, the populations are decreasing, naturally. And then you try to use the efforts of conservationists as a cudgel against them... embarrassing...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You are sooo lazy to click on the links I provided that answers your questions, HINT:

Last updated 2017 with data from the IUCN Polar Bear Specialists Group

You are looking the fool here...….

 

[Billy_Bob]

It is currently at the highest number since records began

Which is not a true indication that the polar bear population has increased, only that our science has gotten better and we have made more observations.

And your list doesn't tell anyone anything. It lists no population numbers, doesn't state the rate of decrease, and has unknowns. You are drawing conclusions that you don't have sufficient evidence to draw.

However, scientists understand that decreasing habitat, without conservation efforts, will decrease the population. So yes, the populations are decreasing, naturally. And then you try to use the efforts of conservationists as a cudgel against them... embarrassing...

When the facts and science call you out a liar.... Make more shit up...