New Survey: Polar Bear Population Is Largest Ever

[Sunsettommy]

Ah, Crockford, the "polar bear researcher" who has never done field work. As is always the case with deniers, lack of qualification is what they regard as qualification.

Polar Bears doesn't seem to be bothered by low Arctic sea Ic

No, _one_ population has been growing, the Chukchi sea area, and that's been known for years. It was either very dishonest or very stupid to pretend that represented the global population.

So, we have a propaganda piece here. Ho hum. And all the deniers fell for it. Ho hum.

Principia Scientific International

How much of PSI's garbage have you fallen for? Are you also a greenhouse effect denier?

Your entire comment was dead on arrival since you were wrong on all of it starting with DOCTOR Crockford, who has a PHD in ZOOLOGY with 40 publications, mostly covering the Arctic region and various animals. With 35+ years of active service in research in the field and in Universities, she is well qualified to discuss Polar Bears.

The rest of your comments are too stupid to respond as I know you are a dishonest person. Dr. Crockfod NEVER said that one region represented all of them. Why lie so causally, when it can be spotted so easily for what it is?

There was ZERO propaganda in it since the data was from the Fish and WILDLIFE survey.

 

[elektra]

Would you care to talk about the issues I raised, instead of just engaging in namecalling and insults?

madMOOT, if you have a problem with insults and name-calling, you should refrain from that activity and stick to issues. Go ahead a make a comment about an issue and I will gladly address it. You should also refrain from simply posting idiotic contradictions. You are not one to take serious, when all you offer is insults, name-calling, and contradictions. You set yourself up for ridicule when 99% of your posts are as such.

 

[koshergrl]

Ah, Crockford, the "polar bear researcher" who has never done field work. As is always the case with deniers, lack of qualification is what they regard as qualification.

Polar Bears doesn't seem to be bothered by low Arctic sea Ic

No, _one_ population has been growing, the Chukchi sea area, and that's been known for years. It was either very dishonest or very stupid to pretend that represented the global population.

So, we have a propaganda piece here. Ho hum. And all the deniers fell for it. Ho hum.

Principia Scientific International

How much of PSI's garbage have you fallen for? Are you also a greenhouse effect denier?

Your entire comment was dead on arrival since you were wrong on all of it starting with DOCTOR Crockford, who has a PHD in ZOOLOGY with 40 publications, mostly covering the Arctic region and various animals. With 35+ years of active service in research in the field and in Universities, she is well qualified to discuss Polar Bears.

The rest of your comments are too stupid to respond as I know you are a dishonest person. Dr. Crockfod NEVER said that one region represented all of them. Why lie so causally, when it can be spotted so easily for what it is?

There was ZERO propaganda in it since the data was from the Fish and WILDLIFE survey.

Fish and Wildlife are straight up liars. I've had them text back and forth with me where they admit they lie to keep people from going here or there. They're nutjobs and lying is their job.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Ah, Crockford, the "polar bear researcher" who has never done field work. As is always the case with deniers, lack of qualification is what they regard as qualification.

Polar Bears doesn't seem to be bothered by low Arctic sea Ic

No, _one_ population has been growing, the Chukchi sea area, and that's been known for years. It was either very dishonest or very stupid to pretend that represented the global population.

So, we have a propaganda piece here. Ho hum. And all the deniers fell for it. Ho hum.

Principia Scientific International

How much of PSI's garbage have you fallen for? Are you also a greenhouse effect denier?

Your entire comment was dead on arrival since you were wrong on all of it starting with DOCTOR Crockford, who has a PHD in ZOOLOGY with 40 publications, mostly covering the Arctic region and various animals. With 35+ years of active service in research in the field and in Universities, she is well qualified to discuss Polar Bears.

The rest of your comments are too stupid to respond as I know you are a dishonest person. Dr. Crockfod NEVER said that one region represented all of them. Why lie so causally, when it can be spotted so easily for what it is?

There was ZERO propaganda in it since the data was from the Fish and WILDLIFE survey.

Fish and Wildlife are straight up liars. I've had them text back and forth with me where they admit they lie to keep people from going here or there. They're nutjobs and lying is their job.

Translation: I have no cogent counterpoint to the article, therefore post unsubstantiated unrelated anger with the F&WS instead.

 

[koshergrl]

Ah, Crockford, the "polar bear researcher" who has never done field work. As is always the case with deniers, lack of qualification is what they regard as qualification.

Polar Bears doesn't seem to be bothered by low Arctic sea Ic

No, _one_ population has been growing, the Chukchi sea area, and that's been known for years. It was either very dishonest or very stupid to pretend that represented the global population.

So, we have a propaganda piece here. Ho hum. And all the deniers fell for it. Ho hum.

Principia Scientific International

How much of PSI's garbage have you fallen for? Are you also a greenhouse effect denier?

Your entire comment was dead on arrival since you were wrong on all of it starting with DOCTOR Crockford, who has a PHD in ZOOLOGY with 40 publications, mostly covering the Arctic region and various animals. With 35+ years of active service in research in the field and in Universities, she is well qualified to discuss Polar Bears.

The rest of your comments are too stupid to respond as I know you are a dishonest person. Dr. Crockfod NEVER said that one region represented all of them. Why lie so causally, when it can be spotted so easily for what it is?

There was ZERO propaganda in it since the data was from the Fish and WILDLIFE survey.

Fish and Wildlife are straight up liars. I've had them text back and forth with me where they admit they lie to keep people from going here or there. They're nutjobs and lying is their job.

Translation: I have no cogent counterpoint to the article, therefore post unsubstantiated unrelated anger with the F&WS instead.

They lie all the time. It's their job.

Red Wolf Advocates Accuse the Feds of Lying to Justify Their ‘Cowardly New Plan’

 

[koshergrl]

"In several recent cases at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), a branch of the Department of the Interior, Bush administration officials have demonstrated a serious disregard for scientific integrity by suppressing or distorting research by government scientists or contractors.

Contents:

• Distorting Scientific Knowledge on Florida Panthers
• Suppressing Analyses on Bull Trout Habitat
• Misrepresenting Scientific Knowledge on Rare Swans

Distorting evidence is all they have ever done.

Science Undermined at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 

[Sunsettommy]

Ah, Crockford, the "polar bear researcher" who has never done field work. As is always the case with deniers, lack of qualification is what they regard as qualification.

Polar Bears doesn't seem to be bothered by low Arctic sea Ic

No, _one_ population has been growing, the Chukchi sea area, and that's been known for years. It was either very dishonest or very stupid to pretend that represented the global population.

So, we have a propaganda piece here. Ho hum. And all the deniers fell for it. Ho hum.

Principia Scientific International

How much of PSI's garbage have you fallen for? Are you also a greenhouse effect denier?

Your entire comment was dead on arrival since you were wrong on all of it starting with DOCTOR Crockford, who has a PHD in ZOOLOGY with 40 publications, mostly covering the Arctic region and various animals. With 35+ years of active service in research in the field and in Universities, she is well qualified to discuss Polar Bears.

The rest of your comments are too stupid to respond as I know you are a dishonest person. Dr. Crockfod NEVER said that one region represented all of them. Why lie so causally, when it can be spotted so easily for what it is?

There was ZERO propaganda in it since the data was from the Fish and WILDLIFE survey.

Fish and Wildlife are straight up liars. I've had them text back and forth with me where they admit they lie to keep people from going here or there. They're nutjobs and lying is their job.

Translation: I have no cogent counterpoint to the article, therefore post unsubstantiated unrelated anger with the F&WS instead.

They lie all the time. It's their job.

Red Wolf Advocates Accuse the Feds of Lying to Justify Their ‘Cowardly New Plan’

Still waiting for evidence they lied about Polar Bear counts...….

All you posted was an ACCUSATION, nothing more. Lets wait to see what the truth really is.

 

[Windparadox]

`

`​

Source - Are polar bear populations increasing? - Polar Bears International
`

 

[strollingbones]

Don't worry trump and his mind will change that

 

[Sunsettommy]

`

`​

Source - Are polar bear populations increasing? - Polar Bears International
`

From YOUR highly misleading link is this gem:

"We do know (and I have published papers on this) that some polar bear populations grew after quotas were imposed in Canada, aerial hunting ceased in Alaska, and trapping and hunting were banned in Svalbard. All of these events occurred in the late 60s or early 70s, and we know some populations responded—as you would expect. Some populations were not being hunted back then (or were hunted very little) and those were probably unaffected by these three actions.

Back then, the sea ice was solid and not noticeably in retreat. With stable habitat, polar bears were a renewable resource that could be harvested on a sustainable basis.

But the most important point is that whatever happened in the past is really irrelevant. Polar bear habitat is disappearing due to global warming. Even the most careful on-the-ground management doesn't matter if polar bears don't have the required habitat.

Polar bears depend on the sea ice surface to efficiently catch their seal prey. A shorter duration of ice cover over their productive hunting areas means less opportunity to hunt. A reduction in sea ice has been statistically linked to reduced stature and weight in polar bears and to lower survival rates of cubs. So, it doesn't really matter that hunting is now largely under control or that we know a lot about other impacts people might have on bears. Without habitat, polar bears will disappear no matter what else we do."

Yes Controlling the Hunt made a difference in some areas, especially in Canada where most of it occurs.

Armstrup hopes you are ignorant of Polar Bears dietary habits, since LOW to NO Summer Sea ice cover is IRRELEVANT as they have already gained most of their calories for the year by late June. Then we have numerous published papers that shows there were little to no Summer ice for CENTURIES in the Early Holocene up the MWP time frame, yet they are here and in large numbers even NOW, despite that the Summer Arctic ice cover has been low for over a decade, they are NOT declining even with that long period of low Summer Ice.

Polar Bears are in no danger these days, despite the misleading claims being made on them.

 

[Windparadox]

From YOUR highly misleading link is this gem:"We do know (and I have published papers on this) that some polar bear populations grew after quotas were imposed in Canada, aerial hunting ceased in Alaska, and trapping and hunting were banned in Svalbard. All of these events occurred in the late 60s or early 70s, and we know some populations responded—as you would expect. Some populations were not being hunted back then (or were hunted very little) and those were probably unaffected by these three actions.

Back then, the sea ice was solid and not noticeably in retreat. With stable habitat, polar bears were a renewable resource that could be harvested on a sustainable basis.But the most important point is that whatever happened in the past is really irrelevant. Polar bear habitat is disappearing due to global warming. Even the most careful on-the-ground management doesn't matter if polar bears don't have the required habitat.Polar bears depend on the sea ice surface to efficiently catch their seal prey. A shorter duration of ice cover over their productive hunting areas means less opportunity to hunt. A reduction in sea ice has been statistically linked to reduced stature and weight in polar bears and to lower survival rates of cubs. So, it doesn't really matter that hunting is now largely under control or that we know a lot about other impacts people might have on bears. Without habitat, polar bears will disappear no matter what else we do."Yes Controlling the Hunt made a difference in some areas, especially in Canada where most of it occurs.Armstrup hopes you are ignorant of Polar Bears dietary habits, since LOW to NO Summer Sea ice cover is IRRELEVANT as they have already gained most of their calories for the year by late June. Then we have numerous published papers that shows there were little to no Summer ice for CENTURIES in the Early Holocene up the MWP time frame, yet they are here and in large numbers even NOW, despite that the Summer Arctic ice cover has been low for over a decade, they are NOT declining even with that long period of low Summer Ice.Polar Bears are in no danger these days, despite the misleading claims being made on them.

`
You left out this part;

"Planetary physics require the world to warm as greenhouse gas concentrations rise, so without greenhouse gas mitigation, the ice will continue to melt. For an animal dependent on sea ice to survive, the prospects are not good. As the ice decline continues, the plight of the polar bear only can worsen."
`

 

[elektra]

"In several recent cases at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), a branch of the Department of the Interior, Bush administration officials have demonstrated a serious disregard for scientific integrity by suppressing or distorting research by government scientists or contractors.

Contents:

• Distorting Scientific Knowledge on Florida Panthers
• Suppressing Analyses on Bull Trout Habitat
• Misrepresenting Scientific Knowledge on Rare Swans

Distorting evidence is all they have ever done.

Science Undermined at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Your post contains no fact and your links also contain no facts? You did not quote from your links? How are we to respond to your post? You simply get to use google as a deck of cards and post the results as if that is a settled fact? Either way, quote and comment otherwise I will simply post 4 links to win the hand.

 

[Sunsettommy]

From YOUR highly misleading link is this gem:"We do know (and I have published papers on this) that some polar bear populations grew after quotas were imposed in Canada, aerial hunting ceased in Alaska, and trapping and hunting were banned in Svalbard. All of these events occurred in the late 60s or early 70s, and we know some populations responded—as you would expect. Some populations were not being hunted back then (or were hunted very little) and those were probably unaffected by these three actions.

Back then, the sea ice was solid and not noticeably in retreat. With stable habitat, polar bears were a renewable resource that could be harvested on a sustainable basis.But the most important point is that whatever happened in the past is really irrelevant. Polar bear habitat is disappearing due to global warming. Even the most careful on-the-ground management doesn't matter if polar bears don't have the required habitat.Polar bears depend on the sea ice surface to efficiently catch their seal prey. A shorter duration of ice cover over their productive hunting areas means less opportunity to hunt. A reduction in sea ice has been statistically linked to reduced stature and weight in polar bears and to lower survival rates of cubs. So, it doesn't really matter that hunting is now largely under control or that we know a lot about other impacts people might have on bears. Without habitat, polar bears will disappear no matter what else we do."Yes Controlling the Hunt made a difference in some areas, especially in Canada where most of it occurs.Armstrup hopes you are ignorant of Polar Bears dietary habits, since LOW to NO Summer Sea ice cover is IRRELEVANT as they have already gained most of their calories for the year by late June. Then we have numerous published papers that shows there were little to no Summer ice for CENTURIES in the Early Holocene up the MWP time frame, yet they are here and in large numbers even NOW, despite that the Summer Arctic ice cover has been low for over a decade, they are NOT declining even with that long period of low Summer Ice.Polar Bears are in no danger these days, despite the misleading claims being made on them.

`
You left out this part;

"Planetary physics require the world to warm as greenhouse gas concentrations rise, so without greenhouse gas mitigation, the ice will continue to melt. For an animal dependent on sea ice to survive, the prospects are not good. As the ice decline continues, the plight of the polar bear only can worsen."
`

I read it, but YOU didn't realize that Polar Bears survived little to NO summer ice for centuries in a world that was around 2-3C warmer than now. Polar Bears are still here today....

The decline stopped after 2007, been roughly stable since then.

 

[Windparadox]

`
Polar Bears Really Are Starving Because of Global Warming, Study Shows - Feb 1, 2018 - National Geographic.

I'm not much into paying any attention to myopic political partisans.
`

 

[Sunsettommy]

`
Polar Bears Really Are Starving Because of Global Warming, Study Shows - Feb 1, 2018 - National Geographic.

I'm not much into paying any attention to myopic political partisans.
`

From your google link:

Global polar bear population larger than previous thought – almost 30,000

Polar bear status, distribution & population

Neither one says they are starving....

 

[skookerasbil]

`
Polar Bears Really Are Starving Because of Global Warming, Study Shows - Feb 1, 2018 - National Geographic.

I'm not much into paying any attention to myopic political partisans.
`

Only those easily fooled by loose association information fooled by that article. Polar bears have always starved. Always have....always will. Like any other species. The thing is, less polar bears are starving now....something National Geographic conveniently ignores....which they can. They know there are plenty of suckers out there.

Oh.... and hate to break it to you sweetie but it's always about the politics!

 

[Sunsettommy]

I see that both Koshergirl and Windparadox doesn't realize that Summer ice cover doesn't endanger Polar Bear survival, how else can their over all population increase SINCE the early part of the first decade while summer ice declined to a low in 2007, then stopped declining, while Polar Bear population increases some more since 2005:

Global polar bear population larger than previous thought – almost 30,000

The results of three recently-released studies that were not included in the last IUCN Red List assessment add more than 2,050 bears (on average)1 to the official 2015 global polar bear estimate, a point you won’t likely hear next Monday (27 February) from most polar bear specialists, conservation organizations, their cheerleaders and corporate sponsors on International Polar Bear Day.

This means the adjusted 2015 global estimate for polar bears should be about 28,500 (average), a marked increase over the official estimate of 26,500 (average) for 2015 — and an even larger increase over the 2005 estimate of about 22,500 (average)2, despite the dramatic loss of summer sea ice since 2007 that we hear about endlessly.

It is increasingly obvious that polar bears are thriving despite having lived through summer sea ice levels not predicted to occur until 2050 – levels of sea ice that experts said would wipe out 2/3 of the world’s polar bears (Amstrup et al. 2007; Crockford 2017 v3).

 

[Windparadox]

Only those easily fooled by loose association information fooled by that article. Polar bears have always starved. Always have....always will. Like any other species. The thing is, less polar bears are starving now....something National Geographic conveniently ignores....which they can. They know there are plenty of suckers out therere. Oh.... and hate to break it to you sweetie but it's always about the politics

`
I understand your feelings honey and you have my sympathies.
`

 

[mamooth]

Dr. Crockfod NEVER said that one region represented all of them.

But you did. So, the lying was your idea. You made a thread titled "Polar Bear Population is increasing", and then screamed in your OP that "Polar Bears doesn't seem to be bothered by low Arctic sea Ice that much after all".

So, same old same old. You lied, I called you on it, and you went into a screaming butthurt meltdown.

I'm fine with that situation. If you want to keep lying, I'll continue to enjoy pointing it out. It's funny to watch you get hysterical. But if you'd like to end your humiliation, there's an easy way you can do that. If you stop lying, I'll stop pointing it out. Does that sound fair?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Dr. Crockfod NEVER said that one region represented all of them.

But you did. So, the lying was your idea. You made a thread titled "Polar Bear Population is increasing", and then screamed in your OP that "Polar Bears doesn't seem to be bothered by low Arctic sea Ice that much after all".

So, same old same old. You lied, I called you on it, and you went into a screaming butthurt meltdown.

I'm fine with that situation. If you want to keep lying, I'll continue to enjoy pointing it out. It's funny to watch you get hysterical. But if you'd like to end your humiliation, there's an easy way you can do that. If you stop lying, I'll stop pointing it out. Does that sound fair?

You are amazing since I didn't make the headline, the author did, and if you bothered to read the article it was about a specific region.

Headline I didn't make:

New Survey: Polar Bear Population Is Largest Ever ( Dr. Crockford wrote it)

The main point of the article you didn't read:

"The Chukchi Sea finally has a polar bear population estimate! According to survey results from 2016 only recently made public, about 2,937 bears (1,522-5,944) currently inhabit the region, making this the largest subpopulation in the Arctic."

red bolding mine

You have been caught making fallacious statements that I have corrected which you have ignored ever since, then you claim I made the headline when I didn't, then you try to make it appear that I lied when everything I posted was from someone else.

You dislike this line I wrote, but offer nothing against it but whine:

"Polar Bears doesn't seem to be bothered by low Arctic sea Ice that much after all, maybe it wasn't that critical in the first place for a reason warmists never seem to fathom."

I backed up with evidence, which is why you are unhappy, because you can't dispute it.

You haven't made a single supported statement, which means you have nothing useful here to offer.