"The (Polar) Bear Facts," Checked
August 15, 2011 11:46 am ET by Shauna Theel
In response to the suspension of federal scientist Charles Monnett, author of a 2006 article documenting polar bear deaths, conservative media have tried to dismiss the threat posed to polar bears by global warming. On Sunday, a New York Post editorial claimed Monnett's paper "led directly to the 2008 classification of the bears as a 'threatened' species, whose survival is allegedly at risk due to global warming." The editorial, titled "The (polar) bear facts," concluded that there is "no need to weep for 'threatened' polar bears just yet - nor, especially, for the planet."

In fact, the Fish and Wildlife Service's determination that "the polar bear is threatened throughout its entire range by ongoing and projected changes in sea ice habitat" was based on a comprehensive evaluation of "the best available scientific and commercial information on polar bear habitat and projected effects of various factors (including climate change) on the quantity and distribution of polar bear habitat."
Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity stated in response to Sen. James Inhofe's claim that Monnett's paper provided "the foundation" for the FWS determination: "That paper was one of literally hundreds of scientific articles cited in the listing."
Indeed, the determination cites many studies documenting how the "observed declines in the extent of Arctic sea ice" has and will affect polar bears, for instance:
Many researchers over the past 40 years have predicted an array of impacts to polar bears from climatic change that include adverse effects on denning, food chain disruption, and prey availability (Budyko 1966, p. 20; Lentfer 1972, p. 169; Tynan and DeMaster 1997, p. 315; Stirling and Derocher 1993, pp. 241-244).
Stirling and Derocher (1993, p. 240) first noted changes, such as declining body condition, lowered reproductive rates, and reduced cub survival, in polar bears in western Hudson Bay; they attributed these changes to a changing ice environment. Subsequently, Stirling et al. (1999, p. 303) established a statistically significant link between climate change in western Hudson Bay, reduced ice presence, and observed declines in polar bear physical and reproductive parameters, including body condition (weight) and natality. More recently Stirling and Parkinson (2006, p. 266) established a statistically significant decline in weights of lone and suspected pregnant adult female polar bears in western Hudson Bay between 1988 and 2004. Reduced body weights of adult females during fall have been correlated with subsequent declines in cub survival (Atkinson and Ramsay 1995, p. 559; Derocher and Stirling 1996, p. 1,250; Derocher and Wiig 2002, p. 347).
The Post editorial also falsely suggested that a recent study raises doubt about the basic fact that "carbon-dioxide emissions trap heat in the atmosphere" and falsely claimed that "climategate" showed scientists "fudg[ing] the facts."
















Liberals have 99 pieces of evidence for them and 1 against and they're somehow wrong.
Conservtaives' lone piece of evidence is that they were able to debunk 1 of the Liberal's original 100 and that somehow makes them right.
They just don't know know how to THINK! I call it "THYNKING."
A Liberal will tell you why your argument is wrong. A Conservative will tell you why it's Liberal.
---------------------------------------
IMHO
UTOPIA
They use this template on almost every issue, but it's especially funny on scientific topics like climate. Loads and loads of solid science, but one piece turns out to be flawed ( or simply complex enough that they can be led to believe it's flawed), and they think that "debunks" all of the other pieces.
If early humans all had right wing brains, we'd still be throwing rocks at the moon.
I'll add another to your statement that they think finding one problem negates everything else ( as long as it's a "liberal" position); the wingnut can be consistently wrong about everything, 100% failed on facts and logic, but-
They'll still refer to their past fantasy victories and stellar history, or-
They'll, once in a great while, get something right, or catch a mistake by their "enemies", and believe that erases all of their other failures.
I just saw another thread where somebody called Rev. Moon the "South Korean Glenn Beck", and a wingnut pounced on it to point out that Moon is from North Korea, and that this was evidence that libs can't make jokes.
The mistake really had no impact on the joke, and it's pretty well-established that comedy is dominated by lefties, and almost incomprehensible to wingnuts, but that didn't matter. The wingnut, after creeping around websites forever, finally found a minor gaffe, and thought it changed the world.
It's as though I were to create a long, complicated mathematical proof of why the sky is blue. By the wingnut logic, if my proof is shown to be completely bogus it would then mean that the sky isn't blue. They think they have a gotcha, but their hands are empty.
This sums it up perfectly.
(Just change "would then mean that" to "would be concrete, irrefutable PROOF that".)
;)
------------------------------
IMHO
UTOPIA
I just browsed through the pages of your blog and I have to say that in many respects you do have a logical conservative slant. Kudos. We probably agree on about 50, maybe 60 percent of what you have written but that other 40 or 50 percent is strange considering your religious stance (one example..you consider abortion wrong at a given point in the pregnancy yet believe humans are just random chemicals that randomly assembled themselves at some point in time and evolved to form humans, so what makes us so special? ie..an ant is a rat is a dog is a monkey is a human all just random assortment of chemicals)
Sorry about getting off topic here folks, but Eddie deserves some sliver of respect for his blog. But just to stay on topic slightly, its going to be hot in the summer and cold in the winter. And when did we stop calling it Global Warming and move to GLobal Climate Change. Newsflash: the climate is always changing.
If you're actually interested in discussing the topic, instead of taking issue with the name and declaring that the end of debate, concern yourself with the details of what constitutes (capitalized) Climate Change.
Maybe you could try to actually contribute to the discussion rather than post nonsense. If you really think heating up the earth's atmosphere will provide a more hospitable growing environment, you haven't read much on this topic.
Please explain the following. There have been periods of warming on Earth as much as an avg 10 degrees over a 100 year period (plants and some animals present no humans) How did it warm without evil humans?
You are totally full of bull. You work in a related field and you are posting such nonsense? Yes, in an ice age nothing grows (obviously), but AGW will not be hospitable to agriculture. If you think otherwise, could you please link to a peer reviewed study that shows I'm wrong?
>>Please explain the following. There have been periods of warming on Earth as much as an avg 10 degrees over a 100 year period (plants and some animals present no humans) How did it warm without evil humans?
That is a vague question and wrong as well. In what period did the earth change by so much so drastically? Yes, the earth has been much hotter and colder in the past. We understand the mechanisms (orbital variations, etc), just as we understand that man made CO2 is heating up the earth now.
Now do you have any peer-reviewed science to bolster you claims?
BUT erock33, your question "There have been periods of warming on Earth as much as an avg 10 degrees over a 100 year period (plants and some animals present no humans) How did it warm without evil humans?" can be shown to be absurd quite easily with this similar absurd statement - "There have been many wildfires on the earth including the Fire Siege of 1987 that were cause by lightning. How do fires start if there is no lightning around to start them?"
See how that works? Just because you understand one cause for a phenomenon, does not mean there are no other causes. So, jthe fact that there were warm and cold periods before human intervention is no reason to rule out human causes of climate change now.
I doubt there was any period in the past that showed a 10 degree warming in 100 years. So much warming in such a short period seems absurd on its face.
Thank goodness Lord Rayleigh explained it so well before those conservative media tactics were employed, or the sky would be green.
Currently, polar bears are doing okay due to a variety of reasons, but they'll eventually really struggle as a species due to GCC. Ignoring that eventuality and solely concentrating on the short term outlook for polar bears is typical rightwing behavior.
She wanted a share of the booty, I believe. Don't we all?
The paper by Spencer uses a model that is so simplistic that it is meaningless. realclimate.org and other websites have pointed this out (as has skeptical science). However, it was not published in a bogus journal. It was published in *Remote sensing,* a reputable journal for geographers. Note that it did not appear in a climate journal; had Spencer tried to get it published in such a journal, it would have been rejected, as realclimate pointed out.
... THAT POINT is when Conservatives will step forward and do what we all expect from them now: Blame liberals.
You know this is what will happen despite all the scientific evidence HOW? Oh thats right you pulled that directly from your lower torso
Follow the money and I'll show you any claim upheld as the truth
With any luck some of these "grant" inspired scientists will feed a few of these so-called "starving" bears.
:)
Sure. You will say ANYTHING to beg us to pity you. You know how stupid and pathetic you are and you are more addicted to the pity of those so much smarter and better than you will ever be that you humiliate yourself just like this. It is a sad way to be but then you are a sad small person. An inferior and vile person. You are like the kid who tries to knock over the birthday cake at a party since no one likes you and you know no one ever will so since you CANT be part of the group you want to ruin it for your betters. You disgust me. You disgust all decent human beings and you always will. Your life will always be a misery since you will always be this stupid and this pathetic. Sucks to be you