Endangered Polar Bears?

[chuckakers 426]

I wasn't surprised to see only 7 links on google news when I searched for "polar bear expert barred". After all, this isn't something the global warming loving media wants to hear.

A couple articles linked. This has guy has studied polar bear populations for 30 years. I'm thinking that makes him an "expert".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529493,00.html

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[mnealtx 0]

Since he's not agreeing with the conclusions of the IPCC, any studies or testimony he may have is therefore flawed.

He is, in fact, NOT an expert but just another "denier".

*NB: the above is sarcasm, do not take seriously however much it may resemble real-life accounts*

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,120]

>I'm thinking that makes him an "expert".

OK, let's take that as a given. Do you agree with his conclusions?

[lawrocket 3]

A Jew would not be invited to a Christian Coalition meeting. Nor would a Muslim be invited to a Jehovah's Witness conference.

We won't find a geneticist allowed to attend Creationism Now!

There will not be allowed to have evidence presented that runs contrary to the Truth^c that is to be established.

It's not that his views are not supported by the evidence. His views are not "helpful."

I wonder if Rajmund Prsybylak will be invited. He found no evidence of greenhouse warming between 1951 and 1990.

The bastards...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>I'm thinking that makes him an "expert".

OK, let's take that as a given. Do you agree with his conclusions?

Do YOU believe that the bears are endangered TODAY because of man made global warming.

Do YOU believe that the numbers used by Al Gore and others in this way are ok or mis-leading?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

A Jew would not be invited to a Christian Coalition meeting. Nor would a Muslim be invited to a Jehovah's Witness conference.

We won't find a geneticist allowed to attend Creationism Now!

There will not be allowed to have evidence presented that runs contrary to the Truth^c that is to be established.

It's not that his views are not supported by the evidence. His views are not "helpful."

I wonder if Rajmund Prsybylak will be invited. He found no evidence of greenhouse warming between 1951 and 1990.

The bastards...

Let's not forget that the OP quoted a one-sided OPINION piece from a right wing columnist in a right wing newspaper, and the other link was from FOX. Don't go treating it like objective news from the BBC.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

This has guy has studied polar bear populations for 30 years. I'm thinking that makes him an "expert".

I've studied women for 40+ years, does this make me a gynecologist?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

A Jew would not be invited to a Christian Coalition meeting. Nor would a Muslim be invited to a Jehovah's Witness conference.

We won't find a geneticist allowed to attend Creationism Now!

There will not be allowed to have evidence presented that runs contrary to the Truth^c that is to be established.

It's not that his views are not supported by the evidence. His views are not "helpful."

I wonder if Rajmund Prsybylak will be invited. He found no evidence of greenhouse warming between 1951 and 1990.

The bastards...

Let's not forget that the OP quoted a one-sided OPINION piece from a right wing columnist in a right wing newspaper, and the other link was from FOX. Don't go treating it like objective news from the BBC.

So the BBC is objective and i supposed I can assume from your post that there are no lefty slanted news orgs?



God I missed you
which ever one you are

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

This has guy has studied polar bear populations for 30 years. I'm thinking that makes him an "expert".

I've studied women for 40+ years, does this make me a gynecologist?

If that is what you are staring at I would say it makes you a pervert.........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[councilman24 37]

Only if you have Dr. in front of your name.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Only if you have Dr. in front of your name.

you mean those "real" Dr.'s, right, not those fake ones that don't treat patients

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

A Jew would not be invited to a Christian Coalition meeting. Nor would a Muslim be invited to a Jehovah's Witness conference.

We won't find a geneticist allowed to attend Creationism Now!

There will not be allowed to have evidence presented that runs contrary to the Truth^c that is to be established.

It's not that his views are not supported by the evidence. His views are not "helpful."

I wonder if Rajmund Prsybylak will be invited. He found no evidence of greenhouse warming between 1951 and 1990.

The bastards...

Let's not forget that the OP quoted a one-sided OPINION piece from a right wing columnist in a right wing newspaper, and the other link was from FOX. Don't go treating it like objective news from the BBC.

Quote

so since this is a one sided opinion piece that makes it wrong? under those standards that would make all left wing one sided opinion pieces wrong also.

[chuckakers 426]

Quote

>I'm thinking that makes him an "expert".

OK, let's take that as a given. Do you agree with his conclusions?

Given his resume, I see no reason to doubt his conclusions. This is a guy who has been on the ground focusing on nothing but polar bears for 30 years. I must also assume he is a polar bear advocate, so if the population really has been dwindling, one would think he would say so.

IMO, the global warming crowd took the picture of the polar bear on the floating ice chunk and created a new "fact" with it to support their theories. The believers grabbed onto it (in part because the bear in question was so cute) and have swallowed the story ever since.

First it was global warming. When the evidence of that started disagreeing with the theory, the cause was changed to "climate change". Unable to prove that, they have now gone to simply "green". A movement. Nothing more, nothing less.

And it's all designed to take your money while making the lemmings feel good about themselves.

Once again - repeat a lie long enough and it becomes the truth....for those not willing or able to see the lie for what it is - a lie.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[chuckakers 426]

Quote

A Jew would not be invited to a Christian Coalition meeting. Nor would a Muslim be invited to a Jehovah's Witness conference.

We won't find a geneticist allowed to attend Creationism Now!

There will not be allowed to have evidence presented that runs contrary to the Truth^c that is to be established.

It's not that his views are not supported by the evidence. His views are not "helpful."

Bingo!

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Only if you have Dr. in front of your name.

Check.

OK, I guess I'm a gynecologist.
Ladies - get in line.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[councilman24 37]

That's right, I forgot.

Pile it higher and Deeper

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Only if you have Dr. in front of your name.

Check.

OK, I guess I'm a gynecologist.
Ladies - get in line.

I'm a doctor. People think I'm a twat.

I am far more highly qualified than you, doctor Kallend.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,120]

>Given his resume, I see no reason to doubt his conclusions.

OK, cool. So you agree with him that anthropogenic global warming is not causing polar bears to become endangered. (He _does_ agree that AGW is warming the poles.)

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

>Given his resume, I see no reason to doubt his conclusions.

OK, cool. So you agree with him that anthropogenic global warming is not causing polar bears to become endangered. (He _does_ agree that AGW is warming the poles.)

You are expecting some sort of consistency, aren't you

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jdfreefly 1]

This seems like a fairly balanced presentation of Dr' Taylor's views:

http://www.nnsl.com/northern-news-services/stories/papers/sep17_07bear.html

FTA:

Quote

"While Taylor doesn't dispute that climate change is happening, he thinks that recent worries over polar bear population loss is extreme and premature.

"They are generalizing to the rest of the world that we are losing them ... How can our observations be in such dire opposition to theirs?"

It's important to note that he does believe in climate change, he just doesn't believe it is having an impact on polar bear populations.

Also, I only skimmed the article, but I don't think it gives his opinion one way or the other that climate change is man made or part of a natural cycle only that he believes climate change is real. One could argue his opinion on that is irrelevant since he's a biologist.

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

>I'm thinking that makes him an "expert".

OK, let's take that as a given. Do you agree with his conclusions?

It's irrelevant if anyone agrees or disagrees with his conclusions.

The facts are that he is a bona fide expert, with a real viewpoint, grounded in real scientific research.

You shouldn't exclude scientifically valid points of view from the debate because they are politically inconvenient. What is this, the middle ages?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[chuckakers 426]

Quote

>Given his resume, I see no reason to doubt his conclusions.

OK, cool. So you agree with him that anthropogenic global warming is not causing polar bears to become endangered. (He _does_ agree that AGW is warming the poles.)

Nope. The guy is a biologist. I doubt his views on global warming are from any independent research on his part. Assuming that's the case, he's just drinking the cool-aid on "AGW".

Just because I agree with the guy on issues he really is an expert on doesn't mean I have to agree with him on everything else, or anything else for that matter.

Nice try, though.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[billvon 3,120]

>The facts are that he is a bona fide expert, with a real viewpoint,
>grounded in real scientific research. You shouldn't exclude scientifically
>valid points of view from the debate because they are politically
>inconvenient. What is this, the middle ages?

In my life I've given perhaps 60 talks, on topics from supplemental oxygen usage in sport skydiving to design issues with direct-digital power converters. Usually it starts off by sending a paper to a conference committee. Occasionally I will send a paper into a conference - and I will not be invited to give a talk on it.

Up until now I figured that I was rejected because they had enough speakers, or no one was too interested in power-factor-correction input stage design, or my paper wasn't very good. But now I realize that I am being oppressed by an evil anti-switching-power religion, who hopes to muzzle my brilliant contribution to the field of switching power systems. No doubt they are all linear power dinosaurs who can't handle the truth.

It's just like the Middle Ages, I tell you! My perfectly valid engineering point of view is being censored because it's politically inconvenient! That's the ONLY possible explanation. At first I considered putting more effort into the papers I write, but now I realize I am just a hapless victim. I feel so much better now.

[billvon 3,120]

>Nope.

So the organizers at that conference are evil for ignoring what he says, because he is clearly qualified to speak to the science. Heck, he's so qualified there's no reason to doubt him!

You, however, are wise to ignore what he says, because he is clearly unqualified to speak to the science. Heck, he's so stupid he's "drinking the kool-aid!"

It's always better to avoid doing exactly what you condemn others for doing, at least for a few days after making the accusation. Makes it a little hard to take your posts seriously.

[steve1 5]

This guy sounds like he knows what he is talking about. There probably are more polar bears now than several years ago. Global warming probably isn't affecting them much.....yet! In the long run they may not do so well though.

I imagine about any wildlife biologist (in the far north) knows a whole lot more about this than I do. But possibly Polar Bears will adapt okay to this warming. Hundred of other species may gp extinct in the mean time, but possibly Polar Bears will fair okay.

There have been a lot of emotional commercials on T.V. lately stating that Polar Bears are on their way to extinction. I wonder if that is true?

One threat to Polar Bears and other wildlife are Native American hunters. They often go out and slaughter all that they can find with few restrictions.... The government seems to think that is okay. You seldom see or hear about that.