Canada Kicks Ass
Grizzly Bears are in on the Global Climate Change Conspiracy

REPLY

1  2  Next



Newsbot @ Sat Dec 14, 2019 3:51 pm

Title: Grizzly Bears are in on the Global Climate Change Conspiracy
Category: Business
Posted By: BeaverFever
Date: 2019-12-14 14:22:23
Canadian

   



N_Fiddledog @ Sat Dec 14, 2019 3:51 pm

The link's dead, Beave but we must hope your warminista buddies have more credibility on grizzly bears than they had on Polar bears as 'canary in the global warmiac coal mine."

As we all know that one turned out to be a ridiculous non-fact sourced on nonsense...and Al Gore, but I repeat myself.

   



BeaverFever @ Sat Dec 14, 2019 4:04 pm

Link is fixed so maybe you should read about how Grizzlies along with various other southern flora and fauna are now a new invasive species in the high arctic so you can invent some vast conspiracy explanation for it

Also nothing was exposed about polar bears. As usual the Right either misunderstood or deliberately distorted the message then “debunked” a claim that nobody made. Polar bears are threatened by climate cha. Nobody ever said they were on the verge of extinction.

   



N_Fiddledog @ Sat Dec 14, 2019 4:26 pm

BeaverFever wrote:
Also nothing was exposed about polar bears. As usual the Right either misunderstood or deliberately distorted the message then “debunked” a claim that nobody made. Polar bears are threatened by climate cha. Nobody ever said they were on the verge of extinction.


No? Then where did the oft claimed phrase "Polar bears are the canary in the coal mine" come from?

Then we couldn't help noticing the general polar bear population was actually growing not shrinking. :lol:

   



N_Fiddledog @ Sat Dec 14, 2019 4:48 pm

Quote:
In this short interview clip with Friends of Science director Michelle Stirling, I talk about the drowning polar bears in Al Gore’s 2007 movie that he implied would lead to the extinction of the species. Except that it didn’t…


https://polarbearscience.com/2019/09/10 ... -it-wasnt/

   



BeaverFever @ Sat Dec 14, 2019 7:13 pm

Sigh. As usual you tru to oversimplify things. The expression “Canary in the coal mine” means its a sentinel species. It does not mean it’s on the verge of extinction. A sentinel species means it will be among the first to show the effects of a change to the environment.

Some polar bear populations are stable or slightly increasing. Others are decreasing. The number of polar bear subpopulations experiencing recent decreases has gone from 1 to 4. Polar bears are also showing other signs of climate change-related stress. Because the ice is breaking up earlier there are declines in the survival rates of both young and old bears. The bears are also thinner.

https://arcticwwf.org/newsroom/stories/ ... ling-news/

Quote:
Take the population in the greater Churchill area, for example, which was analyzed in a 2012 paper entitled Western Hudson Bay Polar Bear Aerial Survey. While the Government of Nunavut, which commissioned the study, was quick to trumpet an increase in polar bear numbers — and call for higher hunting quotas — the University of Minnesota scientists who actually did the work were more judicious. The sea ice in Hudson Bay is now breaking up two to three weeks earlier than it did three decades ago. And since a bear on land is easier to spot from a helicopter than a bear on the ice, catastrophically early ice breakup may have just made the bears more visible. By that logic, a higher count could actually be evidence that the bears are doing worse.

Even more troublesome is the fact that the number of cubs observed in the western Hudson Bay population is dramatically lower than in the past. While adult bears may be fat and savvy enough to survive a few lean years, juvenile bears reach a tipping point quickly. Despite the triumphal notes sounded by the Nunavut government, the study’s authors point out that the scarcity of cubs undercuts the entire hypothesis that “increasing numbers of bears … are the result of overall subpopulation growth.”


https://www.canadiangeographic.ca/artic ... olar-bears

   



N_Fiddledog @ Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:50 am

Well, "verge of extinction" is your term. I'm not sure why it's so important to you, myself.

Ever seen this one?



They're ya go, Mister Context. Tell me what the warmiacs were trying to suggest with that old ad?

See, cause to me, they seem to be suggesting AGW is killing the polar bears and that's bad.

And what was Al Gore trying to suggest when he made such a stink about the alleged four drowned polar bears? Sounded to me like he wanted us to believe this was, or was soon going to be, business as usual.

BTW there's been a lot of new information confirming the increased population of polar bears since 2012 (when your buddy in your link was trying so hard to come up with excuses for what everybody else was noticing.)

Overall, there are more bears.

   



BeaverFever @ Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:03 am

Only one of the links was from 2012. Northern populations are growing while the southern populations which are the most affected are struggling.

Also why are you deflecting from the OP about Grizzlies? I guess it’s too recent for you to have received your talking points from Denier Central Command. Do let us know once they’ve told you what to think.

   



CharlesAnthony @ Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:06 am

Oh, I get it!
Global climate change is a conspiracy!

   



PluggyRug @ Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:51 am

Image

   



Sunnyways @ Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:34 am

Pressure on southern polar bear populations now has a new element. Grizzlies are highly competitive for carcasses and will defy wolf packs and even Siberian tigers in Asia to take them. Polar bears have few skills to deal with a warming climate and may not be able to adapt their behaviour, esp. diet, quickly enough to avoid extirpation from their southern range.

   



N_Fiddledog @ Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:46 am

BeaverFever wrote:
Only one of the links was from 2012. Northern populations are growing while the southern populations which are the most affected are struggling.

Also why are you deflecting from the OP about Grizzlies? I guess it’s too recent for you to have received your talking points from Denier Central Command. Do let us know once they’ve told you what to think.


Only one of your 2 links mattered. The WWF are crap. Their quote unquote "studies" are crap. I gave it a quick scan though. They didn't seem to be saying anything that mattered.

Now as to deflecting "from the OP about Grizzily Bears." Yeah, let's talk about that OP. First of all you altered the title to sound more hysterical. Shame on you.

The actual title is:

"Grizzly bears move north in High Arctic as climate change expands range"

As we get into the body of the article we discover:

Quote:
Grizzly bears have lost significant habitat to human settlement across North America and continue to struggle in some regions. But they have been expanding their range northward for several years, he said. One area seeing more grizzlies is the west coast of Hudson Bay, including Wapusk National Park near Churchill, Man., best known for its roaming polar bears.

With no southerly source population, it shows that grizzlies aren’t just moving north, they’re moving east and south as well.


At this point some " associate professor in the school of environment and sustainability" chirps in with 'OMG! Climate Change! Hide your daughters!'

OK, what he actually said was, "“Something pretty big is going on and we don’t know why,”

Tell you a trick though. As soon as you see the word "sustainability" you know you're being fed BS. It's one of those progressive buzz words like "diversity" they bring out when they're going to feed you a line.

But basically you and the "associate" professor of "sustainability" are frantic that the global warming is going to get the Grizzly bears.

WHY?

Some nice weather and the added plant fertilizer of CO2 have made some tundra space more compatible to wildlife. So what?

Good for the Grizzlies if they can wander up there or into other areas to get away from all the immigrants building housing developments where they used to hunt.

   



N_Fiddledog @ Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:55 am

Sunnyways wrote:
Polar bears have few skills to deal with a warming climate and may not be able to adapt their behaviour, esp. diet, quickly enough to avoid extirpation from their southern range.


Really? Then tell me how Polar Bears survived hundreds of thousands of years in their present adaptation to the arctic. How did they survive during the Holocene Maximum for example, when it was warmer than present day?

   



Sunnyways @ Sun Dec 15, 2019 5:52 pm

N_Fiddledog wrote:
Sunnyways wrote:
Polar bears have few skills to deal with a warming climate and may not be able to adapt their behaviour, esp. diet, quickly enough to avoid extirpation from their southern range.


Really? Then tell me how Polar Bears survived hundreds of thousands of years in their present adaptation to the arctic. How did they survive during the Holocene Maximum for example, when it was warmer than present day?


That’s probably a difficult question for anybody to answer with our current knowledge and it would be foolish to make dogmatic assertions. I would say the rate of warming was less abrupt than now and that polar bears were not subject to all the other anthropogenic pressures on their environment we see today. The fossil record does show that polar bears have disappeared before from coastal Europe as the climate warmed.

BTW grizzlies would naturally move east and south if they were allowed to by humans because that is where they used to be. Moving north is different. How many wildlife shots has David Attenborough taken of grizzly bears hunting seals on the ice?

   



N_Fiddledog @ Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:26 pm

Sunnyways wrote:
That’s probably a difficult question for anybody to answer with our current knowledge and it would be foolish to make dogmatic assertions.


I see and yet you didn't hesitate to make this "dogmatic assertion":

Sunnyways wrote:
Polar bears have few skills to deal with a warming climate


You know that because why?

   



REPLY

1  2  Next