Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] climate vs weather; was "why and how"



The World Wildlife Fund - WWF ( hardly a bastion of conservatism - just conservationists ) stated the following in 2009:

"20-25,000 polar bears worldwide
Aproximately 19 distinct sub-populations (see above map)
60% of these are in Canada
Tracks have been reported as far north as the pole
Few scientists believe few bears travel beyond 82° north latitude. This is because the northern Arctic Ocean has little food for them."

This is more in line with Bill's statement.

Bob at PC


________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of brian whatcott [betwys1@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 9:46 PM
To: phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] climate vs weather; was "why and how"

On 12/22/2010 2:24 PM, William Robertson wrote:
/snip/ when the dramatic predictions are shown to be
wrong, it backfires. Take the assertion that, because their habitat is
decreasing, polar bears are on their way to becoming extinct. A great
PR tool, because who wants polar bears to die off? Kids really don't
want that. You can show pictures of polar bears clinging to small ice
floes and it tugs at heartstrings. The only problem is that it turns
out polar bear populations are increasing. It also turns out that
polar bears regularly swim up to 40 or 50 miles in open water and end
up clinging to ice floes as a matter of course. In the end, the polar
bear issue becomes exposed for what it is, which is a scare tactic.
That has the effect of reducing confidence in what people in the
scientific community are saying.

This is a pointer to a Goggle books entry:
Proceedings of the 14th Working Meeting,
IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group. (Seattle 2006)

*http://tinyurl.com/26p4cqs*

http://books.google.com/books?id=H7HffeKsGnQC&pg=PT59&lpg=PT59&dq=current+census+of+polar+bear+populations&source=bl&ots=d_7vH0uhbb&sig=o-_-K3Z1v5sNNQDPBYAS7l9dE5M&hl=en&ei=frMSTZalKYL98Ab309mjDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

<http://books.google.com/books?id=H7HffeKsGnQC&pg=PT59&lpg=PT59&dq=current+census+of+polar+bear+populations&source=bl&ots=d_7vH0uhbb&sig=o-_-K3Z1v5sNNQDPBYAS7l9dE5M&hl=en&ei=frMSTZalKYL98Ab309mjDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false>

Perhaps this is the publication that was later discredited by sources
known to Bill?
At that time, the assertion therein was this:
The population was ca 1200 in 1987. It was under 950 in 2004.

(I heard in the last day or two, that the polar bear was lately
considered for placement on the endangered species list,
and the decision was made to withhold this designation.)

Brian W

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l