Comments on: BS Alert: Polar bear hearing affected to due global warming?

By: Francis T. Manns

Francis T. Manns — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 01:28:46 +0000

Modeling – In Canada, we have a healthy polar bear population that has just gone on a Protected Species list; what is that about? This is clear proof the NGOs and EPA do not have a clue about science. Two polar bear populations on Baffin are decreasing in number, but this is a region of the arctic that is cooling not warming. Polars are stable or increasing! Polar bears are a variety of brown bear and probably will do very well when and if it warms, but not in competition with brownies simply because of their colour. The species, I have gleaned from Environment Canada is at least 1 million years old. Polar Bear genes however, have survived numerous ice ages before this, their KOD(i)AK (forgive me) moment, arrived. Camouflage as brownies will get them through.
However, it is certainly not about the bears. This is about abstract computer modeling being falsely elevated to the level of science and then presented as if it were science. Modeling produces objective computer generated conclusions based upon input assumptions and processing. In order for models to be approximately predictive, the assumptions must be realistic and work backward as well as forward. In most complex cases, modeling is GIGO. GIGO is their real value; eliminating hypothetical possibilities.
Politics operates on GIGO propaganda – secondary causation not on first principles. Science or first principles do not affect government decisions in democracies. When a politically correct model gives bankrupt politicians an advantage to manipulate naive voters in an election year, democracy becomes irrelevant.
Bear protection is all about a mass movement that intends to destroy global prosperity by crowd control in the brave new world. NIMBY is the unintentional foremost philosophy of the enemies of our prosperity but by putting bears on an endangered list when they are not endangered is ‘new speak’, mind-control, and secondary reasoning all wrapped up in one, and it intrusive into someone else’s (Nunavut’s) back yard to boot. Science should not be secondary to modeling under any serious circumstances because there is too great a likelihood of missed assumptions and empty logic rendering the conclusion dead wrong.
Where is Al Gore’s consensus going with this? There is not a scrap of objective science in the CO2 global warming hypothesis either.
Francis Manns, Ph.D., P.Geo. (Ontario)
323 Blantyre Avenue
Toronto, ON
M1N 2S6 Canada

By: Mike Dubrasich

Mike Dubrasich — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 22:55:06 +0000

If bears are deaf, why do those little bells that hikers wear keep showing up in bear scat?

By: David Leigh

David Leigh — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 21:45:18 +0000

And for this shit we pay (on pain of imprisonment) an annual tax of £139.50p

I could have made up a much better story for much less!!

By: Demesure

Demesure — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:32:06 +0000

@ evanjones
lol !
You missed the GW buzzword ? Your research grant is rejected !
REJECTED, I said.

By: evanjones

evanjones — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 18:43:03 +0000

Polar bear hearing affected to due global warming?

Eh? Come again?

By: Bill P

Bill P — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:18:42 +0000

“Just how loud can the calving of sea ice get? We are not talking about glaciers here.”

Having a bunch of hearing-impaired polar bears aimlessly roaming the Arctic wastes has captured my imagination, and frankly unnerved me something awful, so that I had to go pour myself a double scotch on the rocks.

Imagine my consternation! The ice cubes splitting and clinking in my glass were so deafeningly loud I couldn’t be summoned to take out the trash. I’ve had to (try to) read my wife’s lips ever since.

By: Unbelievable Stupidity In The Guise Of Bad Science : Pursuing Holiness

Unbelievable Stupidity In The Guise Of Bad Science : Pursuing Holiness — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:00:47 +0000

[...] Watts Up With That?, a BS alert: Noise from excessive ice calving and cracking due to “climate change” would affect [...]

By: John Nicklin

John Nicklin — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:43:30 +0000

Well, you got me on that one Mark. Actually, one of the dogs smells all the new posts, rejecting any from trolls and miscreants, so I was sure not to miss Mike’s or yours.

Seriously, polar bears have been around for somewhere between 400,000 and 800,000 years (however, some contend that its only 200,000.) They are an offshoot of the grizzly side of the family that adapted/evolved to live in cold environments. Whatever amount of noise is made by melting sea ice, it is something that they have heard (or not heard, depending on the noise levels) throughout their evolution.

This new “research” reminds me of a “study” done in Alberta in the 80′s to determine why elk urinate on grass. At a cost of $45,000 it was determined that elk urinate on grass because they stand on grass most of the time. Luckily, a follow-up study was not done to determine why elk urinate on snow in the winter. Had that study been done today, it would have included the effects of climate change and the elk’s prefernce for urinating on grass. But I digress.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:43:45 +0000

I’ve also heard a crazy rumor that ice is really cold. Perhaps there should be a study commissioned on the incidence of frostbite on polar bears’ paws. I can’t think of a more effective use of grant money and scientists’ time.

By: Fresh Bilge » Polar Joke

Fresh Bilge » Polar Joke — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:31:37 +0000

[...] This is a joke, right? Oh, wait a minute, this is science, as practiced in the state of West Wing-Nut. BTW, still no sunspots. And Chaitén is still erupting. Posted at 10:31 AM | | [...]

By: JeremyA

JeremyA — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 13:45:33 +0000

Don’t despair of the BBC. The Front Page News has no mention of polar bear deafness, but doe point to this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7643883.stm

Which has some interesting observations, particularly:

We will never know empirically on any useful timescale whether or not we have accurate climate predictions for 2050. Yet even if they do prove accurate, if our shorter-term forewarning of daily weather to decadal climate is poor, we may end up just as maladapted and just as exposed to weather risks as if we had ignored global warming entirely.

By: Retired Engineer

Retired Engineer — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:49:14 +0000

Did anyone take a sound level meter up there and actually measure some of this? I suspect the noise of a researcher being eaten by a starving polar bear would be much louder.

With a severe hearing loss already, I guess I’ll have to avoid mexed drinks and stick to beer. The bubbles don’t make as much noise.

By: Mike Bryant

Mike Bryant — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:06:43 +0000

Yes, you can get paid now.

By: MarkW

MarkW — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:40:31 +0000

John,

If you and the dogs are stone deaf, how did you hear Mike’s post?
Or this one for that matter?

By: MarkW

MarkW — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:34:01 +0000

Just how loud can the calving of sea ice get? We are not talking about glaciers here.