From the BBC, a video report so absurd, you wonder if it is an April fools joke. The premise? Noise from excessive ice calving and cracking due to “climate change” would affect the bear’s hearing. I wonder what agency was gullible enough to provide a grant for this load of rubbish? Like polar bears have never heard ice floes cracking and calving before? Give me a break. Plus, the polar bear they are using for a test subject isn’t in it’s natural environment, it’s at a zoo and who’s to say this bear establishes a credible baseline hearing test? This is just unbelievable stupidity in the guise of bad science. What next? Hearing aids for polar bears? A hat tip to Tony B in the UK for alerting me to this story. – Anthony
Click preview image above for link to video story
Scientists in California are testing the hearing of polar bears to try to find out whether the noises associated with melting Arctic ice could affect their ability to survive.
The BBC’s Peter Bowes goes to SeaWorld in San Diego to meet Charly, a 12-year-old polar bear taking part in the experiment – and his trainer Mike Price.
Polar bear hearing affected to due global warming?
Eh? Come again?
@ur momisugly evanjones
lol !
You missed the GW buzzword ? Your research grant is rejected !
REJECTED, I said.
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!!
If bears are deaf, why do those little bells that hikers wear keep showing up in bear scat?
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