More Polar Non-Science

…”And loot the businesses. Don’t forget to burn the Quick-Trip. Polar Bear lives matter! Just to show that I’m serious, I’m buying this studio audience to take a trip to the melting arctic where they will be able to hug the remaining few miserable remnants of a once burgeoning population of cuddly oafs who enjoy human contact.”

Should we not have /sarc’d ourselves?

Oh! Oh dear! How embarrassing!.
Griff, to use modern English idiom… do one!!! Your presence is no longer required.
Please post an apology to the learned lady and, please, make it your last post.

roaring laughing!!…..Thanks Susan!

I’m afraid such difficult research is above and beyond Griff’s admittedly awesome cutting and pasting skills.
As I’ve said, the bench strength of the green fanatics is getting a bit thin.

I smell Roast Griff.
-or-
“Griff”, it’s what’s for dinner.

C’mon Griff….we are all waiting on the edge of our seats for your response, and (hopefully, though probably not) your apology.

SLAP DOWN !
Maybe you should have tired to answer your own question before posting it and making a total prat of yourself, Griff. Just saying.

Errr, I should have put all of that in quotes. I’m not Susan 😛

Ironically, you burned Griff so badly that the resulting heat melted all the polar ice and wiped out the polar bears. (I’m being sarcastic….don’t go after me like you did Griff…please.)

Don’t feed the troll, I’m just sayin’.

I guess that answers that question. On to the next one: Is Griff actually competent to speak on anything more difficult than how to crack an egg? I have not seen any evidence of it.

“You don’t make much effort to find out anything, do you griff?”
He doesn’t make any effort whatsoever to find out anything at all.
He simply makes stuff up off the top of his head to attack any post that doesn’t adhere to the “Green” agenda in the hope that someone will take him seriously because that’s what he’s paid to do.
Of course, with the exception of one or two of the most egregious sub-bridge-dwelling types, no-one does.

Could be the beginning of a new euphemism: Griffed the bed. Griffed himself. Griffed his pants….

Nice!

I think Griff is not just pwned, but EATEN.

oeman50 December 14, 2016 at 9:26 am
Don’t feed the troll, I’m just sayin’.

The Troll wasn’t fed. It got a smack down by a polar bear claw.
(Which made him, as Caligula Jones put it, “Griff himself”.)

mic drop !!!

ClimateOtter, oh that was beautiful! +zillion. 🙂

Did Climate Otter just bring a Nuke to a knife fight? 😀 lol

Yes, I see a lot of research on arctic populations I was not previously aware of.
I do not see current studies or a history of studies on polar bear populations, field studies etc like the AGU tracking studies.
While an informed zoologist, I submit you are not an active researcher in polar bear populations.
This matters: I am an amateur offering opinions on a blog/website…
you have established yourself as a prominent advocate of a position on climate change based on the prospects of the flagship arctic species.
I think your climate position leads you into error: I know you are the big cheese in this world, but I think even experts must be challenged.
I submit that there is a situation on Svalbard and in Hudson bay up till the last week which by your own account impacts polar bear populations potentially and this is part of a continuing trend which will impact them in the future.
and you are dissembling on this.

(additional, now I have another 5 minutes)
I am of course basing my opinions on what polar bear researchers have said of your work/published articles, especially the polar bear experts contacted by the authors of this article:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/polar-bears-and-climate-change-what-does-the-science-say
“The scientists we spoke to tell us Crockford has never led any research on polar bears, nor has she published any papers on the topic. Amstrup tells Carbon Brief:
“[The GWPF report] is a collection of statements [Crockford] has made and conclusions she has drawn without any support from the refereed literature.”
Derocher points out Crockford’s specialism is not, in fact, in the field of polar bears:
“[Crockford’s] expertise is the archaeology of dead dogs and the identification of animal remains â?¦ In general, her views are tainted by a lack of understanding of polar bear ecology, Arctic marine ecosystem, and sea ice.” ”
I would be happy to hear your refutation of these claims of which perhaps you are unaware.

Griff, that carbon brief site is basically wrong. Their map of polar bear populations is a distortion of the Canadian Environmental site. Here is the real one:
Basically, the site uses half-truths and twists those to change reality. For instance, they say,

“As an example, Crockford cites a 2014 study that was the first to collect data on polar bears in the Kara Sea, one of the least studied polar bear habitats. The GWPF report says: ‘A first-ever Kara Sea population estimate completed in late 2014 potentially adds another 3200 or so bears to the global total.’
“The study in question counted polar bears sighted from icebreaker ships between 1997 and 2013. From this, the scientists estimated that the number of bears in the Kara Sea has been between 3,100-3,300 in recent years.
“It’s worth noting the study estimates the number of polar bear in the Kara Sea by scaling up the number of sightings from less than one per cent of the total area. In fact, between April 1997 to May 2013, the scientists in fact only counted 277 individuals.”
The problem is all population estimates are made from sampling the area. Also, prior population estimates listed the Kara Sea as “unkown” and counted that area as zero. Which is Crockford’s point — no matter how many polar bears are in the Kara Sea, any numbers mean that the total population is higher than prior estimates. She doesn’t claim that the Kara Sea is specifically rising because Russia has never provided such information.
The article then goes on to a spate of rote ad hominem attacks which are standard in these circles (she received funding from the Heritage foundation, so she is a liar.)
The article’s conclusion, “There are polar bear populations about which scientists still know very little, and the total number of polar bears worldwide remains uncertain. But the populations for which there is data together clearly point to a species in decline.” Except, this is a bald-faced lie. You can see from the populations, there are only two populations of the eleven studied which are in decline — The Southern Beaufort Sea (SB) and Baffin Bay (BB). While neither of these are well understood, the SB population decline is most likely due to excessively thick spring ice rather than climate change. The newest BB population estimate was due in 2014, but it has not yet been provided. If there is a decline, it is most likely due to hunting by the Nunavit, not climate change.
Either way, the populations which are best understood and are stable include all of the more southern populations. Shouldn’t those be the ones most at risk from climate change?

Griff is merely a troll, and he/she/it succeeded in making you do unnecessary work. If he doesn’t know who Susan Crockford it, he is so abysmally ignorant, and obviously lazy, to boot, that educating him would be like emptying Lake Superior with a teaspoon. Do not feed the troll.

Wouldn’t shooting the alpha male actually increase diversity because the lesser males will now be able to breed the females?

Ads like that are directed at little old cat ladies in trailer parks who “think” with their emotions and write out $20.00 checks in exchange for a calendar. Most people with more information than that are not taken in by the antics of grifter dot-orgs.

Reality Check,
Shooting the larger bears might give the smaller bears a better chance at breeding. But, the question really should be, “What characteristics will give the species a better chance for survival?” Genetic diversity tends to be most advantageous when there are changing environmental conditions. Perhaps shooting the bigger bears would result in traits that gave the species more adaptability to changing sea ice conditions. But, it is all speculation.

“Wouldn’t shooting the alpha male actually increase diversity because the lesser males will now be able to breed the females?”
You are possibly right. Genetic diversity might increase. but maybe polar bears would get smaller.

Absolutely correct, their populations have been increasing since widespread hunting was abolished. There is this older article, while it does contain the usual future climate ‘disclaimers’, it covers the facts in words most people can understand.
The Truth about Polar Bears – Canadian Geographic.
https://www.canadiangeographic.ca/article/truth-about-polar-bears
Except below:
The current scientific consensus places the worldwide polar bear population between 20,000 and 25,000 animals. Prior to the 1973 worldwide restriction on commerical polar bear hunting, that number was dramatically lower, so low that a meeting of polar bear specialists in 1965 concluded that extinction was a real possibility. Some reports even estimated the number of bears as low as 5,000 worldwide. Yet by 1990, Ian Stirling — at the time, the senior research scientist for the Canadian Wildlife Service and a professor of zoology at the University of Alberta; basically, one of the most respected polar bear scientists on the planet — felt comfortable answering the question as to whether polar bears are an endangered species by stating flatly: “They are not.” He went on to say that “the world population of polar bears is certainly greater than 20,000 and could be as high as 40,000 … I am inclined toward the upper end of that range.” Although old studies are sketchy, clearly more polar bears are alive today than there were 50 years ago, an essentially heartening fact that has not managed to pierce the public consciousness.

Keep in mind that the,

“current scientific consensus”

quote and the 20,000-25,000 bears number has been used for over a decade.
Also keep in mind that the consensus opinion has admitted making some of their numbers up, completely.
Just try and name an expedition out to see polar bears, that failed to see bears, all over the Arctic. That amazing example of animal availability over such a huge area implies a very large number of animals.
Perhaps griffiepoo will go count the bears, since gp is so full of polar bear nonsense. He’ll need to spray numbers on the bears to prevent double counting; That is allegedly, griffiepoo is capable of numbers greater than 10.

Griff’s qualification are the standard leftwing qualification.
He cares. That’s enough.

I think he may have a 25 yard Breast Stroke Certificate!

ddpalmer December 14, 2016 at 7:37 am
…
BTW: does Griff actually have any qualifications to speak about anything?
Yes – “Cranial Rectal Syndrome” – although it appears one symptom is that one will not know they have the affliction.
/grin

I’m betting Griff’s qualifications are the checks he recieves from some Soros funded organization to troll sites like WUWT. He probably has a whole slew of different emails and UIDs on different sites and blogs, where he posts his malicious nonesense in an attempt to disrupt the conversation.

No, he reads the Guardian – a knowledge free zone.

“BTW: does Griff actually have any qualifications to speak about anything”
I believe Griff can probably demonstrate he is level headed by dribbling from both sides of his mouth at the same time.
Griff has shown he’s not qualified and too lazy to Google a name before challenging someone on their qualifications and making an arse of himself. ; > )

I should note I am at least as qualified to an opinion on climate -which I endeavour always to back with facts from scientists and observed scientific data – as any on here who tell me that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, there is no greenhouse effect, etc…
Heck, I bet many of those guys don’t even have a greenhouse…

I love it when Griff tries to prove that he’s more sane than an insane person.

Griff,
What does owning a greenhouse have to do with anything. I live in a virtual green house. Although my roof is opaque, it prevents loss of heat by convection or lateral wind. The so-called Green House Effect with respect to Earth is a misnomer. Perhaps you didn’t realize that and that is why you feel that owning one somehow gives you special insight on the problem. Have you apologized to Dr. Crockford yet for accusing her of not having any expertise, experience, or credentials?

Ursus maritimus Got maritime right in the scientific classification.
I still contend that someone needs to youtube some footage of the cute and cuddly polar bear munching down on the yet cuter and more or less defenseless baby seals for a bit of reality check.
I think it was from Canada where a video went viral of a polar bear patting a dog. Checked the update and apparently a bit later the guy didn’t put out food one night and the bear ate one of the dogs.

thanks I needed that.

Most of us eliminated them before the season started.

Agreed, he has managed to derail another discussion with a ridiculous fomentation.

Griff has invented a new insult.

/Griffed

Oh, Oh, Welsh insult please!!!

Welsh insult please!!! with a side of condescending also…

“Giff has just demonstrated for all to see that he knows absolutely nothing –quite possibly about anything.”
Sure he does. He knows whatever someone feeds him to post.

Literally LOL

And I think that Uncle Walt can also take the ‘credit’ for anthropomorphisizing rodents and other lesser creatures.

Thornton W. Burgess did a really good job of anthropomorphisation with his “Green Forest” series of books. Anyone else remember Reddy Fox, Billy Mink and Prickly Porcupine?

Any comments about uncle Remus?

I think Agee is adorable!

All the GoPro would show, would be the insides of a polar bear.

http://www.polarbearhunting.net/images/8.jpg

http://www.polarbearhunting.net/images/8.jpg
“Join us on the adventure of a lifetime and thrill to the chase of the Arctic’s greatest trophy animal, the Polar Bear! You can be among the few who have braved Canada’s Northwest Territories in quest of the North’s most spectacular bear.”
http://www.polarbearhunting.net/

@Javier
Your post clearly implied that some significant fraction of the polar bear hunt was for “rich international hunters”. An advertisement is hardly proof of that assumption. In fact, the web site touts their “very successful season” with a total of 6 bears taken. Egads!! Extinction is just around the corner!

Hmmm
6 bears taken, let’s say 1 male and 5 females. Females aged5 and older can birth 2 or 3 cubs a season. The cubs mature over the next 2 to 3 years and begin the cycle again after 5 years. Presuming all the cubs survive to maturity, the male and 5 females would equate to 10 to 15 bears in the next generation. Those bears would have the potential to create an additional 20 to 30 bears in the next generation. In ten years time, the original 6 bears hunted unnecessarily has eliminated a possible 70 to 100 bears by the third generation

And they eat the bear to survive. How many Trophy Hunters are hunting the bear to survive and actually Eat all of the Polar Bear meat? I’ll bet you could probably count the hunter consumed carcases of those afore mentioned 6 bears on one hand with no fingers held up.

Like hunting:
Elephants for their Tusks
or
Rhino’s for their Horns
or
Sharks for theiir fins
or
Gorillas for their hands
Trophy hunting for trophies is just senseless killing
Granted sharks fins aren’t trophies but shark steaks arent sold in the same market as their fins so that is a true waste

I’m thinking its closer to Bullgriff.

Herring?
Seals hardly make a dent in the populations of herrings.

Why take the chance?

So that’s where he goes when he isn’t bothering us. I was pretty sure he wasn’t at work.

You can see his current blather here,he is always worried about the Arctic region…….
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/hottest-year-ever-6/#comment-31285

Griff in hysterical action over the Arctic,
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/hottest-year-ever-6/#comment-31285

I think you’ll find that he IS at work when he’s bothering us, Mark.

His latest drivel here,
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/hottest-year-ever-6/#comment-31149

I’m imagining something like a figure 8.

Its available at all the usual outlets. IBooks, Amazon Kindle, B&N Nook… Cheapest is Amazon; it sold well enough that they cut the already low price to undercut iBooks. My publisher was not thrilled.

Obrigada Kip!
PMK

No, publisher won’t allow it. But if you download either free iBook or Kindle readers to any tablet (I have both on my iPad as there are technical and history books Amazon has but iBooks doesn’t) you can downlowd and read the published version. It has hotlinks to footnotes and there are some footnote links to web sources. Plus, with those readers you can bookmark, underline, markup, paste a note… all just like a real book. You cannot easily do all that with a ,pdf.

You are a class act Susan. I don’t have much time to read books, but I have decided to buy your new one when it comes out. I’m sure both my wife and I will enjoy it.

Oh! My! Goodness!
Right when the fur is flying fast and furious, look who stops in for a visit.
I will look forward to your new books with keen interest.
Merry Christmas, Dr. Crockford.

Thank you for your honest work. Merry Christmas to you!

Susan, any chance of getting the books other than via Amazon?

Oldseadog,
I also publish ebooks through Smashwords, which distributes through a variety of other outlets and also offers pdf and Apple formats. I will do the Amazon first though, to get the hard copy out.
Susan

Griff – are you buying the books?
We are waiting for an answer.

He wouldn’t agree to allow anyone else to post in his threads, if past performance is any indicator.

Gavin may be in need of a new job 🙂

LOL

Funny story about “deflategate” today: “Roger Goodell owes Tom Brady an apology by Dan Wetzel. He talks about how, in the Steelers/Giants game last weekend, there were under-inflated balls due to the cold weather and the NFL decided it was no big deal.
In the story, they make a number of comments about the ideal gas law (something I learned in Middle School) such as,
—“Footballs lose air pressure in cold weather. The numbers were explained away by science, not cheating. This was nothing. Nothing happened, nothing at all.”
— “{a year ago}, the league scampered down to test {Patriot’s balls} at halftime. League vice president Troy Vincent, who was in charge of such things, later testified he’d never heard of Ideal Gas Law. As such, when the readings started coming in under 12.5, no one spoke up and said, “Those numbers are explainable.” Instead, they thought anything below 12.5 was cheating and something like 11.4 was significant cheating. Ignorance was bliss.”
— “It wasn’t true. Not then and not as a parade of scientists came out screaming that everyone should’ve paid more attention in science class back in high school. Most of the footballs were fine, easily explained away by the weather. … The science is the science. It’s been that way since 1834, when Ideal Gas Law was proven. So, welcome to the 19th Century.”
Long story short, last year Bill Nye made a video about deflategate where he “proved” that Tom Brady cheated. He did the math wrong. That’s right, Bill Nye took a very simple scientific method and got it completely wrong. (Basically, he failed to convert gauge pressure to absolute pressure when he applied the ideal gas law.)
That is the brave scientist of climate change. Don’t let the facts get in the way of a “convenient truth”.

Realist voice? The only one here?
You do flatter yourself. Many would say that you would better serve yourself by being honest with yourself. And others.

Griff,
You are here to do one thing only: spread FEAR. You effectively say, “The Ice is melting! The Ice is melting! Be Afraid! Be Afraid! Do Something! Do Something!” You are ultimately a FEAR MONGER.
But every time you post a comment, I see your notion that we should be Afraid is Soundly Refuted.
As a consequence, I am NOT AFRAID of Climate Change, Global Warming, or an impending Environmental Disaster.
And I will fight your kind to the death because I am a FREEDOM MONGER, and Freedom dictates that the Human Race must never be forced to endure an Oppressive Solution to an Imaginary Problem.

Only voice?
Griffy, you think way to highly of yourself.
Regardless, the only resemblance to a realist on your part is that you are both breathing. And I’m making an assumption on your part.

“I do worry I am the only dissenting, realist voice here.”
No, you are the only full-time propagandist here.

Griff,
You must not read many comments here. People who actually work, if that’s the right word, in the climate industry often comment here. Have you really missed their comments?

Ask your other hand.

Griff,
It has long been held as a maxim that only the sane question their sanity. The insane are absolutely convinced that they are sane and it is everyone else that has a problem. What does that imply about you believing that you are the only “realist voice here?”

I’ve been posting here for ten years or so Griff. Good to have another dissenter, it sort of divides the abuse between two of us so makes it more tolerable, (Actually there are a few more, but you have to be pretty brave to pop your head above the parapet with many of the good ‘ole boys on this site !)

Don’t worry too much about it Griff, you aren’t the only Troll on this board

They appear to be very closely connected:
About Us:

The American Committee for the Weizmann Institute of Science is a community of dedicated people who share a common vision with the Weizmann Institute in support of our common mission: science for the benefit of humanity. The American Committee partners with individuals, families, foundations, and the business community to develop philanthropic funding for the Institute; educates the American public about the Institute’s research; and represents the Institute’s interests in the U.S. Whether through events such as galas, parlor meetings, and luncheons; meetings with Institute scientists; campaigns to spread the news of research discovery; and more, the American Committee’s nationwide presence helps bring the Weizmann Institute to you, and you to the Weizmann Institute.
On the Weizmann Institute campus in Rehovot, Israel, around 3,800 scientists, graduate students, highly skilled research technicians, and the staff who support them come to work every day with the goal of solving the most challenging problems facing humankind: climate change, world hunger and malnutrition, cancer and other diseases, safety and security, to name just a few. For more than 80 years, the Weizmann Institute’s curiosity-driven scientists have made thousands of landmark breakthroughs, and they continue to strive to make thousands more. These discoveries are moved from the lab to the marketplace via the Yeda Research and Development Company, Inc., the Institute’s technology transfer arm. In addition, the Weizmann Institute’s graduate school is unique in that every student receives financial support, allowing them to focus solely on their research, and each student is immersed in hands-on research in the lab of a renowned scientist from day one.
…

Our Mission:
Making a Difference – With Your Help
Founded in 1944, the American Committee for the Weizmann Institute of Science has been a driving force throughout the history of the Weizmann Institute – fostering the partnership between science and philanthropy while supporting the Institute’s needs, leading the way in providing resources for continuous development and pioneering projects, and promoting awareness of the vision and accomplishments of its scientists.
The American Committee is not only a national organization, but also a community of dedicated people who share a common mission: advancing the Institute’s goals by becoming partners in the search for answers to the most difficult challenges facing humanity.
The American philanthropic presence is felt wherever you look on the Institute’s campus. Buildings, laboratories, instruments, and educational and research projects owe their existence to the efforts of the American Committee and its loyal supporters. These same donors provide the endowed professorial chairs, scholarships, and other financial assistance that support the scientists, teachers, and students who bring life and meaning to the physical facilities.
All of us—and each of us—must do all that we are able to ensure that the trajectory and pace of modern science never falters. The best of human existence is ahead of us—and science will transport us there. If you would like to receive updates about research breakthroughs at the Weizmann Institute of Science and other news, follow us on Twitter, Like us on Facebook, or sign up to receive e-mails.
So both have been around for quite a while and it appears the “Amierican Committee” is at least a fund-raising arm for the Institute if not more. They list “climate change” as one of the “most challenging problems” facing mankind.
However a quick scan of their achievments in protecting our planet I do not see anything about polar bears.

Weizmann Institute scientists are not only facing current environmental crises head-on, but are solving tomorrow’s threats to our planet today. They are developing mathematical formulas to predict rainfall with greater accuracy; creating crops that can grow in harsh climates and with less need for pesticides; designing nanomaterials that can serve as engine lubricants and thus reduce air pollution; studying ways to protect and conserve water, our most valuable resource; examining the Earth’s movements to forecast volcanoes and earthquakes; growing a forest in a desert to study CO2—these are just some of the ways in which Weizmann researchers are using science to protect our planet, both now and in the future.

It may be this was just a cute image grabbed by a web design consultant and accepted uncritically by the Committee.

Thanks, Kip. 🙂