Guest Essay by Kip Hansen
Good Grief! Enough already with the Polar Bears!
The folks at the American Committee for the Weizmann Institute of Science**, whose motto, proudly displayed on their website, is “Science for the Benefit of Humanity”, have managed to embarrass themselves with a little ad that appeared in my news feed from the New York Times Science section:
Down at the bottom, after all the highlights of today’s news, was an advertisement – you know, those ads that Google or someone throws into your emails and web pages – outside of the influence of the email sender or the website itself.
Here’s the ad as it appeared (I admit, that Weizmann gets a bit of free advertising here…):
I hope the irony is not wasted on any reading here….that you all know that if this image was not a fake, the photographer would have to be arrested for endangering a child.
Luckily, the image was created by the very talented Per Breiehagen and is sold by Getty Images.
It is also available as a holiday card from Psaris Productions.
The questions that sprung to my mind are these:
How could a group dedicated to science use an image that is not only–not merely–a fake, but is also so ridiculously hypocritical coming from an “institute of science”?
followed by:
How could they think that anyone who might be interested in supporting science by donating would be taken in by such an image?
This is what happens when the public outreach from scientific organizations is put into the hands of modern college graduates who have been indoctrinated but not educated.
The true essence of the image [had it been real] would be:
I recommend Susan Crockford’s book, Eaten, a novel that will set you straight about cuddly polar bears and what they do with little girls.
**CORRECTION: The first line has been corrected to make it clear that the ad was placed on behalf of the American Committee for the Weizmann Institute of Science, not the itself, which is in Israel, whose website states that “” 1300 hrs Eastern Time, 14 Dec 2016 (h/t Pat Frank)
# # # #
Author’s Comment Policy: Sorry, but I just couldn’t take yet another “cute polar bears” money-pitch from an alleged scientific organization. I have no prior experience with the Weizmann Institute before seeing this ad. I can only hope that the ad was produced without their editorial input.
I have no financial interest in Susan Crockford’s book, but I do own a copy and have read it. I do really recommend it. It is available from major booksellers online in eBook editions for as little as three bucks. It is not suitable for children – it contains graphic natural violence.
I do not know much about polar bears but I do have strong opinions about misusing science and science images for propaganda purposes – including fundraising.
I’d prefer that Climate Warriors fight the Climate Wars in the comments of other posts – there are plenty here at WUWT where it is more appropriate. I would like to read your examples of non-science being used to raise funds for organizations that ought to know better.
# # # # #
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
R.I.P. Griff.
‘Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated’
Griff, no one cares.
Is there a scientific consensus on that?
I came face to face with a bear, you can see it here on Jo’s site:
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/09/uk-government-cuts-electric-car-subsidies-by-half-sales-mysteriously-fall-75/#comment-1839429
It is a cinnamon colored Black Bear. We greeted each other suspiciously and parted amicably.
I agree with pretty well everything Griff posts. The guy has more guts than most of you brave keyboard warriors put together, few of whom would dare to be so brave to his face.
Yeah, it’s a funny faux pas but sheesh, some of you guys are so bitter.
Chimp, would you really walk up to a complete stranger and slap them with the sort of abuse you’ve posted above? No, of course you wouldn’t. But here you’re part of a really tough, anonymous gang, I get that. You can be as courageous as you like. Good for you, hope it makes you feel better.
To bring it back to polar science here is a snapshot.
and globally:
Thanks for your time, let you get back to Griff.
“Warmest year on record…”
———————
So what? Warmest since 100 a.d.? 1000 a.d.? Warmest since the Holocene optimum?
In a word,no. Last year was neither the warmest in the proxy record, nor in recorded human history.
Were Arctic temps inthe past 2 years outside the range of natural variation for the past 10,000 years?
No.
What is your point again, tony mcleod?
Point is the rate of change.
Warmest year on record can be as little as 10 years depending on the information and the source , it means nothing .
tony, the rate of change is insignificant and irrelevant climatologically
Now for climate extremists and true believers it is everything. But you believe in an irrational faith system so discussing with you is kind of a waste of time. Ciao.
Rate of change depends entirely on the years you choose to cherry pick.
So much for Tony McLeod! Post-Griff, the next Troll?
WUWT that global sea-ice drop-off Ross?
With all that warming going on North America, especially the north part of the USA and adjacent Canada, will soon be producing so much grain, oil seeds, oranges, sugar cane, bananas, and …
“Arctic had warmest year on record …”.
===================
Not necessarily, not according to HadCRUT4:
http://climate4you.com/images/70-90N%20MonthlyAnomaly%20Since1920.gif
“For what should I apologise?”
Specifically, for deceitfully and maliciously attempting to damage the reputation of a professional scientist of international standing by claiming that she was unqualified in her field, despite having demonstrated you had even been to her site and were aware of her qualifications, which also casts doubt on either your sobriety or mental capacity.
Generally, for being a serial poster of untruths, even though it has been demonstrated to you over an over again that many of them were totally inaccurate.
If Griff had guts he would apologise.
For what should I apologise?
For being an idiot.
“If Griff had guts he would apologise.”
He’s a Lefty Guardianista.
Of course he has no guts, nor a conscience either come to that.
Besides being an idiot, also for libeling Dr. Crockford, when it would have taken any normal person above the age of seven about three seconds to find her bona fides.
Tony , Griff whatever you’re real name is the graph from NOAA has some unusual stats , thanks for showing it . Can anyone else see periods when global temps were up but Arctic temps were down? Surely this can’t be a tortured NOAA graph they would have corrected that just before the year 2000 .
And correct me if wrong but is that the El Niño spike at the end ? your NSIDC graph doesn’t quite match some of the other graphs they produce .
Idiots stick together.
Nobody else would have them.
tony mcleod
December 14, 2016 at 7:16 pm
Yes, after the stranger spouted such garbage for so long, attacking his intellectual and moral betters without the least justification and out of total ignorance.
Tony,
Because of the climatologist’s fascination with anomalies, we don’t have any information in your graphics about the actual air temperatures. As I recollect, sea water freezes at about 28 deg F. That implies that the air temperature has to be above 28 deg F if ice isn’t forming. With a maximum anomaly of about 11 deg F, that suggests the typical temperatures would be about 17 deg F. Considering that it is forecast to be considerably below that tonight here in southern Ohio, I’d be surprised to discover that the air temperatures were that high. . We are approaching the Winter Solstice, meaning that here is no sunlight to warm the oceans at the localities showing the maximum anomalies. Something is happening, obviously. But, I suspect that it is either warm water moving into the Arctic Basin, or turbulence in the Jet Stream sucking in warm low-latitude air. The role of CO2 or “dark water” (no sunlight!) can be ruled out with such high temperatures. Somebody who gets paid to understand this needs to start thinking outside the CO2 box and look for alternative explanations.
“Something is happening, obviously. But, I suspect that it is either warm water moving into the Arctic Basin, or turbulence in the Jet Stream sucking in warm low-latitude air.”
These would appear to be the likely causes and the postulation is that Jet Stream turbulence might in part be caused by reducing north-south temperature gradient – a feedback.
GRIFF is someone we shd IGNORE as a Troll.
After *this* ‘Black-Eye’, one might expect him/her/it to change name to [Whatever] and continue bugging us.
Let’s IGNORE HIM/HER/IT AS THE TOTAL IRRELEVANCE SHE-IT IS.
SHE-IT indeed.
ENOUGH!!
Shouting doesn’t make you more persuasive. If it wasn’t for Griff and few others this site would run the risk of being an un-scientific echo chamber and outlet for ignorant rants.
Errrr is it Tony or Griff I’m posting to ? Same baloney different name .
(Griff) Tony if you read his only post on this thread and you can defend it with real science such as how much different the Arctic is today rather than 100 years ago or even better emperical evidence as to how we’re all wrong that would be great .
Not withstanding the fact he owes that scientist an apology .
It is not likely that Tony/griff/trolls would post the actual bitterly cold Temps of Arctica, Eurasia, Nth America as they lie their ways to rightful oblivion. But they do succeed in wasting our time.
By the way, even here in our SH ‘summer’, there is snow falling on some of our provinces this day. The real climate seems to be following Piers Corbyn’s wild jetstream transfer of polar cold towards the equator as the sun quietens. Food supply, with crops already being nipped early and late in seasons, bears close attention though it is okay so far. But one bad season can change all that horribly.
This from who thinks CO2 traps heat!
Spot on Tony.
I have never met Griff and I agree he put his foot firmly in it.
I don’t profess to have a considered position on polar bears. They are just one species. I care less about them than the Orange bellied parrot or the Mallee fowl (google it) and that isn’t much. My guess is that current rapid changes underway in the Arctic won’t work in their favour.
I see what looks to be a system flipping from one stable state to another. The climate has done changed countless times in the past but the rate of change makes this unusual. There have been decadal scale changes in the past like meltwater pulses and volcanic activity but usually the changes are ‘glacial’ thousands or tens of thousands of years.
We’re up a degree, if we stop emitting CO2 we’ll be lucky if it stops rising a couple more. But with the momentum strongly in one direction – who the f*** knows.
How long since the Arctic was 90% ice free?
“outlet for ignorant rants.”
Now that thar is funny, I don’t care who you are.
Tony is correct. Without Griff, there would be no court jester to provide comic relief.
tony mcleod
December 15, 2016 at 3:48 am
The Arctic has been “ice free”, as defined by Wadham, for more summers during the Holocene than it has been at higher Wadham numbers.
Is this a site for examining the truth about climate change and for discussion, or just an echo chamber?
Evidence on climate is found by scientific observation and validation of scientific theory – so I think that the evidence must be posted and discussed.
Brett, it is cold in the dark of the arctic winter at the moment – but nowhere near as cold as it is on average.
That’s a fact any discussion on climate needs to acknowledge and explain.
Griff, this is no echo chamber. But you are a transceiver repeating station.
Griff,
You said, “Brett, it is cold in the dark of the arctic winter at the moment – but nowhere near as cold as it is on average. That’s a fact any discussion on climate needs to acknowledge and explain.”
I agree with you. Certainly the usual attributions to so-called “dark water” and well-mixed CO2 don’t seem to be applicable. There are things happening that the current consensus theory is inadequately explaining.
**Brett, it is cold in the dark of the arctic winter at the moment – but nowhere near as cold as it is on average.**
Griff, I have bad news for you. The Arctic is rarely average. It is always above or below. When it goes below we do not hear from trolls like you.
The echo is between your ears, Grift.
Brilliant!
My guts hurt from laughing!
How are the Arctic temperatures lately? getting back to the average? Apparently not. But lets ignore that and concentrate on pretty pictures of polar bear and children.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Look, something shiny….. used to be there.
Accumulated Freezing Degree Days N80
And the impact of the changes deceitfully represented in your graphs is…….
This?
Arctic sea ice extent headed for the normal zone. Might make it later this month, although Barrow, AK is forecast to stay less cold than average this week. Average high for Dec is -1.8 degrees F. Tomorrow forecast is for 1.0 F.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Griff: can you do some of your expert dirty work and see what the warmunists have in their enemies dossier on this guy? I’m afraid I’ll get cooties.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html
I mean, he is actually a real expert in polar bears, but the knives went in just as easily as they did on Crockford…
What can I say?
If polar bears are dependent on sea ice and the sea ice conditions are changing because of global warming, then there is a contradiction between the position there is no global warming and the study of polar bears.
This story was completed ignored outside the skeptic blogosphere: no ‘non-skeptic’ opinion or review of Mitchell’s work I can see.
Er, ok.
First, you state that Crockford is unqualified, and unpublished.
Since you can’t do much about her actually being published, you head to a character assassination site to get some ammo, and cherry-pick through some effluent and appear satisfied that she isn’t qualified.
Then I point you to what a truly qualified polar bear expert says, and what happened to him when he spoke out against the cult, and all you have is “nobody has proven him wrong”.
Why do I get the idea there is a “yet” in there and you are furiously googling?
You’ve got to admit Griff: a scientist who was regarded as an expert in his field was turned away from a conference (by one of his ex-pupils no less!) merely because he disagreed with the global-warming hypothesis.
The hysterical over-reaction to the possibility of his presence at the conference and subsequent ban was not worthy of the spirit of open enquiry. Once again it has been demonstrated that the CAGW gang are always happy to shut down debate.
A question for you Griff: Do you think he should have been banned?
They don’t need ice:
https://polarbearscience.com/2014/03/17/new-genetic-study-confirms-polar-bears-survived-several-warm-interglacials/
Why? Because of White Privilege.
They can even rape females and kill their children – nobody cares.
Griff,
Your understanding runs from the simplistic to nonexistent.
Polar bears don’t need sea ice. They can survive and even thrive without it.
The ice most important to them is springtime landfast ice, where ringed seals build lairs in the snow to have their babies. That forms in the winter even in years, decades, centuries and millennia without sea ice as extensive as it was during the LIA.
Polies survived the Holocene Optimum, Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, no problems.
“Polar bears don’t need sea ice. They can survive and even thrive without it.”
Griff has been informed of that, with a plethora of quotes, links etc. on innumerable occasions.
His business is purely alarmist propaganda.
Facts are of no interest to him.
Grifter,
Some more facts of polar bear life for you.
The landfast ice is important to sow polies emerging from their winter hibernation dens, especially if she has nursing cubs with her. She needs the power bar snacks represented by fleshy ringed seal mothers and blubbery pups.
Boar bears tend to spend the winter hunting rather than sleeping, so might go out on sea ice floes in search of seals. Their survival rate varies, but one boar can cover many sows, so they have less effect on population. They do pose a risk to cubs, though, since they eat them not only because they’re hungry, but so that the mother sow will come into heat and he can mate with her. Or eat her if he’s big enough and she’s small enough.
Griff,
You’d already know all this if, instead of baselessly dissing the good doctor, you had read her research:
https://polarbearscience.com/2013/05/25/buffet-time-for-polar-bears-springearly-summer-is-for-eating-baby-seals/
Polar bear moms are naturally hungry when they emerge from their dens in the spring. Ringed seals fill the bill of fare. Ringed seals are not only not threatened or endangered, but their populations are thriving.
Speaking of mama bears:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Rxfg1gelSKw/TW3YRiaKSCI/AAAAAAAAIsQ/t6WHVU-nP0U/s1600/Mama-Grizzlies-USA.jpg
Warmunists? Are they the opposite of Fasciniers? Insulting people by job lot is a poor way to facilitate good discussion.
Warmunists appears to be more accurate than kind, I admit. Cultists might be as accurate, but probably less kind. Alarmists, certainly. If it bleeds, it leads.
Can’t get a large grant, or page views, if you say what the science actually says: we can’t actually count polar bears very well, but we have an agenda, so we’ll take the worst possible scenario, double it just in case, extrapolate it out past all reasonable time periods for projections and hope it scares folks who get the vapours when they are more than 3 blocks from a Starbucks into keeping the lights on at the WWF or Greenpeace.
Please don’t tell me that the people who go after Susan Crockford as Griff has are trying to have a good discussion.
Gareth Phillips, name calling is permitted on this site only in a specific direction. If you call the “rejectionists” using the term that begins with a “D” you will get blacklisted.
It takes more that one use of the word to merit banning. People that use it maliciously and regularly also often commit other policy violations, due to their irrational anger that accompanies such labels.
Gareth Phillips,
Your sentiments are well known here. Your words might show more veracity when you start making similar remarks about the near universal use of the “d” word, by those on your side of the fence.
GP, warmunist was a carefully defined term in essay Climatastrosphistry in my book. It was inspired by former Czech president Vaclav Klaus and his 2007 book Blue Planet in Green Chains. It is explicitly the climate equivalent to Lysenkoism. And far from being insulting or intentionally derogatory like “d…..”, it is accurate and apt. The essay covers all the background and provides many examples making the point. I suspect you would find it educational.
Perhaps you’re unaware of the fact that Mann and his fellow unindicted coconspirators themselves call their antiscientific alarmism a “cause”.
@Alan Robertson
Gareth Phillips,
Your sentiments are well known here. Your words might show more veracity when you start making similar remarks about the near universal use of the “d” word, by those on your side of the fence.
Alan, you patently have only read my recent posts. I have argued for many years that labelling sceptics as deniers is a pointless exercise which drives people away. I have said it here and on website which support the consensus. I also feel the same way about the silly use of terms like warmunist or troll for someone you disagree with. A brief read of the responses to Griff highlights some of the language that causes me concern. If you have to grossly insult someone to persuade them of the validity of your argument, it does not give much credence to the quality of your beliefs.
Here is an excellent example of an ad hominem attack :
“Now you just repeat your fact-free spew. You are a pathetic maroon.”
Such responses are the road to hell in any debating situation. The grammar also suggests it was written in anger without proof reading. Or the writer, like me, has a dodgy keyboard.
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/news-room/scientists-and-explorers-blog/tough-times-hudson-bay-polar-bears
“Having spent a week on the shores of Hudson Bay with Polar Bears International in early November, I was stunned by how warm it was. I harkened back to the conditions I experienced in 1984 when I started research there. It was a different place. I was a lot younger but absolutely jazzed by the opportunity to study polar bears. It was an amazing time back then: Polar bears were roly-poly, triplets cubs were everywhere, lone yearlings thrived even without their mothers, and there were lots of bears.
Back then, there were about 1,200 bears living in the core monitoring area between the Churchill River and Nelson River. Most of this area is now part of Wapusk National Park, which includes most of the denning area for the Western Hudson Bay population. In those days, the bears were on the sea ice by mid-November and, some years, even earlier. Now with only 800 bears in the denning area and fewer in the coming years, things have changed.”
“After I left Churchill in early November, I watched the sea ice situation. It’s been a very slow freeze-up and the bears are late returning to the ice. The ice failed to form until December and only in the last few days has there been enough ice for some bears to move offshore. While the autumn freeze-up doesn’t present the best hunting conditions, it does allow some bears to kill seals. Those bears that do kill seals can shift from burning 1 kg/day (2.2 lbs/day) of their own stored reserves to using the fat of ringed seals—fat that makes being a polar bear possible. The simplest way to think of a polar bear is as a “fat vacuum”—fat is where it’s at for polar bears, and they need sea ice to access their prey.
We won’t really know what the late freeze-up in 2016 will mean for the Western Hudson Bay population until 2017. It’s likely not good but a late break-up in 2017 would help. Unfortunately, further south in Ontario, those bears are all still on land waiting for ice. It’s tough being a polar bear in Hudson Bay these days.”
I thought a week was weather not climate. So which is it Griff? Is the ice station Zebra we are experiencing now global cooling or weather?
Please do not get rid of Griff! Then I would have no one to laugh at! ROFL!!!
Griff,
Now you just repeat your fact-free spew. You are a pathetic maroon.
I think you meant cane toad.
Griff,
“You are literally too stupid to insult.” Did you miss those hundred or so scathing remarks in this thread?
**Now with only 800 bears in the denning area and fewer in the coming years, things have changed.”**
FYI Griff. Derocher and his buddies (your heroes) have not done any real count of the polar bears. There are not 800 bears. There are over 1000 and they are not decreasing expecially due to climate and ice.
So, more rubbish from you. that is why you should not got to derocher for a reference on Dr. Crockford.
Someone has posted an active graphic on this thread which tries to run a script. The script is causing problems for viewers. The graphic was posted after time stamps in the range of 7:30 pm 12/14/16.
Alan ==> I have tried in vain to find such a beast here in the comments….if you can give me the comment link, I will edit it or delete it. It may be an ad and not a comment…..
Kip,
I think you’re right about the ad. The script stopped working within a moment of my post. While it manifested first on this page, it then briefly affected the home page, too. I caught a small bit of code which had “ad” something in the URL ref, but it quit appearing as soon as I tried to examine it and I lost access to the script. This is a fairly strong machine which came to near full stop due to that script, all cores near 100% cpu, etc.
False alarm. All Apologies. I got busy with something else and should have checked back.
Again, my mistake, sorry.
Alan ==> No worries, mate.
Dear Readers ==> This comment section is a perfect example of the confusion , distraction and disruption that can be created by a single, dedicated, angry ‘tweenage troll (‘tween-aged: emotionally, intellectually or temporally).
I do appreciate the “fun” aspect of poking and prodding the offender, but must point out that it is worse than an entire waste of time.
The offender started off with an off-topic ad hom against Susan Crockford — whose work was not really a subject of discussion (other than her novel – a work of fiction).
The subsequent chatter — other than Susan Crockford’s comment in self-defense — is the worst type of Climate Warrior silliness, which I had hoped would be avoided here.
Let this be a lesson to us all — Don’t Feed The Trolls.
Kip:
If this was my site, I would not allow any more posts from Griff until he apologizes to Dr. Crockford.
One should not be making remarks when totally ignorant of a subject or person.
In the meantime, we should not feed the trolls.
Griff is AN ASSET, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT!
Ross King, MBA, P.Eng. (ret’d) 1453 Beddis Road, SaltSpring Island, B.C., V8K2E2, Canada (250) 537-0666
“The older I get, the better I was….”
On 15 December 2016 at 16:06, Watts Up With That? wrote:
> Gerald Machnee commented: “Kip: If this was my site, I would not allow any > more posts from Griff until he apologizes to Dr. Crockford. One should not > be making remarks when totally ignorant of a subject or person. In the > meantime, we should not feed the trolls.” >
Gerald ==> IF this were MY site, I would have slightly different policies on comments — but it is not my site, it is Anthony Watts, and his policies are at least clear and fair.
Note that I do have the right and ability to disapprove and delete any comments that egregiously violate Anthony’s site policies…. I have only found ti necessary to do so once.
It is far easier to simply ignore trolls and trolling — I try very hard never to respond ( I am not always successful).
As someone who has prolonged this, I do somewhat apologize. However, I don’t really consider Griff a troll. To me a troll is someone who is deliberately obtuse in order to get a reaction.
I’m not flaming when I say I don’t think he is being DELIBERATELY obtuse.
I honestly think he is a run-of-the-mill low-information Chicken Little who will jump on every apocalyptic pronouncement by a dizzying and growing array of often self-described experts, while ignoring, or being truly ignorant of, the nuances of things like scientific uncertainty.
My reaction to character assassination where folks like Griff malign scientists like Dr. Crockford, or intelligent and well-educated people like Steven McIntyre will, however, remain visceral.
So what. All bears are predators, yet it is the world’s #1 fave cuddly toy… they are in every shop window, in every bed, and simply just everywhere. We love them, it doesn’t matter that they don’t love us back – just like dinosaurs, dragons, and sometimes monsters… to be honest, it is quite an embarrassment that you penned this.
IMO far from an embarrassment.
The fact remains that alarmists are still trying to use polar bears in their attempts to deceive taxpayers, despite the fact that the polies are not in the least bit endangered by “climate change”.
Remarkable the sheer ignorance of Griff and tony mcleod in the face of very well documented science about bears. Griff “disagrees” with the science from Dr. Crockford and tony says CO2 traps heat. Well done guys!
Now, now Patrick. Stop making stuff up.
Like climate scientists? Like a global average temperature? You said CO2 “retains” heat IIRC. In other words trap! I can find the post if you really want but I know I don’t have to!
I saw a TV series of the polar bears in Churchill (Hudson bay). It was told they had a hard time (even that all lookede well fed), but i wonder why they just don’t walk north if they miss the ice. Churchill is in the southern part of Hudson bay, so could it be they like it there?
I mean they have not the same problem as the polar bears at Svalbard. These bears must swim a lot to follow the ice north in the summer.
The Churchill bears are hang around the garbage dump scavengers.
You’re right. If they wanted to hunt for a living, they’d follow the ice north.
As expected, NH sea ice recovered in November and will have done so more this month. Of the past ten years, including 2016, three Novembers had lower NH sea ice than last month, according to NOAA.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/extent/sea-ice/N/11
@Kip
I have a bone to pick and I hope it does not get me banned. Kit is based on my middle name. It is what my parents called me. My father and son use a shorten version of out common first name.
All my life I have been called Kip of Skip. My attempts at correcting that resulted in things like being called ‘Kip who?’.
So could you post under another name to avoid me having negative feelings.
Retired Kit P ==> My dear sir…I have been called “Kip” since assuming the name as a willful three-year-old and refusing to answer or respond to any other name.
Since I am now a [very] senior citizen (by some standards), I will continue to live under my own name, despite, and with regret for, your discomfort.
I have my doubts that anyone will confuse the name I write and comment under, which is my real name, with your pseudonym “Retired Kip P”.
I certainly hope that your request was in jest….but one can never really tell these days.
Polar bears approach bow of USN submarine surfaced 450 km from the North Pole in record low ice year of 2012.
http://diplomatonline.com/mag/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/diplomat_10-2-2012_0018.jpg
Beg pardon. Photo is from 2005.
Ummm, maybe we aren’t the apex predator we thought we were.
Those bears seem mighty interested in the gigantic seal that just surfaced under their noses, enough blubber to keep them all going for a very long time!
PMK
https://www.google.at/search?q=american+committee+for+the+weizmann+institute+of+science&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSlAEJQrNV00uRcNgaiAELEKjU2AQaAggDDAsQsIynCBphCl8IAxInXNEexBXVB-gX9w6qDJMb-wTlFoA9zT2JLdEtoCTQPdIt2TPOLeMtGjBsgoyQUv4g1gOuPI2bWVEd99xdRpW1TRibfQ-bLCEk07Ooi2m6h8IZL8-AKHR6Yo0gBAwLEI6u_1ggaCgoICAESBA7Qp9UM&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjP08Gg2ILRAhUFPBoKHVDuCpoQwg4IFygA&biw=360&bih=559
– makes my gods smile.