Mark Z. Jacobson: “oil, gas, and coal companies are killing many of the 22,000 remaining polar bears”…

Guest Ayeuhhh???? by David Middleton

Let’s identify the non sequitur first… The man who killed the polar bear, leaving it to rot for five months and then burning the carcass, did not work in the “climate wrecking” industry.

Man charged in Alaska for killing a polar bear and burning the body after letting it rot for 5 months

By Allen Kim, CNN
Updated 2:27 PM ET, Fri July 12, 2019

(CNN)A man in an Alaska village has been charged with federal crimes for allegedly killing a polar bear and leaving it to rot for five months.

Christopher Gordon of Kaktovik is accused of violating the Marine Mammal Protection Act after he allegedly shot and killed a polar bear around December 20, 2018.

[…]

Katkovik, with about 250 residents, is some 640 miles north of Anchorage.

Officials say Gordon improperly stored whale meat in his front yard, which attracted the polar bear. Gordon allegedly shot and killed the polar bear for trying to eat the whale meat, not to defend himself or someone else.

Investigators say the carcass sat in Gordon’s yard from late December until May, when a snow removal vehicle hit the bear’s body and tore off one of its legs.

[…]

Darth Vader

The funny thing is that he wouldn’t have broken the law if he ate the bear.

Katkovik is in the “no drill” zone…

So… The “climate wrecking” industry had nothing to do with the demise of this particular polar bear.

Kaktovik has apparently become a tourist attraction because polar bears are ignoring the climate models. Instead of drowning for wildlife photographers, they just move onto land when the sea ice melts.

Kaktovik is a small Inupiaq village on the northern coast of Barter Island in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Last year, the Associated Press reported that the village was seeing a tourism boom as polar bears have been spending more time on land than on diminishing sea ice.

Anchorage Daily News

Even funnier thing… Christopher Gordon is a Democrat. While I can’t be 100% certain he doesn’t work in the oil & gas industry (no LinkedIn page), he lives in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, votes Democrat and apparently likes to eat whale meat… Then again, maybe he’s Cajun. (Note: I will not tell you when I’m being sarcastic.)

Now that we’ve solved the case of the Kaktovik polar bear, let’s get to the “meat” of Dr. Jacobson’s Twit Tweet…

Meanwhile, oil, gas, and coal companies are killing many of the 22,000 remaining polar bears by melting the ice and destroying habitat, yet get away with it.

Mark Z. Jacobson

Really?

November 14, 2018
First tally of U.S.-Russia polar bears finds a healthy population
Hannah Hickey
UW News

Not all polar bears are in the same dire situation due to retreating sea ice, at least not right now. Off the western coast of Alaska, the Chukchi Sea is rich in marine life, but the number of polar bears in the area had never been counted. The first formal study of this population suggests that it’s been healthy and relatively abundant in recent years, numbering about 3,000 animals.

The study by researchers at the University of Washington and federal agencies is published Nov. 14 in Scientific Reports, an open-access journal from the Nature Publishing Group.

“This work represents a decade of research that gives us a first estimate of the abundance and status of the Chukchi Sea subpopulation,” said first author Eric Regehr, a researcher with the UW’s Polar Science Center who started the project as a biologist in Alaska with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “Despite having about one month less time on preferred sea ice habitats to hunt compared with 25 years ago, we found that the Chukchi Sea subpopulation was doing well from 2008 to 2016.

[…]

Of the world’s 19 subpopulations of polar bears, the U.S. shares two with neighboring countries. The other U.S. subpopulation — the southern Beaufort Sea polar bears, whose territory overlaps with Canada — is showing signs of stress.

“The southern Beaufort Sea subpopulation is well-studied, and a growing body of evidence suggests it’s doing poorly due to sea-ice loss,” Regehr said.

[…]

Recent ecological observations had suggested that Chukchi Sea bears are doing well. A study led by co-author Karyn Rode, at the U.S. Geological Survey, showed the top predators have similar amounts of body fat as 25 years ago, a good indicator of their overall health.

The current study is the first assessment of the subpopulation size using modern methods. It estimates just under 3,000 animals, with generally good reproductive rates and cub survival.

[…]

For the first time, the model also considered local and traditional ecological knowledgecollected by the North Slope Borough of Alaska from Native hunters and community members who have generations of experience with polar bears.

“It was important to bring our science together with the observations and expertise of people who live in polar bear country year-round and understand the animals in different ways,” Regehr said.

[…]

University of Washington

If the loss of sea ice due to global warming is stressing out the Beaufort Sea polar bears, why are they doing so well in the Chukchi Sea?

The Chukchi Sea is more ice-free than the Beaufort Sea…

NASA
NASA

The “core study area” was the between Lisburne and Seward Peninsulas…

“The striped area on the left shows the Chukchi Sea polar bear subpopulation’s range. Sea ice reaches south to the dotted line in winter, and retreats to the solid black line in summer. The right shows a closeup of the study area off Alaska’s coast. White circles show where polar bears were tagged between 2008 and 2016.Regehr et al./Scientific Reports” (UW)

The “core study area” has been especially hard-hit by sea ice loss…

June 1979
June 2019
Animation

Setting aside the fact that overall polar bear populations don’t seem to be declining, he’s got us red-handed…

“EACH DAY HUMBLE SUPPLIES ENOUGH ENERGY TO MELT 7 MILLION TONS OF GLACIER!” Exxon knew in 1962!!!
Humble Oil eventually became ExxonMobil

Humble Oil was founded in Humble, Texas in 1911. In 1919, Standard Oil of New Jersey acquired a 50% stake in Humble Oil. They acquired the other 50% in 1959. Eventually all of the affiliates were merged int Exxon Corporation in 1973 and ultimately merged with Mobil Oil Corporation, a descendant of Standard Oil Company of New York, in 1999 to become ExxonMobil (Texas State Historical Association).

Advertisements

88 thoughts on “Mark Z. Jacobson: “oil, gas, and coal companies are killing many of the 22,000 remaining polar bears”…

  1. Here is the thing. Polar bears ar bears, meaning they are opportunistic omnivores. If they can’t find enough seals to eat, we can feed them environmentalists.

    • Polar bears are just brown bears who moved north for the ice age. They can breed with brown bears, they are genetically indistinct from “ABC” brown bears… Ursus maritimus should be Ursus arctos maritimus.

      • IIRC polar bears have a different fur/hair structure to brown bears. Although it looks like “fur/hair” on a polar bear, it is actually more of a “tube”, trapping air to keep the animal warm. Apart from that, the DNA is compatible.

        • There are significant morphological differences, but the genetics are about as close as a German Shepherd and a Collie.

          • Rin Tin Tin thought Lassie was hot!

            From an off-the-set romance. they had a pup named Scoobydoo. That’s Hollywood for ya.

          • “H.R. July 14, 2019 at 5:32 am

            From an off-the-set romance. they had a pup named Scoobydoo. That’s Hollywood for ya.”

            Apparently the maildog, a great dane, got in there first.

      • David,

        Well done, You’ve made some excellent points in this essay, the most important pointing out the differences between the Chukchi Sea and the Southern Beaufort sea ice as polar bear habitat.

        The system used by USGS biologists to predict future survival of polar bears said that the Chukchi and Southern Beaufort Seas had such similar sea ice habitats that polar bear data from one (i.e. SB) could be used to predict the future in the other (CS). But SB lost less ice than CS since 2005 yet bear numbers declined (because of a known thick ice event in the springs of 2004-2006); CS lost much more summer ice than the SB yet polar bear numbers have increased and the bears are thriving. Now the ‘experts’ pretend they always knew these two regions would respond differently but the literature exposes that lie.

        However, I take issue with your claim that “polar bears are just brown bears who moved north for the ice age.” Polar bears are indeed genetically similar to brown bears but they are morphologically, physiologically, and behaviourally distinct. I discuss this issue here: http://polarbearscience.com/2012/12/06/more-evidence-that-the-polar-bear-is-a-distinct-species/

        Evidence of a few hybridization events (recent or ancient) does not wipe out the designation of a distinct species. Many species can interbreed and produce viable offspring but only if the conditions are right. This makes such events rare in an evolutionary sense.

        For example, all of the recent polar bear/brown bear hybrids known from the western Arctic that have featured so prominently in the press since 2006 have since been found to descend from one polar bear female who mated with two brown bear males. Hybridization is not any more common among wild polar bears and brown bears than between other distinct species, which I discussed in my State of the Polar Bear Report 2017 which you can down load here: https://polarbearscience.com/2018/02/27/state-of-the-polar-bear-report-2017-shows-polar-bears-are-thriving/

        • “YUP”, David also asked an excellent question, to wit:

          So askith did: David Middleton

          If the loss of sea ice due to global warming is stressing out the Beaufort Sea polar bears, why are they doing so well in the Chukchi Sea?

          The Chukchi Sea is more ice-free than the Beaufort Sea…

          “DUH”, the only things that ….. “the loss of sea ice” …… is stressing out are the government employees who are studying/counting Polar Bear population and the fanatical lefty liberal “enviros” who claim compassion for Polar Bears.

          Snow covered sea ice …. or …. NO snow covered sea ice, ……. Polar Bears do not “dive into the water” and swim faster than the seals and/or their pups in order to catch n’ eat them.

          “DUH”, even a severely wounded seal can swim 5X faster than a healthy Polar Bear …… and that is EXACTLY why Polar Bears have to AMBUSH the seals and/or their pups when they are out of the water and on shore or on sea ice.

          So, iffen all the sea ice in the northern latitudes (Arctic) melted, …. then sooner or later, …. the seals would HAVE TO come ashore …… and all the Polar Bears will be there lounging around waiting for their “dinner” to arrive.

          GEEEEEZUS, ……. even the Polar Bears know that the females can’t be birthing n’ nursing their pups offshore in the open water.

          Makes one wonder why so many humans are so learning disabled about the natural world around them. Or is it just their limited mental ability involving “association/correlation and recall”?

        • Dr. Crockford,

          A “well done” from you on this subject, is like a “well done” from Ted Williams on batting! Thank you!

          My WUWT posts and comments tend to be “decorated” by my sarcastic sense of humor.

          However, I did follow up my comment with this…

          There are significant morphological differences, but the genetics are about as close as a German Shepherd and a Collie.

          The genetic similarities are striking… Particularly with the ABC Brown bears.

          As a geologist, I look at it as if it was a phase diagram. Black bears are clearly a different, but related type of rock. Polar bears and Brown bears are like two different varieties of the same rock. An anaolgy might be Black bears are like gabbro (black granite in commercial language), while Polar and Brown bears would be like white and pink granite respectively.

          However, even as a geologist, I can recognize significant behavioral and morphologigal differences. And certainly defer your incredible expertise in this area.

        • My sister and brother had red hair. Another brother had black hair. I have brown hair. All 4 of us have ‘white’ skin. Mind blowing, indeed.

    • Please, let’s not feed them environmentalists. Feeding them phony-environmentalists would be a step in the right direction though.

      • I’m convinced there’s a parallel universe these people are living in, right alongside ours. Obviously, they’re seeing things we here don’t see . . .

        • Obviously, bears are crossing over from those people’s universe to ours, since we’re seeing more bears, and they are seeing fewer. Finally, an explanation that reconciles all data and points of view! /sarc off

  2. Can I get an injection of reality, along with the hyper ventilating AGW emotional angst over a nonexistent problem? Please???

    • You need a dose of Susan Crockford.

      Data published since 2017 show that global polar bear numbers have continued to increase slightly since 2005, despite the fact that summer sea ice in 2018 was again at a low level not expected until mid-century: the predicted 67% decline in polar bear numbers did not occur. link

      Polar bear numbers have increased so much since the 1970s that they are becoming a serious menace to the human population in the arctic.

      The alarmist theory is that the polar bears require an extensive arctic ice sheet to survive. In fact, it appears that the arctic has been ice free for much of the last 10,000 years. link The alarmist theory is simply wrong. The bears didn’t go extinct when the arctic was ice free. Why should they go extinct now?

        • If you check Dr. Crockford’s site you will see that the problem for Polar Bears is not less ice but more and thicker winter ice which makes it more difficult to hunt seals.

        • phil,
          Ice arches (tech term) failed in 2007 and allowed bergs to flush out of the Arctic Ocean.
          Before that event, lots of ice.
          After that event, not so much.

      • Same reason animals that were declared extinct and then “suddenly” reappear will now go extinct immediately since we know they exist. If we KNOW they are here, they will die. Somehow, humans knowing is fatal to animals.

      • Good comment, thank you Bob.

        I met Susan Crockford this year when she gave her talk in Calgary. She says that polar bears are thriving and she is THE expert in this field. Afterward their talks, Willie Soon, Susan, Benny Peiser and I went for drinks and had a great conversation.

        More recently, I met with Willie and Sallie Baliunas in Boston for another great talk. All these people are highly credible and knowledgeable.

        in contrast, Mark Z. Jacobson is just fabricating falsehoods, like so many other phony greens. The progressives (aka Marxists) believe that any lie is OK if it serves “the Cause”. So they lie all the time. No rational person should believe them.

        • Jacobson has discovered, like others we could name, that by making outlandish claims on environmental issues, that lots of people who ‘want to believe’ will offer you highly paid speaking engagements, and press the ‘donate’ button. Better gig that stand-up comedy.

          • Yet Jacobson cant get a job in industry, because his ideas are not realistic. If he had any actual expertise, he count command a salary of $1m plus a year.

          • BS, MS, PhD, 24 years as a professor at Stanford… That’s his CV… Never had a real job in the real world.

          • Responding to David M – “BS, MS, PhD, 24 years as a professor at Stanford… That’s his CV… Never had a real job in the real world.”

            When I was getting my masters in taxation (3-4 years after working full time), the professor teaching the estate and gift tax had written several textbooks on taxation that were used in about 25% of the universities across the country. Since I was working full time during grad school and working with real numbers where a mistake would cost a lot of money, we were very diligent to get things right.

            I was effectively the “Co-Professor” that semester. Also noted that in my advanced Corp tax class/Sub C class, we had a formal Co-instructor who had 3 years of experience with Arthur Young (AY at that time). He know substantially more about taxation than the professor. He was frequently correcting the full time professor who had 25+ years as a professor. As everyone has heard before – “those that can do – the others teach”.

            As noted – Jacobson couldnt get an industry job since he probably cant solve real problems.

      • commieBob – July 14, 2019 at 2:37 am

        Polar bear numbers have increased so much since the 1970s that they are becoming a serious menace to the human population in the arctic.

        Now, commieBob, ……. I see two (2) problems with your above statement, ….. neither of which is your fault.

        #1 – “YES”. ….. Polar bear numbers have increased substantially since the 1970s, ….. primarily because they started using airplanes to do their counting.

        #2 – “YES”. ….. Polar bears are becoming a serious menace to the human population in the arctic, ….. primarily because the human population in the arctic has increased substantially since the 1970s.

        Because of hunting/fishing, …… tourism …… and oil/gas development, …… human population in the northern latitudes has per se “skyrocketed”.

    • His engineering is also ethically-challenged. And quite bad as well.

      And when he got called out for it by his fellow real civil engineers with a PNAS rebuttal to his ethically-challenged junk engineering, his GreenSlime financial supporters threw some big money at a Washington DC law firm to try to sue PNAS to get a retraction. All in all a very bad way to behave in peer review journals.
      It only highlighted his engineering malfeasance even more.
      But then they were trying to following the Mann legal model of silencing critics with lawsuits claiming defamation.

    • So he’s FOR use of petroleum to mine and manufacture turbines and panels. Interesting. I guess he has leprechauns or something providing that “magical” oil and gas so he isn’t contributing to the problem. Heck, maybe the leprechauns make the oil and gas and then pull the CO2 resulting from the mining right out of the air. He has the solution to CO2—leprechauns.

    • Yes, and his 100% renewables paper was rebutted….

      https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608126/in-sharp-rebuttal-scientists-squash-hopes-for-100-percent-renewables/

      “..On Monday, a team of prominent researchers sharply critiqued an influential paper arguing that wind, solar, and hydroelectric power could affordably meet most of the nation’s energy needs by 2055, saying it contained modeling errors and implausible assumptions that could distort public policy and spending decisions (see “Fifty-States Plan Charts a Path Away from Fossil Fuels”)…”

      The rebuttal was published in PNAS. Jacobson obviously has a serious problem with with being honest and producing sound scientific/engineering output. What is probably most disturbing is that his paper is probably still being used to justify renewable energy mandates in cities and states around the country.

  3. “EACH DAY HUMBLE SUPPLIES ENOUGH ENERGY TO MELT 7 MILLION TONS OF GLACIER!” Exxon knew in 1962!!!

    Fortunately that is NOT what we are doing with those resources. I guess Exxon “know” that as well as this lying jerk knows that is not what we are doing with it. So making such a statement is a meaningless distraction.

    Now go and work out how much ice you could melt with the total amount of energy supplied by “renewable” energy each year.

  4. In the seventies the immediate return of Ice age was scientifically proved beyond any conceivable doubts and polar bears were still industrially harvested by means of snow-mobiles, choppers, ice-breakers.

    Then all of a sudden public relations switched all in reverse. Choppers, snow machines, ice breakers deliver vitamine supplements to white bears and we are all about to burn from global warming in 18 months or so.

    • I have to get my glasses fixed. I originally read your post as “David MOCKS another one out of the park!” I thought it was quite clever, then I read it again and saw it was just my imagination filling in what my brain was thinking. It helps the warmunists are so easy to mock.

  5. “1870–2014, we documented 73 attacks by wild polar bears, distributed among the 5 polar bear Range States (Canada, Greenland, Norway, Russia, and United States), which resulted in 20 human fatalities” Add to that at least 2 more fatalities in Northern Canada in last couple of years brings us to 22-25 humans killed by polar bears. Anybody want to venture a guess as to how many polar bears have been killed by humans? Climate change has NOT killed even a single polar bear nor will it ever kill any polar bears,humans or any other species. Climate change/global warming is a farce beyond a farce………………

    • BillP: About wind farms killing birds, I would also include the acreage of solar mirrors to a high mounted steam boiler on the list. I think they can be called bird fryers. There is one in southern California. Since it is in line with a commercial air route, pilots have had to learn to carefully look away from it to avoid being blinded. The double standard irks me. If one of us blinds a pilot, such as with a laser, big trouble. If “green energy” (quotation marks intentional) does it, no crime, no penalty. If one of us kills birds, or some companies do it, such as large birds electrocuted by bridging power lines, especially hawks, eagles and so on, big trouble. If “green energy” does it, no crime, no penalty. To me, sorry about the idiom, this is far past sucking on a ripe lemon with some sucrose on it, it is worse than sucking on a green (oops) lemon with no sucrose.

  6. “Our analyses highlight the potential for large reductions in the global polar-bear population if sea ice loss continues, which is forecast by climate models and other studies.”-IPCC (2013).
    As Patrick Michaels has correctly explained, the Fish and Wildlife Service’s listing of Ursus Maritimus as a threatened species in May 2008 is “the first instance of a species being listed based upon a computer model of future climate”.
    As the joke goes, there were 7000 polar bears when Al Gore was born and of these only 30,000 remain.

    • Ed,

      Mark Z. Jacobson is, quite simply, an activist for “Clean Tech” posing as a genuine professor. But because the subject at hand, [Transition to Zero-Carbon Energy by 2050 {or whenever}] is so clouded with virtue-signaling and is such a red flag for political correctness, most respectable professors of engineering don’t dare call him out, not even on the most outlandish of his claims.

      Here’s a sampler: https://therealnews.com/stories/can-we-reach-100-renewable-energy

      He is unapologetic about his political engagement, as he is convinced this is necessary to save the climate from certain demise. He lives in his own echo-chamber, so he has no qualms about repeating ridiculous claims which fit his own personal narrative.

      One could say he practices “Policy-based Science”.

      I wonder whether conflict of interest might be at play here. Is he a shill for Big Wind and Big Solar?

      When the history is finally written about this movement, these fellows will not do well. They are enablers for draining society of trillions of $, while destroying pristine land and destabilizing the electric grid, all for the purpose of meeting some arbitrary (but unachievable) quota.

      • If renewable and storage is cheaper than natural gas and already displacing natural gas as Jacobson says, then let the market continue as it should. There would be no need for interference.

        • The climate consensus extremists who actually pay attention know that the idea of competitive economics of “renewables” has been a myth from the start.
          But like televangelists they can’t reform their narrative. Too much money is at stake. Like Catholic apparatchiks, the consensus supporters have chosen to support their narrative instead honesty.

  7. so the chap with the whalemeat in the front yard was an alaskan native?
    or else why isnt having whalemeat a crime too?
    in aus whites cant kill dugong or turtles but aboriginals can and do endangered or not.

    • If he had just taken the bear carcass to a butcher shop, it would have been legal.

      • Investigators say the carcass sat in Gordon’s yard from late December until May, when a snow removal vehicle hit the bear’s body and tore off one of its legs.

        Umm… “snow removal vehicle”, would that be what we call a “snow plow truck”?
        So apparently, the creature was buried in snow and frozen solid, as in properly preserved. It is easy to imagine that it was scheduled for the butcher shop just as soon as the snow melted a bit more. No reason to hurry the butchering if your cold cellar is still full and there is nowhere to store the meat. Such is life out “off the grid”.

        In 1970, there were only 6,000 polar bears on the planet.
        Today only 35,000 remain.

          • David,
            I was in Pt. Barrow supporting a NASA microwave imaging overflight by recording snow temperatures and drilling through the pack ice to determine the thickness in April of 1967. When my flight arrived, it was snowing lightly and there was abundant snow around the village, with patches of gravel showing in the village. I was treated to a culturally shocking sight on my way from the airport to the army base. There were two frozen husky dogs stuffed headfirst into 55-gallon oil drums used as garbage cans. I asked the native driver about the unusual sight. He said that because the working dogs are kept lean and hungry they can be a danger to children if they run loose. Therefore, there was a law that any dogs found running loose would be shot. It wasn’t a big problem, because the dogs are valuable and nobody wants to lose their dogs. Therefore, the dogcatcher only patrolled on Tuesdays. It was a Tuesday.

            I left at the end of April and there was still abundant snow around.

  8. Anyone watching these “Climate State” videos? Funny how they say “It is crucial that we who understand the emergency start to act” but of course that means declaring an emergency, not stop using fossil fuels.

  9. …So… The “climate wrecking” industry had nothing to do with the demise of this particular polar bear….

    That is his twisted point. This guy is in trouble for killing one while oil companies get away with killing tens of thousands.

    • Oil companies have NOT killed 10s of thousands of polar bears.

      In the Canadian arctic, it was only relatively recently that guns could be stored on rigs. Until enough rig workers were dragged off and eaten…

      Your statement is complete and utter nonsense. Delete your account.

      • Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, apparently. I said it was HIS (i.e., Mark Jacobson’s) “twisted point.” David Middleton spent way too much time pointing-out that this polar bear death had nothing to do with fossil fuels or climate change, which was not Mark Jacobson’s claim or point.

        YOUR statement is complete and utter nonsense. Delete YOUR account.

        • It’s called “sarcasm”. From the post…

          Even funnier thing… Christopher Gordon is a Democrat. While I can’t be 100% certain he doesn’t work in the oil & gas industry (no LinkedIn page), he lives in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, votes Democrat and apparently likes to eat whale meat… Then again, maybe he’s Cajun. (Note: I will not tell you when I’m being sarcastic.)

          Now that we’ve solved the case of the Kaktovik polar bear, let’s get to the “meat” of Dr. Jacobson’s Twit Tweet…

        • My statement is correct. There is no decline in bear populations. Oil companies have not killed 10s of thousands of polar bears, as you claim.

          You were wrong. Admit it and move on.

    • If your point is that climate change has killed 10s of thousands, that is also wrong. The polar bear population NOW, is higher than the past 70 years. Its still growing.

    • Yes… We’ve reduced the number of Polar bears from 3,000 down to 22,000-31,000 over the past 40 years.

  10. The Polar Bears could not give a stuff about the Sea Ice extent…they are moving into town where the well-stocked garbage bins are located. These Bears are not stupid.

  11. “(CNN)A man in an Alaska village has been charged with federal crimes for allegedly killing a polar bear and leaving it to rot for five months… Christopher Gordon of Kaktovik is accused of violating the Marine Mammal Protection Act after he allegedly shot and killed a polar bear around December 20, 2018.”

    Regarding that “leaving it to rot”: According to Wiki, Kaktovik’s average temperature from December (-26C) through April (-19C) is colder than the setting on my freezer. The source of ‘rot’ would be… what, CNN?

    […]

    “Officials say Gordon improperly stored whale meat in his front yard, which attracted the polar bear”

    That makes me wonder about the proper way to store whale meat in our front yards? Because the description of what this fellow did seems *remarkably* consistent with what’s described in the promotional material for Alaska Polar Bear Expedition:

    “From the air, you’ll see a world that few experience: craggy ice-covered peaks, steep valleys full of snow. You may see caribou herds, and will likely be able to spot a polar bear from on high as you land in Kaktovik.
    There area has around 10 to 60 Ursus maritimus (“sea bears”) that arrive each year to take advantage of “left-overs” from Alaska Native subsistence whale harvest…”

    https://www.polarbearsalaska.com/expedition/

    • Considering that: “Investigators say the carcass sat in Gordon’s yard from late December until May, when a snow removal vehicle hit the bear’s body and tore off one of its legs.” it is probable that the bear was buried in snow that the snow removal vehicle was attempting to remove is another argument against “leaving it to rot”.

  12. He’s an anti nuclear power eco loon gobshite, not even worth considering, hardly anyone takes this moron seriously

  13. Here’s a thought, we ban anyone who claims a climate emergency exists is banned from using any form of fossil fuels and/or its byproducts

  14. Does anyone besides me find it more than a little strange (if not perverse) that the US GEOLOGICAL Survey is studying bears and the National AERONAUTICS and SPACE Administration is studying Earth climate?

    • At least the USGS is in the right cabinet department, the Department of the Interior… NASA ostensibly was set up specifically for space operations.

      • I have long felt that no one in Congress had the courage to form the US Biological Survey because no one would want to work for the US BS. So, the USGS got saddled with the fish counters.

  15. Exxon asks all prospective employees if they hate bears. Those that answer negatively are not hired.

  16. I would seem that polar bear populations have been increasing with the enforcement of restrictions on hunting them. Polar bear ancestors survived the past interglacial period, the Eemain, which was warmer than this one with more ice cap melting and higher sea levels.

  17. Stop shooting polar bears from skidoo’s and helicopters and they do just fine .
    Grizzly populations are recovering when trophy hunting got band in British Columbia . All that hot lead was just a little to much .
    California home of the worlds biggest hypocrites still use the grizzly bear on their flag despite the last one
    being around in 1911 . Isn’t it time for some reality California ? How about a computer chip or a hot air balloon instead ? Maybe a little San Francisco street turd framed in burnt out Hollywood couch auditioners ?

Comments are closed.