Another domino in the man-caused global warming scam falls. http://polarbearscience.com/2014/05...al-population-estimate-was-a-qualified-guess/ It turns out that the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) has been crudely "estimating" (i.e., lying) the polar bear population and in the face of overwhelming evidence that teh polar bear population has not been dropping but increasing, the PBSG has decided they better come clean. But they don't have the guts to directly admit their "intentional mistake" (i.e., lie) so they sent a note to an actual scientist and let her tell the tale. Dr. Susan Crockford, a real scientist who studies polar bears and tracks the population, says the following: Last week (May 22), I received an unsolicited email from Dr. Dag Vongraven, the current chairman of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG). The email from Vongraven began this way: Dr. Crockford Below youll find a footnote that will accompany a total polar bear population size range in the circumpolar polar bear action plan that we are currently drafting together with the Parties to the 1973 Agreement. This might keep you blogging for a day or two. It appears the PBSG have come to the realization that public outrage (or just confusion) is brewing over their global population estimates and some damage control is perhaps called for. Their solution bury a statement of clarification within their next official missive (which I have commented upon here). Instead of issuing a press release to clarify matters to the public immediately, Vongraven decided he would let me take care of informing the public that this global estimate may not be what it seems. Here is the statement that the PBSG proposes to insert as a footnote in their forthcoming Circumpolar Polar Bear Action Plan draft: As part of past status reports, the PBSG has traditionally estimated a range for the total number of polar bears in the circumpolar Arctic. Since 2005, this range has been 20-25,000. It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand. It is also important to note that even though we have scientifically valid estimates for a majority of the subpopulations, some are dated. Furthermore, there are no abundance estimates for the Arctic Basin, East Greenland, and the Russian subpopulations. Consequently, there is either no, or only rudimentary, knowledge to support guesses about the possible abundance of polar bears in approximately half the areas they occupy. Thus, the range given for total global population should be viewed with great caution as it cannot be used to assess population trend over the long term. [my bold] So, the global estimates were simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand and according to this statement, were never meant to be considered scientific estimates, despite what they were called, the scientific group that issued them, and how they were used (see footnote below). The global warmist have used their false claims of decreasing polar bear population to bolster their demands for funding and fundamental change in the worlds (mainly the USA) generation and sue of energy. Every scientist who made or repeated these lies should be forced to return every penny they received in "research" grants and salary, plus a penalty, plus lose their jobs.
Here: http://polarbearscience.com/2013/07...-bears-has-increased-by-2650-5700-since-2001/ http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/06/12/junk-science-week-now-we-have-too-many-polar-bears/ Don't fall for the global warmist propaganda.
Using a blog as a source is evidence of a certain amount of desperation. Come back when you have a better source.
I guess that would go for Skeptical Science, the blog where most true believers go to as their source.
The OP is a big ol' lie, in that declaring "educated guess = lie" is definitely a falsehood. However, the denier cult lives by "The ends always justify the means for my own side", hence they consider the lie to be good and holy, and will keep repeating it even though they know it's a lie. All the junk science of "the polar bears are fine!" type comes from this one single person, Dr. Susan Crockford. She's never done any field research, yet she's still been christened by deniers as "Word's #1 Polar Bear Expert". And yes, she does draw a monthly salary from the Heartland Institute. Apparently, being a desk jockey and paid shill makes one a "Polar Bear Expert" these days. And none of that will matter to deniers. They very badly want to believe the junk science, their cult demands they believe it, hence no amount of evidence will change their minds.
And yet still no evidence that CO2 drives climate. Produce that first, then perhaps your diatribes are taken seriously.
JC, don't drag your vendetta over here. Instead, address the topic. Your side financed a shill and declared the shill to be a "polar bear expert". Yet you believe the shill, over the actual data and the many scientists busting their butts doing actual field work. Since you act like that, why do you expect to be taken seriously?
