US lists polar bear as threatened species

[Sister Fracas 5]

Frances, seriously. What gall these eggheads have. They think knowing more means they know more. What a load of #######!!

It does get on ya nerves... I'm married to an egghead so I know...

Tough love Troll. BTW those dillheads know more about computers and network infrastructure than you!!

They may know more and their opinions may therefore be more informed than mine. But my opinions are still equally valid!!!

opinions don't count when it comes to science...

elitist!

hehe...

Well opinions apparently do when it comes to preconceiving that an entire body of extremely well-documented research is baloney...

You know what they say....opinions are like a$$holes... *ahem*

[GaryC 7]

Are polar bears endangered?

Scientists predict that, if current warming trends continue in the Arctic, two-thirds of the world's polar bears could disappear by 2050. At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (held in Seattle in 2005), the world's leading polar bear scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, five were declining, five were stable, two were increasing, and seven had insufficient data to make a determination. The group reclassified the polar bear as vulnerable on the IUCN World Conservation Union's "Red List of Threatened Species," noting that the species could become extinct due to sea ice changes. Individual countries with polar bears have reclassified the species as well. Citing to concerns about shrinking sea ice habitat, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced on May 14, 2008, that it is listing the polar bear as a Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act. Canada and Russia both list the polar bear as "a species of concern." The major threat to the polar bear is shrinking sea ice habitat due to climate change. Other threats include pollution, poaching, and industrial disturbances. Hunting could become a threat if populations are not well managed.

How many polar bears are there?

Scientists estimate that there are between 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears.

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/faq/

Funny, during the Medieval Warming period the polar bears did just fine. At that time the global temps were so high that Greenland was really green and the Vikings were able to sail to the New World. (funny thing about that Medieval Warming period, it happened without the help of humans. Go figure.) There was very little Arctic ice and they got through it just fine. Why would this be any different? This is just scare mongering and has no basis in fact.

I like your approach to science, Gary....like it's always open for debate. Next topic, let's debate the accuracy of a rocket propulsion system.

Yeah, I like the approach of your side also. No debate, just accept what the nice scientists say.

It's called letting scientists be the experts in their field instead of laymen. It's the same reason I won't argue with my doctor over his medical opinion or my auto mechanic. If I don't agree with their prognosis, I get a second or third opinion, but eventually I've got to make up my mind who's opinion matters...and if I took my car to 10 different auto mechanics and the majority of them are giving me the same prognosis, my sense of judgment says I should listen to them.

The trouble is we do have a second opinion on man made GW. The verdict is no. Some just want to ignore evidence that doesn't fit their preconceived notions. It's called dishonest science. Some people practice that to the exclusion of everything else.

[Sister Fracas 5]

Aaaaanyway....this thread needs more warm and fuzzies..

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Are polar bears endangered?

Scientists predict that, if current warming trends continue in the Arctic, two-thirds of the world's polar bears could disappear by 2050. At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (held in Seattle in 2005), the world's leading polar bear scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, five were declining, five were stable, two were increasing, and seven had insufficient data to make a determination. The group reclassified the polar bear as vulnerable on the IUCN World Conservation Union's "Red List of Threatened Species," noting that the species could become extinct due to sea ice changes. Individual countries with polar bears have reclassified the species as well. Citing to concerns about shrinking sea ice habitat, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced on May 14, 2008, that it is listing the polar bear as a Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act. Canada and Russia both list the polar bear as "a species of concern." The major threat to the polar bear is shrinking sea ice habitat due to climate change. Other threats include pollution, poaching, and industrial disturbances. Hunting could become a threat if populations are not well managed.

How many polar bears are there?

Scientists estimate that there are between 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears.

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/faq/

Funny, during the Medieval Warming period the polar bears did just fine. At that time the global temps were so high that Greenland was really green and the Vikings were able to sail to the New World. (funny thing about that Medieval Warming period, it happened without the help of humans. Go figure.) There was very little Arctic ice and they got through it just fine. Why would this be any different? This is just scare mongering and has no basis in fact.

I like your approach to science, Gary....like it's always open for debate. Next topic, let's debate the accuracy of a rocket propulsion system.

Yeah, I like the approach of your side also. No debate, just accept what the nice scientists say.

It's called letting scientists be the experts in their field instead of laymen. It's the same reason I won't argue with my doctor over his medical opinion or my auto mechanic. If I don't agree with their prognosis, I get a second or third opinion, but eventually I've got to make up my mind who's opinion matters...and if I took my car to 10 different auto mechanics and the majority of them are giving me the same prognosis, my sense of judgment says I should listen to them.

The trouble is we do have a second opinion on man made GW. The verdict is no. Some just want to ignore evidence that doesn't fit their preconceived notions. It's called dishonest science. Some people practice that to the exclusion of everything else.

Compare that to my 10 auto mechanic analogy, Gary and tell me how your better judgment says you should ignore the majority opinion.

[HAL 9000 96]

Frances, seriously. What gall these eggheads have. They think knowing more means they know more. What a load of #######!!

It does get on ya nerves... I'm married to an egghead so I know...

Tough love Troll. BTW those dillheads know more about computers and network infrastructure than you!!

They may know more and their opinions may therefore be more informed than mine. But my opinions are still equally valid!!!

opinions don't count when it comes to science...

elitist!

hehe...

Well opinions apparently do when it comes to preconceiving that an entire body of extremely well-documented research is baloney...

You know what they say....opinions are like a$$holes... *ahem*

I disagree... I don't think they're like that at all but seriously... a little more attention to detail may be beneficial to avoid having to wear a dunce hat.

Dishonest science, Gary, is fooling yourself into believing what people with not-so hidden agendas have. To this point most of the data you bring is pseudoscientific or worse, misunderstood by you.

Calling objective scientists liars, on the other hand, is plainly laughable.

[GaryC 7]

Are polar bears endangered?

Scientists predict that, if current warming trends continue in the Arctic, two-thirds of the world's polar bears could disappear by 2050. At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (held in Seattle in 2005), the world's leading polar bear scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, five were declining, five were stable, two were increasing, and seven had insufficient data to make a determination. The group reclassified the polar bear as vulnerable on the IUCN World Conservation Union's "Red List of Threatened Species," noting that the species could become extinct due to sea ice changes. Individual countries with polar bears have reclassified the species as well. Citing to concerns about shrinking sea ice habitat, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced on May 14, 2008, that it is listing the polar bear as a Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act. Canada and Russia both list the polar bear as "a species of concern." The major threat to the polar bear is shrinking sea ice habitat due to climate change. Other threats include pollution, poaching, and industrial disturbances. Hunting could become a threat if populations are not well managed.

How many polar bears are there?

Scientists estimate that there are between 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears.

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/faq/

Funny, during the Medieval Warming period the polar bears did just fine. At that time the global temps were so high that Greenland was really green and the Vikings were able to sail to the New World. (funny thing about that Medieval Warming period, it happened without the help of humans. Go figure.) There was very little Arctic ice and they got through it just fine. Why would this be any different? This is just scare mongering and has no basis in fact.

I like your approach to science, Gary....like it's always open for debate. Next topic, let's debate the accuracy of a rocket propulsion system.

Yeah, I like the approach of your side also. No debate, just accept what the nice scientists say.

It's called letting scientists be the experts in their field instead of laymen. It's the same reason I won't argue with my doctor over his medical opinion or my auto mechanic. If I don't agree with their prognosis, I get a second or third opinion, but eventually I've got to make up my mind who's opinion matters...and if I took my car to 10 different auto mechanics and the majority of them are giving me the same prognosis, my sense of judgment says I should listen to them.

The trouble is we do have a second opinion on man made GW. The verdict is no. Some just want to ignore evidence that doesn't fit their preconceived notions. It's called dishonest science. Some people practice that to the exclusion of everything else.

Compare that to my 10 auto mechanic analogy, Gary and tell me how your better judgment says you should ignore the majority opinion.

So the majority is always right? OK, I will keep that in mind.

[GaryC 7]

Frances, seriously. What gall these eggheads have. They think knowing more means they know more. What a load of #######!!

It does get on ya nerves... I'm married to an egghead so I know...

Tough love Troll. BTW those dillheads know more about computers and network infrastructure than you!!

They may know more and their opinions may therefore be more informed than mine. But my opinions are still equally valid!!!

opinions don't count when it comes to science...

elitist!

hehe...

Well opinions apparently do when it comes to preconceiving that an entire body of extremely well-documented research is baloney...

You know what they say....opinions are like a$$holes... *ahem*

I disagree... I don't think they're like that at all but seriously... a little more attention to detail may be beneficial to avoid having to wear a dunce hat.

Dishonest science, Gary, is fooling yourself into believing what people with not-so hidden agendas have. To this point most of the data you bring is pseudoscientific or worse, misunderstood by you.

Calling objective scientists liars, on the other hand, is plainly laughable.

Your exactly right. Those that buy into the man made GW nonsense do so out of a not so hidden agenda. Either they have an overt liberal agenda or are playing follow the majority so they don't get smacked down like any other person that dares dispute the hype. Listening to your spouting only re-enforces that opinion.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Are polar bears endangered?

Scientists predict that, if current warming trends continue in the Arctic, two-thirds of the world's polar bears could disappear by 2050. At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (held in Seattle in 2005), the world's leading polar bear scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, five were declining, five were stable, two were increasing, and seven had insufficient data to make a determination. The group reclassified the polar bear as vulnerable on the IUCN World Conservation Union's "Red List of Threatened Species," noting that the species could become extinct due to sea ice changes. Individual countries with polar bears have reclassified the species as well. Citing to concerns about shrinking sea ice habitat, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced on May 14, 2008, that it is listing the polar bear as a Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act. Canada and Russia both list the polar bear as "a species of concern." The major threat to the polar bear is shrinking sea ice habitat due to climate change. Other threats include pollution, poaching, and industrial disturbances. Hunting could become a threat if populations are not well managed.

How many polar bears are there?

Scientists estimate that there are between 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears.

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/faq/

Funny, during the Medieval Warming period the polar bears did just fine. At that time the global temps were so high that Greenland was really green and the Vikings were able to sail to the New World. (funny thing about that Medieval Warming period, it happened without the help of humans. Go figure.) There was very little Arctic ice and they got through it just fine. Why would this be any different? This is just scare mongering and has no basis in fact.

I like your approach to science, Gary....like it's always open for debate. Next topic, let's debate the accuracy of a rocket propulsion system.

Yeah, I like the approach of your side also. No debate, just accept what the nice scientists say.

It's called letting scientists be the experts in their field instead of laymen. It's the same reason I won't argue with my doctor over his medical opinion or my auto mechanic. If I don't agree with their prognosis, I get a second or third opinion, but eventually I've got to make up my mind who's opinion matters...and if I took my car to 10 different auto mechanics and the majority of them are giving me the same prognosis, my sense of judgment says I should listen to them.

The trouble is we do have a second opinion on man made GW. The verdict is no. Some just want to ignore evidence that doesn't fit their preconceived notions. It's called dishonest science. Some people practice that to the exclusion of everything else.

Compare that to my 10 auto mechanic analogy, Gary and tell me how your better judgment says you should ignore the majority opinion.

So the majority is always right? OK, I will keep that in mind.

How do you decide when it comes to expert opinion for your car repairs, Gary? Or medical opinion? Or any expert opinion? I just don't understand the logic in going against what the majority of any expert opinion is, unless of course you are an expert on it yourself.

[GaryC 7]

Are polar bears endangered?

Scientists predict that, if current warming trends continue in the Arctic, two-thirds of the world's polar bears could disappear by 2050. At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (held in Seattle in 2005), the world's leading polar bear scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, five were declining, five were stable, two were increasing, and seven had insufficient data to make a determination. The group reclassified the polar bear as vulnerable on the IUCN World Conservation Union's "Red List of Threatened Species," noting that the species could become extinct due to sea ice changes. Individual countries with polar bears have reclassified the species as well. Citing to concerns about shrinking sea ice habitat, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced on May 14, 2008, that it is listing the polar bear as a Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act. Canada and Russia both list the polar bear as "a species of concern." The major threat to the polar bear is shrinking sea ice habitat due to climate change. Other threats include pollution, poaching, and industrial disturbances. Hunting could become a threat if populations are not well managed.

How many polar bears are there?

Scientists estimate that there are between 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears.

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/faq/

Funny, during the Medieval Warming period the polar bears did just fine. At that time the global temps were so high that Greenland was really green and the Vikings were able to sail to the New World. (funny thing about that Medieval Warming period, it happened without the help of humans. Go figure.) There was very little Arctic ice and they got through it just fine. Why would this be any different? This is just scare mongering and has no basis in fact.

I like your approach to science, Gary....like it's always open for debate. Next topic, let's debate the accuracy of a rocket propulsion system.

Yeah, I like the approach of your side also. No debate, just accept what the nice scientists say.

It's called letting scientists be the experts in their field instead of laymen. It's the same reason I won't argue with my doctor over his medical opinion or my auto mechanic. If I don't agree with their prognosis, I get a second or third opinion, but eventually I've got to make up my mind who's opinion matters...and if I took my car to 10 different auto mechanics and the majority of them are giving me the same prognosis, my sense of judgment says I should listen to them.

The trouble is we do have a second opinion on man made GW. The verdict is no. Some just want to ignore evidence that doesn't fit their preconceived notions. It's called dishonest science. Some people practice that to the exclusion of everything else.

Compare that to my 10 auto mechanic analogy, Gary and tell me how your better judgment says you should ignore the majority opinion.

So the majority is always right? OK, I will keep that in mind.

How do you decide when it comes to expert opinion for your car repairs, Gary? Or medical opinion? Or any expert opinion? I just don't understand the logic in going against what the majority of any expert opinion is, unless of course you are an expert on it yourself.

Good! I am glad to hear that. Then you think since the majority voted for Bush the last time that makes it right to have him for a president. Since the majority in Congress voted for the Iraq war then it's right. Good to see your on our side now!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Are polar bears endangered?

Scientists predict that, if current warming trends continue in the Arctic, two-thirds of the world's polar bears could disappear by 2050. At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (held in Seattle in 2005), the world's leading polar bear scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, five were declining, five were stable, two were increasing, and seven had insufficient data to make a determination. The group reclassified the polar bear as vulnerable on the IUCN World Conservation Union's "Red List of Threatened Species," noting that the species could become extinct due to sea ice changes. Individual countries with polar bears have reclassified the species as well. Citing to concerns about shrinking sea ice habitat, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced on May 14, 2008, that it is listing the polar bear as a Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act. Canada and Russia both list the polar bear as "a species of concern." The major threat to the polar bear is shrinking sea ice habitat due to climate change. Other threats include pollution, poaching, and industrial disturbances. Hunting could become a threat if populations are not well managed.

How many polar bears are there?

Scientists estimate that there are between 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears.

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/faq/

Funny, during the Medieval Warming period the polar bears did just fine. At that time the global temps were so high that Greenland was really green and the Vikings were able to sail to the New World. (funny thing about that Medieval Warming period, it happened without the help of humans. Go figure.) There was very little Arctic ice and they got through it just fine. Why would this be any different? This is just scare mongering and has no basis in fact.

I like your approach to science, Gary....like it's always open for debate. Next topic, let's debate the accuracy of a rocket propulsion system.

Yeah, I like the approach of your side also. No debate, just accept what the nice scientists say.

It's called letting scientists be the experts in their field instead of laymen. It's the same reason I won't argue with my doctor over his medical opinion or my auto mechanic. If I don't agree with their prognosis, I get a second or third opinion, but eventually I've got to make up my mind who's opinion matters...and if I took my car to 10 different auto mechanics and the majority of them are giving me the same prognosis, my sense of judgment says I should listen to them.

The trouble is we do have a second opinion on man made GW. The verdict is no. Some just want to ignore evidence that doesn't fit their preconceived notions. It's called dishonest science. Some people practice that to the exclusion of everything else.

Compare that to my 10 auto mechanic analogy, Gary and tell me how your better judgment says you should ignore the majority opinion.

So the majority is always right? OK, I will keep that in mind.

How do you decide when it comes to expert opinion for your car repairs, Gary? Or medical opinion? Or any expert opinion? I just don't understand the logic in going against what the majority of any expert opinion is, unless of course you are an expert on it yourself.

Good! I am glad to hear that. Then you think since the majority voted for Bush the last time that makes it right to have him for a president. Since the majority in Congress voted for the Iraq war then it's right. Good to see your on our side now!

To follow Mav's analogy - the idea of "majority rules" is in regard to "expert" opinion, rather than just a majority of general opinion. Not to mention of course that general (lay) opinion counts for almost nothing when it comes to a field like the sciences. Lay opinion simply isn't very relevant to the work or conclusions of professional scientists.

[GaryC 7]

To follow Mav's analogy - the idea of "majority rules" is in regard to "expert" opinion, rather than just a majority of general opinion. Not to mention of course that general (lay) opinion counts for almost nothing when it comes to a field like the sciences. Lay opinion simply isn't very relevant to the work or conclusions of professional scientists.

I was making a point as to the idea that since a majority thinks something that makes it right. But of course you knew that already. I have some experience with the idea of the "majority is right" idea. In my work I am an "expert" in my field. I provide top level support for CNC machine tools for a Caterpillar plant. There are 6 of us in this building. Our opinions on various problems are the last word on the subject. There have been many times when we have a serious problem with one of our very complex automated machines where one specialist thinks the problem is in this direction, other specialists are called in and take up that line of thinking and beat their heads in trying to solve it. Then another specialist comes in that isn't colored by what the "consensus" view was and finds the problem was something totally different. It happens all the time. When one expert comes up with something that sounds right others tend to follow suit. After a while it gets hard to break away from that consensus because they get tunnel vision and can't see the flaws in that line of thinking. This is what Mav has fallen into. I have provided several opinions from reputable scientists on various aspects of the GW debate and he refuses to even consider them because it does not fit into his tunnel vision consensus view. Even when evidence to the contrary is staring him straight in the face he would rather accept a quickly concocted explanation that convenietly gives them 10 years of cooling rather than rethink the basis for his opinion. On this subject at least he is being a dishonest scientist.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

How do you decide when it comes to expert opinion for your car repairs, Gary? Or medical opinion? Or any expert opinion? I just don't understand the logic in going against what the majority of any expert opinion is, unless of course you are an expert on it yourself.

Good! I am glad to hear that. Then you think since the majority voted for Bush the last time that makes it right to have him for a president. Since the majority in Congress voted for the Iraq war then it's right. Good to see your on our side now!

Gary, you're confusing a democratic process with listening to expert opinion. But nice try. Keep reaching...you're as cute as a child in a candy store.

[GaryC 7]

How do you decide when it comes to expert opinion for your car repairs, Gary? Or medical opinion? Or any expert opinion? I just don't understand the logic in going against what the majority of any expert opinion is, unless of course you are an expert on it yourself.

Good! I am glad to hear that. Then you think since the majority voted for Bush the last time that makes it right to have him for a president. Since the majority in Congress voted for the Iraq war then it's right. Good to see your on our side now!

Gary, you're confusing a democratic process with listening to expert opinion. But nice try. Keep reaching...you're as cute as a child in a candy store.

Read my reply to #6. And I would say that when it comes to affairs of state the congress would be considered the experts. So by your logic the war was right.

[HAL 9000 96]

Frances, seriously. What gall these eggheads have. They think knowing more means they know more. What a load of #######!!

It does get on ya nerves... I'm married to an egghead so I know...

Tough love Troll. BTW those dillheads know more about computers and network infrastructure than you!!

They may know more and their opinions may therefore be more informed than mine. But my opinions are still equally valid!!!

opinions don't count when it comes to science...

elitist!

hehe...

Well opinions apparently do when it comes to preconceiving that an entire body of extremely well-documented research is baloney...

You know what they say....opinions are like a$$holes... *ahem*

I disagree... I don't think they're like that at all but seriously... a little more attention to detail may be beneficial to avoid having to wear a dunce hat.

Dishonest science, Gary, is fooling yourself into believing what people with not-so hidden agendas have. To this point most of the data you bring is pseudoscientific or worse, misunderstood by you.

Calling objective scientists liars, on the other hand, is plainly laughable.

Your exactly right. Those that buy into the man made GW nonsense do so out of a not so hidden agenda. Either they have an overt liberal agenda or are playing follow the majority so they don't get smacked down like any other person that dares dispute the hype. Listening to your spouting only re-enforces that opinion.

Unfortunately you bolded the wrong sentence. Try the one underlined and then think about where you get your sources.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

How do you decide when it comes to expert opinion for your car repairs, Gary? Or medical opinion? Or any expert opinion? I just don't understand the logic in going against what the majority of any expert opinion is, unless of course you are an expert on it yourself.

Good! I am glad to hear that. Then you think since the majority voted for Bush the last time that makes it right to have him for a president. Since the majority in Congress voted for the Iraq war then it's right. Good to see your on our side now!

Gary, you're confusing a democratic process with listening to expert opinion. But nice try. Keep reaching...you're as cute as a child in a candy store.

Read my reply to #6. And I would say that when it comes to affairs of state the congress would be considered the experts. So by your logic the war was right.

You're right, what a silly a$$ I was. Excuse me while I go argue with my doctor over his medical opinion, cuz I just think he's wrong and I don't care if he's got a thousand doctors behind him to back his opinion up.