EcoHuddle  ›  Forums  ›  Climate Change  ›  News & Policy  ›  Meeting of the Polar Bear Specialists Group
Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread

Meeting of the Polar Bear Specialists Group

#1
Rating: 0
6/30/09 at 10:12am
  • Joined: February 2009
  • Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
  • Post Count: 106
This group will be meeting shortly to discuss several issues related to the effects of climate change on polar bear habitats and other topics.  A story has been making the rounds, started by Christopher Booker and picked up on by the usual blogs.  I'm looking for some info on the story, preferably from a more reliable source than the (not so) distinguished Mr. Booker.  Anybody have info on this?

My guess is since it's not a debate forum on climate change, perhaps they'd prefer to have someone other than Mitchell Taylor present, since invitees are limited and those invited will need to represent their groups appropriately.  Just a guess, though. 
Export to Wiki
#2
Rating: 0
6/30/09 at 11:06am
  • Joined: March 2008
  • Location: West Sacramento, CA
  • Post Count: 1,754
I'm guessing the Booker story is pretty accurate, and Taylor isn't invited because his arguments are irrelevant.  He's focusing on a few facts

1. Polar bear populations aren't currently declining significantly.
2. Some of the Arctic warming may be due to currents.

Point #1 is probably true, but irrelevant.  Polar bears aren't threatened because of the current global temperature or Arctic sea ice extent, but because of the trends and where they're headed.  Point #2 may also be true, but it's certainly not the whole story.  The Arctic is the most rapidly warming region on Earth, as predicted by climate models.  It's actually warming more rapidly than the models predict, which may have something to do with ocean currents.

Apparently this Taylor guy thinks that putting these 2 points together proves that polar bears aren't threatened by global warming, which is obviously not the case.  So if these polar bear experts want to have a serious discussion and think Taylor will detract from it with these sorts of incomplete and irrelevant arguments, I can understand why they wouldn't invite him.
Export to Wiki
#3
Rating: 0
6/30/09 at 10:57pm
  • Joined: March 2009
  • Location: Izmir, Turkey
  • Post Count: 556
Like I noted in another post - pick selected data and prove most anything.

I agree with Dana - (not trying to put words in your mouthh Dana - if you disagree please smack me down) trends are the indicator and in particular long term trends - day to day or even decade to decade observations or observations at any given point in time are not necessairly relevant.

With all that is known about climate there is still far more to learn - Guys like Taylor find wiggle room in the grey areas, confusing areas and as yet unknown areas to get their moment 'in the sun'.

Shame on me! I am not all that concerned about polar bears - the cubs are cute though!

The loss of the ice packs and what is causing that loss and future implications is of concern to all though.
Export to Wiki
#4
Rating: 0
7/1/09 at 8:27am
  • Joined: March 2008
  • Location: West Sacramento, CA
  • Post Count: 1,754
Yeah exactly.  I don't know what Taylor's motivation is, but his arguments show a very short-sighted view.  And what I don't understand is why a polar bear expert thinks he knows the cause of the decrease in Arctic sea ice.  If he wants to speak to the health of polar bear populations, that's fine, but why is he presuming to know that the Arctic sea ice decline is due to changing ocean currents?  That's way outside his field of expertise, but it's what his argument is based on.

That's what really bothers me about this story.  So often denier arguments are based on people making claims outside their fields of expertise, like geologists claiming they understand all causes of climate change, or worse, economists.  Now you've got a biologist who thinks he understands what's causing sea ice decline.
Export to Wiki
Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread