Exile for Non-Believers: Polar Bear Expert Told to Stay Home

polarbearcreditsusannemiller“MITCHELL Taylor is a Polar Bear researcher who has caught more polar bears and worked on more polar bear groups than any other, but he was effectively ostracized from the Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) specifically because he has publicly expressed doubts that there is a crisis due to carbon dioxide emissions. 

“Dr Andy Derocher, the outgoing chairman of the PSBG and Professor at the University of  Alberta, wrote to inform Taylor that he was not welcome at the 2009 meeting of the PBSG.

“Keep in mind as you read his comments (below) that Taylor had arranged funding to attend the meeting in Copenhagen, and has been at every meeting of this group since 1981. With 30 years of experience in polar bear research, it goes without saying that he has something to contribute to any discussion about polar bear conservation. This is the original email from Derocher to Taylor explaining why he was not invited:   

Hi Mitch,

The world is a political place and for polar bears, more so now than ever before. I have no problem with dissenting views as long as they are supportable by logic, scientific reasoning, and the literature.  

I do believe, as do many Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) members, that for the sake of polar bear conservation, views that run counter to human induced climate change are extremely unhelpful. In this vein, your positions and statements in the Manhattan Declaration, the Frontier Institute, and the Science and Public Policy Institute are inconsistent with positions taken by the PBSG.

I too was not surprised by the members not endorsing an invitation.

Nothing I heard had to do with your science on harvesting or your research on polar bears – it was the positions you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition.

Time will tell who is correct but the scientific literature is not on the side of those arguing against human induced climate change.
I look forward to having someone else chair the PBSG.

Best regards,
Andy (Derocher) …

Keep reading here:  http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/exile_for_non-believers.html
Pdf here:  http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Nova-Exile_for_non_believers.pdf

‘Exile for Non-Believers’, by Joanne Nova, published by the Science and Public Policy Institute, September 2009 

Photo Credit: Susanne Miller, United States Fish and Wildlife Service   http://www.fws.gov/home/feature/2008/polarbear012308/polarbearphotos.html

,

58 Responses to Exile for Non-Believers: Polar Bear Expert Told to Stay Home

  1. Fred from Canuckistan . . . September 27, 2009 at 12:11 am #

    Time for the IPCC Spanish Inquisition to pay a visit and convince Mitch of the error of his ways.

  2. Donald September 27, 2009 at 1:27 am #

    “…supportable by logic, scientific reasoning, and the literature.”

    Would this be one of the more hypocritical and cowardly letters sent to a scientist from someone who purports to be one? What an appalling display of poor form and unprofessional behaviour from Derocher. Perhaps professional jealousy accounts for some of this puerile “you can’t play with us anymore”.

    Apparently, now, “time will tell who is correct”, not the criterion of evidence supporting, or not, a hypothesis. But until that magic moment, Mitch Taylor is already wrong! Logic indeed!

    What a disgrace for the University of Alberta.

  3. Phillip Bratby September 27, 2009 at 4:26 am #

    Science is dead. It has been replaced by politics.

  4. Stu September 27, 2009 at 7:44 am #

    It would be a funny looking graph which compares atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and polar bear population since the 50s.

  5. Michael Hammer September 27, 2009 at 7:57 am #

    Hmm logic and scientific reasoning seem reasonable but “the literature” as well. Scientific progress is about new ideas, new insights, but new ideas and insights have to start somewhere. There has to be a first public disclosure, a first time to talk about a new idea or a first paper. New ideas always cause controversy and debate. Indeed that is what science is all about.

    By including “the literature” as a requirement for acceptance, Derocher has in effect said he is not prepared to accept any new ideas. The only ones he finds acceptable are old ideas already widely publicised and accepted. By his own words Derocher seems to have said that for him science is dead, replaced by religion enforced by politics.

    Time will indeed tell who is right but I wonder if Derocher will be as willing to accept equivalent treatment to that he has meted out to Taylor if it urns out he is wrong and consider it justified. Somehow I suspect not.

  6. Neville September 27, 2009 at 8:47 am #

    An increase in PBear numbers by a factor of five overe a few decades would be a great outcome to most sensible people, but not for these fanatics.
    Looking back in history to derive a sensible comparison to our present state of affairs is not only truthful and factual but could save us TRILLIONS of dollars soon to be flushed down the toilet for a big, fat, zero return with zero change in the climate.

  7. janama September 27, 2009 at 9:48 am #

    perhaps if we used different pictures of polar bears.

    http://lee.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/polar_bear_kills_seal.jpg

  8. david elder September 27, 2009 at 9:52 am #

    Hey, if only the Inquisition had seen this. They could have dealt with Galileo by not inviting him. He wouldn’t get hurt and the Inquisition wouldn’t suffer any bad press. They can respond to all queries by pointing out that time will tell if they are right.

  9. spangled drongo September 27, 2009 at 10:33 am #

    The brain washing, blatant advocation as well as this fact-sequestration are becoming farcical.

    How can the IPCC’s position on AGW seriously retain any credibility?

    Here is another of their insults.

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7138

  10. sod September 27, 2009 at 10:52 am #

    this is what happened:

    Dr. Taylor retired from the Nunavut government last year and was replaced on the Polar Bear Specialist Group by Dr. Lily Peacock. Further, Dr. Taylor was not re-appointed the to the PBSG by the Canadian government that decided to appoint 3 other people to the PBSG meeting here in Copenhagen. Involvement with the PBSG is restricted to those active in polar bear research and management and Dr. Taylor no longer fits within our guidelines of involvement. Dr. Taylor years ago was involved in drafting the rules that govern our Group – we are restricted to 20 members of which 15 are appointed by the 5 nations with polar bears in their range and 5 members are appointed by the Chair. I appointed 5 people that are active in polar bear issues on an ongoing basis.

    It was an unfortunate article and it was grossly misleading. For example, I never was a student of Dr. Taylor’s and for him to suggest so is more than a little surprising to me. I have know Dr. Taylor for over 25 years but I can assure you that at no point did he ever supervise me in any capacity.

    I am unsure what the intent of Dr. Taylor’s comments were but I can assure you that the PBSG has broad representation. Given the 20 members and my appointing of only 5, it is largely up to the 5 nations to construct the Group that I Chair. The Chair position rotates by nation – my term is up and it will be up to the next Chair to appoint 5 members because my term will end and my membership in the PBSG will end. I will also note that our former Chair, Scott Schliebe of the US Fish and Wildlife Service is not attending this meeting. He also retired in 2008 and is no longer active in the field.

    I hope this clarifies the situation some. This meeting is about coordinating ongoing and future research and management. Dr. Taylor is no longer in a position to assist with such issues. The PBSG has heard Dr. Taylor’s views on climate warming many times. I would note that Dr. Taylor is not a trained climatologist and his perspectives are not relevant to the discussions and intent of this meeting.

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/christopher_bookers_misinforma.php

    the e-mail that Jennifer printed above, is just a nice way of two former colleagues talking about a business problem. Taylor did no longer fit the requirements. in a special situation, he could have been invited anyway. the way he behaved made this impossible. case closed.

  11. Jeremy September 27, 2009 at 11:23 am #

    It is pretty obvious to everyone who has read this story that PBSG = a total farce…

  12. janama September 27, 2009 at 11:32 am #

    nice brushoff Sod – but you’ve done all this before on Deltoid haven’t you.

    what you failed to mention was this:

    While Mitchell Taylor was ousted, three participants were added to the meeting from
    groups whose main activities are political lobbying and education rather than science. While
    the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Polar
    Bears International (PBI) do fund some
    minor research, their main output is press
    releases, rather than scientific papers. Taylor
    has published some 59 peer reviewed
    papers. But none of the three new
    representatives appears to have published a
    single scientific paper related to polar bears.

    So there were three spaces for people from institutions whose funds depend on there being
    a “crisis”, but no space for one of the most published researchers in the field?

    declaring
    that Mitchell Taylor is retired—which is evidently news to Mitchell, who has two current
    contracts, and is a faculty member at Lakehead University with an active teaching program.
    Taylor has also been out in the field since the last PSBG meeting, and what a “field” it must
    be. Trekking through snow and looking for predators that weigh half a ton doesn’t sound
    like much of a hobby for senior citizens.

  13. janama September 27, 2009 at 11:35 am #

    You also failed to mention that Andrew Derocher has a stake in this as he’s previously stuck his neck out on Polar bear survival.

    One of the first signs of trouble scientists look for when examining polar bear populations is a drop in body weight that suggests nutritional stress, explained Andrew Derocher, a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta. Other key indicators are the cub survival rate and cub production among females, he added.

    Some of the most disturbing trends have been observed in Western Hudson Bay where the population has dropped by about 22 percent in the past 10 years, Derocher said in an interview.

    A “large portion” of the population decline is attributable to climate change and sea ice dynamics although “excessive harvesting” by humans is another factor, he said.

    Derocher has chaired the World Conservation Union’s specialist group on polar bears since 2005, when the organization last reported on the species’ status.

    He told Cybercast News Service the anticipated rate of habitat loss over the next four to five decades is enough to deplete the population by at least a further 30 percent.

  14. spangled drongo September 27, 2009 at 11:39 am #

    sod,
    Naturally, anyone who has factual, historic, scientific knowledge of PBs that runs contrary to the consensual science, no longer fits the requirements.

    But if you don’t think that this was was decided not only on Dr Taylor’s attitude to AGW but that same factual, historic, scientific knowledge, might you be deluding yourself?

  15. Birdie September 27, 2009 at 12:16 pm #

    World Medical Association has declared in September that all phycisians all around the world must urge their that their gov’t must take action against climate change.

    The working group was made by initation of Canada.

    And oh btw , Greenaldic media ( not supporters of WWF) wrote that polar bears were getting smaller and smaller ( this was measure by skull size).

  16. David Ball September 27, 2009 at 12:31 pm #

    Sadly, this is a common story. It is also only part of the story. I have first hand experience with this sort of echo chamber group think. Do not allow anyone to question our doctrine. It is deplorable that someone who has as much to contribute as Taylor is ostracized even though he brings up perfectly acceptable reasons for PB decline, other than the party rational. These people only want to pat each other on the back and pretend they have the PB all sussed out. Better not let anyone join who might ask questions that they do not have answers for. Heaven forbid. We have to fight for the scientific method harder than ever before. It is very disappointing that science has become so political. This is the reality, and we will not win the day unless we battle politically as well as scientifically. We have to stand up to these contemporary brown shirts. I also find it very funny that the guys at the top of the green movement live extremely well to do, and their followers seem to have no problem with that. Do as I say, not as I do. Did you ever notice that, Sod? That is a most unfortunate boil on the hypocritical face of the green’s. By the way Sod, I can show you how to build a sod hut like they did on the Canadian Prairies about 100 years ago. This knowledge may come in handy if you guys bring about the ruin of civilization, which is your goal after all, isn’t it?

  17. sod September 27, 2009 at 6:13 pm #

    declaring
    that Mitchell Taylor is retired—which is evidently news to Mitchell, who has two current
    contracts, and is a faculty member at Lakehead University with an active teaching program.
    Taylor has also been out in the field since the last PSBG meeting, and what a “field” it must
    be. Trekking through snow and looking for predators that weigh half a ton doesn’t sound
    like much of a hobby for senior citizens.

    here again the requirements:

    Involvement with the PBSG is restricted to those active in polar bear research and management and Dr. Taylor no longer fits within our guidelines of involvement.

    he is neither teaching “polar bears”, nor does he seem to be involved in polar bear management, since he left the government job.

    he was not reappointed by Canada.

    the letter quoted by Jennifer, is exactly what you would expect from such a letter. it is used here, to imply a conspiracy.

    I also find it very funny that the guys at the top of the green movement live extremely well to do, and their followers seem to have no problem with that. Do as I say, not as I do. Did you ever notice that, Sod? That is a most unfortunate boil on the hypocritical face of the green’s.

    no connection to the topic, but just the usual denialist rant.

    yes, the leaders of the green movement should sit in a hut on the poles or in the jungle. they should travel only on bikes that they constructed from natural material. not use paper or electricity while spreading their message. clever idea.

  18. chrisgo September 27, 2009 at 6:15 pm #

    On a related matter, the science of climatology does not have a long history and one of the most distinguished pioneers was H. H. Lamb who, through painstaking data collection, demonstrated the inconsistency of climate (cp. the ‘hockey stick’).

    His “Climate History and the Modern World” (Google Books) is still an excellent reference for an interested non-expert like myself and has the advantage of being uncontaminated by the AGW hysteria — it’s clear that the main concern at the time of publication (1982), was global cooling.
    ‘….Lamb had maintained a guarded attitude to the importance of greenhouse gas warming. Although many others have accepted this, he felt that there was too much reluctance to consider the full range of other, natural, causes of change. Right to the end of his life, he was promoting his “different view”….’.

    I’m riled at the way, in true Stalinist fashion, his name has been practically expunged from ‘e-history’:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology

    His Wikipedia entry (edited by the non-climatologist William Connolley) is perfunctory and demeaning — not even mentioning his academic degree or his role as founder of the CRU at University of East Anglia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Lamb#Books

    Compare non-climatologist William Connolley’s (presumably self-written) entry:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Connolley

  19. Manuel September 27, 2009 at 8:00 pm #

    Fred from Canuckistan: “Time for the IPCC Spanish Inquisition to pay a visit and convince Mitch of the error of his ways”

    The big difference being that Spanish Inquistion is mostly a false tale made up by the British to aggravate Spain, while the AGW scam is very real.

    [FWIW, it is estimated that during the whole existence of the Inquisition (around 250 years), 2,000 to 3,000 people were condemmed to death by the Inquisition in Spain. There are many episodes in the main countries of Europe in which a similar or greater number of people died for religious reasons in a single place, at a particular moment. Please, if you consider yourselves skeptics and illustrated, do not buy old political crap.]

  20. Marcus September 27, 2009 at 9:43 pm #

    Comment from: Manuel September 27th, 2009 at 8:00 pm

    Fred from Canuckistan: “Time for the IPCC Spanish Inquisition to pay a visit and convince Mitch of the error of his ways”

    The big difference being that Spanish Inquistion is mostly a false tale made up by the British to aggravate Spain, while the AGW scam is very real.”

    I can Only say Amen to that Manuel.

    Very few people actually take the time to study what happened during the so called “Spanish Inquisition”
    It was mostly directed (at least in Spain) against the jewish and muslim converts who did convert only for convenience’ sake, and been proven so!

    That makes no difference as to the Inquisition being right or wrong, with hindsight and living in a different culture we can see everything in a different light.
    However, I can clearly see the beginning of a modern “Inquisition”, and if the likes of luke, sod and sjt ever gain power, the Spanish Inquisition will look like a stroll in the park.

    I know their kind, having lived under similar regime before.

  21. allen mcmahon September 27, 2009 at 9:48 pm #

    Sod

    “While Mitchell Taylor was ousted, three participants were added to the meeting from
    groups whose main activities are political lobbying and education rather than science. While
    the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Polar
    Bears International (PBI) do fund some
    minor research, their main output is press
    releases, rather than scientific papers. Taylor
    has published some 59 peer reviewed
    papers. But none of the three new
    representatives appears to have published a
    single scientific paper related to polar bears.”

    How exactly were these three people “active in polar bear research and management”

  22. Jeremy C September 27, 2009 at 11:55 pm #

    I don’t know if anyone here read through Joanne Nova’s article but don’t forget she has a definite agenda whens she writes things like this. Nowhere is there a full listing of all the information about Taylor and the PBSG, the activiies of Taylor and this group.

    We can’t make up our mind on the selctive slice of information presented.

    If you only accept what Nova has written then you have suspended your critical facilities.

    So how about asking some questions or are you all happy to be led by the nose?

    Jennifer is this piece going to turn out like the debacle you posted with the supposed suspension of the guy from Bond University that didn’t turn out the way you presented it?

  23. Joanne Nova September 28, 2009 at 12:58 am #

    Sod: Taylors’ been out in the field since the last PBSG meeting. (Catching the largest carnivorous land animals and working in snow and sea ice. That’s some field.). He is still working on papers with colleagues, and he obviously would be an asset in any decisions on issues with polar bear management and research. The email made it clear that the reason he was uninvited was his views on climate – nothing to do with research. There were enough places at the meeting for 2 reps from PBI which contributes enough money spread among several project to employ one effective full time researcher.

    Jeremy: Are you asking others to come up with the questions because you can’t think of any to ask yourself?

  24. Jeremy C September 28, 2009 at 2:14 am #

    Hi Joanne,

    Nope, I’m just asking people here to think critically.

    You write well (I wish I wrote as well as you) but your writing comes across with definite agenda and it has a strong campaigning style, however I was left with the question, “hmmm, what did Jo Nova leave out”? With the entries here the evidence is that instead of thinking critically through your piece people are simply rushing to repeat rusted on attitudes. whats the use of that?

  25. dribble September 28, 2009 at 2:21 am #

    Sod: “yes, the leaders of the green movement should sit in a hut on the poles or in the jungle. they should travel only on bikes that they constructed from natural material. not use paper or electricity while spreading their message. clever idea.”

    Sounds like a great idea. Why not try it yourself Sod, you could report back to the green leadership on new construction methods for wooden bicycles. This sort of thing will be in great demand after the Deluge.

  26. sod September 28, 2009 at 2:57 am #

    Sod: Taylors’ been out in the field since the last PBSG meeting. (Catching the largest carnivorous land animals and working in snow and sea ice. That’s some field.). He is still working on papers with colleagues, and he obviously would be an asset in any decisions on issues with polar bear management and research. The email made it clear that the reason he was uninvited was his views on climate – nothing to do with research. There were enough places at the meeting for 2 reps from PBI which contributes enough money spread among several project to employ one effective full time researcher.

    i can tell you what is missing Jeremy. Joanne has an agenda. she is dropping all scepticism and all common sense, to construct a conspiracy theory.

    Joanne is making a lot out of the sentence: “Nothing I heard had to do with your science on harvesting or your research on polar bears”

    so here is my simple question: can you imagine a letter written under similar conditions (a member is no longer invited to a meeting), that will NOT include a similar phrase?

  27. janama September 28, 2009 at 6:31 am #

    Involvement with the PBSG is restricted to those active in polar bear research and management and Dr. Taylor no longer fits within our guidelines of involvement.

    he is neither teaching “polar bears”, nor does he seem to be involved in polar bear management, since he left the government job.

    Sod – he is still involved in Polar Bear research!!

    are you blind or just one eyed.

    The letter speaks for itself – there is no way it can be interpreted differently – to do so just shows you have your own agenda.

  28. Larry Fields September 28, 2009 at 6:44 am #

    Gee whiz! What will the Church of Global Warming do next? Burn heretics at the stake?

  29. Louis Hissink September 28, 2009 at 6:58 am #

    Man’s natural state is abject poverty – this means that the Greens, to be faithful to their belief, should exist stark naked and fashion whatever tools they need from stone and other natural materials.

    If they continue to use any artefact from industrialised civilisation, basically anything the mining industry has produced, and indirectly the products made from machines made from metal etc, then they are simply hypocrites.

    Sod should contemplate am existence in lands frequented by polar bears while in he is in a state of abject poverty. Polar bears are carnivores, and Sod would be cold from not having any clothes.

    I night add that it is the Green Agenda to destroy the mining industry – but as they don’t wish to reject civilisation with its material benefits, (how moronic can we get when solar cells are made from silica that has to be mined, let alone the copper for the electricity distribution) we might need to consider that Greenism and AGW are being used for other purposes than a benighted desire to return to Arcadian utopia where poncing around in the nude might have been OK in an environment of warm clime and abundant food.

    It isn’t the science stupid

  30. cohenite September 28, 2009 at 10:09 am #

    I too think sod should throw away his clothes and get into the natural rhythms of nature; I would think about a year living in the Simpson desert would be adequate for sod to test Glenn Albrecht’s views about sustainability; after the year sod could report back on the pros and ons of the natural life and how goanna compares with dingbat as a food source.

    sod, take little will, RW, JC and the rest of the chorus with you; you could call yourself sod’s tribe.

  31. janama September 28, 2009 at 10:33 am #

    you are not trying to turn a sod are you? 🙂

  32. Derek Smith September 28, 2009 at 11:56 am #

    Polar Bears evolved from Brown Bears I think something like 150K ago or towards the end of the second to last glacial period. Considering we’ve been in an Ice Age for a few million years, one wonders why it took so long for these bears to make the switch.
    Is there any data on PB numbers during the Eemian or Holocene maxima? I can’t see how they could survive in those times and yet be threatened by the current “warming” situation.

  33. Lawrie Ayres September 28, 2009 at 1:48 pm #

    I am an old farmer and I live change. I have read enough history and learnt enough science to know that human induced climate change is a scam. I also know that our politicians with few exceptions are going down the ETS road to our ruin. I thought I was alone but feel relieved that there are many of you out there. I live in a country town and have yet to find anyone who believes the Government line. They are not deniers, just practical people who know the power of nature and the fallability of politicians. Keep up the work because I think the tide is turning and hence the need for K. Rudd and friends to pass their ETS before a few more wake up to the truth.

  34. kuhnkat September 28, 2009 at 2:03 pm #

    Janama,

    SOD can’t see out of his left eye and won’t see out of the right!!

    Like SJT, Luke and the others, facts are not noted unless they fit their agenda. Anyone in disagreement is wrong. The science is settled and the Warmers have NEVER DONE ANYTHING WRONG AND WILL NEVER HAVE ANYTHING TO APOLOGISE FOR BECAUSE THEY ARE PERFECT AND ALL KNOWING!!!

    You may all genuflect now!!

  35. kuhnkat September 28, 2009 at 2:08 pm #

    Derek Smith,

    it would appear that Mammoths are temperate climate animals due to their diets. Based on where they have been found it makes it doubly interesting how Polar bears survived!!!

  36. janama September 28, 2009 at 3:29 pm #

    Let’s see how they get out of Statistics Steve’s latest discovery 😉

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/27/quote-of-the-week-20-ding-dong-the-stick-is-dead/#respond

  37. westerncanadian September 28, 2009 at 3:48 pm #

    The PBSG is following that noble scientific tradition “if you can’t win a debate on the merits of your argument, then shut down the debate.”

    It seems that Dr Taylor and his comments are being unhelpful to the PBSG lobbying group.

    Er, what does PBSG stand for? Oh right – “Pathetic Bunch of Scientific Gasbags”.

    Good but sad post Jennifer.

  38. Birdie September 28, 2009 at 6:08 pm #

    After about a month I’m coming to look at Jen’s blog again. I can’t believe it , the same rant is going on!!!!

    Research in the Journal of Zoology tells us that changes in the size of PB skulls ( the PB are getting smalller) are connected with contaminants and reduction of sea ice.

    The research was done on PB skulls from the two last centuries . The skulls had decreased with about 10%.

    For the morons that are ranting on about ancient times , it must be pointed out that now are added contaminants and habitat fragmentation etc…. rant on….

  39. Luke September 28, 2009 at 9:23 pm #

    On “skeptics”

    We are still searching for an appropriate name for the opposition. We’ve been painted into a Godwin’s law corner about “denier”, but we can’t tolerate “skeptic”, because that is certainly not what they are. They have no skeptical habits of mind, choosing to believe congenial evidence and dismiss evidence they dislike.

    It strikes me that they are doing slight of hand by calling themselves “skeptics”. The definition of the opposition group is not their beliefs, which indeed are all over the map. The definition is their behavior, which is all about avoiding any policy whatsoever. It’s easy to come up with an adjective for this, “reckless”. Oddly, I can’t come up with a good sticky noun for a absurdly reckless risk-taker. Maybe there’s something in another language? Maybe there’s a character in literature? I think the point is that their “inaction” is intended to perpetuate extreme and dangerous action. Let’s face it, nobody knows for a fact how things will all turn out. But the longer we delay, the more severe the problems of our future selves and our descendants! “Skeptic” is hardly the name for this! “Denier” or “denialist” really isn’t bad, but in addition to rubbing some people wrong, it doesn’t capture the mindboggling recklessness of their activities.

    As for ourselves, those who feel the discussion is usually a bit too leisurely and cool, I prefer “Cassandrites”.

    http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/

    Indeed yo’all.

  40. Cowboy Joe September 28, 2009 at 9:40 pm #

    The Spangled Drongo asked, “How can the IPCC’s position on AGW seriously retain any credibility? Here is another of their insults.”

    In Obamanation it is because they can, that is why.

    The change promised has started to be quantified and identified. Destroy what is left of freedom and the free market. AGW is just part of the strategy. No more mining, no more forestry, no more farmed animals no more financial rewards for risk takers. Just power for the politicians and social control and redistribution of wealth; both national and personal.

    While the left dominated American press continue their fawning love affair with the Democrats it will become worse.

    Perhaps human skulls have shrunk more than 10%.

    Personally, I like the more aerodynamic look of a modern and attrctive Polar Bear. Hopefully, Peter Singer agrees and will attempt to have consensual sex with a cute bear before they drown in the ocean.

    Could smaller skulls be an evolutionary adaptation? Perhaps small headed bears catch more seals via breathing holes in the pack ice.

    All we can hope for is that the masses in the USA and Australia will work out that they have been duped. I am hoping for a one term for both messiahs AKA Yin and Yang.

  41. Lazlo September 28, 2009 at 9:44 pm #

    Luke: ‘But the longer we delay, the more severe the problems of our future selves and our descendants!’ So Luke, appropriately, has gone to brain dead heaven and reincarnated as a computer model.

    This is a variant of the boring pre-Copenhagen hysteria brought to you by your ABC and others of: ‘it’s worse than we thought’. So Luke, pray tell what it was ‘we thought’ and by what empirical measure it is ‘ worse’.

    As for the Taylor and polar bear issue: absolutely disgusting. But that won’t stop Luke and SJT, as the new totalitarian puritans, defending it.

  42. el gordo September 28, 2009 at 9:54 pm #

    Indeed, sceptics are luke warmers. Deniers have no doubt that global cooling is happening now and temperatures will fall a couple of degrees over the next 20 years.

    Still, we shall agree to disagree, as ‘nobody knows for a fact how things will all turn out.’

    Birdie…a reduction in skulls size by somewhere between 3% to 9% is not a good look and may be caused by pollution, but has sweet FA to do with thinning ice. Polar bears have been around for 125,000 years, which is before the Eemian kicked in. So they have survived two interglacials and will come back stronger than ever in the not too distant future.

  43. J.Philip September 29, 2009 at 1:10 am #

    Politicians can’t even balance a checkbook, and now you tell us you can regulate the temperature of the Earth. You better leave well enuf alone. I rememebr the 70’s when it was do or die from Global Cooling. What ? Now we did all that stuff to prevent Global Cooling and 49 years later the same BSing crowd says it’s getting to hot ? Well, make up your mind or quit fooling with Mother Nature.

    But, this scheme of Polar Bear Heads getting smaller due to AGW ? Hahahahaha. Next you will be saying the Polar Ice Caps are melting.

  44. hunter September 29, 2009 at 4:45 am #

    Odd spin the Lukes have put on their finding themselves in the corner.
    AGW true believers are painted into a corner because they have used oceans of paint getting themselves there.
    Skeptics are what we are, and the fact that AGW true believers can’t stand the term is simply affirmation that it is exactly the right term.
    We skeptics do not need for gullible twits like the Luke ensemble, or any other AGW believer or promoter, to tell us what we are or are not. we are and have been skeptics.
    We do not fall for bogus misuse of the precautionary principal. Evidence provided by time and ethical reviews of AGW predictions and promoters tells us every time we are justified in our skepticism.
    Now that there is confirmation that not only is hockey stick bad science, it is probably fraud, maybe it is time to start wondering what to call the entire AGW movement.

  45. Jabba the Cat September 29, 2009 at 7:07 am #

    AGW’ers, ecomentalist’s and other leftie loonies should always remember what happened to the pigs in Animal Farm…

  46. Jimmock September 29, 2009 at 11:59 am #

    Sod, your long dissertation on the circumstances of Taylor’s omission convinces me that the man was cut with a scalpel rather than bludgeoned with a rusty pole. Big deal.

  47. Richard S Courtney September 29, 2009 at 6:00 pm #

    Luke:

    I will rise to your bait.

    Climate realists observe the real world and evidence of climate from the real world.
    They assess reality, and all evidence from reality shows that there is no evidence that AGW exists at a detectable magnitude.

    AGW-advocates consider climate models and out puts from those models.
    They pretend virtual reality is a cause to be afraid because the models are poor emulations of reality.

    Hence, I suggest that those who reject the dogma of anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) should be called climate realists.

    Luke, I assume we can agree this suggestion because it is factual and value-free.

    Richard

  48. Henry chance October 1, 2009 at 6:15 am #

    The psychology of deceipt. The Mann made global warming crowd do not want the expert there. It is human nature to dread eye contact with someone you have either disparaged or that has exposed your dishonesty. This is how immature people show avoidance behavior.
    It escalates into greater fear. what if he accidently slipped in a question that exposed error or a false claim? Scary.

    Put yourself in sod’s shoes. You use the polar bear as a shield to protect your dogma. You predict it will become extinct and is dying off in great numbers in front of our eyes. They know we all know the population is growing in robust numbers.

  49. Katrina October 1, 2009 at 6:50 am #

    They know we all know the population is growing in robust numbers. – Henry Chance

    Really Henry? Can you please provide us with peer-reviewed literature from each of the polar bear populations? I look forward to seeing these figures from polar bear researchers that apparently support your argument. In the meantime, please refrain from using the royal “all” in your flawed debate.

  50. just wondering October 4, 2009 at 4:41 am #

    My take on this: expect Polar Bear populations to decrease. Soon. They will be “made” to decrease to support the theory. Case closed and the “science” is settled.

    Glad I didn’t get a degree from U of A.

  51. Justin October 4, 2009 at 9:07 am #

    Katrina,

    Whether you like it or not, Polar Bears are not endangered. They are designated as “Threatened” in the US and “A species of concern” in Russia.

    How many polar bears are there?

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

    This number should be compared to the number in the 1960’s when the worldwide population was about estimated at 1600. So they have not done badly considering all the global warming that has been happening. Maybe they llike it a bit warmer.

    ref: http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/faq/#q2

    And a quote:

    “Scientists predict that, if current warming trends continue in the Arctic, two-thirds of the world’s polar bears could disappear by 2050.”

    So somewhere in the region of 6000-8000 will still be alive even if we do nothing about global warming. Not so alarmist now is it? The number does not even reduce to 1960’s levels.

  52. mitch October 5, 2009 at 3:14 pm #

    Katrina,

    Can you please provide us with figures indicating past and present polar bear populations?

  53. Revnant Dream November 28, 2009 at 5:37 pm #

    Hide the Decline.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded

    If you believe this than there is no hope for you as a human being with a brain. Jennifer is right on.

    Climate Gate propaganda. Incredible!!! Speaks for itself:

    Polar bears eating young due to shrinking sea ice: Scientists

    http://www.thestar.com/news/sciencetech/environment/article/731873–polar-bears-eating-young-due-to-shrinking-sea-ice-scientists

  54. Travis December 20, 2010 at 6:40 am #

    >Birdie…a reduction in skulls size by somewhere between 3% to 9% is not a good look and may be caused by pollution, but has sweet FA to do with thinning ice. Polar bears have been around for 125,000 years, which is before the Eemian kicked in. So they have survived two interglacials and will come back stronger than ever in the not too distant future. – Gordo

    Is Gordo Schiller Diller? Sounds remarkably as stupid. Don’t get it do you Gordo? As Birdie wrote:

    >For the morons that are ranting on about ancient times , it must be pointed out that now are added contaminants and habitat fragmentation etc…. rant on….

    Yes, morons. When you can get facts and form an argument sensibly and logically Gordo, you may be worth debating, but for now, stay on Jenn’s site. It suits your intelligence level.

  55. Carroll B. Merriman January 14, 2011 at 3:09 pm #

    Between me and my husband we’ve owned more MP3 players over the years than I can count, including Sansas, iRivers, iPods (classic & touch), the Ibiza Rhapsody, etc. But, the last few years I’ve settled down to one line of players. Why? Because I was happy to discover how well-designed and fun to use the underappreciated (and widely mocked) Zunes are.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Ostracismo para los no creyentes « PlazaMoyua.org - September 27, 2009

    […] Via: Jennifer Marohasy [–>] […]

  2. Global Warming: Science or Politics? « Poppypundit - September 28, 2009

    […] The next time someone argues that global warming alarmism is driven by science, refer them to the sad case of Mitchell Taylor, a polar bear research expert who was recently uninvited to the Polar Bear Specialist Group at the […]

  3. “Gorers” missing the big picture on climate gate - rightofcourse.com - December 1, 2009

    […] taken on global warming that brought opposition”.  You can read the rest of the letter here: Jennifer Marohasy: Exile for non-believers.  So, by their own admission, the Polar Bear Specialist Group can find nothing wrong with Mitchell […]

Website by 46digital