WASHINGTON, DC – Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, today expressed disappointment with the U.S. Department of Interior’s final decision to list the polar bear as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act.
“Unfortunately, the decision to list the polar bear as ‘threatened’ appears to be based more on politics than science,” Senator Inhofe said. “With the number of polar bears substantially up over the past forty years, the decision announced today appears to be based entirely on unproven computer models. The decision, therefore, is simply a case of reality versus unproven computer models, the methodology of which has been challenged by many scientists and forecasting experts. If the models are invalid, then the decision based on them is not justified. It’s disappointing that Secretary Kempthorne failed to stand up to liberal special interest groups who advocated this listing.
“Lost in the debate is the fact that polar bear numbers have dramatically increased over the past forty years – a fact even liberal environmental activists are forced to concede. According to Canadian scientists, 11 of the 13 bear populations are stable, with some increasing. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service now estimates that there are currently 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears. These numbers are substantially up from lows estimates in the range of 5,000-10,000 in the 1950s and 1960s. Credit should be given to protection already provided the polar bear by way of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the several international conservation treaties including the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears and the U.S.-Russia Polar Bear Conservation and Management Act of 2006, as well as conservation, education, and outreach agreement with native peoples.
“Today’s decision will have far reaching consequences. Liberal special interests have employed hundreds of lawyers to try and convert current environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act into climate laws. Yet the ESA is simply not equipped to regulate economy-wide greenhouse gases, nor does the Fish and Wildlife Service have the expertise to be a pollution control agency. The regulatory tools of the ESA function best when at-risk species are faced with local, tangible threats. Greenhouse gas emissions are not local. The implications of today’s decision, therefore, will undoubtedly lead to a drastic increase in litigation and eager lawyers ready to use this listing to do exactly what they have intended to do all along – shut down energy production.”
Press Release: Inhofe Says Listing of Polar Bear Based on Politics, Not Science
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne today announced that he is accepting the recommendation of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The listing is based on the best available science, which shows that loss of sea ice threatens and will likely continue to threaten polar bear habitat. This loss of habitat puts polar bears at risk of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future, the standard established by the ESA for designating a threatened species.
In making the announcement, Kempthorne said, “I am also announcing that this listing decision will be accompanied by administrative guidance and a rule that defines the scope of impact my decision will have, in order to protect the polar bear while limiting the unintended harm to the society and economy of the United States.”
Kempthorne further stated, “While the legal standards under the ESA compel me to list the polar bear as threatened, I want to make clear that this listing will not stop global climate change or prevent any sea ice from melting. Any real solution requires action by all major economies for it to be effective. That is why I am taking administrative and regulatory action to make certain the ESA isn’t abused to make global warming policies.”
http://www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/080514a.html
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service home page has links to population maps and video.
Note the distribution overlap off Alaska
http://www.fws.gov/
This is a real head scratcher, polar bear numbers in 1970’s were 5,000 and now 20,000 to 25,000, yet this is a threatened species?
Another interesting fact, genetically it seems that Polar bears and brown bears from the ABC islands off Alaska are genetically the same, so who is kidding who here.
Once again science has been trumped by AGW fantasist hogwash, surprise, surprise.
A “save the polar bears” site has a link allowing one to track polar bears with satellite-collars. According to the map, all of those polar bears are either living on the ice or have drowned in the open sea–with the exception of one that is enjoying retirement in Phoenix, Arizona. http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/beartracker/
Is 25,000 a lot of polar bears neville?
Steve,
I’m not a P.B. expert but an increase of 500% in approx 30 years is a fairly impressive record n’est pas?
Plus if they are really just a brown bear this side of the previous ice age how much larger are the real numbers anyhow?
Don’t trust me look it up on google
Instead of polar bears, common sense in Washington D.C. needs to be listed as threatened, perhaps even endangered.
I think it’s safe to say that when it comes to how our elected officials pander to special interest groups, be they left or right, that common sense in politics isn’t threatened, it’s extinct.
Polar bears have become the unwitting and unwilling ‘canary in the coal mine’ for environmentalists the world over. The problem is that the bears refuse to cooperate; instead of bowing to the hyperbole and reducing their population, they’re increasing their numbers and showing a healthy degree of sustainability. But far be it from an environmental zealot to abide by factual evidence when making assertions and assumptions.
The decision to place the bears on the Threatened List is purely political, as has been noted. There is not one shred of scientific fact to support the decision.
We live in an age when truth is subjective. Here in Canada, the state controls what we see, hear (CRTC, CBC) and even what we can say (Canadian Human Rights Commission). It is up to us all to ensure that the neo-marxist evrionmentalist vision of a socialist utopia on North American soil is NEVER realized.
The courts are vindicating the Alarmist. The earth is vindicating the Sceptic.
The ABC evening news reported that, “polar bear numbers had declined in recent years to about 25,000.”
Pure rubbish.
Polar bear numbers have increased from about 12,000 in 1960 to a high of 25,000 this year. That’s the record high number count, although there is reason to suspect that prior to modern sealing bear numbers would have been higher in the 19 th century.
The only thing that “endangers” the bears is a computer model that projects further declining ice due to AGW.
It’s interesting to note the polar bear experts here.
Mary Lou: “It’s interesting to note the polar bear experts here.”
It’s not about expertise in polar bears it’s in numbers and any species. If the population is increasing at the rate theirs is the species is unlikely to be endangered.
So do you know then Jan Pompe that the numbers of this particular species, in their particular environment, with their particular set of circumstances means for sure that they are unlikely to be endangered (the listing is actually threatened)?
These sorts of assumptions based on a set of estimated numbers alone are no doubt what Mary Lou was referring to.
Mr Wu: Never mind the red herrings the population has been increasing one does not need to even know what a bear is to pick that much up from the published figures.
So Mr Pompe you are a polar bear expert then? To not know what a species is, see that some estimated figures have gone up and then decide all is fine and dandy is something not even a hospital orderly would attempt. Of course when a real polar bear researcher comes up with figures to suggest polar bear numbers are declining in some areas, your sort never believe them. Funny that. You prove that it has nothing to do with the actual animal species, but your own set of beliefs and comforts being challenged.
Mr Wu: “So Mr Pompe you are a polar bear expert then?”
Never made the claim please cut the nonsense. It has nothing to with that according to the numbers by several people who are experts there has been more than 100% increase in numbers over the region where the bears live this does not represent a dangerous or threatening DECLINE or any sort of decline. Next you will be telling us that the smaller numbers we’ve been seeing mean the temperatures are getting dangerously high too.
Polar Bears are threatened by computer models – just scrap the computer models – job done.
Thank you Jan and Paul for illustrating my observation about beliefs and comforts rather nicely.
Mr. Wu and Mary Lou,
Since you appear to take umbrage at our layman’s interpretation of the data, I humbly ask that instead of passing snide judgment on a few individuals here, you enlighten us with what information you have, so that you might correct what you view as the incorrect and uninformed assumptions and viewpoints being expressed here.
I do not claim to be an expert. I only have what data there is available to draw conclusions from and form an opinion about. What I am seeing is a debate that is being drawn away from science and hard data into the realm of emotion. Emotional reactions and decisions are fraught with the risk of being wrong, sometimes horribly so. The decision to put polar bears on the ‘threatened’ list does not appear to be a decision driven by science, but rather one motivated by emotion and made to placate a vocal group that believes the bears are in danger. The spirit of science and the pursuit of truth are undermined when emotion drives policy.
If you have something constructive and fact-based to add to this debate, I invite you to share it with us.
Are you telling me you have just presented something fact-based Rick? You are not a polar bear expert, and as far as I can make out, no one else is here either. I am not and leave the debate to those that know better. If you have read what data is available then you will know the hard science behind the fors and againsts. Lay people should leave the discussion to those with the expertise, otherwise it is opinion, which is more often that not emotional.
Mary Lou, if you think these debates are settled by hard science, then where have you been all my life?
Sorry to say this is a political compromise, move along everyone, not much science here.
The wording of the decision requires government projects to conform with co2 outputs which could be expected to safeguard the lives of polar bears.
According to Jimmy Hansen that level would be something south of 350 PPM co2.
This could mean drastic cutbacks in government activities and expenditures.
http://blog.heritage.org/2008/05/15/the-new-libertarian-mascot/
I have developed quite an affinity for polar bears all of a sudden, in fact I have a sincere heartfelt sorrow for their lack of icebergs to cavort upon.
Has someone, somewhere discovered that polar bears refuse to eat unless they’re standing on ice?
Or that a hungry bear will ignore a seal if it’s sitting on a rock?
Or that they will refuse to move further north if the ice retreats?
You are so ignorant Schiller that it is beyond amusing anymore.
Oh mighty, omniscient Travis, whose every word drips with turgid enlightenment, I crave to hear your noble, indeed lofty, answer to my humble, meager questions.
Only then will I understand how the loss of ice will consign every last one of these most puissant, endearing carnivores to oblivion in desolate graves.
So tell me then Schiller, how does a pagophilic seal live on rocks? But of course we all know PBs can exist on frozen watermelons like the ones on the Gold Coast, and live in concrete dens. And we all know Schiller is a twit.
Travis, O great enlightened one, allow me in my ignorant depravity to mention to your exalted Self that the seals which Polar Bears most delightfully ingest, with the utmost gustatory satisfaction, also gladly rest their tender and nutritious selves upon rocks, gravel, sand, ice, and other geographically stable locations which are more or less horizontal.
I truly must learn how the predatory madness which is said to overcome carnivores such as the Polar Bear, when in sight of tender, delicious seals, is somehow overcome for the lack of ice, such that the Polar Bears prefer to starve.
Surely, O Loquacious Master of Mysterious and inutterable Lore, you can enlighten one so empty of understanding as I!
>allow me in my ignorant depravity to mention to your exalted Self that the seals which Polar Bears most delightfully ingest, with the utmost gustatory satisfaction, also gladly rest their tender and nutritious selves upon rocks, gravel, sand, ice, and other geographically stable locations which are more or less horizontal.
So Schiller, since you are such an expert here, you obviously know that these seals are primarily ringed, bearded and harps. Can you then enlighten us here as to how these seals breed on ‘rocks, gravel and sand’, substrates you are trying to convince us that they frequent enough to feed ‘hungry polar bears’? Perhaps it will be a hungry polar bear, the singular, but then that would suggest there weren’t many of them.
So enlighten us into the habitat requirements for recruitment of these seals Schiller, and how they will be around with a lack of ice and a veritable dirth of polar bears.
>enlighten one so empty of understanding as I!
Well, you at least got that right!
Oh esteemed one, most favored by the Heavens,
In my ignorance, I mistakenly thought the discussion was the mandatory ice habitat of Polar Bears. Yet, you have bestowed your wisdom, and I now understand that the true, and cleverly hidden, discussion was actually the diverse preferences of seals regarding prime real estate.
It is now apparent to me that the preferences of seals pose an imminent threat to Polar Bears! Truly, the stars must shine upon your majestic intellect even at noon!
Far be it from me, a benighted slave of slaves, to pretend to be an expert on “ringed, bearded and harps”. Surely, the celestial influences which inspire your synapses will prompt you to expound on how these seals conspire to seal the fate of the noblest carnivores of the northern Pole!
Here is a paper written by POLAR BEAR experts:
Science & Public Policy Institute
Demographic and Ecological Perspectives on the Status of Polar Bears
Written by Dr. Mitchell Taylor and Dr. Martha Dowsley
Friday, 14 March 2008
Tommy,
I fear your pronouncements will offend Travis, the Utmost Highest Intellectuality, who will now hurl down thunderous pronouncements, proclamations, imprecations and allegations regarding odd juxtapositions of your gonads, miscegenation and worse among your ancestors, and general trespasses upon the Supreme Moralities which are his to define.
Oh, he is merciless! The true discussion is about seals, and it is imperative that you beg forgiveness for your impertinence in suggesting otherwise!
Don’t you worry Travis. I plan on filing so many complaints about our bloated, entrenched, seemingly imperveous, California governmental bureaucracy, and it’s behemoth, world leading, carbon clod hoppers, that you will actually hear the co2 being sucked out of the air, the sound being carried on a chilled breeze all the way down to OZ. Say if they want to expand government healthcare, I’ll be there with a paper detailing how those people getting better on the public dime, are increasing state governments co2 output with their foul breath.
I owe the bears that much.
Schiller initially wrote:
> Has someone, somewhere discovered that polar bears refuse to eat unless they’re standing on ice?
Or that a hungry bear will ignore a seal if it’s sitting on a rock?
The dialogue went from there. You raised seals, which is one of the primary natural food sources for PBs. You attempted to mislead readers that PBs can find seal prey on dirt and sand, and that ice was not necessary to these seals.
>In my ignorance, I mistakenly thought the discussion was the mandatory ice habitat of Polar Bears. Yet, you have bestowed your wisdom, and I now understand that the true, and cleverly hidden, discussion was actually the diverse preferences of seals regarding prime real estate.
Ignorance – yes. Mistake – yes. Both apply in equal portions to you. Drawing on my experience dealing with developmentally challenged individuals, here we go… dear Schiller, ‘ice habitat’ is ‘mandatory’ for ringed, bearded and harp seals to reproduce. These seals are the primary natural food of polar bears. They are very rarely seen casually sitting on dirt or rocks or sand. They require ice to reproduce, to ensure there are more seals in the future to feed the multitudes of PBs. So…the primary food source of PBs (seals) need ice. You see, the discussion really is still about polar bears. It’s just that you seem to think we all like reading your maniacal ramblings as much as you like writing them.
>Surely, the celestial influences which inspire your synapses will prompt you to expound on how these seals conspire to seal the fate of the noblest carnivores of the northern Pole!
The wheel is spinning but the hamster’s dead eh Schiller? You can only do so much for an imbecile, and that type of ‘pinniped’ has definitely dominated this debate!
Travis. You didn’t tie your argument down with an appeal to the authority of a faceless NGO, whose constituenct members use the anomnity provided, to exersize their irrational activism without professional repercusions.
Good trolling! I’m impressed.
And your contributions here are…what James Mayeau?
“And your contributions here are…”
American test subject of the AGW experiment, or maybe disgruntled guinea pig. I provide commentary from a first hand experience to the global warming political movement, as it develops in America. And when the opportunity presents itself, I give the AGW beasty an occasional nasty whack across the knee, ala Tonya Harding.
Punching beyond my weight class to be sure, but you should see the havok a well timed sucker punch from a pipsqueek can do.
Were on the same side on this occasion Travis. I want stringent enforcement of the polar bear ruling. You want to keep them polar bears well fed.
Kif – kif.
Gonna give you polar bear protectors exactly what you ask for – give till it hurts, that’s my motto.
Finally, Travis and I have discovered common ground, where we can find agreement.
The polar bear is not endangered–rather, its favorite food is endangered. The seals, which prefer to hang out on ice patches, won’t be around for the bears to eat.
As the ice retreats northward, the seals will refuse to follow the ice.
So the bears, insistently ice-bound, and the seals, refusing a northward migration, will starve the bears.
So it all comes down to one final principle: the ice-loving seals will not follow the ice.
It sure is nice to have a seal expert like Travis to guide our deliberations.
Yes James, obviously I am the one trolling, not you.
We’ve come full circle Schiller and you have at least managed to prove something:
>You are so ignorant Schiller that it is beyond amusing anymore.
Posted by: Travis at May 19, 2008 06:26 AM
‘Climate warming is predicted to reduce the extent of ice cover in the Arctic and, within the Hudson Bay region, the annual ice may be significantly decreased or entirely lost in the foreseeable future. The ringed seal (Phoca hispida), a key species that depends on sea ice, will likely be among the first marine mammals to show the negative effects of climatic warming. We used 639 ringed seals killed by Inuit hunters from western Hudson Bay (1991–1992, 1999–2001) to assess trends in recruitment relative to snow depth, snowfall, rainfall, temperature in April and May, North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) from the previous winter, and timing of spring break-up. Snowfall and ringed seal recruitment varied from lower than average in the 1970s, to higher in 1980s and lower in 1990s. Prior to 1990, seal recruitment appeared to be related to timing of spring ice break-up which was correlated with the NAO. However, recent 1990–2001 environmental data indicate less snowfall, lower snow depth, and warmer temperatures in April and May when pups are born and nursed. Decreased snow depth, particularly below 32 cm, corresponded with a significant decrease in ringed seal recruitment as indicated by pups born and surviving to adults that were later harvested. Earlier spring break-up of sea ice together with snow trends suggest continued low pup survival in western Hudson Bay.’
Steven H. Ferguson et al (2005) CLIMATE CHANGE AND RINGED SEAL (PHOCA HISPIDA) RECRUITMENT IN WESTERN HUDSON BAY Marine Mammal Science 21(1),121–135
I am glad that Travis advocates not listing Polar Bears as endangered, but rather, seals.
Travis, in his exalted and contumely Wisdom, has determined that ice-loving seals will not follow northward the retreating ice cap, but instead, decree a species-wide hunger strike.
The hunger strike will result, of course, in the extinction of three (3) species of seals which his torpid, crepuscular Intellect has identified.
Ice-loving bears, whose appetites wane disastrously if their paws are not sufficiently cooled by ice, refuse to eat.
Meanwhile, ice-loving seals, who refuse to retreat northward with the failure of their icy habitat, will go down into oblivion to join the fossil record.
It is most joyous to be so completely enthralled by the salubrious explanations of Travis!
Does this Schiller Thurkettle person have anything useful to contribute? If he doesn’t, could he bugger off so we can read the useful comments without having to filter through his rubbish?
>I am glad that Travis advocates not listing Polar Bears as endangered, but rather, seals.
>Travis, in his exalted and contumely Wisdom, has determined that ice-loving seals will not follow northward the retreating ice cap
>will result, of course, in the extinction of three (3) species of seals which his torpid, crepuscular Intellect has identified.
Schiller if you find the need to continually misrepresent me, then I must be saying something right. I’m glad I bother you that much.
So where did Travis support that seals should be listed as endangered? Where did Travis determine that they will not go north? Was it Travis’s work which identified the three major seal species in the diet of polar bears?
I have presented information here Schiller, in response to a typically idiotic comment made by yourself. The information comes from marine mammal scientists. The abstract I provided does not have my name on it. There is no mention here, apart from your own crap, that ringed, bearded or harp seals should be listed as endangered.
You seem to wish to play the man not the ball Schiller, but that’s to be expected from the dunce at the back of the class who sceams to be noticed.
Thank you Schiller for helping to make this one of the very best environmental blogs on the planet!
Travis,
I’ve tried an indirect method to get you to explain things, which didn’t work, so I will attempt the direct method once again.
Nowhere is there an explanation of why bears die for lack of ice.
Nowhere is there an explanation of why neither seals nor bears will refuse to follow the icy habitat which is said to be their preference–however the boundaries of that habitat may change.
Therefore, if we engage in the foolish presupposition that all the ice on the northern pole turns to water, we are left with no explanation of why seals or bears would be “endangered” in such an unlikely circumstance.
Your ridiculous protestations have left open only one alternative, namely, that a hunger strike by the species involved will doom them. This alternative is as absurd as everything else you have claimed on this topic.
If you could be informative, rather than deriding questions you find inconvenient, you’d be far less of a fool.
LOL!! You are joking yeah?
Schiller writes:
>I’ve tried an indirect method to get you to explain things, which didn’t work, so I will attempt the direct method once again.
After Travis wrote:
>here we go… dear Schiller, ‘ice habitat’ is ‘mandatory’ for ringed, bearded and harp seals to reproduce. These seals are the primary natural food of polar bears. They are very rarely seen casually sitting on dirt or rocks or sand. They require ice to reproduce, to ensure there are more seals in the future to feed the multitudes of PBs. So…the primary food source of PBs (seals) need ice.
I thought I explained it for a five year-old, but obviously you are closer to a toddler.
In the numerous dead trees of literature there are explanations of why the bears need the ice and why it ‘endangers’ them not to have it. Pagophilic pinnipeds are a pretty good start. Are you doing a Mott, stamping your foot and demanding I provide references? Too bad, do your own footwork apart from the stamping. Why one of the very best environmental blogs in the world has an archive system, so all you have to do is type ‘polar bears’ and hit search. Easy, even for a simpleton like yourself.
I have not perused all the literature on polar pinnipeds and bears to see if they would go north or not – why don’t you show you have some initiative and do a google scholar search? Go one, give it a try. I’d imagine though that it will get pretty crowded around that North Pole, what with so many polar bears and seals trying to find some ice. Santa may have to move out.
>Therefore, if we engage in the foolish presupposition that all the ice on the northern pole turns to water, we are left with no explanation of why seals or bears would be “endangered” in such an unlikely circumstance.
You’ve completely bamboozled me there Schiller. Are you confused as to why the seals and bears would be ‘endangered’ if they had no ice and only water? You do know what the seals and bears use the ice for, don’t you? You do know that seals have to eat something too, and the food that seals eat have to eat something as well? You do know what an ecosystem is Schiller, and how things like currents and temperature and salinity and photo period and pH levels and all that technical stuff is kinda linked into ecosystems like that in which polar bears and seals live? No, I’m not talking about the chiller system at Sea World and the fake snow, I mean the Real World…Did you even read the abstract I provided (and there is more if you care to search) suggesting a decrease in ringed seals with a decrease in snow depth.
>Your ridiculous protestations have left open only one alternative, namely, that a hunger strike by the species involved will doom them. This alternative is as absurd as everything else you have claimed on this topic.
LOL!!! Classic! This coming from the jerk who types absolute crap in the vain attempt of sounding smart or cool or….something! You are too much Schiller! ‘Everything else I have claimed on the topic’…Such as what Schiller? Where have I protested Schiller? I’ve provided you with a tiny bit of the wealth of information out there. Guess it’s convenient to blame someone else for your own ineptitude. So I am still doing the claiming eh? Despite the fact I am not responsible for the publications on polar bear diet or Arctic pinniped breeding biology and habitat preference. Go figure.
>If you could be informative, rather than deriding questions you find inconvenient, you’d be far less of a fool.
Tsk, tsk. I’m so sorry Schiller. If I knew you were such a sensitive soul I would have thought of a more polite term for imbecile.
Travis,
If bears and seals don’t have ice to sit on, and they don’t want to lead a completely aquatic lifestyle, there’s sand and dirt and rocks and so forth. You know, the stuff other mammals sit on, when they’re not swimming.
So, unless someone says these ice-preferential critters refuse to go to the ice while it’s melting, and refuse to go to land when there isn’t any ice left (which is ludicrous), people who think they’re endangered on account of the ice have a lot of explaining to do.
If you like the idea of these critters being endangered, but don’t like being invited to explain yourself, you’d be smarter if you said nothing at all.
You like the idea, you do your homework. I won’t do it for you.
P.S. Travis, while doing your research, be careful to discount, dismiss or ignore all accounts of bears and seals being found sitting on sand, dirt or rocks. These will be “denialist” accounts, etc., and so forth.
You are a lot of fun Schiller, but I have the words of my grandmother in my mind, nagging me not to make fun of those less fortunate.
>If bears and seals don’t have ice to sit on, and they don’t want to lead a completely aquatic lifestyle, there’s sand and dirt and rocks and so forth. You know, the stuff other mammals sit on, when they’re not swimming.
Bears, including polar ones, can indeed sit in sand and dirt and rocks and so forth. I wonder why the seals are called pagophilic though? Did you know there are seals other than the ones that sit on boxes with bow ties on that bark like dogs? Have you read anything whilst trying to educate yourself on this subject and not waste other’s time? Silly question! So you think perhaps that arctic phocids and walrus should just adapt to life on sand and dirt and rocks and so forth in order to reproduce? You think they will be able to do this, plus presumably deal with a warmer temperature and that their prey will have adapted too, all in a rather short time frame? It would seem that the pinniped biologists may disagree with you, as those that study said phocids and walrus have expressed concern regarding less ice and snow for these animals. But what would these denialist, nutter, Grand Poo Bahs know?
I am really confused that you seriously think that because ‘other mammals’ can sit on sand and dirt and rocks and so forth that species dependent on ice and snow can simply do the same thing. You seem to genuinely think it is all so simple. You seem to genuinely be so simple! LOL! You know the baiji would have survived if we’d all had one in our bath tub.
>If you like the idea of these critters being endangered, but don’t like being invited to explain yourself, you’d be smarter if you said nothing at all.
Never even implied I like the idea of these or any other animal being endangered. Pointless suggestion. I have explained myself Schiller, but you seem to have a cognitive disability, and I can’t help that. Yes, I would be smarter not to write anything at all as you are an imbecile and waste of time. At least being smarter for me is an option.
>You like the idea, you do your homework. I won’t do it for you.
So I like the idea? Where did I honestly say Schiller that I like the idea of these animals being endangered? Tell me Schiller. You can’t, but every thread you accuse me of something I have not written, and you have done it to others too. Like I said, I can’t help your disability, but spare us.
You are sounding more and more like Mott each post, and both of you want to be spoon fed by others to account for your own stupidity and laziness. You asked the initial questions imbecile, you go do your homework. You can’t even read an abstract provided here for you, so I doubt very much that you are capable of looking up information for yourself. Poor Schiller.
>P.S. Travis, while doing your research, be careful to discount, dismiss or ignore all accounts of bears and seals being found sitting on sand, dirt or rocks. These will be “denialist” accounts, etc., and so forth.
Ok class room dunce, you go and find me information that says ringed, bearded and harp seals can survive on sand and dirt and rocks and so forth and then I will believe you. I wont settle for anything other than a paper that says these species can successfully survive (ie reproduce) on these substrates. If you don’t believe what I write using information from marine mammalogists, go and do your own research and report it back here. Ah, so many experts on this blog, which is why it is one of the very best environmental blogs on the planet. LOL!
So homework for the little boy by the name of Schiller – provide evidence to the contrary that pagophilic pinniped species DON’T require ice and snow to successfully reproduce in the wild, and we’re not talking about ‘sitting on’ these substrates cretinboy, we’re talking about living on them, because that is what you are telling us they should be able to do.
Has anyone checked the extent of the ice this winter (northern)? It seems to be the biggest it’s been for a few years and of course it will diminish as the north warms. From the map I looked at Hudson Bay was full of ice, and it extended down the Canadian east coast to be level with Quebec. Greenland is surrounded by ice and the icecap has increased markedly.
Has anyone checked the extent of the ice this winter (northern)? It seems to be the biggest it’s been for a few years and of course it will diminish as the north warms. From the map I looked at Hudson Bay was full of ice, and it extended down the Canadian east coast to be level with Quebec. Greenland is surrounded by ice and the icecap has increased markedly.
Why watta ya know? Schiller Thurkettle has not managed to provide the readers he so loves to educate with his vast wealth of knowledge with some scientific evidence that arctic pinnipeds can survive on dirt and sand and rocks and so forth. Instead he has managed to once again be the charlatan and attention-seeking imbecile he so desperately tries to accuse others of being. Pfft!!!