In Canada, we have a healthy polar bear population that has just gone on a Protected Species list; what is that about? This is clear proof the NGOs and EPA do not have a clue about science. Two polar bear populations on Baffin are decreasing in number, but this is a region of the arctic that is cooling not warming. Polars are stable or increasing! Polar bears are a variety of brown bear and probably will do very well when and if it warms, but not in competition with brownies simply because of their colour. The species, however, has survived numerous ice ages before this, their KODAK moment, arrived. Camouflage as brownies will get them through.
However, it is certainly not about the bears.
This is about abstract computer modeling being falsely elevated to the level of science and then presented as if it were science. Modeling produces objective computer generated conclusions based upon input assumptions and processing. In order for models to be approximately predictive, the assumptions must be realistic and work backward as well as forward. In most complex cases, modeling is GIGO. GIGO is their real value; eliminating hypothetical possibilities.
Politics operates on GIGO propaganda - secondary causation not on first principles. Science or first principles do not affect government decisions in democracies. When a politically correct model gives the politicians an advantage to manipulate politically correct voters in an election year, democracy becomes extremely unpredictable.
Bear protection is all about a mass movement that intends to destroy global prosperity by crowd control in the brave new world. NIMBY is the unintentional foremost philosophy of the enemies of our prosperity but by putting bears on an endangered list when they are not endangered is ‘new speak’, mind-control, and secondary reasoning all wrapped up in one, and it intrusive into someone else’s (Nunavut’s) back yard to boot. Science should not be secondary to modeling under any serious circumstances because there is too great a likelihood of missed assumptions and empty logic rendering the conclusion dead wrong.
Where is Al Gore’s consensus going with this? There is not a scrap of objective science in the CO2 global warming hypothesis either.
Francis Manns, Ph.D., P.Geo. (Ontario)
323 Blantyre Avenue
Toronto, ON
M1N 2S6 Canada
|
| |
Written By:
Francis T. Manns
URL:
http://
|
Do you realize that your evidence is as glancing (if not more so) as the evidence that you’re trying to refute?
I am a skeptic when it comes to facts and figures, so after doing research it seems that the polar bear population has increased despite what the cover of Time Magazine would have us believe.
Being as confident that more polar bears is reason for us to sit back on our laurels is as dangerously short-cited as to run around like Chicken Little because of fluctuations of ice on the poles (good analogy, btw).
What you haven’t addressed is what is sustainable? As you noted the ice caps have come back from their temporary recession, but is their comeback temporary.
How do we know that this "new ice" is not as temporary or more so than the recession.
Same with the polar bears:
They are back in numbers, but what other aspect of their ecosystem has been altered for their sustainability?
Bears do not live on ice alone... |
| |
Written By:
Jtyne
URL:
http://zimmertyne.wordpress.com
|
