37 thoughts on “The Polar Bear-Faced Lie”

  1. These seems like as good a place to ask as any, is this a reference to the “bold faced lie” or “bald faced lie” ?

    3. Polar bears are not an endangered species. They are classified as a “vulnerable species”, which means there are circumstances that may lead to them becoming endangered in the future.

      May. In the future. Not now.

      1. And the only reason they “may” is because the consideration of what the Polar Bears were doing precisely during (a) the high points of the -other- interglacials, or (b) the Minoan and Roman Warm periods hasn’t been nailed down. (Which, while they may not have been -global-, had treelines VERY far north, meaning it was quite warm in the Arctic.)

        No, they didn’t just float in the middle until they drowned. Duh.
        But they exist. Existance proves the possibility beyond the shadow of statistics.

        (Or the ‘may’ is entirely political. Your call.)

    4. Polar bears and Grizzly bears are two different breeds or races within the same species. They can and do interbreed and produce viable (fertile) offspring. So, no.

      1. What do you think of this argument: “However, because neither species can survive long in the other’s ecological niche, and because they have different morphology, metabolism, social and feeding behaviors, and other phenotypic characteristics, the two bears are generally classified as separate species.[24]”
        From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#Taxonomy_and_evolution
        and ultimately from [24] Stirling, Ian (1988). “The First Polar Bears”. Polar Bears. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-10100-5.

        I don’t want to hear about why wikipedia isn’t a good source — I want to hear about polar bears and the definition of “species”.

        See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

          1. Yeah, that looks like a good compromise, Bob. The existence of 1/3 Polar 3/4 Grizzly has been documented (I’d have to go digging, but I recall research by the University of Alberta) so they are not separate species, but the habitats of each only rarely overlap so they are evolutionarily significant; in time the two populations may become separate species.

            I view them sort of like Great Danes and Chihuahuas – the same species, but with rare interbreeding between the two varieties.

          3. Species is a somewhat nebulous, subjective construct. Almost all waterfowl can interbreed, which I’m sure is alarming to the more conservative members of the waterfowl community, who probably secretly watch duck-goose pr0n.

        2. What do you think of this argument: “However, because neither species can survive long in the other’s ecological niche, and because they have different morphology, metabolism, social and feeding behaviors, and other phenotypic characteristics, the two bears are generally classified as separate species.[24]”

          By that argument, Tiger Woods and Elin Nordegren were actually separate species. Do we need to pursue this?

  3. Polar bear populations have exploded in my lifetime. Apparently their populations were previously adversely affected by the routine use of 300 Winchester magnums.

    Of more interest is that their populations apparently do better without the permanent ice because they can switch to more ample game instead of relying on marginal seal populations whose populations plummet when the ice gets too thick to maintain breathing holes through the winter.

    1. It isn’t just seals.

      They appearently fish as well. For whales. youtu.be/lE-RKRNSG_c

      Just watch the bear run to the edge. It’s done this before. (I’ve also seen video of hauling a whale out. Somewhere.)

          2. The EPA issued a finding, on polar bear endangerment.
            The FWS rule is some 92 pages, so it’s some light bed time reading
            for you. But, that is the scientific evidence and weighted history
            behind the Bush Administration to list Polar Bears on the
            endangered species list.

            http://www.doi.gov/news/archive/08_News_Releases/080514a.html

            50 CFR Part 17
            [FWS-R7-ES-2008-0038; 1111 FY07 MO-B2]
            RIN 1018-AV19

          4. 92 pages of fact finding, science data, analysis and conclusions.

            Did you even read any of it?

            So where is your evidence polar bears aren’t endangered?

          7. I suppose you could dismiss the entire record as “Academic Fraud”
            but you seem to prefer the term as “Junk Science”.

            Now it is interesting you decided the polar bear science was junk
            without reading any of the literature cited by the Department
            of Interior.

            On what basis did you decide it was junk?

          9. Your source in slate claims in 2013 that the Yangtze River Dolphin
            is down to a few individuals “The Yangtze River dolphin is down to a few individuals, at best” however, anyone with even trivial knowledge
            would know that Yangtze river dolphin was declared extinct in 2006
            when no survivors were spotted during an extensive survey.

            A man as fundamentally uninformed on the facts is hardly a reputable source.

Comments are closed.