Climate Change blamed for cannibal polar bears

December 11th, 2009 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

cannibal-polar-bear

Marty G at The Standard shows off his expert knowledge of Arctic polar bears, and declares this photo shows how has turned polar bears into cannibals. He says:

This is climate change. This is just the beginning.

I have a terrible feeling that this picture is an omen of things to come.

Oh yes, next there will be cannibal geckos, cannibal crabs and worse.

Or one could talk to someone who actually lives in the area, as the Daily Mail did:

But this theory is disputed by Inuit leaders in Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, who claim it is wrong to connect the bears’ behaviour with starvation.

Kivalliqu Inuit Association president Jose Kusugak said: ‘It makes the south – southern people – look so ignorant.

Ignorant indeed. Unless you prefer Marty’s knowledge of polar bears to the local Unuit leader.

‘A male polar bear eating a cub becomes a big story and they try to marry it with climate change and so on, it becomes absurd when it’s a normal, normal occurrence.’

What a shame – it could have made a great film – revenage of the cannibal polar bears.

Tags: ,

96 Responses to “Climate Change blamed for cannibal polar bears”

  1. Bogusnews (477 comments) says:

    I can understand why they pick on the cute and cuddly polar bears, but they constantly show their ignorance and it is time they were found out.

    Polar bears and not endangered, in fact (if my memory serves correctly) their numbers have doubled in the last thirty years. Palin was vilified when she objected to them being put on the endangered for that reason.

    When are these guys going to get real?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 59 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 63 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Captain Crab (351 comments) says:

    Oh dear, thats an embarrassing and ignorant slip from Marty G
    Bogus is right. Polar Bears are doing very well.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 54 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    MacDoc points out the story has been picked up by the Herald, with the usual lack of research, no surprises there.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Yvette (2,852 comments) says:

    “. . . But how do we save the polar bear? I’d first point out that polar bears have survived sometimes dramatic climate changes over thousands of years, most recently the so called “medieval warm period” (1000-1300 A.D.) in which large parts of the arctic glaciers disappeared and Greenland was truly “green”. Contrary to that heart-wrenching image on the cover of Time of an apparently doomed polar bear floating on a chunk of ice, polar bears can swim for miles. In addition, more polar bears die each year from gunshot wounds than from drowning. So instead of rationing carbon energy, maybe the first thing we should do to protect polar bears is to stop shooting them! . . . ”

    Somewhere it was estimated Kyoto provisions would save just one tenth of one polar bear a year, but not shooting them would save 104.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    That photo is a symbol of what we are doing to our planet.

    Nope it is a reminder that nature is cruel – people who live in cities, work in ivory towers and whose only contact with nature is Walt Disney and the Discovery Channel don’t realize how hostile the world really is.

    What we should do is round up every green agitator, strip them of their clothes and dump them in the jungles of Sarawak and tell them to get on with it.

    They wouldn’t last five minutes is my pick.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 49 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 43 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. lprent (101 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 77 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Tassman (234 comments) says:

    When he was dispossed from his home, his culture, and his family because of economic exploitation and overusage of resouces, he turned on his children. Solid proof that family violence is truly rooted in the economy…

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Say Goodbye to Hollywood (563 comments) says:

    So we will just ignore what the local guy said, because I mean wtf would he know. Pfft…The Standard, what a fucking joke.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Captain Crab (351 comments) says:

    Three weeks earlier? And thats your proof of AGW?
    FFS
    Lynn, (the guy with the girls name), how do you explain male Lions eating their cubs?
    That ice melt in Kenya must be a real problem. Sheesh.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 45 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. lprent (101 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 58 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Inventory2 (10,443 comments) says:

    lprent said “But don’t let me interrupt your hangover with a dose of reality.”

    A dose of reality? From you, of all people Lynn? Sorry, I’m not convinced :-)

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. david (2,564 comments) says:

    Don’t know about polar bears but in many animal species, weaning (or death of) young is the trigger for hormonal changes that stimulate oestrus in the female thus making her receptive to mating. It is not uncommon for males to kill the young that have been sired by another male in an apparent attempt to increase the spread of their own genetics. Darwinism at work.
    message to lprent. If you come here try using some intelligence in your discussions, your arrogant approach makes you just another tosspot otherwise.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. big bruv (14,165 comments) says:

    Iprent

    Are you enjoying the free and frank exchange of ideas here?, see how good a blog can be when people like you are not editing or banning anybody who you do not agree with.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 57 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. transmogrifier (522 comments) says:

    God, climate change again.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. lprent (101 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 52 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. coventry (322 comments) says:

    What’s the chance that we can get that Polar Bear to visit ‘substandard’ central – I can think of a few commentators there that would make great entrees.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,754 comments) says:

    Helen Clark went into the last election with sustainabilty as a major policy plank. Turns out her regime wasn’t sustainable.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. lprent (101 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 47 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 37 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Say Goodbye to Hollywood (563 comments) says:

    The problem with The Standard is you can’t handle the truth, so you ban it. Typical pinko attitude.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Say Goodbye to Hollywood (563 comments) says:

    Pete George, switch off your computer and go outside. You’re getting weirder by the minute.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Male cats of all sizes will nail all the young of another males if they can.

    they’ve been doing it for hundreds of thousands of years, is that a “symbol of what we are doing to our planet” of the reality that nature doesn’t have G rating?

    Some pretty desperate stuff from the “man controls the weather with taxation” hysteria crowd. Show me science not the political advocacy.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Captain Crab (351 comments) says:

    Lynn
    Ok explain to us all why NIWA uses the Kelburn Temp Measuring Station as one of the seven sites for our measurements when, because it is next to an Asphalt carpark the Station is classed 4 by the IPCC.
    Note that 1 is the best out of 6
    Hardly striving for excellence and accuracy are they?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    The Copenhagen polar bear with it’s likely agreement?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. david (2,564 comments) says:

    lprent,

    You are correct, I don’t rush off to wikipaedia for answers when discussing, generally I draw from my own knowledge and experience. As I said, I haven’t studied polar bears but I will offer this from general knowledge so don’t ask for references. In some mammalian species, death of offspring will trigger almost immediate onset of oestrus. No months of waiting, no counting of days, no temperature charts (at least I don’t think polar bears carry thermometers) just dead cub today, mating can start by the end of the week.
    The real point? …. It may have nothing to do with climate change at all in which case the article can be dismissed as bullshit.
    If I were you though I would re-inforce the front door, a plague of highly pissed off lemmings may be coming your way due to their winter range being upset by some anthropogenic sunspots.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. big bruv (14,165 comments) says:

    Iprent

    Bullshit, if I ever had a go at anybody it would have been that retard Robinsod and even then it would have been in retaliation to what he had to say, any issue I tried to raise was deleted, any issue that caused embarrassment to the then Labour government was quickly removed from the site, you know this to be the case.

    Actually, your approach to Robinsod best illustrates why the left are inherently corrupt, you say you are against abuse yet you let Robinsod have a free run of the place.

    Basically Iprent, you are full of it, the Standard could be a great blog, a place where a free and frank exchange of ideas happens, but the reality is so different, perhaps it is because you know that socialism does not stand up to close scrutiny, what ever the reason the fact remains that you ban anybody who does not agree with you.

    The EMPU and Labour party funded Standard is a perfect example of what Labour are like when they are the government, crush all opposition, silence anybody who does not agree and use every chance you get to push your lies and deceit.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 39 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,924 comments) says:

    Well of course he’s right.

    “I have a terrible feeling that this picture is an omen of things to come.”

    The terrible things to come from the junk writers at The Standard.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “That photo is a symbol of what we are doing to our planet.”

    Yes, given that its main theme is deceit, it is especially apt.

    You are such a conscienceless liar. Like the great majority of leftists.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Well DPF is certainly giving you lots of time to tell us all how repressed you are petey.

    Irony doesn’t just mean it has lots of iron in it.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. pentwig (240 comments) says:

    BB You are correct

    The Stranded does not allow freedom of speech on their blog because it makes them look inept and stupid ( in reality that is so).

    Iprent- learn from kiwiblog on how a real blog works.
    Go away and sulk and feel ashamed.

    [DPF: What people think of The Standard is off topic for this thread. Responds to Lynn’s contributions or don’t respond at all. You can use General Debate for anything else]

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. tom hunter (5,095 comments) says:

    I think it’s great that Lynn and co are continuing to push this.

    To put up the same old emotive we’re killing the Poley bears theme as a desperate way of guilting people into supporting an ETS or carbon taxes, or anything about AGW, just shows how tone deaf they are.

    A recent advertising campaign went viral on the net and it showed Polar Bears falling from the skies. All that led to was even more mockery – not to mention an appreciation that this is really the best argument the warmers have got.

    A failed emotive approach to the issue, together by a failed regulatory approach at Kyoto, followed up by a repeat exercise in the here and now.

    Still, I’m sure this will give summer party goers something to talk about in sad, hushed tones of horror before reaching for their Alaskan salmon brioche, fine French wine, and Brazilian coffee.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    Funnily enough, I know a few experts on polar bears. It’s been kind of interesting that to date, the international conservation treaty covering polar beers (Norway, Denmark/Greenland, Russia, Canada, USA) has been generally successful. Partly it allows for flexibility. The US does not permit commercial hunting in Alaska. Canada has devolved much of the polar bear management to local Inuit, who have developed their own quota for commercial hunters. There has been no ‘one-size fits all’ approach.

    In general, the population since the 1970s (globally, including Canda) has trended upwards. There are normal cycles of rises and falls, as you get in all natural populations. But there has been no observed trend down. The extinction risk posed by AGW for polar bears is a projected one, not an observed one.

    The reason polar bears get picked on is because they’re mammals. The political economy of environmental movements is that it is better to make up something (for a cute animal) than to focus on species that are really threatened. The latest data we are getting from the Red Book lists from the IUCN is that over 1/3 of all surveyed reptile and amphibian species are in serious decline. 10% of all gharials (from a population of a tenuous 1000 animals) have died in the last 12 months.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    “A failed emotive approach to the issue” yes, “this is really the best argument the warmers have got.” no.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “BB: your biggest problem on The Standard is that you seldom have anything substantive to say.”

    Utter bullshit. The Standard is a home for little cowardly tyrants who use subjective crap like the above in a weak attempt to conceal that fact that they are intolerant bigots, petty tyrants and people who generally make a farce of the concept of freedom of expression.

    Bruv is perfectly right . The reason so many left wing sites ban dissent at the same time as they profess to care about freedom of political expression is because their ideology is unable to withstand logical scrutiny.

    The Standard are a pack of liars, smearers and intellectual cowards.

    The old Soviet Union in microcosm.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Repost of the above as I ran out of editing time (after reading DPF’s comment, which strikes me as a bit unfair as it was Lprent who [mainly] went off topic).

    “BB: your biggest problem on The Standard is that you seldom have anything substantive to say.”

    Utter bullshit. The Standard is a home for little cowardly tyrants who use subjective crap like the above in a weak attempt to conceal that fact that they are intolerant bigots, petty tyrants and people who generally make a farce of the concept of freedom of expression.

    Bruv is perfectly right . The reason so many left wing sites ban dissent at the same time as they profess to care about freedom of political expression is because their ideology is unable to withstand logical scrutiny. This attempt to pervert the truth on polar bear population decline is typical.

    The claim is just pure deceit that will not withstand scrutiny, yet so many people who will say this have been banned by the autocratic little Stalinists running the place.

    The Standard are a pack of liars, smearers and intellectual cowards.

    The old Soviet Union in microcosm.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    But there has been no observed trend down.

    Chthoniid, the links I posted here suggested some populations may be increasing, some may be decreasing. Is this different to what you know?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Fletch (6,497 comments) says:

    We should just leave an open statement for warmers –

    Climate Change To Blame For [inset cause of the week here]

    This story is interesting though –


    Polar bear expert barred by global warmists

    Mitchell Taylor, who has studied the animals for 30 years, was told his views ‘are extremely unhelpful’ , reveals Christopher Booker.

    Over the coming days a curiously revealing event will be taking place in Copenhagen. Top of the agenda at a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission) will be the need to produce a suitably scary report on how polar bears are being threatened with extinction by man-made global warming.

    This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN’s major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December. But one of the world’s leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week’s meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group.

    Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.

    Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.

    MORE

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Le Grande Fromage (145 comments) says:

    Maybe the Daddy polar bear saw that his cub was going to turn into a mateless, dateless, Auckland computer programmer destined to spend their life jacking off publicly to Helen Clarke and all things socialist so decided to put him out of his misery.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. tom hunter (5,095 comments) says:

    Here’s the actual Falling Polar Bears advert.

    See! Bears falling from the sky and crushing cars. I think it was designed for people like my 10-year old who, upon seeing the clip, uttered the immortal words of any Transformers fan – That is SO cool. Actually if Michael Bay popped up in the credits I would not be surprised.

    On the semi-serious side I see a lot of 9/11 imagery (and sound effects) here. Clearly this is one issue where living beings falling from the sky is something the media are encouraging us to get angry about.

    But back to mockery, with Mark Steyn’s riff on an old Jimmy Stewart Christmas movie:

    It’s A Warmerful Life: every time they call your flight, a poley bear loses its wings.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. grumpy (270 comments) says:

    I don’t know how the Polar Bear thing slipped through, the standard are very wary lately about the issues they publish – off the air on climate change, education, law and order and any issue they are going to get utterly hammered on.

    Lately they are getting more anti responses than supportive, indicating that either they are running out of supporters or their arguments are simply crap.

    the bannings and censorship are just the resulting desperation.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. RightNow (7,013 comments) says:

    I looked out of my office window this morning and there were two polar bears falling past. I threw them a couple of parachutes to save them. They landed safely (you can’t say I don’t do my bit to mitigate AGW) and then proceeded to eat a mime who was doing street theatre outside Kirk’s. It seems there really is a silver lining to every cloud.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    Pete- polar bears show the volatility of a small population. There have been periods of decline and increase for most (made noisier by sampling errors) This is why the IUCN assessment was that they depend on conservation management. To date, this has been pretty successful.

    The recent change in status has been to vulnerable. That is way off cause for concern compared to endangered or critically endangered. The change to vulnerable has simply been a product of anticipated declines over the next 30-50 years. Which in turn, means we’ve got to be pretty good at estimating changes to summer ice and the adaptability of bears to that.

    But, you’re not going to pick up a 30-50 year downward trend caused by climate change, in the first 2-5 years. That’s just being ecologically ignorant. All you’ve got with small populations in that time frame is ‘noise’.

    Climate change may in fact be more serious for many reptiles. Take the gharial. It is a truly endangered species. We know that sex in reptiles is determined by temperature in the egg-phase, so rises in temperature can bias sex ratios. Compounding this is habitat loss. The ability of gharials to adapt to climate change- by establishing successful populations in cooler river systems- is just not possible anymore.

    So, why are we concerned about polar bears- with a wide range over 5 different countries and a mere vulnerable status- and not a critically endangered reptile found basically in one Indian river?

    People use polar bears because they are better for manipulating other people through ‘emotive connections’. If it really was about endangered species, they’d be out there trying to save the gharial instead. But an animal of low conservation concern is just so much better for manipulating the public if it looks ‘cute’.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. RedRock (26 comments) says:

    Is it just me, or does that photo look “photoshopped”?

    Do we know if the person who took the photo has confirmed it for real?

    The article in the Herald doesn’t mention who took the photo.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    I can’t tell, but with the blown highlights in the background, it will be a digital shot.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Thanks Chthoniid, it’s good to actually get some useful comment and discussion on it, I know I stirred with a couple of posts but I was interested in the realities of the polar bear situation and got hammered. There seems to be more natural polarisation here than between polar bears and penguins.

    Hey, wouldn’t polar bears love to live in Antarctica? More food options. But that would be a bit of en ecological dilemma, what if (hypothetically) the only way to save polar bears was to switch poles?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Yes, it is strange how people react much more to polar bears (dangerous predator to man) and the gharial is not as cute (and which is not the same threat as crocs).

    I presume reptiles and lizards will have less ability to adapt to different temperatures. And at least the polar bear can roam over a wide area, if the gharial’s river becomes uninhabitable they are a bit stuffed.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. RedRock (26 comments) says:

    Chthoniid

    I would have thought that the bear’s mouth would have to be more open to ensure a proper grasp of the cub’s head, but to me it looks like the bears mouth isn’t open.

    I’m no photography expert, but it just doesn’t look real to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    People use polar bears because they are better for manipulating other people through ‘emotive connections’. If it really was about endangered species, they’d be out there trying to save the gharial instead. But an animal of low conservation concern is just so much better for manipulating the public if it looks ‘cute’.

    Might’ve said this before, but when ‘saving’ the habitat of large, ‘cute’ (i don’t think they’re cute, charismatic might be a better word) animals who happen to roam around large areas, you effectively save the tens/hundreds/thousands of other animals living there as a side result. Maybe it IS about endangered species, but maybe some conservation-types are of the view that finding animals like the polar bear is a good way of saving other ones at the same time…?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Lucia Maria (2,609 comments) says:

    All you climate change deniers are all traitors, just like Nazi sympathisers were during WW2!

    Chris Trotter says so.

    Why the Dominion Post allows communists to write opinion columns, I don’t know.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    If he actually said communist stuff about seizing the means of production and proletariat dictatorships, they probably wouldn’t let him. But he don’t!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Fletch (6,497 comments) says:

    what if (hypothetically) the only way to save polar bears was to switch poles?

    Would that make them bi-polar bears?
    That might explain their actions.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    If Commrade Chris is for it I’m against it.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” Why the Dominion Post allows communists to write opinion columns, I don’t know. ”

    I’m suprised you don’t know by now. Its because they’re cut from the very same cloth as the Progressive Trotter. Their willingness to promote the stinking lies behind the GW scam is proof enough, or you could also ask why they don’t have columns from Mark Steyn or Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin.

    Its because they exist not to bring us objective reporting or unbaised news, but to promote the ideology of Progressivism. Scum who have betrayed the craft of journalism to their political masters.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Ed Snack (1,927 comments) says:

    It’s worth noting, that the words “denier” and “traitor” have no place in science, they are the words of religious zealots. That’s what we are seeing here, a malign campaign by a group of religious extremists trying by all the various propaganda tricks to enforce conformance with their dogma. Which is why comments about reality and hangover’s should be such a laugh.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    I do recommend this working paper from Kersten Green et al on alarmist campaigns. My contribution is acknowledged but us trivial in terms of the output in the paper. I just filled out a form.

    http://kestencgreen.com/green&armstrong-agw-analogies.pdf?wwparam=1260383354

    And here are their comments on polar bear populations.

    http://forecastingprinciples.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=79&Itemid=131

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. david (2,564 comments) says:

    Stephen, I think you will find that, almost to a man, you will get no arguments from climate sceptics about the need for conservation of endangered species (except mosquitos, fireants and flies), ecological protection and pollution control measures (same thing really). Also for the need for clean water and clean air.

    Where the argument comes in is when it is all hung round the neck of the climate change albatross and the population is being scared and manipulated by major global influencers in a way that will noy=t improve the lot of genuinely endangered species and places one jot.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    stephen- I have responded in the past. let me outline my objections.

    First, it gives tacit approval to mislead or lie to the public about extinction threats. That simply does not sit well with scientific integrity.

    Second, the reality is that there is only so many conservation dollars governments, industry and the public are willing to provide. It’s tough getting any resources for the creepy-crawlies and the scalies, without having some cute mammal jump the queue due to an exaggerated extinction risk.

    Third, I don’t think it works. What you end up with is large reserve areas but of a narrowed landscape type. There is plenty of evidence that several small reserves- often with more diverse landscapes- delivers more biodiversity. Where we have tested reserves developed under an umbrella ‘cute’ species for invertbrates, the results are often disappointing. Many endangered species still live in- or depend on habitat types- outside these large reserves. Some species cope well with patch shrinkage (small reserrves) but badly with patch separation. Some don’t cope well with patch shrinkage, but handle separation better. In short, it’s actually very hard finding an umbrella species that actually works.

    If we take the gharial as a counter example, this is a species that formerly inhabited much of the river systems of India. India is a mega diverse country for species richness. The gharial functioned as the top predator (like polar bears), and if a like level of concern was manifested to tigers and polar bears, there would be significant spillovers into amphibious and aquatic vertberates and invertebrates for India.

    So the question is why are we concerned about hypothetical declines in polar bears, when we have very real declines in an other top predator like the gharial? I think it is simply that polar bears have been picked because of their capacity to manipulate public opinion. They are a better propaganda vehicle. This isn’t about conservation. This is about deceiving the public for a political outcome, not a conservation outcome.

    I wonder how many people even knew the gharial was in trouble before I mentioned it today?

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    I had never heard of the gharial Chthoniid. Interesting that it is one of the biggest crocodiles (unless you put me straight on that). But weak jaws mean less threat to humans.

    But I wasn’t alarmed that a polar bear would eat uit’s own species.
    And I think the concocted shock tactics (of both sides of the climate debate) is a bad and sad sign of what lengths people will go to to try and force their propaganda.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “I think the concocted shock tactics (of both sides of the climate debate) ”

    More lies. Trying to insidiously and deceptively equate those who promote truth with the evil Stalinist propagandists who promote the political scam of the century. Gawd you are one odious and contemptible customer.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Ah, the master baiter, chief concocted shock tactician. Attack attack attack gets a bit tedious and pathetic Red.
    Is it true you cut your pills in half and only swallow the right side?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 30 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. kowtow (8,784 comments) says:

    Here’s a fun clip concerning Al Bore,polar bears and a challenge to environmental “journalists”.

    http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/280354

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Grizz (611 comments) says:

    Why are we making a big deal out of polar bears eating other polar bears? It happens elsewhere in the animal kingdom. Lions,rats, chimpanzees. People need to get over themselves. It even happens in humans. I refer you to the 1960s documentary “Africa Addio, which is on you tube (Italian with english subtitles). It talks about waring humans eating the livers of those they have killed. Amongst humans, it is never about global warming but about territory, land, fucking and innate tribalisms. I am sure this is what drives polar bears to eat each other. I am sure the practice has existed since the “dream time”.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Grizz you don’t need to go off shore to find examples of people eating eachother. Think where you are man.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Hey pete, cut out the middle man and change your name to “Hidden due to low comment rating.” Save us all some time.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Fletch (6,497 comments) says:

    Why are we making a big deal out of polar bears eating other polar bears? It happens elsewhere in the animal kingdom.

    Grizz, right.

    If we look at the entire quote from DPF’s link by the Inuits –

    But this theory is disputed by Inuit leaders in Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, who claim it is wrong to connect the bears’ behaviour with starvation.

    Kivalliqu Inuit Association president Jose Kusugak said: ‘It makes the south – southern people – look so ignorant.
    ‘A male polar bear eating a cub becomes a big story and they try to marry it with climate change and so on, it becomes absurd when it’s a normal, normal occurrence.’

    That says it all really. He emphasized the word ‘normal’ twice there, and they should know.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Attack attack attack gets a bit tedious and pathetic Red.”

    Take it from me, nowhere near as tedious as witnessing your squirming and deceit and artifice in your yellow backed attempts to portray yourself as a moderate.

    You’re an extreme left fake. A poseur. A cheat and a mendicant. Don’t ever pretend to me to be anything else Pete, because I can see right through you. Deceit drips from every letter of every word of every sentence in every paragraph of every post.

    If you had any balls, you’d cease this charade and come out of the extreme left closet you skulk in.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Murray, that highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the new karma filters.

    The first post was deliberate stirring, I thought that was reinforcing DPF’s intention of the topic but I knew that would get put down.

    2 I thought was a reasonable counterpoint from a reputable scientist (chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of the journal Science.) but because it questioned Palin and used the word denier I guess it’s not surprising it was downed. Interesting thing in the next topic (GD) someone else referred to the same Palin article and got positives.

    3 was I think very balanced and relevant to the topic and was asking reasonable questions about what polar bear numbers are really doing, with some relevant links. Why was that jumped on? I know I’m not flavour of the blog and I realise I get a fair few auto downs but I find that one surprising. I guess it means a lot here don’t want to discuss or debate, they seem to only want to reinforce their fixed views and frown on anyone questioning them.

    4 and 5 were facetious although trying to provoke a bit of deeper thinking but that was not appreciated, not quote hidden yet.

    6 is interesting – in response to a standard putdown of the Standard I implied that posters here were not always shining examples of reasonableness but that broke the “they bad, we good” rule so of course is headed down too.

    7 was simply a question asking someone obviously more knowledgeable about polar bear numbers and that’s going down too (2-11). Is it because most don’t bother reading and just auto down on the name? Or is it because it questions a claim at the start of the thread that remains unsupported (it appears to be wrong)?

    Then I got into a discussion (thanks Chthoniid) where I learnt some interesting stuff but I have been consistently downed through that too.

    I just thought that was an interesting analysis.

    I’m aware there are some here who simply choose to dislike anything I post on a personal basis.

    I wouldn’t be here if I just wanted to join a closed mind self admiration society. That’s just about all Kiwiblog would be if people like Murray were able to vote for who contributed.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    If you had any balls, you’d cease this charade and come out of the extreme left closet you skulk in.

    Ok Red, I’m prepared to do that. You choose a couple of posters from Dunedin that are prepared to meet me and verify my closet.

    Have you got any balls?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Waaaa waaa waaaa.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    And the AGW chest beaters wail on unabated.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. RightNow (7,013 comments) says:

    well Pete, your first posts were AGW propaganda, after that you were treated like the boy who cried wolf, and I doubt that you’re going to get many people to change their opinion about you now. Time for a new name perhaps?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. dime (10,134 comments) says:

    lol the pic is meant to be real? i thought this was a piss take.

    love the hiding of posts for negative karma. outstanding :)

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. unaha-closp (1,180 comments) says:

    I have a terrible feeling that this picture is an omen of things to come.

    I too fear the day when we are pursued across the frozen tundra of the Canterbury plains, chased by marauding packs of cannabalistic Polar Bears.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    I can’t be the only one getting tired of the moderate centre left’s constant wanking on about clomute chonge. Though it is nice to have poorly rated posts by hidden – combined with Rip, it’s like having a double hull with which to traverse the decrepit sea of left wing argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    your first posts were AGW propaganda

    Show me any? I’ve certainly questioned more than a few posts against AGW, that just seems to be heresy here, but that’s quite different to posting propaganda.

    Time for a new name perhaps?

    Why? It’s the only one I’ve got.

    Hurf (if you are not still RIPing me), it sounds like you are on the wrong blog, this is an open blog. And, ah, most of the consistent climate propaganda on here comes from the other side.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. RightNow (7,013 comments) says:

    I don’t know pete, perhaps “That photo is a symbol of what we are doing to our planet. “?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    And, ah, most of the consistent climate propaganda on here comes from the other side.

    Is that the other side to you Pete? You spend 99% of your posts attempting to knock back anyone who refuses to worship at the Climate Change altar, yet when challenged claim to be keeping an open mind. It’s just not credible. You are, by your own consistency of theme, cast as a AGW believer. Be man enough to admit it.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. unaha-closp (1,180 comments) says:

    Pete,

    This karma censorship is a bit annoying, but your comments are mostly good especially the buried ones. Climate change is real enough to deserve someone portraying the evidence and you are doing a good job.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Yeah, Rightnow, that was deliberately provocative – trying to follow DPF’s lead and provoke thought and discussion – but isn’t there a touch of truth? Aren’t we cannibalising our planet a little bit at least? And most of us with looks of “so what?”?

    As Chthoniid says, the polar bear may not be at immediate risk but a heck of a lot of other species are – and often indisputably due to human encroachment. And waiting until we invent some new technology won’t repair what has been lost for ever.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    getstaffed, because I call you on your extreme claims that doesn’t by default make me a fan for the opposite. Can you point to any posts where I have “worshipped at the Climate Change altar”?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    pete, You show me your consistently balanced opinion and I’ll retract. But you won’t be able to do that. You are firmly in the camp that believes AGW is real.

    Why are you so intent on telling us you’re sitting on the fence, when it’s clear to everyone that your mind is made up?

    Haven’t seen you call me on any ‘extreme claims’ lately. I’ll keep an eye out though.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. RightNow (7,013 comments) says:

    Pete, I’m not going to deny that earth’s resources are constantly exploited, and I’m in favour of action such as cleaning up waterways, limiting toxic outputs etc. I don’t believe there is any place for deception however, and that is why I am so anti the AGW movement. While some of the goals might be good, overall it is misguided. Sure the product of burning fossil fuels is stinky and undesirable, but that doesn’t mean it is going to cause catastrophic warming to our planet which has been far warmer in the past and should be warming up right now as we’ve come out of the little ice age.
    Scorn is well targetted at those who won’t open their eyes and question whether we’re taking the right approach to the threats to our environment, because the AGW scam isn’t going to result in any benefits by having commitments to CO2 cuts that no country is likely to achieve. 90% of the carbon trading so far has apparently been tainted by corruption, why would anybody think that would improve?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    You are firmly in the camp that believes AGW is real.

    Sure, I think it is likely to be real. Most data and real world indicators currently point that way. It is a widely held informed belief. But believing that is totally different to “worshipping at the Climate Change altar”. I have never done that.

    I have made it clear a number of times that I have doubts about the extent of the effect, and the effect of it’s variablity, and and I have also made it clear I have serious doubts about the necessity and suitability of proposed mitigation measures. Do you ignore or forget that?

    Edit – I am fairly close to Rightnow’s position as expressed in the previous post.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    More on Rightnow’s post at 3.30pm:

    I think something like what Rightnow says there is a logical and sensible conclusion for anyone with common sense and an inquiring mind.

    There are closed minds on each side of the issue, I presume they have an agenda to push, a vested interest (political or business), or they just pick positions and don’t want to budge from there.

    Rightnow “because the AGW scam isn’t going to result in any benefits by having commitments to CO2 cuts that no country is likely to achieve.”

    I think it is more misguided rather than a scam, but I suggested something similar above “The Copenhagen polar bear with it’s likely agreement? ”
    – maybe that was not clear, I was likening the Copenhagen agreement/statement to the chewed over cub. That is hardly worshiping, is it getstaffed.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    Pete – yawn. Another pleading to the reasonability of your fence-sitting. You have no ‘serious doubts’ other than when challenged like this. The rest of the time you work at 150% to deflect, deny or denigrate the views of those that feel AGW is a scam. As for ‘widely formed indictors’ you know as well as I do that science is not about consensus – it’s about truth and there’s a squiffy absence of truth in the multi-billion dollar climate change industry just now.

    The fact is it doesn’t matter if you fence sit or worship at the AGW altar, it won’t change the nature of any ‘deal’ made behind the closed doors of Copenhagen or anywhere else. Anyone with any doubts about the extent of the alarmism needs to be yelling, pushing, insisting that our politicians agree NOTHING while the science on which trillions of dollars of global wealth re-distribution is less than 99% certain. We’re way less than 99%, and yet you are not asking for the brakes to be applied. Quite the opposite. I’m yelling and proud to be doing so.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Well, getstaffed, if your yelling was more reasonable you might get a lot more reasonable people onside. You’ve taken the extreme view shock approach that the “alarmists” have tried and failed at. Doesn’t that tell you something.

    Truth and science are not words that usually go together. Your approach doesn’t come across as science based, more ideological.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. unaha-closp (1,180 comments) says:

    I have made it clear a number of times that I have doubts about the extent of the effect, and the effect of it’s variablity, and and I have also made it clear I have serious doubts about the necessity and suitability of proposed mitigation measures. Do you ignore or forget that?

    Climate change does pose some serious problems for libertarians, how does the market supply a solution to air pollution when there is no such market? So much so that libertarians, of which there are a few around here, tend to make up the staunchest camp of climate change deniers (along with oil producers). The only viable response of a committed libertarian is to perform vigorous cranial/anal inversion and ignore any facts that support climate change theory. It’d be like asking OBL to comment on Darwins theory of evolution.

    Personally I favour a neo-liberal solution to climate change – smaller government, reduced borrowing, targetted carbon footprint consumption tax (operating within NZ akin to or replacing GST), withdrawl from Kyoto and a slashing of income tax. Politically this puts me way, way, way to the right of most all of the climate change mainstream and right smack in the middle of what Kiwiblog comments section is normally all about. Except not on this, because on climate change Kiwiblog comments section is firmly in do nothing, everything is fine, ignore all evidence to contrary mode.

    Essentially this lot and all the rest of the of the denier camp are the dilettante intelligensia of our time.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    Pete – getting O/T so have repled on GD thread

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. BR (83 comments) says:

    The photo looks like a fake to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Flashman (184 comments) says:

    African crocodiles commonly predate on their own kind.

    But I guess we won’t be seeing those unlovable bastards as Al Gore junk science pinups any time soon.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Willie_Escaped (29 comments) says:

    This is ridiculous!!!

    Anyone who watches Nat Geo and AnPlan knows that male mammels kill and sometimes eat cubs.

    I blieve that most of the time it’s when a male takes over as alpha male in a certain territory.

    They kill the cubs to get rid of competing genetic offspring, and to make the females available to mate again.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. quixote (5 comments) says:

    This article from the Standard is based upon an entirely fabricated, photoshop green fake picture.

    # RedRock (26) above, is the only one to pick it as far as i can see :
    he says :
    Chthoniid

    I would have thought that the bear’s mouth would have to be more open to ensure a proper grasp of the cub’s head, but to me it looks like the bears mouth isn’t open.

    I’m no photography expert, but it just doesn’t look real to me.

    Go across to the Standard here to see the further green misinformation

    Click on Farrar above to get to The Standard site

    \http://peterquixote.blogspot.com/

    by peterquixote

    The picture presented is an amateur photoshop set up.
    Neither the victim polar bears head or the entrails were in the original picture.
    This is obvious.

    Note the feathering and overlap between the victim head and the entrails.
    That is you can see head and entrails in the same area of the picture.

    Note how the entrails are not really in the bears mouth, they are attached by photoshop and extruded toward the mouth.
    Note the lack of blood or other body parts in the photo.

    This photo is pure green fake.

    Further to my report above, you can see evidence of photoshop green fake

    Blurred edges and opacity between the entrails and the polar bear’s leg:

    The head of the victim polar bear has the face of an adult made smaller,
    whereas the head of a cub is wider:

    The entrails are meaningless and represent no anatomical part of a bear true, they are a badly defined photoshop amalgam between mesentry [ thats abdominal fat] and guts, but actually neither;

    Note how obvious it is that the original picture is just a bear standing there, with head toward viewer;

    Standard garbage.

    peterquixote

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote