It is the complete and supine acceptance of anything uttered by the global heating conspiracy that gets me.

HAARP is of course not real. If it was, the elite wouldn't have had to work on 5G.

Those smartphones aren't good for the environment. Someone tell these waenkers that.

The strange things is,there are about seven people here,no matter the subject,totally agree with themselves,i mean what are the odds? Its just like they work as a team

Sh1t they've got you working on a Sunday,o dear what a pity,o dear what a shame. Hows not checking? Nothing too trivial I hope.

Has anyone noticed when filming the sun,you don't see the bubbly ray of light anymore just a very sharp flare.
The evidence is in so many small things:The sky is less blue and seems permanently covered in a haze.As soon as it looks like its going to lose the haze,the heavy "contrails"immediatly start.The intense black of the sky is gone and you see way less stars.The town/city lights reflect a lot harsher in the night sky.In a descripition of what would happen to the sky when it is being geo-enginneed fits exactly what we are seeing in the sky right now.Humanity has lost its mind.A few money/power induced lunatics have lost their damn minds and all life on this Earth is suffering because of it.

one-way ticket to hell and back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enJiLuH9YUA

ok.

What are the odds that if I asked you to name these 7 people you wouldn't know their names?

Ok i've done some brainstorming.

1. Mexico
2. Charlie
3. ?
4. ?
5. ?
6. ?
7. ?

BUT THEY don't want to talk about the polar bear example - it was the prop of the campaign and one time

like the hysteria over the ozone layer - it fades into the background and move on to the next trend

Xr being the latest

It has been rather warm today.

I have visited many climates and they are very different I can assure you.

You types that sit here in our sinking southern england have no idea what it is like in say Iran  or Japan

what the f  k  do any of you know about it

you haven't seen it

ps  I have been up to polar bear country  - well actually a bit short of it

and seen huge turtles floating in the indian ocean (from miles away you can see them when you get these strange flat calms and see fish jump from a long way) 

both climates vastly different

you can walk through (not too heavy) showers and get soaked but be dry in 10 minutes  if you wear a very little

now off you go

One of the issues with polar bears is that they range not over 100s of miles but may cover THOUSANDS  of miles.  Not easy to follow I guess.   

Not all polar bears are in the same dire situation as they face retreating sea ice, at least not right now, a new study shows. Those that hang out in the Chukchi Sea off the western coast of Alaska are doing well. But they’ve never been counted. Until now.

The first formal study of this population, which appears in Scientific Reports, suggests it’s been healthy and relatively abundant in recent years, numbering about 3,000 animals.

“This work represents a decade of research that gives us a first estimate of the abundance and status of the Chukchi Sea subpopulation,” says first author Eric Regehr, a researcher with the Polar Science Center at the University of Washington.

“Despite having about one month less time on preferred sea ice habitats to hunt compared with 25 years ago, we found that the Chukchi Sea subpopulation was doing well from 2008 to 2016,” Regehr says.

“Sea-ice loss due to climate change remains the primary threat to the species but, as this study shows, there is variation in when and where the effects of sea-ice loss appear. Some subpopulations are already declining while others are still doing OK.”

STRESSED BEARS
Of the world’s 19 subpopulations of polar bears, the US shares two with neighboring countries. The other US subpopulation—the southern Beaufort Sea polar bears, whose territory overlaps with Canada—is showing signs of stress.

“The southern Beaufort Sea subpopulation is well-studied, and a growing body of evidence suggests it’s doing poorly due to sea-ice loss,” Regehr says.

The US Endangered Species Act in 2008 listed polar bears as threatened due to declining sea ice, which the animals depend on for hunting, breeding, and traveling. But the new study suggests that such effects are not yet visible for bears in the remote waters that separate Alaska from Chukotka, Russia.

“It’s a very rich area. Most of the Chukchi Sea is shallow, with nutrient-rich waters coming up from the Pacific. This translates into high biological productivity and, importantly for the polar bears, a lot of seals,” Regehr says.

Map of the Chukchi Sea
The striped area on the left shows the Chukchi Sea polar bear subpopulation’s range. Sea ice reaches south to the dotted line in winter, and retreats to the solid black line in summer. The right shows a closeup of the study area off Alaska’s coast. White circles show where researchers tagged polar bears between 2008 and 2016. (Credit: Regehr et al./Scientific Reports)
Previous studies by the State of Alaska show that ringed and bearded seals have maintained good nutritional condition and reproduction in the Chukchi Sea region, Regehr says.

“Just flying around, it’s night and day in terms of how many seals and other animals you see. The Chukchi Sea is super productive and the Beaufort Sea is less so,” he says.

The area also has an abundance of whale traffic, and when carcasses wash up on shore the polar bears can feed on them in summer, when the sea ice melts and a portion of the Chukchi Sea subpopulation waits on land for the ocean to refreeze.

Recent ecological observations had suggested that Chukchi Sea bears are doing well. A study led by coauthor Karyn Rode, at the US Geological Survey, showed the top predators have similar amounts of body fat as 25 years ago, a good indicator of their overall health.

GPS TRACKING
The study is the first assessment of the subpopulation size using modern methods. It estimates just under 3,000 animals, with generally good reproductive rates and cub survival.

As a federal wildlife biologist based in Alaska until 2017, Regehr and colleagues gathered the data by tagging roughly 60 polar bears in most years from 2008 to 2016. He flew by helicopter over the area just north of Alaska’s Seward Peninsula, looking for tracks on the sea ice.

The helicopter then would follow tracks in the snow to locate the bear and use a tranquilizer dart to sedate the animal. Over about an hour, researchers would weigh the bear, collect biological samples, apply individual tags and, in some cases, attach a GPS transmitter.

polar bears on whale carcass
Polar bears on a whale carcass on Wrangel Island in 2017. When whale carcasses wash ashore they provide an occasional food source for polar bears in summer months. (Credit: Max Stephenson)
All the data were incorporated into a new model designed to estimate population size for large carnivores that are highly mobile and whose territory spans a large region. The authors made the model publicly available in the hope that it will be used on other populations or species.

“Polar bears can travel thousands of miles in a year. But with the GPS tags, we can see when a bear leaves our study area but is still alive, because it’s moving. This information is key because there are bears that we see once and never see again, and to get a good population estimate you need to know if these animals died or just moved to a new area,” Regehr says.

NO WONDER  THEY DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THEIR POSTER BOY(BEAR)Latest global polar bear abundance ‘best guess’ estimate is 39,000 (26,000-58,000)
Posted on March 26, 2019 |
It’s long past time for polar bear specialists to stop holding out for a scientifically accurate global estimate that will never be achieved and determine a reasonable and credible ‘best guess’. Since they have so far refused to do this, I have done it for them. My extrapolated estimate of 39,000 (range 26,000-58,000) at 2018 is not only plausible but scientifically defensible.

In 2014, the chairman of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) emailed me to say that their global population size number ‘has never been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.’

In my new book, The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened, I contend that this situation will probably never change, so it’s time to stop holding out for a scientifically accurate global estimate and generate a reasonable and credible ‘best guess’. Recent surveys from several critical polar bear subpopulations have given us the information necessary to do this.

These new numbers make it possible to extrapolate from ‘known’ to ‘unknown’ subpopulations within so-called ‘sea ice ecoregions’ (defined in 2007 by polar bear scientists at the US Geological Survey, see Amstrup et al. 2007), as shown below, to update old estimates and generate new ones for never-studied areas.

Since the PBSG has so far refused to take this step, I took on the challenge. I contend that an estimate of about 39,000 (range 26,000-58,000) at 2018 is not only plausible but scientifically defensible. See the graph below from my new book:


Global polar bear population size estimates to 2018. From Chapter 10 of The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened (Crockford 2019).

This new estimate for 2018 is a modest 4-6 fold increase over the 10,000 or so bears that existed in the 1960s and after 25 years, a credible increase over the estimate of 25,000 that the PBSG offered in 1993 (Wiig et al. 1995).

However, my new estimate is much larger than the improbable figure of about 26,000 (range 22,000-31,000) offered by PGSG biologists in 2015 (Regehr et al. 2016; Wiig et al. 2015). The scary question is this: what do Arctic residents do if there are actually as many as 58,000?

See my new book (Crockford 2019) for the full rationale and references used to arrive at this figure.

The bottom line: it is scientifically unacceptable for the PBSG to continue to refuse to provide an extrapolated ‘best guess’ global estimate for polar bears, given that the scientifically accurate estimate they crave is essentially unattainable. An estimate of about 39,000 (range 26,000-58,000) at 2018 is not only plausible but scientifically defensible.

New report says that polar bears are doing well despite reductions in sea-ice.

Toronto, 27 February: In a new report published by London-based think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, zoologist Susan Crockford says that predictions that climate change is bringing about the demise of these iconic creatures have proven to be far from the mark.
Dr Crockford’s report, published to mark International Polar Bear day, makes clear that although Arctic sea-ice has declined to levels not expected until 2050 and widely predicted to cause catastrophe for polar bears, their numbers have remained stable, or have even increased slightly. As she explains

“Ice levels during the key feeding period in Spring have been good, and prey species have been abundant. It’s not really a surprise that polar bears are doing so well.”

And in the Southern Beaufort Sea, the one area where polar bear numbers have fallen, the reason appears to be too much sea ice rather than too little.

“The fearmongering from the media and the polar bear specialists is now backfiring”, says Crockford. “They convinced the world that polar bears were doomed but the facts got out. Now would be a good time to set the story straight.”

The State of the Polar Bear Report 2017 summarises clear, reliable and concise information on the current state of polar bears in the Arctic since 2014, relative to historical records.

It highlights up-to-date data and research findings in a balanced and factual format that avoids hype and exaggeration. It is intended for a wide audience, including scientists, teachers, students, decision-makers and the general public

Make 134 after that post from misok.

136

I live in a rather nice area in Landan.  My property backs on to a river - lots of wild life.

The fkn tree rats eat everything!!!!!  Anyway - I haven't seen any kingfishers and there are no fish in the river.  Have the bears eaten them all.   Why are there no fish - I keep looking.  One summer there was the most humungous fish swimmyatee swimm  but haven't seen that one lately.