Comments on: On climate change, McCain VP is no “maverick”

By: Bernie

Bernie — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:51:01 +0000

I must have been unclear in the point I was trying to make. Where do the seals go? How are they represented in the PB demographic models?
In short, the models appear to be under-specified.
Please note, if the data also suggests that the seal population will be adversely impacted by a loss of sea ice then clearly given dependence of PBs on seals they will have a problem. Unfortunately there appears to be a distinct lack of data on the actual impact of reduced sea ice on various seal populations (see http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/dfiles/file_728.pdf) though there is plenty of speculation that the consequences will be negative. Elsewhere seals seem to do pretty well without ice, if they are left alone. But other commenters may have more data and expertise in this area.

By: bytebackbro

bytebackbro — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 04:01:21 +0000

Oh Bernie, what exactly will the Polar Bears eat once their primary food source is dehabitated?

Snow peas?

The polar bear is a very specialised eater.

By: bi -- International Journal of Inactivism

bi -- International Journal of Inactivism — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 03:49:15 +0000

There’s no warming, and there’s warming but it’s not man-made.

Truly a reasonable basis for debate we have here…

By: Bernie

Bernie — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:29:19 +0000

On Palin’s support for Creationism – read the article.
The polar bear studies are not definitive and, for example, do not appear to have any variable or models that reflect changes in the polar bears’ primary food source IF there is an increase in the frequency of extended ice free periods.
In short, Palin has a pretty good basis to challenge the catastrophic claims regarding predicted polar bear population sizes. The strength of her arguments of course will be based on the strength of her scientific arguments – but there is nothing that I read in the cited reports to suggest that there is not a reasonable basis for a scientific debate.