35,000 Walrus Come Ashore In Alaska

the eric conspiracy writes "Lack of sea ice in the Arctic has forced record numbers of walrus to come ashore in Alaska. The walrus, looking for a place to rest have come ashore in Point Lay Alaska. The walrus normally rest on floating ice. "We are witnessing a slow-motion catastrophe in the Arctic," Lou Leonard, vice president for climate change at the World Wildlife Fund, said in a statement that was reported by CNN. "As this ice dwindles, the Arctic will experience some of the most dramatic changes our generation has ever witnessed. This loss will impact the annual migration of wildlife through the region, threaten the long-term health of walrus and polar bear populations, and change the lives of those who rely on the Arctic ecosystem for their way of life."

Comments

The problem with double standards.

[Karmashock]

Things are only evidence of a given theory or they are only valid if they confirm current theory. It seems like too many things get labeled "this is because of global warming" but if the opposite thing happened the same people don't say "this shows global warming isn't happening". Its only in one direction. So every blizzard is global warming. Every heat wave is global warming. Every hurricane is global warming. Every shift in migration patterns is global warming.

Here someone is going to attack me for pushing the denialist/skeptic position... because god forbid anyone question the orthodoxy. But that isn't my point. I am not saying AGW isn't happening. I just think we are too quick to conclude every little thing is AGW related. If you can show it to be related... scientifically... that is with evidence... sorting for cause and not correlation... then fine. But did that happen here? They noted less sea ice, they noted the walruses, they noted AGW, and just linked A to B to C without bothering to any science in between. That is my problem.

Either do the science or disclaim your position with a statement that this is just your assumption/guess. I'm fine with people guessing. Guess all day. Don't tell me your guesses are science though.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not worry about if the walruses are coming to shore because of human-caused climate change. They're coming to shore because the ice has melted. It doesn't matter to them who melted the ice, or how, they just want the ice back. And that will be humans in another degree or two.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Required Snark]

Stop lying, I'm sick of it. Just admit what you are actually doing for a change.

You, and all the other "skeptics", are pretending to be engaged in a rational approach.That's not credible.

There will never be enough evidence to convince you. It's obvious from your past behavior. Every time a new piece of real world evidence shows up you have the same knee jerk reaction: ti's not enough, there's some other reason, it happened before, what about (irrelevant information here), etc.

So there is an extraordinarily large walrus event: it doesn't count. There are new high temperature records being set every year: the numbers are skewed. Vermont maple farmers are loosing their livelihood because the winters are not cold or long enough: it's just a long term cycle. Dozens (or even hundreds) of species in North America and Europe are moving their range further north every year: a common pattern isn't happening, each case is unique and unrelated.

Stop wearing the fig-leaf of "rational skeptic". You have made up your mind. No additional information will sway you. Short of a "personal extinction event", you are not going to change you position or your behavior.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[cowwoc2001]

Global Warming isn't a rational/scientific debate. If it was, the idea wouldn't have taken off as a result of Al Gore's film. That's not science, it's a popularity contest.

I'm not debating whether the science is there or not. I'm simply pointing out that the idea of Global Warming didn't take off because of the science. And Karmashock is right in saying that when in doubt (there is contradicting evidence for or against some event being caused by Global Warming) the Global Warming crowd goes nuts when people dare to question it. You need to be able to admit that not everything is caused by Global Warming.

Science is not well served by shouting down people who disagree with you. It's served by providing evidence to back up your claims and explaining why your opponent's claims are factually incorrect. Labeling people skeptics without actually proving them wrong is counterproductive.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[dave420]

You are absolutely right - it's not a scientific debate. The science is settled. We're beyond that now. The debate amongst climatologists is for accuracy, not whether AGW exists or not. We're many decades past that point. The fact that there is such an overwhelming body of evidence showing AGW exists, and yet organisations and governments deny it exists shows that there are people willing to ignore science for other reasons. As long as that happens, science can't be used to convince them otherwise, as they have already deemed it ignorable if it proves antagonistic to their desired position.

So yes, science is not well served by shouting down, but it's even less well-served by people simply ignoring it because it's telling them things they don't want to hear. Once that starts to happen, what should people do? Accept the purposeful ignoring of science as a valid position, and applause people for ignoring evidence?

The sceptics have been proven wrong time and time again - they trot out the same weak arguments which have already been debunked, and get all indignant when that's pointed out. They pretend to play the "science game" - by using the correct language and going through the motions - but they don't listen to the answers when science provides them. They're the Glenn Becks of this discussion - they're asking questions but not bothering to hear, or even interested in, the answers, and definitely not bothering to change their position when it is demonstrated to be fundamentally at odds with every shred of evidence gathered.

Of course not everything is caused by global warming, but conversely when the science shows that something is definitely affected by it, we can't point at alarmist media and claim that reflects the quality or content of the science. That is incredibly disingenuous.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[MrKaos]

Things are only evidence of a given theory or they are only valid if they confirm current theory.

This talk of double standards has another point. Talk of AGW and if it is or isn't man made, if it is or isn't happening centers around a key distraction because it is the main externality of modern man. Cast doubt on carbon as an externality then you cast doubt on every other of the plethora of externalities that we just expect nature to deal with.

So put aside AGW for a while and ponder if all the industrial products and processes we have actually produce pollution as an externality and, for how long has it been creating an impact?

How much garbage does it take for a gyre to form in both our largest oceans kilometres deep, just how much trees can we cut down - all of them? How many factory ships and by-catch does it take to empty the ocean ecosystems? All of these and thousands of other human externalities exist and every single one of them has an impact. So yeah, it may not be AGW related, however it is more than likely related to some form of human externality. My point is, does it matter which human externality it belongs to if we are so mired down with inaction and analysis-paralysis to do anything about them.

Pick *any* large scale human industrial activity and ask yourself what the impact is? You don't need science to tell you that if you burst a cyanide dam (used for gold mining) and it flows into a river - everything in its path is going to die. That if you choke rivers with fertilizers and on and on and on.

Does it matter which human externality is to blame anymore?

Here someone is going to attack me for pushing the denialist/skeptic position... because god forbid anyone question the orthodoxy

But you are pushing it and no one is attacking you because the denialist/skeptic position is politics, not science. It's forbidding anyone questioning the orthodoxy of the coal/oil industry by positioning them in an argument to render the actual science of AGW a moot point. It's genius really, a skeptic absolves them selves of any need to present proof of their argument and can deny an proof presented - no proof is possible.

And what's the point of denialist/skeptic being right? Right about what? What alternate thesis is being presented to the thousands of articles of science presented?

The oil/coal industry is an entity that has control over the media outlets that shape our opinions and has trillions of dollars for lobbying, you think you are questioning the orthodoxy however in reality, you are just towing the line. Prove to me you aren't towing the line, show me the science to back up an alternate claim.

Either do the science or disclaim your position with a statement that this is just your assumption/guess. I'm fine with people guessing. Guess all day. Don't tell me your guesses are science though.

The only claim made is that this is what was noticed in the NOAA survey of animal migration. This is a fact that contributes to science which denialist/skeptics won't accept anyway. What is your alternate claim, show me your evidence that this isn't caused by AGW, where is your evidence to support your alternate claim?

The science of AGW challenges oil and coal industry hegemony and the science was reported right here on /. even before Al Gore got up and made it trendy to talk about. I've read so much science about AGW I can't even remember just how many overwhelming arguments there are. The science is in, most people talk about their doubts about AGW and they don't even try to understand the science. The talk of double standards from denialist/skeptics is actually a double standard - what facts, based in science and research, have denialist/skeptics ever presented?

The only fact denialist/skeptics need to assess is if it's in the coal and oil industry's interest to cast enough doubt in everyone's minds to promote inaction, which is so mu

Re: The problem with double standards.

[JWW]

Are you fucking kidding me?!?! The fucking story is about the behavior of walruses!!! The Zoooligist is the science expert you are looking for to put context to this story, not the climatologist!!!

Shit with these kind of stories, even the experts aren't allowed to be experts!

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Culture20]

The attempts by WWF and others to link this event to global warming is self-serving nonsense

"this event" is the walrus beaching, which she had darn well better know about. If the WWF said your computer started overheating due to global warming, would you take their word for it because they know climate science better, or would you check your system fans and blow dust off your heat sinks, knowing what the real cause likely is since it happens regularly, albeit rarely?

Re:The problem with double standards.

[dywolf]

Nothing new does not mean not related.
Car crashes occured before drunk driving became an epidemic, yet that doesnt mean that the increase in car crashes was not affected by the increase in drunk driving.

Walrus are dependent on the ice.
When there's not enough ice, they beach.
Walrus landings have been increasing as ice decreases.
The ice is decreasing because of globl warning.

Keep trying chump.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Plumpaquatsch]

Zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford

Quite an unfortunate name - until you consider she's financed by the Heartland Institute. Quite fitting, actually.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Anonymous Coward]

Things are only evidence of a given theory or they are only valid if they confirm current theory. It seems like too many things get labeled "this is because of global warming" but if the opposite thing happened the same people don't say "this shows global warming isn't happening". Its only in one direction. So every blizzard is global warming. Every heat wave is global warming. Every hurricane is global warming. Every shift in migration patterns is global warming.

Here someone is going to attack me for pushing the denialist/skeptic position... because god forbid anyone question the orthodoxy. But that isn't my point. I am not saying AGW isn't happening. I just think we are too quick to conclude every little thing is AGW related. If you can show it to be related... scientifically... that is with evidence... sorting for cause and not correlation... then fine. But did that happen here? They noted less sea ice, they noted the walruses, they noted AGW, and just linked A to B to C without bothering to any science in between. That is my problem.

Either do the science or disclaim your position with a statement that this is just your assumption/guess. I'm fine with people guessing. Guess all day. Don't tell me your guesses are science though.

It is scientific fact that walruses cannot swim endlessly like seals, and therefore need a place to rest when moving distances.

Human observation over the last 100+ years or so, have noticed walruses taking a break from swimming by clinging or climbing onto the floating ice which is no longer there.

Other than observing this particular behavior pattern (beaching) and historical evidence (which exists), this does appear to be putting A to B with some logic and science behind it. Now we must determine why this has happened before the alarmists starting screaming.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[rioki]

Early arctic explorers reported walrus and seal colonies that stretched miles. Like the buffalo they where industrially hunted in the 19th and early 20th century. The Walrus population has rebounded since their low in the 1950s. Walrus colonies only form on islands, not ice. Now pray tell, how does ice cover in the arctic come into play? (That is a real question, after researching the subject, I can not find any clue how ice cover affects walrus populations.)

Re: The problem with double standards.

[dave420]

Well done! You've read the subject of the thread you're commenting in. Now read the post I replied to, which offered this rebuttal from the good Doctor herself:

The attempts by WWF and others to link this event to global warming is self-serving nonsense that has nothing to do with science...this is blatant nonsense and those who support or encourage this interpretation are misinforming the public

That's my point. She's voicing her opinion on fields outside of her speciality (which is paleozoology and dog evolution, btw). Her opinion on this matters just as much as every other layperson's - not a jot. Couple that with her paycheques from the Heartland Institute and you see that she's not being entirely honest or professional by stepping outside her field and criticising others.

So yeah - she's not an expert in this context. In prehistoric dogs, maybe, but definitely not in matters of climate.

Or are you saying that because she's a scientist her opinion on anything at all science-related is worth the same as specialists from the precise field in question? Because that would be sheer lunacy, for obvious reasons.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[dave420]

Their migration and behaviour is affected by sea ice coverage, as that's where they congregate. She should know that. She should also know that sea ice is affected by climate. That's where her expertise ends. She can't call out climatologists who use climatology to understand the situation, as she's not a climatologist. She also is paid by the Heartland Institute, so she's massively biased in this discussion. She also specialised in dog evolution, not walruses or other pinnipeds, so her poking her neck out to criticise this reeks of unprofessionalism.

Re:Nothing new here ...

[Namarrgon]

So because it's happened for other reasons in the past, that conclusively rules out climate change as a cause in this case? Not seeing the logic there.

Let's not jump to any conclusions here, either pro or against climate change as a cause, until we get a peer-reviewed study concerning this event. TFA is insufficient evidence, as is your link.

Re:Nothing new here ...

[cbeaudry]

The whole article and WWF statements are jumping to conclusions.

The link IS sufficient evidence with citations from peer reviewed papers having observed similar events multiple times dating all the way back to the 1950's and anecdotal evidence from Inuits dating to before that.

I don't understand why every time an event or statement made to get bleeding heart environmentalists to cry is ALWAYS accepted (even with proof that its a bald faced lie) however anything that does not 100% support AGW, CC or any enviro propaganda is automatically ignored or branded as denier lies.

Seriously and skeptics are blamed as the ones with confirmation bias???? I mean REALLY??? Pseudo-Environmentalists need to take a long hard look in the mirror.

Re:Nothing new here ...

[Namarrgon]

How does the cause of past events have any bearing on the cause of this event? Is it unthinkable for there to be more than one possible cause?

GP's linked studies make a good case about past events. They say nothing about this event, which may have entirely different causes. It's pure speculation to assume either way, at this stage, and accusations of confirmation bias and "bald faced lies" only reflect on the accuser.