To me the articles are both more or less deceptive on some of their key points and indicate the questionable state of science reporting even from organizations claiming to be reputable. The other possibility is that coming from the Washington Post with it's overwhelmingly Democratic demographic, that critical facilities are dulled if the subject seems to make Democrats seem righteous and the republicans seem evil. I mean, the paper needs to sell into its demographic, right?
Be that as it may, consider the article "Study Says Polar Bears Could Face Extinction." The Slashdot post says;
OriginalArlen writes to tell us about some compelling global warming coverage in the Washington Post. First there is an article about a study indicating that melting Arctic ice is threatening polar bears with extinction. The article quotes an environmentalist: "This study is the smoking gun. Skeptics, polluting industries and President Bush can't run away from this one."
The first thing you find when you go to the cited article is that it was written November 9, 2004, just shy of two years ago! Thanks for bringing up the latest!!
The title is really an exercise in creative titling since the subject turns out to be the "Arctic Climate Impact Assessment." (It's available at www.acia.uaf.edu) Polar bears are brought up to make it interesting to the reader. That's OK. The issue is that the arctic-wide population of polar bears is discussed in terms of the population of Hudson's Bay. That is deceptive because the self proclaimed "Polar Bear Capitol of the World," Churchill, Manitoba, is at N 58 44' 24". This about 8 degrees south of the arctic circle. It is also south of the southern tip of Greenland, and south of the bulk of Alaska. The reporter's sources claim that polar bear are in decline there. The question is how representative are the changes there compared to the rest of the arctic. Not representative in my view. Churchill, far north as it is, is at the southern end of the range for polar bears. So, yes, if there is very much further warming, polar bears might disappear from Churchill. That is a long, long way from the world population of polar bears being threatened. One really needs to consider how far north the Canadian arctic islands actually extend. Believe me, it will be a very long time before the sea and land at 82N warms enough to threaten the extinction of the polar bear. Overall, the article left me feeling that knowledge and understanding had been abused in the push for politics.
At least the second article mentioned in the Slashdot post was just published today. This article and voyage are of considerable interest and the article contains a useful polar map which can help one understand some of the points made in the preceding paragraph. The writer of the article makes a lot about how remarkable it is to be able to make this voyage so "late" in the year. This is deceptive. The voyage began a month before the end of summer. It reached its westernmost point less that a month after the beginning of Fall. And, in early November, a month and a half before Winter, it is in open water. Big whoop. Yes, if one were selecting the optimal time for completing such a voyage with the most open water one might select to begin somewhat earlier. Point: this is early (not late) in the ice season. When the same ship makes the same voyage beginning in March and completing it May, it would be highly warranted that the writer prepare another article. I don't regard this as likely in the lifetime of writer or of anyone reading this post.
All of the foregoing is not to say that don't believe the Arctic is warming. I do believe the Arctic is warming. I tend to doubt that the reason that the arctic is warming is the emission of greenhouse gasses. I suspect that it has more to do with man's injection of tremendous amounts of water vapor very high in the atmosphere by means of aircraft engine operation. It is beyond the topic of this discussion to explain the basis for this s
Slashdot Mirror
To me the articles are both more or less deceptive on some of their key points and indicate the questionable state of science reporting even from organizations claiming to be reputable. The other possibility is that coming from the Washington Post with it's overwhelmingly Democratic demographic, that critical facilities are dulled if the subject seems to make Democrats seem righteous and the republicans seem evil. I mean, the paper needs to sell into its demographic, right?
Be that as it may, consider the article "Study Says Polar Bears Could Face Extinction."
The Slashdot post says;
OriginalArlen writes to tell us about some compelling global warming coverage in the Washington Post. First there is an article about a study indicating that melting Arctic ice is threatening polar bears with extinction. The article quotes an environmentalist: "This study is the smoking gun. Skeptics, polluting industries and President Bush can't run away from this one."
The first thing you find when you go to the cited article is that it was written November 9, 2004, just shy of two years ago! Thanks for bringing up the latest!!
The title is really an exercise in creative titling since the subject turns out to be the "Arctic Climate Impact Assessment." (It's available at www.acia.uaf.edu) Polar bears are brought up to make it interesting to the reader. That's OK. The issue is that the arctic-wide population of polar bears is discussed in terms of the population of Hudson's Bay. That is deceptive because the self proclaimed "Polar Bear Capitol of the World," Churchill, Manitoba, is at N 58 44' 24". This about 8 degrees south of the arctic circle. It is also south of the southern tip of Greenland, and south of the bulk of Alaska. The reporter's sources claim that polar bear are in decline there. The question is how representative are the changes there compared to the rest of the arctic. Not representative in my view. Churchill, far north as it is, is at the southern end of the range for polar bears. So, yes, if there is very much further warming, polar bears might disappear from Churchill. That is a long, long way from the world population of polar bears being threatened. One really needs to consider how far north the Canadian arctic islands actually extend. Believe me, it will be a very long time before the sea and land at 82N warms enough to threaten the extinction of the polar bear. Overall, the article left me feeling that knowledge and understanding had been abused in the push for politics.
At least the second article mentioned in the Slashdot post was just published today. This article and voyage are of considerable interest and the article contains a useful polar map which can help one understand some of the points made in the preceding paragraph. The writer of the article makes a lot about how remarkable it is to be able to make this voyage so "late" in the year. This is deceptive. The voyage began a month before the end of summer. It reached its westernmost point less that a month after the beginning of Fall. And, in early November, a month and a half before Winter, it is in open water. Big whoop. Yes, if one were selecting the optimal time for completing such a voyage with the most open water one might select to begin somewhat earlier. Point: this is early (not late) in the ice season. When the same ship makes the same voyage beginning in March and completing it May, it would be highly warranted that the writer prepare another article. I don't regard this as likely in the lifetime of writer or of anyone reading this post.
All of the foregoing is not to say that don't believe the Arctic is warming. I do believe the Arctic is warming. I tend to doubt that the reason that the arctic is warming is the emission of greenhouse gasses. I suspect that it has more to do with man's injection of tremendous amounts of water vapor very high in the atmosphere by means of aircraft engine operation. It is beyond the topic of this discussion to explain the basis for this s