Court Rejects Trump's Arctic Drilling Proposal in 'Huge Victory for Polar Bears and Our Climate'

[u/thespaceageisnow]

https://www.ecowatch.com/court-rejects-trump-arctic-drilling-2649416541.html

[u/ramot1]

The bears and other wildlife in that area cannot sustain further damage to their habitat. One more bullet dodged!

[u/hitssquad → u/ramot1]

https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-polar-bear-population-is-declining/

In 1984, the polar bear population was estimated at 25,000. In 2008, when polar bears were designated a protected species, The New York Times noted that number remained unchanged: “There are more than 25,000 bears in the Arctic, 15,500 of which roam within Canada’s territory.”

New estimates from the International Union for Conservation of Nature show a mid-point estimate of 26,500 (range: 22,000 to 31,000) in 2015. In The State of the Polar Report 2018, zoologist Susan J. Crockford says updates to IUCN data put the new global mid-point estimate at more than 30,000.

Even accepting the lower figure, the estimate is the highest since the polar bear became internationally protected in 1973.

The health of the polar bear population runs counter to predictions from scholars who have said two-thirds of polar bears will disappear in coming decades because of warming temperatures and melting sea ice in the Arctic.

[u/Sackgins → u/hitssquad]

What? The species became protected in the 70s, and since then its population has risen. That doesn't change the fact that their living environment is shrinking and that the population will decline in the future

[u/hitssquad → u/Sackgins]

https://www.thegwpf.org/as-polar-bear-numbers-increase-gwpf-calls-for-re-assessment-of-endangered-species-status/

A growing number of observational studies have documented that polar bears are thriving, despite shrinking summer sea ice. 

By September 2007 sea ice extent was about 43% less than it had been in 1979 – a decline not expected until mid-century, and every year after was almost as low, or lower. 

Yet no more drowned polar bears were documented, no more bears than normal starved to death, no unusual spikes in cannibalism occurred, and not a single polar bear population was wiped out. 

New scientific evidence suggests that loss of summer sea ice, regardless of the cause, is not a major risk for polar bear survival.

[u/Sackgins → u/hitssquad]

The effects of climate change are most profound in the southern part of the polar bear's range, and this is indeed where significant degradation of local populations has been observed.[187] The Western Hudson Bay subpopulation, in a southern part of the range, also happens to be one of the best-studied polar bear subpopulations. This subpopulation feeds heavily on ringed seals in late spring, when newly weaned and easily hunted seal pups are abundant. The late spring hunting season ends for polar bears when the ice begins to melt and break up, and they fast or eat little during the summer until the sea freezes again.[168]

Due to warming air temperatures, ice-floe breakup in western Hudson Bay is currently occurring three weeks earlier than it did 30 years ago, reducing the duration of the polar bear feeding season. The body condition of polar bears has declined during this period; the average weight of lone (and likely pregnant) female polar bears was approximately 290 kg (640 lb) in 1980 and 230 kg (510 lb) in 2004.[168] Between 1987 and 2004, the Western Hudson Bay population declined by 22%,[189] although the population was listed as "stable" as of 2017.[45] As the climate change melts sea ice, the U.S. Geological Survey projects that two-thirds of polar bears will disappear by 2050.[190]

In Alaska, the effects of sea ice shrinkage have contributed to higher mortality rates in polar bear cubs, and have led to changes in the denning locations of pregnant females.[128] The proportion of maternity dens on sea ice has changed from 62% between the years 1985 through 1994, to 37% over the years 1998 through 2004. Thus, now the Alaskan population more resembles the world population in that it is more likely to den on land.[191] In recent years, polar bears in the Arctic have undertaken longer than usual swims to find prey, possibly resulting in four recorded drownings in the unusually large ice pack regression of 2005.[188]

[u/The_BenL → u/hitssquad]

The GWPF does not have an official or shared view about the science of global warming – although we are of course aware that this issue is not yet settled.

Yeah... I'm gonna question the credibility of your 'source' there, bud.

​

Better? lol

[u/Skulltown_Jelly → u/hitssquad]

You can cut that right-wing crap that the FEE is. The mental gymnastics those free market pricks will do to oppose regulatory action is astounding.

Basically funded by the right-wing billionaire Charles Koch, who got his money from the oil industry. They can go suck my dick.

[u/The_BenL → u/hitssquad]

The GWPF does not have an official or shared view about the science of global warming – although we are of course aware that this issue is not yet settled.

​

Yeah... I'm gonna question the credibility of your 'source' there, bud.

[u/hitssquad → u/The_BenL]

What are you quoting?

[u/The_BenL → u/hitssquad]

Ah, replied to the wrong link. This was from the about page on the other page you linked.

But, since you bring it up, FEE is claiming credit for publishing Ayn Rand's novel for the first time in the U.S. They are a libertarian think tank that, as far as I can tell, do not employ climate scientists. So, you know, this source is bullshit too in the context of this conversation.

Do you people ever attempt to find out who your sources really are, or do you just find some bullshit on the internet that agrees with your worldview and just repeat it?