Thursday, December 3, 2020
Home Left Column 'Blatant nonsense': Media hyped walrus climate scare stories debunked - Claims recycled...

‘Blatant nonsense’: Media hyped walrus climate scare stories debunked – Claims recycled year-after-year – A Climate Depot Rebuttal

-

Climate Depot Special Report

The October 1, 2014 Associated Press article linking the walrus gathering to melting sea ice, lacks historical perspective and contains serious spin that would lead readers to erroneous conclusions about walruses and the climate. [Update: Zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford weighs in: Mass haulouts of Pacific walrus and stampede deaths are not new, not due to low ice cover – ‘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.’ And Update #2 is here.]

First off, walruses are not endangered. According to the New York Times, “the Pacific walrus remains abundant, numbering at least 200,000 by some accounts, double the number in the 1950s.”

The AP article titled, “35,000 walrus come ashore in northwest Alaska”, claims “the gathering of walrus on shore is a phenomenon that has accompanied the loss of summer sea ice as the climate has warmed.” The AP even includes the environmental group World Wildlife Fund, to ramp up climate hype. “It’s another remarkable sign of the dramatic environmental conditions changing as the result of sea ice loss,” said Margaret Williams, managing director of the group’s Arctic program, by phone from Washington, D.C.

Pacific Walrus_Davi

But the AP is recycling its own climate stories on walruses. See: 2009: AP: Walruses Gather as Ice Melts in the Arctic Sea (Sep 17 2009) Also see fact check on “melting” Arctic sea ice. See: Paper: ‘Myth of arctic meltdown’ : Stunning satellite images show ice cap has grown by an area twice the size of Alaska in two years – Despite Al Gore’s prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now

[Update Via Bishop Hill website: ‘A look at Cryosphere Today’s animation of historic Arctic sea ice and as far as I can see there is rarely any sea ice over the Chukchi Sea in the summer. This story is ecodrivel. We know that large haulouts take place in the Bering and Chukchi seas. We know that walruses have always visited Point Lay and that the sea ice at the time is far enough away that they haulouts must have been on the land.’]

The media and green groups are implying that walrus hanging out by the tens of thousands is a new phenomenon and due to melting Arctic ice. But dating back to at least the 1604, there have been reports of large walrus gatherings or haulouts.

Excerpt: “Walruses became only really known in Europe after the 1604 expedition to the Kola Peninsula of the ship “Speed” of Muscovy Company, commanded by Stephen Bennet. On the way back to England the Speed reached what some years before a Dutch expedition had named “Bear Island”. The crew of the Speed discovered a haulout numbering about a thousand walruses on the island’s northern coast.”

According to a National Geographic article in 2007, walrus populations were not endangered. See: “While scientists lack a firm population estimate for the species, researchers have encountered herds as large as 100,000 in recent years”

Even the green activists group, the WWF, admits walrus ‘hangouts’ of tens of thousands are not unprecedented.

A 2009 WWF blog report noted: “WWF Polar Bear coordinator Geoff York returned on 17 September from a trip along the Russian coast and saw a haul out there with an estimated 20,000 walruses near Ryrkaipiy (on the Chukchi Peninsula).”

Update #3: Is 35,00 beached walruses “largest ever” in Alaska? In 2010, 50,000 walruses were estimated in a haulout, while other haulouts  “approached 100,000”]

AP’s own reporting debunks walrus claims

Are 35,000 walruses gathering in “haulouts” on the shoreline with many be stampeded to death really that unusual? The answer is No!

The AP reported on 40,000 walruses in a haulout just 7 years ago in a single location. See: AP 12/14/2007: “40,000 in one spot” – “As a result, walruses came ashore earlier and stayed longer, congregating in extremely high numbers, with herds as big as 40,000 at Point Shmidt, a spot that had not been used by walruses as a “haulout” place for a century, scientists said.”

As climate blogger Tom Nelson noted in a December 28 2007 analysis:  “Are you saying that that spot *was* used as a haulout in earlier years?” Nelson wrote.

Nelson noted the media reported that “Walruses are vulnerable to stampedes when they gather in such large numbers. The appearance of a polar bear, a hunter or a low-flying airplane can send them rushing to the water.”

Nelson then asked: “Are stampedes ever caused by the appearance of researchers or low-flying research planes?”

Walrus stampede deaths drop dramatically from 3000 to 50?

The October 1, 2014 AP article notes with obvious concern for the walrus species: “Observers last week saw about 50 carcasses on the beach from animals that may have been killed in a stampede…”

Fifty walrus carcasses? That number is a significant improvement from 2007 when there were a reported 3000 dead walruses discovered from the late summer and fall on the Russian side of the Arctic, according to the AP’s own earlier reporting. See: 2007: ‘3,000 walruses die in stampedes tied to Climate’

Are walrus stampede deaths declining in recent years? It is difficult to say based on reports, but a high of 3000 deaths in 2007 (for a whole season) to a low of 50 deaths in 2014 for a single location, but it does not  appear to be an alarming trend. Why does the AP fail to put any historical perspective on their climate scare stories, especially when the AP’s own reporting from 7 years ago calls into question their claims?

The next issue is whether or not sea ice extent is critical to walruses in late summer and fall. According to this report, ice extent is not critical. As Nelson noted in 2007:

“When I read this in the (2007) ‘walrus’ Wikipedia entry, I’m also not convinced that lack of summer ice is necessarily a big deal.”

2007 Wikipedia entry: “In the non-reproductive season (late summer and fall) walruses tend to migrate away from the ice and form massive aggregations of tens of thousands of individuals on rocky beaches or outcrops.” [Note: This line has been omitted from the Wikipedia entry in 2014]

Walrus stampede deaths benefit polar bears

In addition, a 2007 WWF post inadvertently noted that the carcasses of stampeded walruses may actually be a great benefit to polar bears.

“Last fall some 20,000-30,000 animals were piled up there. No one has actually counted them all, but the Vankarem residents are certain the number is growing…In early winter, when the ice is re-forming and walruses leave the beach, up to 100 carcasses remain behind. These blubbery animals offer a perfect meal for wandering and hungry polar bears…In mid-November, a truck driver alerted the patrol to bear tracks on the beach. The wave had begun. For the next three weeks, bears making their way along the coast stopped to graze on the carcasses at this so-called “feeding point” instead of proceeding to the village. At one time alone, Sergey and his team counted 96 bears feeding on the walrus. In total they estimated that 185 bears had been circulating with a six mile radius around the village.”

The stampeded remains of 100 walruses fed up to 185 polar bears!

But despite the easily accessible historical data on walruses, the WWF and the AP and other media in 2014, continue to spin the haulouts as evidence of “climate change.”

Margaret Williams, WWF’s managing director of the Arctic program said in a September 18, 2014 article: “The massive concentration of walruses onshore—when they should be scattered broadly in ice-covered waters—is just one example of the impacts of climate change on the distribution of marine species in the Arctic.”

Is the WWF correct? Should walruses be “scattered broadly in ice-covered waters”? Not exactly. As Tom Nelson noted on Twitter, (Tom Nelson‏@tan123) “If walrus haulouts are a new thing, why was this walrus haulout sanctuary established in 1960”

According to the Alaskan government, walrus haulouts are not unusual and have long been recognized and islands have been set aside for such gatherings.

Excerpt: “The Walrus Islands State Game Sanctuary (WISGS), protects a group of seven small craggy islands and their adjacent waters in northern Bristol Bay, approximately 65 miles southwest of Dillingham. The WISGS includes Round Island, Summit Island, Crooked Island, High Island, Black Rock and The Twins. The WISGS was established in 1960 to protect one of the largest terrestrial haulout sites in North America for Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens).”

The Alaskan government report noted that numbers of 14,000 walrus haulouts in a single day were not unusual.

“Each summer large numbers of male walruses haul out on exposed, rocky beaches. Round Island is one of four major terrestrial haulouts in Alaska; the others are Capes Peirce (Togiak NWR), Newenham (Togiak NWR), and Seniavin (near Port Moller). Male walrus return to these haulouts every spring as the ice pack recedes northward, remaining in Bristol Bay to feed they haul out at these beach sites for several days between each feeding foray. The number of walrus using the island fluctuates significantly from year to year. However, up to 14,000 walrus have been counted on Round Island in a single day.”

Hunters have relied on large hangouts of walruses. This report details how walruses were “predictably present” and made for “clean and efficient butchering.”

Expert: “Qayassiq was especially important for walrus hunting because it was accessible in good weather; walruses were predictably present on the beach during the preferred fall hunt; and the beach is rocky, not sandy, promoting clean and efficient butchering. Hunting on haulouts was a highly organized activity.”

#

Update: Zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford weighs in: Mass haulouts of Pacific walrus and stampede deaths are not new, not due to low ice cover – ‘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.’ – Large haulouts of walruses — such as the one making news at Point Lay, Alaska on the Chukchi Sea (and which happened before back in 2009) — are not a new phenomenon for this region over the last 45 years and thus cannot be due to low sea ice levels. Nor are deaths by stampede within these herds (composed primarily of females and their young) unusual, as a brief search of the literature reveals. At least two documented incidents like this have occurred in the recent past: one in 1978, on St. Lawrence Island and the associated Punuk Islands and the other in 1972, on Wrangell Island (Fay and Kelly 1980, excerpts below)…Here is how the WWF is spinning this recent gathering at Point Lay:

We are witnessing a slow-motion catastrophe in the Arctic,” said Lou Leonard, WWF’s vice president for climate change.

Dr. Crockford Summed it up: “As you can see, this is blatant nonsense and those who support or encourage this interpretation are misinforming the public.”

Update #2: Dr. Crockford: Mass gatherings of walrus follow-up – sea ice maps for 1978 and 1972 – ‘It is clear that ice was available close to Wrangel Island in 1972 when walruses chose to haul out on the island in huge numbers. And in 1978, there was ice present to the north of the walrus herd, but they had moved away from the ice to get to St. Lawrence Island, where they hauled out in large numbers. This means it is more likely that food resources were the issue, not sea ice.’

Related Links:

Oh No, now it’s ‘Suicidal walruses’! ‘Suicidal walrus stampedes is the new global warming scare, held in reserve just in case the polar bears don’t deliver’

Media Con: Walrus-gate 2.0: media recycles climate change claims from exactly year ago

The Latest Media Hoax Exposed: ‘Walrus landing on the beaches is nothing unusual’ contrary to media claims – ‘How deranged must the media be to take normal behavior of wildlife, and to spin it into a phony tragedy in order to maliciously spread anxiety through the public?’

Tom Nelson’s 2007 report: About those walrus stampedes – FRIDAY, DECEMBER 28, 2007

Google currently shows about 14,000 hits for “walruses stampedes”.

Excerpts from a typical scare story, along with my comments:

The giant, tusked mammals typically clamber onto the sea ice to rest, or haul themselves onto land for just a few weeks at a time.

Ok, so it’s not unusual for them to haul up on land. Google shows a lot of pictures of them on land.

As a result, walruses came ashore earlier and stayed longer, congregating in extremely high numbers, with herds as big as 40,000 at Point Shmidt, a spot that had not been used by walruses as a “haulout” for a century, scientists said.

Are you saying that that spot *was* used as a haulout in earlier years?

Walruses are vulnerable to stampedes when they gather in such large numbers. The appearance of a polar bear, a hunter or a low-flying airplane can send them rushing to the water.

Are stampedes ever caused by the appearance of researchers or low-flying research planes?

Sure enough, scientists received reports of hundreds and hundreds of walruses dead of internal injuries suffered in stampedes. Many of the youngest and weakest animals, mostly calves born in the spring, were crushed.

Biologist Anatoly Kochnev of Russia’s Pacific Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography estimated 3,000 to 4,000 walruses out of population of perhaps 200,000 died, or two or three times the usual number on shoreline haulouts.

Were anecdotal reports of “hundreds and hundreds” used to come up with the estimate of 3,000 to 4,000? How much actual counting was done? What’s the baseline number of annual stampede deaths? Is anyone checking that any animals found dead were killed in stampedes, rather than dying from some other cause?

No large-scale walrus die-offs were seen in Alaska during the same period, apparently because the animals congregated in smaller groups on the American side of the Bering Strait, with the biggest known herd at about 2,500.

So when a walrus herd of 2,500 is panicked, stampede deaths are not a big deal, but when the herd reaches tens of thousands, we can expect lots of stampede deaths?
—–
It seems to me that more walruses worldwide may die from hunting than from stampedes. Note an excerpt from this Sea World link:

As the Pacific walrus population grew, annual subsistence catches by indigenous Arctic peoples ranged from about 3,000 to 16,000 walruses per year until about 1990, and then decreased to an average of 5,789 animals per year from 1996 to 2000.

A related paragraph is here:

Pacific walrus meat has been used for the past 40 years to feed foxes which are kept on government – subsidised fur farms in Chukotka. One estimate made by natives was of an annual kill of 10,000 – 12,000 walruses per year, but this may have been overstated. Recent investigations have found that much of the meat is left to waste and that there are no markets for the resultant fox furs. Fox farming operations in Chukotka are currently in decline due to economic recession. Local unemployment caused by the general economic situation and the closure of the farms has however led to a recent increase in illegal head-hunting.

Some more background information is in this 2007 WWF post:

Last fall some 20,000-30,000 animals were piled up there. No one has actually counted them all, but the Vankarem residents are certain the number is growing.

In early winter, when the ice is re-forming and walruses leave the beach, up to 100 carcasses remain behind. These blubbery animals offer a perfect meal for wandering and hungry polar bears.

As soon as the walruses departed, the polar bear patrol spent several days working to collect the remains of walruses killed in the stampedes. Using a tractor, they carted the carcasses six miles west of the village, anticipating that the bears would come from the west in the fall. In the end, they scattered some 80 walruses around selected sites — and then they waited.

In mid-November, a truck driver alerted the patrol to bear tracks on the beach. The wave had begun. For the next three weeks, bears making their way along the coast stopped to graze on the carcasses at this so-called “feeding point” instead of proceeding to the village. At one time alone, Sergey and his team counted 96 bears feeding on the walrus. In total they estimated that 185 bears had been circulating with a six mile radius around the village.

My comments: Eighty-100 dead walruses out of 20,000-30,000 hauled out on land seems quite low, if Kochnev’s estimate of 3,000-4,000 total stampede deaths is correct (remember, his estimate is based on a population of maybe 200,000, many of which are not hauled out in huge herds).

Also, if polar bear numbers are so threatened by global warming, what are 185 of them doing within six miles of the village?

When I read stuff like this, I’m also not completely convinced that walruses are threatened with extinction:

…researchers have encountered herds as large as 100,000 in recent years…

When I read this in the “walrus” Wikipedia entry, I’m also not convinced that lack of summer ice is necessarily a big deal:

“In the non-reproductive season (late summer and fall) walruses tend to migrate away from the ice and form massive aggregations of tens of thousands of individuals on rocky beaches or outcrops.”

In the same entry, when I read this, I’m not convinced that polar bears really need year-round sea ice in order to feed successfully.”

Polar bears hunt walruses by rushing at beached aggregations and consuming those individuals that are crushed or wounded in the sudden mass exodus, typically younger or infirm animals.

Some video of polar bears successfully hunting walruses is here and here. I don’t see any ice in that first hunting scene.

92 COMMENTS

    • Typical liberal reply. You cannot bring proof to the site, so instead you name call and spew vulgarities, thus proving that liberals are liars and are stupid. Go back to George Soros funded sites and take your ignorant lies with you. Better yet, get a job and some education and learn to read, research and think because posts like yours tries to make people as stupid as you are. You really are stupid even going to use that website as a source.

    • Uh.. the source you sight (watchingthedeniers) has the word “deniers” in their name! You can’t get much more biased than that.

      Even more interesting is that the article you link to shows that Heartland payed.. oh no!.. SCIENTISTS!! So if the paying of scientists is bad, then that will disqualify many CAGW scientists out there – especially if we include the Federal and International grant money spent on the very thing you seem to have a problem with – science… hmmm

      Hey, let’s look at this link you gave and see what these people are/from, shall we??

      1st name is from the Canadian Government’s Environment Canada – So the Canadians are in on this!
      2nd name – U.S. Department of the Interior – Oh no! The U.S. is part of this cabal of “deniers”!
      3rd name – Arizona State University – They have University faculty involved!!
      4th name – University of Missouri (This thing is spreading!)
      5th name – Lakehead University (more Canadians!)
      6th name – (The woman in question) University of Victoria
      7th name – ICECAP (Private investor, not corporate, driven group of scientists and journalists who don’t agree that the “Science is settled”)
      8th name – Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
      9th name – National Council for Air and Stream Improvement
      10th name – Michigan Technological University

      So, we have people (scientists!) that come from government, universities, colleges, and privately funded enterprises being paid for their work on specific issues. How frigtening!

      See, Truth for a change, when people pay for scientists to look at things and you agree with them, you feel fine (because they help support YOUR agenda!), but when scientists are paid to look at things and you do not agree with their conclusions – well, that doesn’t matter. They are scientists. This shows (once again for crying out loud) that this is no settled issue, that the media is playing to a market with these stories, the climate is dynamic, and that no – you do not get to implement policies that will hurt our economies or slow the growth of those economies in the world that are ending poverty – you will have to spend your OWN money.

      Now… how’s them apples, Truth for a change??

  1. As much as I hate to adopt the tactics of the Left, I think that when all this climate change nonsense is proven false, all these Leftards that have been howling about “global warming” should be hunted down and [use your imagination.]

    • If they paid her $100K a month (and I bet they don’t), would it make any difference at all to her arguments. Given that she has evidence to support her conclusions, her funding is of complete irrelevance

      And isn’t it sad that offering a professional opinion these days automatically gets ones motives and funding attacked. What about WWF’s funding, and Greenpeace and the rest – all paid for by orphans from the collection plate is it?

    • Perhaps it’s also fair to ask, then, about the $multi million annual budgets of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Oxfam and all the other bottom-feeding NGOs who advocate in favour of the CAGW agenda? If Ms Crockford is being paid by anyone you can bet the amount she receives pales into absolute insignificance next to the frankly staggering sums of public money handed over to these ‘charidee’ climate zealots every year. Funny, because as a European taxpayer I don’t recall ever being asked if I mind my taxes being paid out to professional CGAW advocates.

      • Perhaps it’s fair to ask why 98% of climate scientists acknowledge the reality that man-made climate change is happening? Are they all paid shills, or are you either a fossil fuel worker or someone so stupid you can’t see the apocalypse that is happening based on your ideology?

        • Follow the money. If a so called scientist does not sign onto the massive fraud that is the Global Warming Hoax ponzi scheme, they do not get a grant. You speak of stupidity and reality, yet you are too stupid to realize that as a progressive new age marxist you are praying at the altar of a failed ideology that has brought nothing but misery, economic dispair and death whenever and where ever it is implemented. That is the true apocalypse of which you speak. Perhaps it’s fair to ask if you have completely sworn off all fossil fuels and their many by-products? Don’t bother to answer…I can smell your alarmist hypocrisy from here.

    • Europe has lost trillions that lined the pockets of the rich by this bunk science..so don’t talk about who is paying who… the damage this Hoax has done should produce long jail sentences, but it won’t…cause money talks in the materialistic view of the world. Man is omnipotent and can explain everything -now where have we heard this before….hum, try all throughout recorded history!!!

    • How much Al Gore makes per speaking engagement if more germane to the discussion, considering the fact that he has ZERO formal education in geology, let alone the climatology sub-discipline of the atmospheric sciences. He even failed-out of seminary.

  2. Wow, with this article Marc Morano proves how uninformed both he and Susan Crockford truly are. Female and juvenile walruses migrate northward in the Spring and spend the late Spring, Summer, and early Fall on the sea ice in the Arctic (specifically, with regard to the recent mas haulout, in the shallow Chukchi Sea on the north coast of Alaska.) They do not typically spend their time on the shores, but on the pack ice floating in the Chukchi Sea. Males do not typically herd with females and juvenile walruses. The males frequently herd on shore during the summer, often as far south as southern Alaska. It is the females and juveniles who depend on the Arctic sea ice for survival, until they are ready to migrate south for the winter.

    The mass haulout at Point Lay is primarily female and juvenile walruses, which is what is unusual about this situation, and which is what shows how the walrus population is being affected by the loss of sea ice in the Arctic.

    The claim that “walruses have been hauling out en masse for hundreds of years” is only made by uninformed people who don’t understand the habitat needs or the migration patterns of the Southern Pacific Walrus. The claim that “[a]t least two documented incidents like this have occurred in the recent past: one in 1978, on St. Lawrence Island and the associated Punuk Islands and the other in 1972, on Wrangell Island…” further reveals the uninformed nature of Marc Morano’s and Susan Crockford’s claims. The 1978 St. Lawrence haulout occurred during the southern migration of the female and juvenile walruses as the Fay and Kelly paper clearly states: “At the time when these events occurred, the weather was very stormy, with high winds and heavy seas from the south. The walruses, mainly adult females and young, were arriving from the northwest, presumably having swum from the edge of the pack ice which was then just north of Bering Strait, some 300 km away.” (The Punuk Islands are similarly in the path of the southern Winter migration of the female and juvenile walruses.)

    As Fay and Kelly state, “The occurrence of large numbers of walruses in autumn at St. Lawrence Island and the nearby Punuk Islands is not in itself unusual. These islands lie directly in the path of the walrus popUlation during its southward migration from summering grounds in the Chukchi Sea to wintering areas in the Bering Sea.” Marc Moranos may be excused for being uninformed enough not to understand the difference between the walruses migratory and life-cycle behavior during summer and winter, but for Susan Crockford to claim some expertise in the field of walruses and yet not understand (or deliberately misstate) the significance of these events is shameful.

    The mass haulout at Point Lay occurred during the peak of the feeding season for female and juvenile walruses in the Chukchi Sea, when they are dependent upon the sea ice to provide safety and access to food resources over a broad area. The haulouts on St. Lawrence, Wrangel, and the Punuk Islands occurred during the southern migration AFTER the peak of the Summer feeding season in the Chukchi Sea. There is a great deal of difference between the times of year and the behavior of the walruses in each situation. For an “expert” such as Susan Crockford not to understand this difference is ridiculous. For her to claim that there is no difference in the situations by stating that such mass haulouts happen all the time, brings doubt upon her professional credibility in this area of study.

  3. I have wild life specials on walrus and this is normal for them and nothing to do with climate change. This is just another piece of BS and if you don’t watch wild life you would believe this. They eat on the bottom they do not hunt and if they did what would it be…

  4. What’s wrong with you people? Don’t let things like facts and reality get in the way of perceptions. If you want to feel good about yourself and superior to others and if you want others to see you as being good, you have to care about the aminals. That means you have be take everything that could be construed as a threat to aminals and fishies and birdies and blame it on HUMANS. This shows that you are a SPECIAL human, different from all the evil, selfish humans who only care about unneccesary luxuries like eating food, keeping warm, staying clothed, shelter, transportation and toothpaste.

  5. After 17 years this theory should have to provide some evidence in the way of a correlation between increased co2 and increased temperatures. To date that has not occurred so the only logical conclusion is that the AGW theory is falsified and the link between co2 and temperature is very small.

  6. I m an international student. I have always rated American Education system the best in the world. That was the reason I came to study here. I cannot believe that education system produces such fools(looking at the comments)…Come on you guys why you pretend that you don’t know what you know. Global warming is a fact (even a primary school kid knows that)

  7. Why must every thing be black or white? The lil’ survey I just answered; I had to say I believe it’s true as; to say that climate change is not happening would have been incorrect. Yes, I believe it’s happening, it’s been happening ever since the earth started to rotate. The earth has had ice-ages, just a single point of truth that shows climate change is happening.

    The real question is, how much is man causing the current effect of change? I still believe we are causing some effect, after-all, a single volcano blowing off a lil’ pressure can seriously effect world temperatures for a finite period of time. The amount of snow melt off the Himalayas effects the next season’s monsoons in both northern AND southern hemispheres.

    Then we have all the various corporations around the world who adopt the mantra of ‘global greenhouse effects’ or ‘climate change’ for their own financial gain. They are peddling newspapers or home products which will help the common man ‘fight’ back. Unfortunately, that ‘common’ man is but a drop in the ocean when you consider the countries that are still exploiting and damaging their own local and regional areas…where the none use of plastic would bring the country to a standstill.

    What I dislike is being given an ultimatum of choosing between 2 totally separate ideologies when the truth is somewhere in the middle but leaning towards the YES camp. Yes I believe we are effecting the current climate on our planet; BUT when ‘pop’ culture gets on the ‘bandwagon’ (pun intended) and tries to convince us that the moss is not gathering on the stone due to climate change; (see what I did there???), I just shake my head and blow raspberries at their credibility. The latter example is only the tip of the *cough* iceberg that I have flipped into my overflowing bin garbage……

    Here but is one classical example…….
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-point-of-no-return-climate-change-nightmares-are-already-here-20150805?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=wired&utm_campaign=partner

  8. I just googled the first authority cited here, and she’s on the Heartland Institutes payroll. Why waste time researching the rest? I’d be doing more research than this blog does in checking out the reliability of its sources. Anyone reading this “debunking” and taking it seriously needs to cultivate a more rigorous approach to truth.

  9. If you do not think our actions have an effect…. Your head is in the sand. This is not about left or right, good or bad. It’s about the only life sustaining planet we have access to. Period. Toxic Water, Global Warming, Extinction, it’s only a matter of time before we back ourselves into a corner that we can’t get out of. #HeadsUpAsses

  10. Yes, it’s hard to link specific events to long-term trends, and people occasionally overreach. It still does not in any way refute the mass of scientific data that is pointing toward a long-term, unprecedented warming trend. The lives of your children depend on us doing the right thing, and your fear of paying more to fill up your Ford Truck has gone way past the point of silliness and is now officially reckless.

  11. Dr. Susan Crockford is an adjunct assistant prof at U Vic, which means she doesn’t even do this full time. She’s also on the Hearland Institute payroll as a hired gun paid specifically to debunk real science, so she’s someone willing to sell her academic integrity just to make ends meet.

    Not exactly the last word on anything science-based.

    .

- Advertisment -

Related Articles

Antarctica might go green say scientists (only 2km of ice and 50C of warming to go)

http://joannenova.com.au/2017/05/antarctica-might-go-green-say-scientists-only-2km-of-ice-and-50c-of-warming-to-go/ More great journalism from The Guardian: Climate change is turning Antarctica green, say researchers Or maybe it isn’t. Check out the brave actual prediction:...

MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen’s talks in Prague

By Dr. Lubos Motl Richard Lindzen's talk in Prague Richard Lindzen, prof emeritus at MIT, is the most famous atmospheric physicist among the climate skeptics. I...

Study: Earth is becoming GREENER, not BROWNER due to climate change

Guest essay by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels It’s hard to say how many punny posts we came up with using those words when Carol...