Talk:Polar bear
Ouch!
I joined when I saw the butchery that is currently being done to this article. I'm not going to argue about Conservapedia's stance on Global Warming, but the current article is actively misleading to the degree that I have to assume that the edits are motivated by an agenda. Apologies to Ed Poor, but there is no way that you could misread the sources this badly.
Let's check the sources:
"although scientists assert that the polar bear population is stable"
Other quotes from the source:
| “ | In areas where long-term studies are available, populations are showing signs of stress due to shrinking sea ice. Canada's Western Hudson Bay population has dropped 22% since the early 1980s. The declines have been directly linked to an earlier ice break-up on Hudson Bay. | ” |
| “ | Some Native communities in Canada have been reporting increasing numbers of polar bears on land. Traditional hunters believe this indicates an increased population, although the increased presence on land may, in fact, be related to shrinking sea ice and changes in the bears' distribution patterns. | ” |
| “ | Climate change is the main threat to polar bears today. A diminishing ice pack directly affects polar bears, as sea ice is the platform from which they hunt seals. Although the Arctic has experienced warm periods before, the present shrinking of the Arctic's sea ice is rapid and unprecedented. | ” |
"or increasing"
And why is it increasing?
| “ | Polar bear experts said that numbers had increased not because of climate change but due to the efforts of conservationists.
The battle to ban the hunting of Harp seal pups has meant the seal population has soared - boosting the bears' food supply. At the same time, fewer seal hunters are around to hunt bears. "I don't think there is any question polar bears are in danger from global warming," said Andrew Derocher of the World Conservation Union, and a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. "People who deny that have a clear interest in hunting bears." |
” |
And elsewhere, it was mentioned that the numbers went up since the 1960s (implying the same "Global Warming is harmless and hyped!" argument as above). The "is stable" source had something to say about the reason there, too:
| “ | In the 1960s and 1970s, hunting was the major threat to the bears. At the time, polar bears were under such severe survival pressure from hunters that a landmark international accord was reached, despite the tensions and suspicions of the Cold War. The International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears was signed in Oslo, November 15, 1973 by the five nations with polar bear populations: Canada, Denmark (Greenland, Norway, the U.S., and the former U.S.S.R.
(...) The Oslo agreement was one of the first and most successful international conservation measures enacted in the 20th century. Its legacy continues today, with member scientists from each nation continuing to work together in face new threats to the bears including climate change, pollution, industrial activities, and poaching. |
” |
Just going by the sources that are being used here to make us feel okay about the effects of Global Warming, you can see a slightly different picture once you actually read them: Hunting was a major problem in the 60s, and the ban of this unlimited hunting is the reason why the population recovered. All of that despite Global Warming, which is acknowledged by ALL sources as the major threat here. Trying to play down the effects of Global Warming is highly misleading.
I will see if there is any way to fix this article. Any help is welcome. --DHayes 18:49, 11 March 2008 (EDT)