BBC and AGW again FFS!!
Discussion
The fact that the bear was able to carry out such a feat leads me to believe that they are evolved to be able to swim long distances i.e. it's something they've been able to do for hundreds of thousands of years.
It just so happens it's only been observed for the first time now - probably because the Arctic is crawling with scientists working on their AGW funded projects.
It just so happens it's only been observed for the first time now - probably because the Arctic is crawling with scientists working on their AGW funded projects.
Really rather than winge on about it if they are that concerned why not just bung it a few seals to keep it happy. It's not like there's a shortage of them.
Or better still offer it a lift down to Antartica where the seals just get away it because nothing eats them and it could even have a more varied selction of diet by taking in the odd penguin here and there.
Or better still offer it a lift down to Antartica where the seals just get away it because nothing eats them and it could even have a more varied selction of diet by taking in the odd penguin here and there.
The reporting is full of implications to say the least:
The next implication of note is that the cub was killed by exhaustion, but this isn't clearly stated or explained either. Even if that is the case, how do they know this - they only tracked the mother bear by GPS using a radio collar?
I wish the media could just straighten up their act when it comes to this kind of reporting, besides the tenuous link to global warming, the article is full of holes.
article said:
The study shows that this epic journey came at a very high cost to the bear.
"This individual lost 22% of her body fat in two months and her yearling cub," says [zoologist ]Mr Durner.
"It was simply more energetically costly for the yearling than the adult to make this long distance swim," he explains.
Don't other species of bear routinely lose high percentages of their body fat through hibernation etc? There seems to be an implication here that the loss is unusually high, but is it? Presumably the mother bear at least survived, so why is the loss in body fat costly? Why give the data and no way for the reader to make any meaningful judgement on it?"This individual lost 22% of her body fat in two months and her yearling cub," says [zoologist ]Mr Durner.
"It was simply more energetically costly for the yearling than the adult to make this long distance swim," he explains.
The next implication of note is that the cub was killed by exhaustion, but this isn't clearly stated or explained either. Even if that is the case, how do they know this - they only tracked the mother bear by GPS using a radio collar?
I wish the media could just straighten up their act when it comes to this kind of reporting, besides the tenuous link to global warming, the article is full of holes.
Eric Mc said:
It just so happens it's only been observed for the first time now - probably because the Arctic is crawling with scientists working on their AGW funded projects.
But definitely not because there is more open water? You're falling into same trap they are; having an inbuilt bias so actually putting a spin on it without realising.Andy
zakelwe said:
Eric Mc said:
It just so happens it's only been observed for the first time now - probably because the Arctic is crawling with scientists working on their AGW funded projects.
But definitely not because there is more open water? You're falling into same trap they are; having an inbuilt bias so actually putting a spin on it without realising.Andy
After all it is estimated they came out of the last ice age, hence the ice lifestyle.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff