We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Who killed the polar bears then?

The good news: those polars bears killed by “global warming,” were not.

From the AP:

Charles Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into “integrity issues.”

… observations suggested the bears drowned in rough seas and high winds and “suggest that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues.”

Bad news for some, I reckon.

6 comments to Who killed the polar bears then?

  • ian

    The AP article doesn’t make a lot of sense. All that can be gleaned is that a scientist is under administrative investigation. It certainly doesn’t justify your claims about polar bears, especially since the quote you cite suggests the opposite to your claim, at least if the trends for pack ice regression and more open water can be attributed to climate change, which you should note appears not to be a claim the the scientist himself makes.

  • RainerK

    “Bad news for some, I reckon.”

    Not a problem. They’ll simply ignore it until it goes away. I’m kind of surprised that the AP even carries the story.
    Predictably a Reuters search yields nothing.

  • OK, I have shot the four godless killing machines but I had to. I had to save the world and save my $50 million in grants, too.

    You should worship me and screw the four stinky fat white skunks that were on a wrong place in a wrong time.

    Charles Monnett

  • Laird

    Well, since you’re on the (general) topic of alleged “global warming”, this article from Forbes is interesting. It reports that NASA data published in a peer-reviewed journal discloses that heat trapped in the atmosphere is far less than the computer models had predicted. Perhaps even more interesting, it uses the adjective “alarmist” every time it mentions computer models. Forbes is a mainstream publication; perhaps the message is beginning to penetrate the zeitgeist.

  • Kim du Toit

    The part which gets me is that ALL the climate change models are showing that atmospheric heat levels are continuing to rise, when they’re not.

  • Paul Marks

    Whether this theory is true or not, what matters POLITICALLY is the weather in the United States.

    There is great heat and a terrible drought – so the globel warmists are riding high.

    If there is a cool and wet summer next year – they will fall (routed at the November elections).

    It is as crude as that – the science (on both sides) does not matter.