Questions about death of polar bear in viral video

Are these photos REALLY proof that polar bears are being killed by climate change? Doubts raised over claims after it emerges that no post mortem was carried out

The video is unquestionably harrowing to watch — an emaciated polar bear stumbling through a terrain devoid of snow and ice, clumps of fur clinging to its sagging flesh and dragging one hind leg as it searches with increasing desperation for food.

There is no warning and no apology for presenting such images — but that is deliberate.

‘We know that it . . . will be deeply upsetting for many of you, but we cannot turn away from the urgent environmental crisis our planet is facing,’ says the accompanying introductory text on the website of environmental campaigners SeaLegacy.

Filmed on Somerset Island, near Baffin Island, and part of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, the footage purports to show a bear deprived of its hunting ground on the sea ice and forced to scavenge in a rubbish bin used by local fishermen. To the strains of a mournful soundtrack, the pathetic bear is seen chewing on a burnt piece of foam from a discarded snowmobile seat before slumping to the ground exhausted as the video fades to black.

A more damning indictment of man-made climate change would be hard to imagine. Indeed, since it was published on the website of renowned magazine National Geographic, the clip has gone viral.  

‘Gut-wrenching’, ‘horrendous’ and ‘this should shame us all’ are typical of the comments on social media sites. The story has also been covered widely by the Press. ‘Video of Starving Polar Bear “Rips Your Heart Out of Your Chest” ’ was the New York Times headline, while The Guardian described how this ‘“Soul-crushing” video . . . exposes climate crisis’.

The outcry is understandable — but there is just one problem with these stories. Although the bear was presumed to have died in the days following the sighting, no post mortem was carried out on it. As a result, no one can be sure what killed it, or link its death to those of other polar bears SeaLegacy and other environmental campaigners have made emotive claims about in the past.

In 2015, for example, German photographer Kerstin Langenberger posted a photo of a similarly gaunt polar bear on her Facebook page.

Explaining that it was taken in Svalbard, an archipelago of islands between mainland Norway and the North Pole (where, incidentally, the BBC’s enchanting Christmas documentary, Snow Bears, was filmed), she said it showed just one of several underweight females she’d spotted there. She was in no doubt about the cause of its wretched condition.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5221939/Are-polar-bears-killed-climate-change.html

Vile disgusting climate change fanatics willing to resort to any lie no matter how lie to earn some more.

Thank goodness the god emperor is not fooled by these cruel lies

The only "lies" on here, are the interminable and unstoppable SmellyBum anti-science and denialist propaganda lies, that you keep on digging up to boost your daily bullshit count...

All that your anti-climate change nonsense demonstrates these days, SmellyNoClue, is that you favour seeing mankind wipe himself off the surface of this planet..

The dinosaurs thrived for more than 65 million years -- humanity won't even make it to their first million.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

The only "lies" on here, are the interminable and unstoppable SmellyBum anti-science and denialist propaganda lies, that you keep on digging up to boost your daily bullshit count...

All that your anti-climate change nonsense demonstrates these days, SmellyNoClue,  is that you favour seeing mankind wipe himself off the surface of this planet..

The dinosaurs thrived for more than 65 million years --  humanity won't even make it to their first million.

You'd believe the moon was made of cheese if your god Al gore told you it was

And yes wolfie you are correct

I do hope mankind is wiped out.

That's why I'm rooting for nuclear war with North Korea

smelly-bandit wrote:And yes wolfie you are correct

I do hope mankind is wiped out.

That's why I'm rooting for nuclear war with North Korea

Got to be the most stupid post, ever.

eddie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:And yes wolfie you are correct

I do hope mankind is wiped out.

That's why I'm rooting for nuclear war with North Korea

Got to be the most stupid post, ever.

It's true.

I do hope mankind is wiped out, or at the very least brought close to extinction.

A nuclear war will ensure that happens.

I think isis and the short fat man of North Korea should be wiped out - the world will be a safer place .

smelly-bandit wrote:

eddie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:And yes wolfie you are correct

I do hope mankind is wiped out.

That's why I'm rooting for nuclear war with North Korea

Got to be the most stupid post, ever.

It's true.

I do hope mankind is wiped out, or at the very least brought close to extinction.

A nuclear war will ensure that happens.

Okay I'm willing to listen to why you think that's a credible and good solution for mankind.

smelly-bandit wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

The only "lies" on here, are the interminable and unstoppable SmellyBum anti-science and denialist propaganda lies, that you keep on digging up to boost your daily bullshit count...

All that your anti-climate change nonsense demonstrates these days, SmellyNoClue,  is that you favour seeing mankind wipe himself off the surface of this planet..

The dinosaurs thrived for more than 65 million years --  humanity won't even make it to their first million.

You'd believe the moon was made of cheese if your god Al gore told you it was

My "god" Al Gore...

You really are one desperate fuckwit, SmellyNoBrains..

Not only don't I know what you're yapping about, (As I have never even referenced or quoted Al Gore on here -- you're the only fool who mentions his name, in yet another lame and pointless attempt to discredit your critics) -- I haven't even watched his documentaries or read his books..

If you even had the faintest clue of what you are trying to deny on here, you would know that Al Gore is simply a messenger, using his position and influence to spread the truth about what is happening in this world. All that the likes of you and Tommy Monk are doing on here, is foolishly parroting the denialist propaganda put forward by oil and mining company lobbyists..

If you could demonstrate any scientificly-based understanding of the problems involved, then maybe you would also realise what a load of crap you keep on peddling...

Well Wolf, he apparently wants the world to end so....

eddie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

It's true.

I do hope mankind is wiped out, or at the very least brought close to extinction.

A nuclear war will ensure that happens.

Okay I'm willing to listen to why you think that's a credible and good solution for mankind.

Can't say mankind anymore eddie

It's hetero normative transphobia, you need to say "non conforming gender fluid people kind"

Do you need me to continue??

SmellyNoFriends really has to stop hanging out at those gay bars...

And get back to a regular local pub..

Could we face a mini ice age in the next 30 years? Scientists make extraordinary prediction based on the sun's natural cycles... and it would even reverse global warming!

The festive cold snap and Storm Dylan’s raging gales have brought a sharp dose of snowy winter misery to our shores.

But if that seems bad enough, imagine our temperatures plummeting to such bone-aching lows that British rivers freeze for months at a time.

Our streets would become impassable ice sheets, industry would grind to a halt, vital supplies would be stranded, hospitals overwhelmed and power supplies fail under the unprecedented demand.

Similarly lethal chaos has occurred before, in the harshest period of a centuries-long European cold snap called the Little Ice Age.

Between the 17th and early 19th centuries, average temperatures dropped by two degrees centigrade and our winters became so vicious the Thames froze utterly on seven occasions.

With its major river blocked, London’s commerce stalled. In the city and surrounding countryside, thousands of people died. Farm animals were wiped out. The wind was even cold enough to crack tree trunks.

So far, so historical. And given the relentless 21st-century warnings that the ice even at the earth’s poles is melting, one could be forgiven for thinking that such conditions will never be seen again in Britain.

Except that a professor of mathematics at Northumbria University is warning that history is in imminent danger of repeating itself.

And Valentina Zharkova is not alone in that startling view. She is part of an international collaboration of academics in the UK and Russia who have sparked controversy by warning that the world could be plunged into another ‘mini ice age’ in a little over a decade.

The thesis is that this could go some way to replicating a phenomenon known as the ‘Maunder Minimum’, after the British husband and wife astronomers, Walter and Annie Maunder, who worked at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich.

In 1895, the pair published a paper reporting a link between sunspots and the Little Ice Age’s coldest period.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5227073/Could-face-mini-ice-age-30-years.html

Well, Smells Bad has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is a certified nut case and dumb as a rock. What a stupid pile of dog shit in his post.

A professor of wankermatics at Northumbria U'...
What a load of shite...

Let's consider the facts :

*  Mathematics isn't a "science", per se  --  the Daily Flail denialist brigade is getting pretty desperate, to have to resort to pretending that a 3rd rate mathematician from some backwoods pretend uni' knows more than the worlds specialised climatologists and environmental scientists;

*  There was no "mini ice age" in Britain and north-western Europe --  the abnormal cooling period referred to was a localised extended cooling event, that didn't actually meet the definition of a genuine "ice age" --  once the denialists start down that bullshit track, we know that they have thrown proper science out the window;

*  The Daily Flail pretends to have scientists ready to refute climate change --  but then to they fail either to produce any science, nor any actual evidence to back their bullshit propaganda..

* The pure rubbish parroted by Smelly' from the Daily Flail seems to be nothing more than yet another mining&oil company-funded denialist effort pretending that we're expecting for the next "ice age" some 2,000 years before it's actually due; while attempting to deny the observable accelerating melting of the Arctic, and various glaciers around the world.

Once again Smelly' has a nonsensical heading that isn't supported by his stupid thread..

Stench's father must be ruing the semen he wasted on creating such a dullard fuckwitted moron

John Naish is a well respected British science journalist who in this particular instance has produced for Mail-online what is quite obviously a well-researched report - not comment - on a scientific paper produced by a fully qualified UK-based academic, and has ensured - as any journalist should - that the article is properly balanced by quoting an authoritative alternative point of view.

This, inevitably, is eloquently dismissed as "shite" by some friggin' Aussie beekeeper on the grounds that the senior academic's research findings and paper don't conform to his own blinkered opinions and that he doesn't like the newspaper that owns the website because it chooses not to reflect his own barking mad Loony Left view of the world.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:John  Naish is a well respected British science journalist who in this particular instance has produced for Mail-online what is quite obviously a well-researched report - not comment - on a scientific paper produced by a fully qualified UK-based academic, and has ensured - as any journalist should - that the article is properly balanced by quoting an authoritative alternative point of view.

This, inevitably, is eloquently dismissed as "shite" by some friggin' Aussie beekeeper on the grounds that the senior academic's research findings and paper don't conform to his own blinkered opinions and that he doesn't like the newspaper that owns the website because it chooses not to reflect his own barking mad Loony Left view of the world.

Sorry, but how can you lay to claim, his article has been well researched?
Just because two academics also provide views on this. Does not then make the article well researched automatcially?

Do you know how easily, the Mail could have actually made the article balanced?

What matters here, is whether one or two individuals, that made unfounded claims, based on climate change. Then render all the multitude of evidence on claimte change as wrong?

They don't render the mass of evidence nulified and yet at no point. Did you pull up smelly on this detail.

So why is that?

If you look at the available evidence on historical global temperatures, you will see a distinct pattern of quite regular 'ice age' events happening... and going by this evidence, we are due the start of another 'ice age' event any time now...

Tommy Monk wrote:If you look at the available evidence on historical global temperatures, you will see a distinct pattern of quite regular 'ice age' events happening... and going by this evidence, we are due the start of another 'ice age' event any time now...

Which is what some scientists are saying has been rendered moot by human caused climate change.

And...

I will repeat, yet again..

Those extreme localised extended cooling events are not genuine  mini-"ice ages".

Proving, once again, that neither Tommy nor Smelly' have the faintest clue what they are bullshitting on about  !

Didge wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:John  Naish is a well respected British science journalist who in this particular instance has produced for Mail-online what is quite obviously a well-researched report - not comment - on a scientific paper produced by a fully qualified UK-based academic, and has ensured - as any journalist should - that the article is properly balanced by quoting an authoritative alternative point of view.

This, inevitably, is eloquently dismissed as "shite" by some friggin' Aussie beekeeper on the grounds that the senior academic's research findings and paper don't conform to his own blinkered opinions and that he doesn't like the newspaper that owns the website because it chooses not to reflect his own barking mad Loony Left view of the world.

Sorry, but how can you lay to claim, his article has been well researched?
Just because two academics also provide views on this. Does not then make the article well researched automatcially?

Do you know how easily, the Mail could have actually made the article balanced?

What matters here, is whether one or two individuals, that made unfounded claims, based on climate change. Then render all the multitude of evidence on claimte change as wrong?

They don't render the mass of evidence nulified and yet at no point. Did you pull up smelly on this detail.

So why is that?

Fred would only analyse and criticise a suspect Smelly' version of a report if it was written by a foreigner (especially a Yank or Aussie type foreigner..) and printed in some left-leaning commie rag  !!!

This is how old animals die in the wild. Finding one.polar bear, near death, proves nothing. I'm not saying global warming isn't occurring, but using this video as some.sort of proof makes the whole theory suspect.

It's the same thing with that idiot Al Gore. His fantasies put forth in his movie just created more skeptics.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Didge wrote:

Sorry, but how can you lay to claim, his article has been well researched?
Just because two academics also provide views on this. Does not then make the article well researched automatcially?

Do you know how easily, the Mail could have actually made the article balanced?

What matters here, is whether one or two individuals, that made unfounded claims, based on climate change. Then render all the multitude of evidence on claimte change as wrong?

They don't render the mass of evidence nulified and yet at no point. Did you pull up smelly on this detail.

So why is that?

Fred would only analyse and criticise a suspect Smelly' version of a report if it was written by a foreigner (especially a Yank or Aussie type foreigner..) and printed in some left-leaning commie rag  !!!

Except, of course, Smelly simply posted - without any comment of his own - an extract of a relevant Mail-online report, attached to which was a link to the full article.

As it happens, I had already seen the article on the Mail's website and considered it to be balanced, well-researched, well written and of interest, even if much of it was something of a mystery to my admittedly non-scientific mind.

The only thing that is "suspect" about it is that you clearly regard as unacceptable the publication of any scientific opinion on climate change that does not conform strictly to your own beliefs. I, on the other hand, prefer to see and  consider all sides of such  an argument before reaching my own conclusions...and that's the difference between an open, inquiring mind and one that is closed, self-opiniated and arrogant.

+1

Just seen an advert on TV, "Send £3 a month to save Polar Bears, Another scam?

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


Fred would only analyse and criticise a suspect Smelly' version of a report if it was written by a foreigner (especially a Yank or Aussie type foreigner..) and printed in some left-leaning commie rag  !!!

Except, of course, Smelly simply posted - without any comment of his own - an extract of a relevant Mail-online report, attached to which was a link to the full article.

As it happens, I had already seen the article on the Mail's website and considered it to be balanced, well-researched, well written and of interest, even if much of it was something of a mystery to my admittedly non-scientific mind.

The only thing that is "suspect" about it is that you clearly regard as unacceptable the publication of any scientific opinion on climate change that does not conform strictly to your own beliefs. I, on the other hand, prefer to see and  consider all sides of such  an argument before reaching my own conclusions...and that's the difference between an open, inquiring mind and one that is closed, self-opiniated and arrogant.

So you have no idea if its balanced scientifically.

So how have you consider other siders, when you have never actually offered any position on the subject?

Where again, I fail to see you are being balanced by never questioning those who do not believe in climate change.

The point still stands. This article has been posted by smelly who thinks Climate change is a myth and being invented by the vast majority of scientists and again again, you make zero comments on that. The article in no way disproves the mass evidence on climate change.

You only seem interested when wolf makes comments about smelly being in complete denial.

Do you think that is being balanced here?

Seriously?

nicko wrote:Just seen an advert on TV,     "Send £3 a month to save Polar Bears,   Another scam?

The problem with this sort of appeal, Nicko, is that such a large proportion of the monthly donation to good causes is frequently creamed off by the marketing and promotions companies that run the campaigns on behalf of bona fide charities that do not necessarily have the internal skills and resources to run their own appeals.

I subscribe to a number of charities on a regular basis, and I always try to ascertain before signing up just how much of my donation will end up doing the job that I want it to do. One of them is Macmillan Nurses/Cancer Support (who were so wonderfully supportive and helpful during my late wife's long illness) who, I understand, actually spend on supporting cancer sufferers more than 95 per cent of the donations that are made.

Hi Fred, i give to two Charities, Cats Protection, my local branch, run by 3 elderly ladies who can account for every penny spent and, like yourself, Macmillian Nurses as i might need them some time !

nicko wrote:Hi Fred,   i give to two Charities,    Cats Protection, my local branch,  run by 3 elderly ladies who can account for every penny spent and, like yourself, Macmillian Nurses as i might  need them some time !

Try looking at these sites Nicko.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/charity-commission/about

http://www.aliveandgiving.com/

I know some may have higher expenses for fund raising and administration costs but that’s to be expected when running a large organization. Besides every little bit helps.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

And...

I will repeat, yet again..

Those extreme localised extended cooling events are not genuine  mini-"ice ages".

Proving, once again, that neither Tommy nor Smelly' have the faintest clue what they are bullshitting on about  !

I wasn't talking about the recent cool period known as the 'mini ice age'...


But I don't expect an idiot like you to know anything...!

nicko wrote:Just seen an advert on TV,     "Send £3 a month to save Polar Bears,   Another scam?

its all a scam

you dont think al gore made his money by honest labour do you??

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

nicko wrote:Just seen an advert on TV,     "Send £3 a month to save Polar Bears,   Another scam?

The problem with this sort of appeal, Nicko, is that such a large proportion of the monthly donation to good causes is frequently creamed off by the marketing and promotions companies that run the campaigns on behalf of bona fide charities that do not necessarily have the internal skills and resources to run their own appeals.

I subscribe to a number of charities on a regular basis, and I always try to ascertain before signing up just how much of my donation will end up doing the job that I want it to do. One of them is Macmillan Nurses/Cancer Support (who were so wonderfully supportive and helpful during my late wife's long illness) who, I understand, actually spend on supporting cancer sufferers more than 95 per cent of the donations that are made.

i always see those ads with the starving African children and think

1- if they are being filmed by a UK charity then surely they are being paid UK wages for their days labour, if not then the UK charities are essentially engaging in chlid slave labour by not paying them yet profiting off of their suffering.

2 - if they are being paid, but not the equivalent of UK wages then UK charities are guilty of exploitation and racism.

3 - if they are being paid UK wages then why are they starving if £3 can by 10,000 pairs of nike trainers and 40 flat screen TV's, when the average wage for a low level extra is upwards of £60 quid in the london area??

4 - why is it that no CEO of any UK charity anywhere ever seems to be in need of charity??

Mure pure bullshite from SmellyNoFriends...

Now claiming that the starving African children seen on charity advertisements are actually paid actors, apparently working in Britain under British wages and conditions  !!!

How much lower can SmellyBum'  go  ???

Have a green wolfie

Your contributions are amazing

smelly-bandit wrote:
Have a green wolfie

Your contributions are amazing

I know, Smelly'...

It's a natural gift..

And a curse, sometimes.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Mure pure bullshite from SmellyNoFriends...

Now claiming that the starving African children seen on charity advertisements are actually paid actors, apparently working in Britain under British wages and conditions  !!!

How much lower can SmellyBum'  go  ???

Actually, there could be an element of truth in it. I recall reading some years ago in the trade press (PR Week? UK Press Gazette?) that a particularly harrowing TV ad run on behalf of a charity and showing malnourished "African" children was actually shot in Spain or Portugal using paid child actors from the UK...because the actors' trade union Equity insisted that they would blacklist the advertising company otherwise.

That doesn't stop me supporting such charities, however....fifty quid, at the end of last year, to a charity dedicated to saving African childrens' sight and another fifty quid to a water aid project in Africa as just a part of my usual Christmas charity donations.

How much did you donate to such good causes, as a matter of interest, Wolfie?

I donated towards the scheme in Africa to help protect childrens faces from flies...




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOpl1nptAxA

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:I think isis and the short fat man of North Korea should be wiped out - the world will be a safer place .

Until the next one comes along.

Tommy Monk wrote:

I donated towards the scheme in Africa to help protect childrens faces from flies...




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOpl1nptAxA

Nobody here got a sense of humour any more...?

No, they haven't ! [except me] .

Oh well Nicko... we thought it was funny...!

Tommy Monk wrote:
Oh well Nicko... we thought it was funny...!

I guess it takes people of small minds to find something that funny

I am all ears to see what the joke is?

Maybe Tommy thinks all child abuse is funny?

Lets see

No child abuse is funny, I have a "black" sense of humour, not against children. I have seen enough death and injury to be inured against it. like Fire men and Police etc, if you take it all in you'd go mad, So you joke about it !.

nicko wrote:No child abuse is funny,     I have a "black"  sense of humour,  not against children.   I have seen enough death and injury to be inured against it.  like Fire men and Police etc, if you take it all in you'd go mad, So you joke about it !.  

Sorry, but explain to me how its funny to hit a child in the face, based on them suffering from flies with many diseases?

I am all ears?

Do you think the child would find it funny?

So I could care less and give a shit what you have seen.

If you think slapping a child in the face is funny, then there is something wrong with you, period

Did I say it was funny? I didn't, I just agreed with tommy about posters having no sense of humour, so where you get the idea I like abusing Children i'v no idea, so if your trying to start an argument with me it wont work. An apology would be welcome .