Posted on 05/08/2008 12:13:02 PM PDT by decimon
Deficient forecasting methodology casts doubt on threat to polar bear population, say authors in Interfaces study
HANOVER, MD, May 8, 2008 – Research done by the U.S. Department of the Interior to determine if global warming threatens the polar bear population is so flawed that it cannot be used to justify listing the polar bear as an endangered species, according to a study being published later this year in Interfaces, a journal of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS®).
On April 30, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ordered the Interior Department to decide by May 15 whether polar bears should be listed under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Professor J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School says, “To list a species that is currently in good health as an endangered species requires valid forecasts that its population would decline to levels that threaten its viability. In fact, the polar bear populations have been increasing rapidly in recent decades due to hunting restrictions. Assuming these restrictions remain, the most appropriate forecast is to assume that the upward trend would continue for a few years, then level off.
“These studies are meant to inform the US Fish and Wildlife Service about listing the polar bear as endangered. After careful examination, my co-authors and I were unable to find any references to works providing evidence that the forecasting methods used in the reports had been previously validated. In essence, they give no scientific basis for deciding one way or the other about the polar bear.”
Prof. Armstrong and colleagues originally undertook their audit at the request of the State of Alaska. The subsequent study, “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public Policy Forecasting Audit,” is by Prof. Armstrong, Kesten G. Green of Monash University in Australia, and Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. It is scheduled to appear in the September/October issue of the INFORMS journal Interfaces.
Professor Armstrong is author of Long-Range Forecasting, the most frequently cited book on forecasting methods, and Principles of Forecasting. He is a co-founder of the Journal of Forecasting, the International Journal of Forecasting, the International Symposium on Forecasting, and forecastingprinciples.com.
The authors examined nine U.S. Geological Survey Administrative Reports. The studies include “Forecasting the Wide-Range Status of Polar Bears at Selected Times in the 21st Century” by Steven C. Amstrup et. al. and “Polar Bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea II: Demography and Population Growth in Relation to Sea Ice Conditions” by Christine M. Hunter et al.
Prof. Armstrong and his colleagues concluded that the most relevant study, Amstrup et al. properly applied only 15% of relevant forecasting principles and that the second study, Hunter et al. only 10%, while 46% were clearly contravened and 23% were apparently contravened.
Further, they write, the Geologic Survey reports do not adequately substantiate the authors’ assumptions about changes to sea ice and polar bears’ ability to adapt that are key to the recommendations.
Therefore, the authors write, a key feature of the U.S. Geological Survey reports is not scientifically supported.
The consequence, they maintain, is significant: The Interior Department cannot use the series of reports as a sound scientific basis for a decision about listing the polar bear as an endangered species.
Prof. Armstrong testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works on January 30, 2008 in a hearing, “Examining Threats and Protections for the Polar Bear.” A portion of the testimony can be viewed on a website partly supported by Prof. Armstrong and questioning climate change http://theclimatebet.com/. About INFORMS
The Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS®) is an international scientific society with 10,000 members, including Nobel Prize laureates, dedicated to applying scientific methods to help improve decision-making, management, and operations. Members of INFORMS work in business, government, and academia. They are represented in fields as diverse as airlines, health care, law enforcement, the military, financial engineering, and telecommunications. The INFORMS website is www.informs.org. More information about operations research is at www.scienceofbetter.org.
Doesn’t matter.
The polar bear is the branding, the logo of the cap and trade lobbies. It’s about the money, not the bears.
but... but.... but... they are endangered!!! This report has is clearly a BushCo and Big Oil lie!!
Don’t you just love those adds that state, without room for doubt, that polar bears are headed for extinction? No bias there, just send money and save a bear, or send an Eskimo or Canadian, they make excellent food for Polar bears.
It’s already been decided. Even though I believe that the polar bear population is at its highest point in quite a few years, wanna bet that they’ll be declared an “endangered species” so that the libs can use it to get control of CO2 emissions? Sooner or later, we’re going to have to revolt and get rid of the EPA. I mean it. They’ll never let science get in the way of their version of the truth. And, their “truth” is power.
THIS is what I do for a living.
Actually I calculated the answer by adding up the number of moonbeams in Congress and subtracting the number of non-moonbeams. When I did this I got a positive number in the low three digit range which resulted in my declaring the polar bear endangered.
If you guys had studied your math you could make calculations like this yourself. It is a particularly accurate method when used for Supreme Court decisions.
Cap and Trade are only part of the agenda here. The other is to prevent USA from drilling in Beaufort and Chuchki Seas, where there may be 20billion+ bbls of oil. The gov’t put out for bids a couple moths ago some of the sea area and the response was huge. The enviros want to use the 9th circuit court in San Fran to put these areas off limits. It will probably be up to the US Supreme Court to decide, but in the meantime, one more source of potential relief from high gas prices is locked up in court for who knows how many years.
“Prof. Armstrong and his colleagues concluded that the most relevant study, Amstrup et al. properly applied only 15% of relevant forecasting principles and that the second study, Hunter et al. only 10%, while 46% were clearly contravened and 23% were apparently contravened.”
I hope this is taken seriously, as it was years until the hoax of the Spotted Owl controversy was exposed. There too relevant principles were contravened by Environmentalist exuberance. Interim, and still those fabrications by the Environmentalists negatively effected the lives of many.
It’s not about polar bears. Good luck following the money.
Polar bears need protection.
We need to develop an adopt a bear program to allow ecosensitive Democrats to adopt endangered polar bears in their own homes.
Count polar bears?
Well, yes, actually.
I counted the ones in front of me, and the one ones following me, and I ran sideways so fast you couldn’t see me.
Of course, that was back in the day, in Artic school...
So they’re not actually counting the polar bears now — they’re “forecasting.” Hmmmmmmmmm...
I like the idea. As of today, I “forecast” that the Republicans will take over Congress.
There. No need for counting ballots now. It’s over.
Nothing? Post short comments? Do you get paid?
Military operations research - I get paid for short comments.
"Look to the bear on your left. Now look to the bear on your right. By the end of this class, one of you won't be here."
LOLOLOL - jump school, eh?
I see.
Do you?
For enough money, you will.
Call me.
No. ;-)
ok
Prepare for the Large, Warm, Fuzzy Mammal Act. It will be similar to the Marine Mammal Protection Act in that it will protect a large number of cute animals in no danger of extinction.
Not to be confused with the “Birds of Prey” act, where non-endangered animals are protected because they are ‘noble’.
Polar bears are just white Kodiak brown bears, white so they can hide from seals, with bigger paws so they can walk on the ice and swim faster and farther. The species is just 200,000 years old or so, the DNA says they are descendants of the Kodiak Brown Bear, or maybe other Brown Bears if you look hard enough. The subspecies evolved from their southern Brown Bear ancestor as they moved north to be meat eaters, primarily seals, Eskimos and tourists.
So if we need more Polar Bears, we can probably engineer some new ones ... They mate with regular Brown Bears in zoos, so the bears know who is their daddy even if we pretend to not know.
A couple of points ...
During the last interglacial period, the Boreal Forests grew right to the Arctic Oceans edge in many places.
In Russia the Boreal Forest tree line was 400-1,000 km further north.
How do they know, the tree carcasses are buried in the now barren tundra.
The last interglacial was much warmer than today, yet the Polar Bears somehow survived. Easy living and good times if you ask me, who wants to freeze all the time, even if you are a bear.
Anyone know how the polar bears made it through the last ice age where the ice was over 1000 meters thick in the north, and the water level was down by about 400 feet. Got to dig a pretty deep hole to get to that seal. Yet the polar bears are still with us.
Glaciers never go away, they just go back to get more rocks.
Global warming is a religious cult and no scientific proof is needed or wanted if it disproves their dogma as preached by St. Algore. The polar bears are all drowning just like the animated cartoon in Gore’s movie and the ice caps are melting just like those styrofoam replicas in Gore’s “documentary”.
Al Gore and some of his supporters should go camping on the Arctic shores in tents. If all survive a month without at least one being eaten then we may be short on white bears. Can you imagine a more perfect end than Al Gore becoming part of the food chain? It could be his way of supporting the polar bear species!
I just found out today that a friend’s recently deceased father had a hawk get into the chicken coop and kill them all.
He killed it with a shotgun then threw it on the burn pile.
http://www,ncpa.org/pub/st/st308
“The authors of this study used these forecasting principles to audit the IPCC report. They found that:
Out of the 140 forecasting principles, 127 principles are relevant to the procedures used to arrive at the climate projections in the IPCC report.
Of these 127, the methods described in the report violated 60 principles.
An additional 12 forecasting principles appear to be violated, and there is insufficient information in the report to assess the use of 38.
As a result of these violations of forecasting principles, the forecasts in the IPCC report are invalid.”
Now this.....
“Prof. Armstrong and his colleagues concluded that the most relevant study, Amstrup et al. properly applied only 15% of relevant forecasting principles and that the second study, Hunter et al. only 10%, while 46% were clearly contravened and 23% were apparently contravened.”
No wonder that the scientist at the EPA are treading on thin Ice.
WELL POLITICIANS, DO YOU WANT TO KEEP YOUR JOB
NO CAP AND TRADE OR EMMISSION REGULATION ON CO2
A friend of mine was recently riding his motorcycle on a country road. While approaching some road kill being dined on by two turkey buzzards, one of the birds took wing and flew right into his face at about 50mph.
It nearly killed him. The bird did not survive. My friend was bleeding from his eyes, nose, skin and he had a massive whiplash.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
