sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
Only possible conclusion----Stirling is deliberately lying----this contradicts his earlier published research.
Either that or a reporter took the most eye-catching things he said and stuck them at the front of the paper - you know, what reporters always do. The cannibalism quotation is seperated from the "unusual" quatation, and again, his own article makes it clear that it's the seal hunting method of clawing through 16 inches of ice that's unusual.
Of course, you and Bart can imagine what he actually said in your dumb little heads and come up with whatever nonsense you like.
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Where'd you get the full article? I couldn't find the full version anywhere, but that link doesn't work.
Since it seems like you're actually interested in discussing the topic rationally, I'll say this - I'm entirely skeptical of the conclusions drawn from this regarding climate change. That is, it's not in itself proof of climate change.
On the other hand (and this is more likely), if he's using some previously established evidence of climate change to explain the behaviourial changes, his argument has some merit. From the paragraph that I had access to, it sounds like he's using what he considers evidence of climate change (ie, the record low levels of sea-ice) as an explanation of the behaviour changes. That's opposed to using the behaviour change itself as evidence of climate change, which is what most people assume he's doing. There's obviously a huge distinction.
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Honestly guys. Wait for the science to come out on this stuff. There's nothing here but pumped up, hinted, assumptions concerning a small segment of the polar bear population.
He says so himself
Stirling Stirling:
Because the underlying causes of observed changes in polar bear body condition and foraging behaviour are unknown, further study is warranted.
CKA Uber 
