In a rare case of balance, Wednesday’s CBS "Early Show" highlighted both sides in the debate over declaring the polar bear an endangered species due to global warming as correspondent Daniel Sieberg declared: "They're at the top of the food chain at the top of the world, but their future is at the center of a political tug-of-war over drilling for oil versus protecting their habitat."
Sieberg began his report with a dire prediction: "There are an estimated 20,000 - 25,000 polar bears in the Arctic region, but environmentalists warn that rising temperatures and disappearing sea ice will cause a 30 percent decline in their population over the next 50 years." He also played clips of liberal California Senator Barbara Boxer and John Kostyack from the National Wildlife Federation.
However, Sieberg also provided perspective from the Heritage Foundation:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓SIEBERG: But the research and educational institute, The Heritage Foundation, argues that listing the polar bear on the endangered species list might do more harm than good.
BEN LIEBERMAN: There's a real question whether the polar bear is threatened in the first place, and the Endangered Species Act, the way it would work, would actually do quite a bit of economic damage, and may or may not actually impact the bears.
Surprisingly, Sieberg did not provide the usual "conservative" label to Heritage in his "Early Show" report, but the story posted on the CBS News website did refer to it as a "conservative think tank."
Sieberg went on to further highlight the concerns of opponents to listing the polar bear as endangered: "The polar bear would be the first animal to be listed endangered or threatened as a result of global warming -- which could mean two things. One -- some northern exploration for oil could be stalled, possibly leading to even higher energy prices at home. And two -- environmental groups could be empowered to sue any company or governmental agency contributing to the increase of greenhouse gases."
When co-host Maggie Rodriguez asked Sieberg at the end of the report: "The opponents feel strongly that this is not about the bear, that this is about limiting oil and gas production in the arctic. Are there more opponents or supporters?," Sieberg replied:
You know, it really is split. I mean, the polar bear is such an iconic symbol of the Arctic. And so, in some ways, critics are saying, it's just being used to try to limit greenhouse gases. But environmentalists are very outspoken. They say it is absolutely essential to look at this issue and to try to do something about their habitat, which is the disappearing ice.
Here is the full transcript of the segment:
7:11AM TEASER
JULIE CHEN: Coming up, polar bears caught in the battle over global warming.
7:14AM SEGMENT:
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: The heated debate over global warming has snared an animal that can survive in the world's harshest conditions -- the polar bear. CBS News Science and Technology correspondent Daniel Sieberg is here with more. Good morning.
DANIEL SIEBERG: Yeah, good morning Maggie. The Department of the Interior has until Thursday to rule on whether or not the polar bear should be listed on the Endangered Species List. It's a debate more complicated than you might expect. They're at the top of the food chain at the top of the world, but their future is at the center of a political tug-of-war over drilling for oil versus protecting their habitat.
BARBARA BOXER: The Bush administration has its legal obligation to finalize its decision on the polar bear and we all have a moral obligation to see that they do it.
SIEBERG: There are an estimated 20,000 - 25,000 polar bears in the Arctic region, but environmentalists warn that rising temperatures and disappearing sea ice will cause a 30 percent decline in their population over the next 50 years.
JOHN KOSTYACK: We are now beginning to see declines in a number of populations of polar bears, and that's because of global warming. Effectively, the polar bears are starving.
SIEBERG: But the research and educational institute, The Heritage Foundation, argues that listing the polar bear on the endangered species list might do more harm than good.
BEN LIEBERMAN: There's a real question whether the polar bear is threatened in the first place, and the Endangered Species Act, the way it would work, would actually do quite a bit of economic damage, and may or may not actually impact the bears.
SIEBERG: The polar bear would be the first animal to be listed endangered or threatened as a result of global warming -- which could mean two things. One -- some northern exploration for oil could be stalled, possibly leading to even higher energy prices at home. And two -- environmental groups could be empowered to sue any company or governmental agency contributing to the increase of greenhouse gases. But the National Wildlife Federation disputes this theory.
KOSTYACK: What we're expecting the Endangered Species Act to be used for is something that's much more direct, which is these immediate threats to the polar bear in their habitat from oil and gas development.
SIEBERG: So at least for now the fate of the polar bear is up in the air. A decision is expected tomorrow from the Department of the Interior. But anything could happen, it could be listed or not, or it could just be thrown back for more research.
RODRIGUEZ: The opponents feel strongly that this is not about the bear, that this is about limiting oil and gas production in the arctic. Are there more opponents or supporters?
SIEBERG: You know, it really is split. I mean, the polar bear is such an iconic symbol of the Arctic. And so, in some ways, critics are saying, it's just being used to try to limit greenhouse gases. But environmentalists are very outspoken. They say it is absolutely essential to look at this issue and to try to do something about their habitat, which is the disappearing ice.
RODRIGUEZ: And we'll know tomorrow? Maybe?
SIEBERG: We should know something tomorrow, possibly. It's been delayed for a long time.
RODRIGUEZ: Alright, Daniel Sieberg, thank you very much.
SIEBERG: You bet.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Our country has lost it's
May 14, 2008 - 14:35 ET by Gary P JacksonOur country has lost it's collective mind!
We are so lacking in real leadership. Why can't just ONE prominent Republican stand up and call bull$hit?
Instead, we get the ex-Speaker of The House playing footsie with the current one over this insanity.
It's time we DEMAND term limits, and time we clean house, and start over!
ex-Speaker of The House playing footsie
May 14, 2008 - 15:27 ET by mattm...and the current GOP prez candidate. Maybe that's why CBS is willing to show a little balance - this must be confusing to them.
Seriously though, I think it shows that they people are politicians first, businesspeople second, and statesmen last.
I agree we need leaders ... not politico's!
May 14, 2008 - 18:02 ET by BodiniGary, I agree with your assessment, but term limits are not the solution. The issue is power, which is constitutionally derived by allowing our legislators to make their own rules on conducting our business. A simple change in the rules would restore power to the electorate. Current rules allow the controlling party to stack the deck in legislative committees. Commitees control what goe to the floor for a vote. If it can't get out of committee, it is impossible for it to become legislation.
If you want to be on a committee, you must suck-up to the party leaders (mostly a bunch of power-hungry $hitheads) who derive their power through "seniority." Committees and committee chairpersons are the special interest targets so it pays really well to be on certain committees that control mega taxpayer dollars. Now the solution!
All committee make-up, including chairmanship, will be based on random number generators for each congressional session. Freshmen politicians will then have power that is equal to "senior members" of Congress. The parties will have no control and by rule, politico's are not allowed to serve on the same committee for more than one successive term. This debases the party and seniority derived power and effectively puts all of the polico's on equal footing every congressional session. There may be imbalance for one session, but the law of averages eventually balances things out. It then is simple to vote in a new politico during each election cycle without fear of losing clout (pork) because seniority has no clout. Special interests would in effect have to buy all of congress each year which might become cost prohibitive. Fear of easy removal from office might cause the politico's to work for the people instead of special interests who pony up the money to help their bagmen get re-elected. The Dems should love this since the libs are all about "fairness!"
Kick in the Fair Tax, Torte reform, a Balanced Budget Ammendment, and an end to financial support of unconstitutional federal agencies like Energy, Environment, Education, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, etc. and we're on our way to a great restoration of power to the people!
Where's the libs concept of
May 14, 2008 - 14:35 ET by taterWhere's the libs concept of Darwinism and survival of the fittest. If the polar bears are dying because of not enough ice...just evolve into a bear that can live without it.
Eh doesn't matter the sea ice is making a comeback anyway...polar bears will be just fine.
"They need to have a course in college called common sense and everyone should take it. Problem is there isn't too many people that could pass or teach it." -my grandfather
Polar Bears have survived for over 100,000 years
May 14, 2008 - 18:42 ET by PopularTechThe fact is that the Polar Bears have survived for over 100,000 years and should have no problem adapting to any future changing climate like they have in the past.
Ancient 110,000-130,000 Year Old Polar Bear Jawbone Found (BBC)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Population going up?
May 14, 2008 - 18:46 ET by VT Con ManAren't there more polar bears now than there were 30-40 years ago?
Consideably more if memory serves...
Yes - Polar Bear Populations have been going up.
May 14, 2008 - 18:56 ET by PopularTechYes they have been going up - the fact that the public does not know this is beyond maddening!
ESA Listing Not Needed for Polar Bears (The Heartland Institute)
"Since the 1970s, while much of the world was warming, polar bear numbers increased dramatically, from roughly 5,000 to 25,000 bears, a higher polar bear population than has existed at any time in the twentieth century."
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PT... Serious
May 14, 2008 - 19:03 ET by Clear thinkerPT...
Serious question... You may or may not know the answer to this but I thought I would try. Now that Polar Bears are going to be on the endangered list, will the bears be tagged for tracking purposes?
"Abstain from McCain"
That I haven't heard
May 14, 2008 - 19:09 ET by PopularTechThough I doubt it as environmental groups would probably consider that "harmful".
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Pop Tech... I may have
May 14, 2008 - 19:13 ET by Clear thinkerPop Tech...
I may have messed up by using the word 'tagged'. I meant to ask if they would be fitted with something like a radio collar so they could be tracked.
"Abstain from McCain"
No I understood
May 14, 2008 - 19:22 ET by PopularTechWhich is why I said environmental groups and not polar bear biologists or other wildlife officials. Regardless I have not heard anything about them being tagged with radio collars.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
They are already being
May 14, 2008 - 22:06 ET by cleverpigThey are already being tracked with radio collars.
Not what he meant
May 17, 2008 - 07:48 ET by PopularTechI believe he wanted to know if more would be do to this legislation.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
You can track currently tagged Polar Bears online
May 17, 2008 - 07:50 ET by PopularTechYou can track some of the currently tagged polar bears online. - Very exciting stuff.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
You skimmed one of my more
May 14, 2008 - 19:00 ET by CortillaenYou skimmed one of my more amused arguments against atheistic neo-Darwinists who still try to preach environmentalism. If humans are simply products of nature, everything we do is inherently "natural". Thus, all effects of our actions are part of natural selection, and the typical econut basis for railing against them disappears. In short, atheism and fanatical environmentalism are conflicting ideals.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
The field data say the Polar
May 14, 2008 - 23:39 ET by NL207The field data say the Polar bear is thriving, not diminishing! What is this 'dying' crap?
Silver Lining?
May 14, 2008 - 14:38 ET by ChasvsJust maybe the silver lining in all this is that finally there would be a path to Federal Lawsuits on the "Supposed Global Warming".
Environmentalists will have to "Prove" in Court that there is such a thing as Manmade global warming before they could get judgement to stall exploration.
While they may have gotten away with this scam, the commercial entities that will have to fight this will have the resources to birng this to court and make these wacko's put up or shut up once and for all!
Well the decision has been
May 14, 2008 - 14:41 ET by bigtimerWell the decision has been made...hope all enviro's are happy, including McCain...there goes drilling in Ak. thank another repub for this to-boot.
I wished Inhofe was younger and could of run for President.
I have had it with the repub. party.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
This may be worse than the
May 14, 2008 - 14:53 ET by scamoramaThis may be worse than the 1970 Ruckelshaus decision to ban DDT use in the US. Both are political - not scientific - decisions.
And that was during another Republican administration!
So does this mean we won't
May 14, 2008 - 15:00 ET by mjgSo does this mean we won't be able to make ourselves more energy independent? Thanks a lot congress.
mjg... Besides the
May 14, 2008 - 15:38 ET by bigtimermjg...
Besides the link I posted above about the disgusting decision here today... here are one or two more...I was shocked that Kempthorne did this, being from my husbands home state of Id. a state I lived in a lot of years and still do business with, my next door neighbor yet as I live right on the Id. Mt. state lines, I suppose anything under pressure for can happen, I just have had it myself... the link about the Bush administration plus now this must make McCain grin from ear to ear since he has worked hard against drilling in Ak over the years....it all makes me sick to my stomach...it is nothing but one big farce...at our expense here in the US.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Well now we'll really be
May 14, 2008 - 17:51 ET by mjgWell now we'll really be dependent on the very people who hate us and want to do everything in their power to destroy us and make us very dependent on their whims. Again, I say thanks a lot Congress, I'll remember what you did come november.
What
May 14, 2008 - 16:33 ET by SchnikeysWhat as$hats!
I dream of a day where Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin, Duncan Hunter or some other reincarnated Reagan (or Buckley) will ride on an iron horse into the White House with a conservative-controlled congress (3/4 of each house consisting of conservatives) and reverse the impending mess that has already started to become reality.
------------------------------------------------------------
Grizzly Bear '08
Polar Bear insanity - This is Madness!
May 14, 2008 - 18:55 ET by PopularTechI've never seen anything like this before in my life, they are listing something as endangered who's population has been increasing!
ESA Listing Not Needed for Polar Bears (The Heartland Institute)
"Since the 1970s, while much of the world was warming, polar bear numbers increased dramatically, from roughly 5,000 to 25,000 bears, a higher polar bear population than has existed at any time in the twentieth century."
If we are not making decisions anymore based on logic and reason then there is no hope left. The damn "study" they cite is using a freakin computer model that simulates less ice = less polar bears! There is no empirical evidence!!! This is madness!
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Bear Rugs?
May 14, 2008 - 18:57 ET by Clear thinkerIt may be time to start a Polar Bear Rug business.
"Abstain from McCain"
What, you expected leftists
May 14, 2008 - 19:02 ET by CortillaenWhat, you expected leftists to judge causes based on facts and merit? Silly PopTech. Don't worry, it's only going to get worse in the next 4 years no matter who wins...
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
PT... They, meaning the
May 14, 2008 - 19:14 ET by bigtimerPT...
They, meaning the Bush administration and Kempthorne fish and game ect listed it as threatened...not endangered...I don't know if read my links above.
No big difference though for the greenies or algore/McCain and all their ilk...they have to be happy about this...this will shut down any chance of drilling there for years with law-suits if even tried now.
I am past furious.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
bt... I concur. Do you
May 14, 2008 - 19:18 ET by Clear thinkerbt...
I concur.
Do you think we will ever have a leader with the guts to do the right thing and tell the enviros to go pound salt?
"Abstain from McCain"
Ct...I'd like to say
May 14, 2008 - 19:26 ET by bigtimerCt...
I'd like to say hope springs eternal here...but even that in the mood I'm in it doesn't seem plausible at the moment.
I am so frustrated and mad.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
I hear ya friend! I
May 14, 2008 - 19:33 ET by Clear thinkerI hear ya friend!
I wonder if the president has the power to sign an executive order banning enviro groups from tying us up in the courts.
WE NEED A LEADER!
"Abstain from McCain"
Ct...he will not do
May 14, 2008 - 19:39 ET by bigtimerCt...he will not do that...I put a link in up above, I think it was this thread...the President agrees with this...here it is again..by the way even if he did the next Pres. would undo it with the three lovely leftist choices we have.
I do not think people realize the importance of this decision at times.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
bt... Like I said.... WE
May 14, 2008 - 19:41 ET by Clear thinkerbt...
Like I said.... WE NEED A LEADER!
"Abstain from McCain"
CT - too many people will
May 14, 2008 - 19:43 ET by Free StinkerCT - too many people will vote for McCain, so we can't force the issue.
McCain is just an older male version of Hillary but without the drug -using, adultering spouse.
Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!
Free... I absolutely
May 14, 2008 - 19:49 ET by Clear thinkerFree...
I absolutely agree. That's why I'm screaming.... WE NEED A LEADER!
"Abstain from McCain"
I'm ready to start discussing who we can elect in 2012
May 14, 2008 - 21:09 ET by Free StinkerI'm ready to start discussing who we can elect in 2012
"Don't forget to vote this fall. Not for McCain, not ever, but there might be a Conservative Rep or Senator that Needs Your Vote" --Free Stinker
The Polar Bear Propaganda has begun...
May 14, 2008 - 19:27 ET by PopularTechThey are already declaring that we listed them as endangered
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PT...I see what you are
May 14, 2008 - 19:35 ET by bigtimerPT...I see what you are saying...believe me it wasn't like that about three or four hours ago...no difference whatsoever anyway for the outcome of drilling now.
ABSOLUTE MADNESS by the republican party...I HAVE HAD IT!
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
It's all emotional propaganda now the Polar Bears must be dying!
May 14, 2008 - 20:44 ET by PopularTechArguing with these idiots about their emotional position is futile. Not one of these idiots would bother to look at the actual facts - they just believe the bears are dying because they have seen Gore's movie or hear it repeated on the news. You could get these idiots to believe anything at this point.
Drilling in Alaska is another emotional position, the oil companies have long ago been labeled evil. That propaganda has worked all too well. So many people are literally brainwashed that they think drilling in Alaska will turn it into a toxic wasteland. Fighting emotional positions is literally futile, people are just dumb.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PT... Thank
May 14, 2008 - 21:00 ET by bigtimerPT...
Thank you.
Sometimes I just lose control...people really need to wake up...I give up.
My husband worked at Prudoe Bay before road and pipeline was built, he helped open it...along with other friends and relatives still there too...we lived in Ak. for nine years later on...I am just beyond mad...this is pure madness what we are doing here...unless you go to Ak. and see for yourself and live it...you do not know what you are talking about..I am only talking about the global warming nutcases...especially the likes of McCain...who I despise.
If I was younger I would move back there in a minute flat at times...I know a lot of people there that are mad they became a state instead of remaining a territory...can you imagine the oil that would of already been coming down here and to other places if they had...and they have discovered plenty of other places that hold tomns of oil there since then.
Unbelieavable...all of this.
I do not want to hear another person bitch about the cost of gasoline....contact your congress critter.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
The reason they increased
May 14, 2008 - 22:21 ET by cleverpigThe reason they increased starting in the 70's is because they were horribly over hunted for the first half of the 20th century. 5,000 is a drastically low population. In 1965 the first international accord was signed banning unauthorized hunting. Since then the polar bear population rebounded, peaking in 1998 according to estimates.
The increase is not an indication that bears are doing great in warmer climates, just that we've stopped killing all of them!
well except for the
May 14, 2008 - 22:25 ET bywell except for the Inuit
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
botg... Shhh....you don't
May 14, 2008 - 22:55 ET by bigtimerbotg...
Shhh....you don't want to metion the natives there...not fair...doesn't count.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Right. As I said, they
May 14, 2008 - 23:28 ET by cleverpigRight. As I said, they banned unauthorized hunting. There is still a yearly harvest.
The reason you don't make any sense
May 14, 2008 - 23:43 ET by PopularTechIf banning hunting has proven effective in increasing their population numbers despite "climate change" then it is clear hunting is the polar bears greatest threat not "global warming". The fact that their numbers keep INCREASING sure as hell means they are doing great in a "warmer" climate!
Bjorn Lomborg: Save polar bears by not shooting them (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Hunting is definitely the
May 14, 2008 - 23:46 ET by cleverpigHunting is definitely the greatest threat. I mean, if you take any species that is involved in environmental issues, going out and shooting large numbers of them is always going to be the fastest way to kill them off! It does not logically follow, however, that because direct execution has the greatest effect then the indirect effects must be unimportant.
The global population is not currently increasing, not according to the IUCN which coordinates the international polar bear regulations. It is stable. What is tough about polar bears is that different populations have very different lifestyles, some are increasing and some are decreasing. The worry is that all of those populations are reliant on sea ice, and that the ones that are decreasing are the southernmost populations that are feeling climate change effects sooner.
Bears may be able to adjust, but try asking someone in Churchill, Canada how they feel about having more hungry bears wandering around looking for new sources of food to exploit. Polar bears are the largest land mammal on earth, and they actively hunt everything in their environment. In at least some areas polar bears are surprisingly resistant to human encroachment. Humans, on the other hand, turn out to be not so resistant to polar bear encroachment :)
There are a lot more issues at work here than just global warming, and there are a lot of things that have changed since the last time polar bears survived a warmer climate. They also haven't been around that long, evolutionarily speaking. About 200,000 years.
"Hunting is definitely the
May 15, 2008 - 00:27 ET by NL207"Hunting is definitely the greatest threat."
An unsubstantiated conclusion. The rest of your statement is speculative bulls**t.
"The global population is not currently increasing...It is stable"
Precisely why no protection is required.
"The worry is ... "
The worry is based entirely on a prediction of future weather conditions that is highly suspect. Intelligent people call this a scare campaign. You appear to call such baseless speculation fact.
"Humans, on the other hand, turn out to be not so resistant to polar bear encroachment "
Correction: Humans forbidden by government morons from shooting dangerous bears.
"there are a lot of things that have changed since the last time polar bears survived a warmer climate."
Like what? The last interglacial warm period was much warmer than the present. How can warmer climate be the threat you claim it is if the bears survived?
My whole point is that
May 15, 2008 - 00:40 ET by cleverpigMy whole point is that humans are now here and we won't allow the bears to move into areas we occupy in order to adjust to any changes they have to face.
The idea that species survived something before so they must be able to survive it again is only true if other conditions are also the same. Which they are not. Most large land predators are confined to small islands of habitat surrounded by human development. They are no longer able to move to adjust to changes in their environment.
As for whether hunting is a threat, that's a pretty easy one to prove. Fewer gunshot wounds equals more bears. Unless the population gets above its carrying capacity, less killing of animals is almost always going to result in more animals. Is your suggestion that instead they have increased their population size by five times because warm temperatures are better for them? What evidence do you have for that?
Polar Bears have plenty of space
May 15, 2008 - 19:17 ET by PopularTechPolar Bears have more land area unoccupied by humans then any other animal outside of penguins. The reason they are coming into areas with human settlements is because of the easy food sources such as garbage dumps.
We have no idea what the Arctic conditions have been over the last 100,000 years so you cannot make a statement that the current conditions are abnormal. We barely know what they have been like since 1970.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
You have a point? Not
May 16, 2008 - 16:24 ET by NL207You have a point? Not hardly.
I'll agree you have a misinformed opinion!
Let's talk about Polar Bear mortality. At present, the aggregate Polar Bear population is thought to be static at approximately 25,000 individuals, depending on who is doing the counting. How these experts know this, I cannot fathom, since no one of them covers all the known ranges and at least one of the known ranges, that in Northern Siberia, has no accurate census taken at all.
The average life expectency of a Polar Bear in the wild is thought to be about 20 years.
The annual mortality due to human harvesting is about 500-700 individuals. Mosty of these, around 400, are carried out by the Inuit.
The total annual mortality of of adult bears has to be around 1250, otherwise the population would be growing. If the average annual human harvest is 600, the natural mortality of adult bears has to be about 650. This ignores infant mortality, which is known to be considerable in this species. It is easy to see that Human hunting at the present levels is not dominating natural mortality in just the adult population and is nowhere near dominant when infant mortality is considered.
Remove Inuit hunting of Polar Bears altogether and the population will increase until food supplies are exhausted and the population collapses. This is a well known fact and has been PAINFULLY demonstrated by past well-intentioned government meddling.
"The policy of destroying predators on sight continued until 1931 (Wallace 1972, 56). As a result, mountain lions and bobcats were greatly reduced in number, wolves were extirpated, but coyotes continued to flourish. The Kaibab herd of mule deer, spared from most predation, increased from 4,000 in 1906 to an extreme estimate of 100,000 in 1924. They ate every green thing they could reach, and the forest took on the appearance of a clipped city park. The forest service inaugurated limited hunting, fawns were captured and transplanted, and there was a bumbling attempt to drive deer across the canyon by trail to the South Rim, all to little avail (Hughes 1978, 90). During the severe winter of 1924–25, tens of thousands of deer died of starvation"
That was a very well
May 16, 2008 - 18:48 ET by cleverpigThat was a very well thought out post in response to a point that I wasn't making at all! Now I feel bad :) I wasn't saying that current hunting levels are a threat. Someone else stated that hunting was the biggest threat and we had curtailed it. I stated that I agreed, hunting had been the biggest threat but that that didn't mean indirect mortality was unimportant. Someone else started to argue with me about whether or not hunting was a threat at all. Which I thought was silly, and which was why I stated that killing animals with guns is a pretty clear source of mortality.
I wasn't, however, arguing that the current harvest was too high. The stable population is a clear sign that the harvest is appropriate. I don't have a problem with the number of polar bears being killed by native groups.
Nice post though :P
I'm curious where your number for annual mortality comes from?
Cleverpig you have long stopped making sense
May 16, 2008 - 19:31 ET by PopularTechThe empirical evidence shows that Polar Bears have increased from 5,000 to 25,000 since the 1970s - you started crying that this was due to hunting restrictions yet you ignored the reality that their numbers have increased as the climate "warmed". So clearly a "warmer" climate is NOT a "threat" to them. CAN YOU COMPREHEND THIS?
You admit that hunting is their biggest threat but they are currently stable and the current harvest is ok. Yet you want them on the endangered species list? Why? So you "feel" better? What will listing a thriving/stable Polar Bear population accomplish?
Please start making sense.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Using all caps is not going
May 17, 2008 - 02:07 ET by cleverpigUsing all caps is not going to give me any special revelations that I wouldn't already get just by reading the words you are typing.
As I think I stated pretty darn clearly, the fact that there are much more terrible things you could do to polar bears than melt their ice does not change the fact that melting their ice will be bad. We don't only list species who are suffering every possible indignation they can at our hands, we list species that we think are in trouble.
We also, if anything useful is to come of this at all, ought to list them before their fate is sealed, when possible damage can be prevented, rather than just made up for afterwards.
Scientists have made predictions about what they think is going to happen to the polar bear in the future. Not what is happening now, what is going to happen. We see signs and precursors now, but the real concern is the future. Using the resources available to species on the ESL they can now go to work trying to prevent that damage from occuring.
Anyway, you all should stop freaking out-- given the stipulations put on the ruling it currently can't be used to regulate any of the industries you are worried about.
So quit crying already!
Getting through to people with emotional delusions
May 17, 2008 - 08:05 ET by PopularTech1. What evidence do you have that Polar Bears cannot adapt to a reduced SUMMER ice minimum? Acting like the ice is gone forever is a lie. What you stated is NOT a fact but propaganda:
Arctic Winter Ice 1979-2006 (Animation) (NASA)
2. How will listing them as "endagered" stop them from going extinct?
3. How will this imagined "damage" be prevented?
4. Are these predictions using computer models?
5. Should other thriving or stable species be listed as "endangered" so you can "feel" better?
You cannot back any of your emotional propaganda up with ANY empirical evidence! You ignore reality and have gone mad. I don't care what you "think" or "feel" or ANYTHING about your worthless emotions on a scientific matter. You have not been able to make a scientific case for your delusions.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Honestly, I don't think
May 17, 2008 - 11:09 ET by cleverpigHonestly, I don't think anything I could post at this point would convince you to stop yelling that I'm insane and my feelings are worthless.
To recap, here is the point I'm trying to make:
We don't know polar bears are in trouble. We think they are in trouble. This is based on predictions about how the arctic is changing. It is not just about feeling that polar bears are in trouble!
The changes we see are more than just polar bears drowning. It is about a change in their energetic economy-- swimming after seals instead of ambushing them, swimming to get places instead of walking, foraging for small units of food in a very sparse enviornment. All this has to do is decrease the reproductive success of the bears in order to have a negative impact on their population.
Thus they were listed as threatened. Not endangered, threatened. It means we will continue monitoring them and trying to figure out how we can prevent declines if they start to happen.
It's getting a little tiresome to continue trying to make these points while being told that I'm a mentally deficient crazy person whose feelings you don't care about (and yet continue to rail against with great gusto). So... thanks for the talk :)
»→ Get serious Cleverpig
May 17, 2008 - 11:19 ET by Cool ArrowAre their numbers growing or shrinking?
Don't hide behind "We think they are in trouble" when the copulation population says otherwise3.
Well, at least you aren't able top hide your true intent in this Polar Bear boondoggle.
You want to hermetically seal the arctic, and the polar bear is a means to that end.
♣ a seal - starve a Polar Bear
No one cares what you "think"!!!
May 17, 2008 - 19:01 ET by PopularTechYour "feelings" are utterly worthless to the science of Polar Bears. I only care about empirical evidence. Is that clear?
Your "thoughts" are IRRELEVANT!!! NO one cares what you "think"! Are the damn bears dying? If they are prove it! You CANNOT PROVE ANYTHING! Yet you keep making your irrelevant "points".
Yes, yes the maritime bear swims which is what they do! If their reproductive success is decreasing then PROVE IT ALREADY! Stop talking out your ass.
You just ignored and refused to answer these questions:
1. What evidence do you have that Polar Bears cannot adapt to a reduced SUMMER ice minimum? Acting like the ice is gone forever is a lie. What you stated is NOT a fact but propaganda:
Arctic Winter Ice 1979-2006 (Animation) (NASA)
2. How will listing them as "endagered" stop them from going extinct?
3. How will this imagined "damage" be prevented?
4. Are these predictions using computer models?
5. Should other thriving or stable species be listed as "endangered" so you can "feel" better?
You cannot back any of your emotional propaganda up with ANY empirical evidence!
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Found it!
May 17, 2008 - 19:26 ET by cleverpigUSGS report
Here are your numbers. This is specifically for the region that involves alaska, for obvious reasons. The report finds decreased cub survival and smaller juveniles. These are exactly the changes that were seen in the populations that have declined, and they showed up before the decline happened. Therefore the scientists think (not I think, I get by now that you don't care what I think. The USGS thinks) that these findings will be followed by a drop in the number of bears, which is why they recommend "conservative management of the population". This is not the only paper out there, I'm sure, but it's the one I could find.
Your questions:
1) Reduced summer ice means longer spent on land during the summer fasting. Make sense? Therefore they will have fewer reserves for breeding or surviving harsh conditions. There are some populations that historically stay on the ice year round. I have no idea what they are supposed to do when the ice retreats farther and the distance between safe ice flows increases more than usual.
2) They haven't been listed as endangered. ;)
3) I don't know how the damage will be prevented. A listing on the ESL doesn't come with a grocery list of things to try. We'll have more money to study the problem and more legal power to do something if we can find something useful to do. If we can't find something useful to do, then you're out a few million for polar bear research and it won't really affect much else.
4) Predictions of sea ice decline are based on computer models, as well as data from years past. Predictions of survival are based on a previously seen association. So yeah, real data.
5) This has nothing to do with how I feel.
Empirical evidence provided, though I'm sure it's just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. Please take back all spurious accustions of insanity!
The USGS report is based on MODELS - Not empirical evidence!
May 17, 2008 - 22:01 ET by PopularTechI already know about the USGS report!
"the best fitting capture-recapture model provided estimates of total apparent survival"
Again meaningless numbers. If there are all these other reports out there why can you not provide them?
1. A reduced summer sea-ice minimum means that there is less ice for a set amount of time in the summer, nothing else. It does not mean that Polar Bears will be unable to adapt to this. These bears live in one of the most un-hospitable locations on the planet and have for over 100,000 years. Thinking they cannot adapt to a changing climate that has always been is naive. You talk about Polar Bears as if they are locked into a certain behavior and cannot adapt or change, by that logic they would have died out along time ago - which is nonsense.
2. How will listing them as "threatened" prevent them from going extinct?
3. So the listing is effectively meaningless and a waste of money but we should just accept it because it is only a few million dollars of tax payer money, no big deal. Unbelievable!
4. The "predictions" are modeled! All of them. Computer modeled results are meaningless to empirical evidence.
You did not provide empirical evidence. The report clearly states:
"Because precision of earlier estimates was low, our current estimate of population size and the earlier ones cannot be statistically differentiated."
Then concludes:
"our best estimate of the current size of the population does not show a statistically significant decline"
This is called MADNESS!!!
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
They are ecological
May 17, 2008 - 22:20 ET by cleverpigThey are ecological models.
Do you know how recapture models work? The premise is that you cannot count every single bear because they won't line up for you to do so. Therefore, you capture them, mark them, then recapture and look at how many are marked. Based on that there is a calculation that allows you to figure out how many bears of your original capture survived.
These guys are obviously using calculations more complicated than the ones I understand, but this is how ecology works! All of ecology! You can't ever actually know the total population size of anything. Even our estimates of human population size are based on models. There is nothing dodgy or unusual or suspect about using models to try and figure out how many polar bears there are and how many are surviving.
There is no other way to do it.
If you are proven right, and polar bear numbers increase or stay stable, you will be proven right by the exact same models because an actual total count is impossible.
I have no idea what you could possibly want for empirical evidence if basic ecological methodology won't suffice. And I never claimed that this was evidence of a decline in population. I have never, once, in all this interminable argument, stated that I think polar bears have declined. I said it was evidence of demographic changes that precede decline, exactly as the paper said.
It's a nice debate tactic, to keep railing against a point I never made because you know you can win, but it is underhanded and extremely annoying to keep correcting. So stop.
So explain, genius. How would you count the polar bears?
"How would you count the polar bears? "
May 17, 2008 - 22:35 ET by harry flashmanIncredible!
I wouldn't count the freakin' P-bears for some BS feel-good liberal non issue.
Here's the skinny - the P-bears are just the same as humans and have no choice but to conform with the Darwinian absolute -
ADAPT OR DIE!
Unless, of course, you can count on Big Gove, The Goracle, The Sierra Club and Greenfleece.
Poll the bears, silly
May 17, 2008 - 22:40 ET by Cool ArrowJust send out a bunch of Bear Pollers.
Ask 'em if they're Arctic citizens.
How many live on the same floe
How often do they eat pig (clever or not)
Da Bears
May 17, 2008 - 22:43 ET by harry flashmanAnd, how do they vote?
Better, to which Party do they contribute?
Polar Bears
May 17, 2008 - 22:49 ET by Cool ArrowWell, they are white and uneducated, so I would guess Hillary?
Cool... Now that's
May 17, 2008 - 22:51 ET by Clear thinkerCool...
Now that's funny!
"Abstain from McCain"
I think there are a lot
May 17, 2008 - 22:47 ET by NL207I think there are a lot more of these bears than government believes. The difficulty in counting them should be obvious when one looks at the habitat they live in. The only sure way to sample distinct individuals is by means of trap-tag-and release. This is simply not feasible over most of the bear's range. In the places this can be done effectively, we have seen the bear population shift in huge numbers tio follow populations of seals. Much of the alarm is because of an idiot named Derocher up in Canada. He does trap-tag-and release on bears in two populations on the west side of Hudson's Bay. His data say the Polar Bear populations there are falling drastically. At the same time, they are skyrocketing on the east side of Hudson's Bay. Derocher says the bears are endangered. It sure looks like it from his data. Too bad he only samples in two of the 14 identified populations polar bears. The big picture is the aggregation of all 14 populations. Nobody measures all 14.
The Polar Bears adapt to the conditions around them.
The estimate of mortality is
May 17, 2008 - 22:34 ET by NL207The estimate of mortality is based entirely on an extrapolation from the present population, the average estimated life span of the bears, and the fact the population is both stable, and the age distributoin within the population is approximately stable. This implies that about 5% of the adult bears must die each year or the population would rise. If more than 5% of the adult bears died each year the population should fall unless infant mortality were also to decline. The extent of infant moratlity can also be estimated from these facts in conjunction with what is known about the fertility of adult female bears. Not all adult females will produce cubs. Those that do tend to produce 1-3 cubs. If we assume the mean fertility is approximately 1.5 cubs each season across 70% of the female bears, That says about 10,000 polar bear cubs are born each year. Since only 12-1300 are needed to replenish the population and we know the population is stable --> this implies 7 in 8 cubs must never reach maturity. These kinds of estimates are easy to make, but very difficult to verify or refine with field data.
You also need to factor in
May 18, 2008 - 00:16 ET by cleverpigYou also need to factor in the inter-litter interval and age of maturity. Each female only manages, on average, 5 litters in her lifetime.
Could you please explain to PopTech how this works? I'm tired of telling him that these models and estimates are based on real numbers. Numbers with varying accuracy depending on the quality of your data from the field, of course, but people aren't just sitting in government offices making this stuff up!
Comprehending Polar Bear Reality....
May 18, 2008 - 01:17 ET by PopularTech"Because precision of earlier estimates was low, our current estimate of population size and the earlier ones cannot be statistically differentiated." - USGS
Conclusion:
"our best estimate of the current size of the population does not show a statistically significant decline" - USGS
Do you not comprehend what they are saying? They just admitted that no statistical difference can be made between the current and past estimates and they could not indicate a decline in population! What part of this do you not understand?
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
I understand all of it.
May 18, 2008 - 08:55 ET by cleverpigI understand all of it. The polar bear population is not currently declining. I've never said it was, and I continue to not say it is.
I don't think you actually read what I write.
I don't think you actually read what you write either.
May 19, 2008 - 04:40 ET by tracheostomyCP: I don't think you actually read what I write.
I know I sure did. Take this little gem for example. . .
CP: I'm tired of telling him that these models and estimates are based on
real numbers. Numbers with varying accuracy depending on the quality of
your data from the field, of course, but people aren't just sitting in
government offices making this stuff up!
Look closely at this.
(a.) Models and estimates <--- Not real numbers to begin with.
Are allegedly based upon. . . .
(b.) real numbers <--- That come from where and connected to what again? Um, help?
But there's more. These above estimates that are based on real numbers have. . .
(c.) Varying accuracy! <--- The numbers may or may not be accurate.
Depending on. . .
(d.) Data quality.
CONCLUSION: CP asserts that arbitrary numbers are actually based on non-arbitrary numbers that may or may not be accurate, depending on the "quality" of field data. Q: What is the field data composed of? A: Numbers that are indeterminate on their own in individual cases, but just as bad (if not worse) when plugged into the above system.
I thought science was supposed to be more consistent than that.
CP: but people aren't just sitting in
government offices making this stuff up!
Certainly you would agree that they might as well be.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Look, everything in ecology
May 19, 2008 - 21:36 ET by cleverpigLook, everything in ecology is an estimate. Everything.
If you catch a thousand female polar bears in the spring and they have on average 1.5 cubs with them, and you catch a thousand polar bears in the fall and they have on average 0.8 cubs with them, you estimate that some cubs haven't survived the summer. You don't know exactly how many, because you only caught a thousand polar bears, and it probably, unless you were bizarrely lucky, wasn't the same thousand.
But your estimate is based on real numbers. i.e. the average number of cubs found in the spring and in the fall. Now if you only had ten captures, however, and your percent survival was exactly the same, that would be a low quality estimate because your sample size wasn't big enough.
There are statistics for this sort of thing, and these are exactly the sort of issues that peer review deals with. So if the numbers aren't good enough you don't get published.
Here's another example. You observe that small juvenile males are less likely to show up again the next year. You find a correlation between small size in yearlings and survival, a negative one. Using that previous data, you can look at the cub-of-the-year sizes for a population and estimate what the survival rates would be. It's an estimate, using a previous correlation as a model, but it is in no sense of the word arbitrary.
People do not sit in an office and discuss whether they think the coefficient of correlation that they based that model on should be 0.3 or 0.5. It is based on previous data, which is what I mean by "real numbers."
Well, now you're down to repeating yourself. . .
May 20, 2008 - 15:25 ET by tracheostomyBehold, as she blatantly loops it in 3, 2, 1. . .
CP: People do not sit in an office and discuss whether they think the
coefficient of correlation that they based that model on should be 0.3
or 0.5.
I heard you the first time. Your strawman is irrelevant. I said, "Certainly you would agree that they might as well be," meaning that no matter how you slice it, the data is still completely useless. They might as well be back home making it all up. At least it's fun to watch on PBS.
CP: It is based on previous data, which is what I mean by "real
numbers."
Yeah, real numbers with a lot of sketchy; unreliable conditions attached.
Please come up with a new argument or give up.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
NL Not "speculative
May 15, 2008 - 07:31 ET by danboNL Not "speculative bulls**t". Funny.
There was also this gem. "Polar bears are the largest land mammal on earth", Gee bigger the elephants, rhinos, hippos.....
If the town of Churchill didn't have hungry bears wandering through town they wouldn't be making a lot of money from eco-tourist who toss lots of CO2 in the air as they fly there to see the "disappearing polar bear". And of course the bears weren't hanging around because of the town dump. (I understand Churchill finally fenced it. And bear numbers are decreasing there.)
Last reports. Churchill temps according to GISS "adjusted" data was warm about 1998 (Was there a station move or change in 98?) and are back in normal range. So if Churchill numbers of bear are decreasing, is it because of AGW or closing the dump?
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Sorry, that should have been
May 15, 2008 - 08:26 ET by cleverpigSorry, that should have been land predator!
Due to AGW as the perps
May 14, 2008 - 23:18 ET by KarmaDue to AGW as the perps head north for relief, the unvengeful polar bears surround and circle the last vestiges of humanity, and the last conservative sounds out to the remaining socialists; "See, I told you we were one with nature!"
Do they need you to profligate, cleverpig? Do you need them for the same? Is it your ideal world to have all variations of all species of all of evolutions creation to stop preying on each other, and survive unimpeded for eternity? Where will all of us fit on this magic marble of evolution? If you can convince the polar bears I mean them no harm personally, that I'm only trying to survive and spread the realm and ultimate survivability of my species, since we only have the here and now, I will call a temporary cease fire and await their signal of surrender. What do you think it is, the survival of the fitest/cruelest/smartest/...luckiest?
Karma... I love
May 14, 2008 - 23:24 ET by bigtimerKarma...
I love ya'.
You said it all.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
I think we have a choice,
May 14, 2008 - 23:55 ET by cleverpigI think we have a choice, and because we are conscious of that choice we also have a responsibility. That is part of my personal morality and has very little to do with science.
Fundamentally, the world will continue without polar bears. We'd lose a number of other species with them, no doubt, since they are a keystone species, but in a few million years something else would take their place. The only loss is to us. The question is, do you want to live in a world without polar bears? If you don't care about them, I can't make you. If you could come visit me I could introduce you to a few who might change your mind, but that obviously isn't going to happen.
Fundamentally, the struggle to save species is a quest to preserve uniqueness. The only inherent value a species has is the fact that it has never existed before, and if lost will never exist again. Something very similar may, but that entity will be gone. It happens naturally, the way any death does, but we can still fight against it the way we would against the death of a loved one.
So yeah, I need polar bears.
Oh cp... Get a grip you
May 15, 2008 - 00:02 ET by bigtimerOh cp...
Get a grip you aggravating twit...we are not going to do without the Polar Bear.
People like you is what I would like to do without.
JMHO!!!!
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
I'm glad you think the
May 15, 2008 - 00:11 ET by cleverpigI'm glad you think the bears will be okay. Karma seemed to be asking not whether the bears would be okay, but whether we should care. So I answered her.
One day you'll get your wish, until then you'll just have to put up with me.
Invitation to the Party
May 15, 2008 - 04:53 ET by reasonsjesterI have never seen someone so in need of reading Ayn Rand. Your feelings don't affect the outer world - they can motivate action, but whether or not that action is misguided is determined not by feelings, but by consequences. And consequences, my friend, are the province of science and reason.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
Ayn Rand is
May 15, 2008 - 22:30 ET by cleverpigAyn Rand is tedious.
Karma (sorry for the she!) set a clever trap, asking a philosophical and even slightly poetic question, thus guaranteeing that I would be mocked mercilessly for trying to craft a philosophical and slightly poetic answer.
Sneaky Karma!
My gender comment was all
May 16, 2008 - 06:53 ET by KarmaMy gender comment was all in fun, cleverpig. No offense was taken. :)
Inadvertantly perhaps but, it was not my intent to set you in place to be mocked. I'm not clever enough to do that and, although we disagree on most everything, you don't deserve to be mocked at all.
That you care, for the
May 15, 2008 - 10:29 ET by KarmaThat you care, for the polar bears, is admirable. Do I want to live in a world without them? No. Can I? Yes. Is there something that leads you to believe I'm unsympathetic to the death of any individual or species?
No one can save a life, even of a loved one. It's sometimes possible and advantageous to prolong it but, inevitably it must end. Many of us also derive solace in our belief that there's much more to be learned and experienced after the worms (or bears) have devoured us, than before.
If you don't see things as I do, I can't make you; but I think you would be happier with a more conservative/realistic outlook on life.
P.S. Please give me my penis back.
Clueless about Polar Bears
May 15, 2008 - 03:01 ET by PopularTechYou do realize that Canada does not even have them listed!!!! What "choice"? First of all please explain to me how listing them by the US is going to stop them from going "extinct".
People like you are loony toons.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
We have some property in the
May 15, 2008 - 22:31 ET by cleverpigWe have some property in the Arctic too, you know. It's not just Canada up there!
I had no idea Alaska was ours
May 16, 2008 - 18:35 ET by PopularTechI had no idea we owned Alaska, is it a state yet? Anyway back to reality this has nothing to do with the FACT that Canada which has endorsed the Kyoto protocol and has the largest population of Polar Bears has NOT LISTED THEM AS ENDANGERED!
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Of course PopTech
May 17, 2008 - 22:59 ET by Cool ArrowAlaska was the 56th State.
"Feelings" have nothing to do with the Science about Polar Bears
May 15, 2008 - 19:40 ET by PopularTechThis is not a debate about morality! The empirical evidence shows that Polar Bear populations are increasing or stable. We have thousands more Polar Bears then we did in the 1970s.
ESA Listing Not Needed for Polar Bears (The Heartland Institute)
"Since the 1970s, while much of the world was warming, polar bear numbers increased dramatically, from roughly 5,000 to 25,000 bears, a higher polar bear population than has existed at any time in the twentieth century."
Your "feelings" that ignore the scientific reality of what is going on are worthless! No one cares what you "feel" about the Polar Bear situation as it has nothing to do with the science. None of this debate has anything to do with science. This whole hysteria is based on the recent SUMMER sea-ice minimum in the Arctic. First of all this is a cherry pick as the ice grows back fully in the winter and is more then thick enough for Polar Bears to go out on to.
Arctic Winter Ice 1979-2006 (Animation) (NASA)
Recently the ice has come back at a record pace:
Arctic Sea Ice Re-Freezing at Record Pace (The Daily Green)
Arctic Sea Ice Sees 'Significant Increase' in Size Following 'Extreme Cold' (CBC News)
Historically this has happened in the Arctic before:
1922, The Arctic seems to be warming up (Monthly Weather Review)
Arctic Historical Data Cast Doubt on Climate Change Theory (CTV News)
Reports of Record Arctic Ice Melt Disgracefully Ignore History (NewsBusters)
And since the Polar Bears have been around over 100,000 years they have dealt with this before and SURVIVED!
Ancient 110,000-130,000 Year Old Polar Bear Jawbone Found (BBC)
Regardless the current Arctic SUMMER sea-ice minimum is likely due to natural causes:
A Warmer Arctic? Blame Mother Nature (National Post, Canada)
Arctic Ocean Circulation Does An About-Face (Science Daily)
North Atlantic Warming Tied To Natural Variability (Science Daily)
Arctic Sea ice loss - "it’s the wind" says NASA (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist)
Scary Arctic Ice Loss? Blame the Wind (Science)
Winds of Change Thinned The Arctic Ice (New Scientist)
Winds, Ice Motion Root Cause Of Decline In Sea Ice, Not Warmer Temperatures (Science Daily)
But regardless there is no empirical evidence that Polar Bears cannot adapt to a changing climate:
Polar Bear die-off unlikely: GN official (Nunatsaiq News)
"Fears that two-thirds of the world's polar bears will die off in the next 50 years are overblown, says Mitchell Taylor, the Government of Nunavut's director of wildlife research. [...] While he agrees that seals are essential food for bears as they fatten up during the spring and summer months - seal blubber makes up half of the bears' energy intake - he also suspects bears will be able to supplement their diet with other foods, such as walrus. During the summer months polar bears may also forage on berries, sedges and other plants, as well as bird eggs, to supplement their diet. And Taylor also points out female polar bears go nine months without eating at all during pregnancy. Besides, Taylor says he and numerous Inuit hunters have seen bears catch seal without the presence of sea ice. Bears sometimes find a place on shore to pounce on seals swimming by. Or they may catch seals caught in tidal pools, or sneak up on their prey at night. Taylor even suggests polar bears may float still on the water to fool seals into thinking they are hunks of sea ice."
After evaluating the actual science we are back to your "morality" which is confusing as you do not seem to care about baby seal pups:
Polar Bear Kills Seal Pup (Video) (2min)
Polar Bear Attacks Seal (Video) (1min)
Then again conservatives seem to have more feelings for babies anyway.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Keystone Cops
May 16, 2008 - 19:51 ET by CobraMan"We'd lose a number of other species with them, no doubt, since they are a keystone specie,"
What? Polar bears are a keystone species? Since when? To be a “keystone species” you have to be the PREY and not the PREDATOR. Krill is the “keystone species” in the north polar seas as almost all other life in the area depends on them or the life that eats them, like the polar bears who eat the seals who eat the fish who eat the krill. Do you understand?
The krill are at the bottom of the food chain, that’s what makes them a keystone species. Polar Bears are at the TOP of the food chain. What species do you know of that actually PREYS on Polar Bears, other than a multitude of bacteria? Even if the Polar bears all died off, a different predator would move into their territory and take up their position on the food chain, wouldn't you agree?
You clearly have no
May 17, 2008 - 02:12 ET by cleverpigYou clearly have no understanding of ecology whatsoever. As some of your colleagues in this debate have even pointed out, polar bears are important for regulating the populations of their prey. The term keystone species is actually usually used to refer to species at the top of a given foodchain, specifically species that have an effect disproportionate to their biomass. Of course krill are important, because they are a huge biomass that supports the bottom of the pyramid. They are not a keystone species.
Polar bears are a keystone species because despite having very low biomass relative to other species in their ecosystem, they keep seal numbers down which then increases the abundance for various species on the level below the seals, etc. What usually happens when you lose keystone species is that the food chain shortens and you lose biodiversity.
There, sorry for the lecture, but I hate the misappropriation of technical terms.
More Keystone Cops
May 17, 2008 - 07:53 ET by CobraMan"As some of your colleagues in this debate have even pointed out, polar
bears are important for regulating the populations of their prey."
You are correct about my description of krill a keystone species as incorrect, they are actually a foundation species. Thank you for pointing out my mistake.
That being said, it is a rather large stretch to claim that polar bears are a keystone species and that their disappearance would drastically and irrevocably alter the food chain. They're not the only predators in the artic, you know. As a matter of fact, they are probably the least important predators in the artic. Mankind can easily replace the polar bear as the top predator. If not us, then there's the Artic Fox, the Timber wolf, the Black bear, the Brown bear, the Orcas, etc. etc. etc.
Artic foxes will not kill
May 17, 2008 - 10:48 ET by cleverpigArtic foxes will not kill seals. They are smaller than seals. Black bears, brown bears and timber wolves do not live where polar bears live. They hunt on land, so they also will not replace the bears.
Orcas are the only species you mentioned that make any sense at all.
So why, exactly, are polar bears the "least important predator in the artic"?
»→ Cleverpig
May 17, 2008 - 11:02 ET by Cool ArrowHow can we, as humans, evaluate the value of one predator over another?
When was it that you personally escaped the clutches of an Orca or a Bear?
Only the hunted are truly equipped as to whether they want more or fewer predators.
Wonder how the seals are voting on this one?
You should logically demand we do nothing to eradicate disease by prophylactic means. Are you prepared to watch a child die because it hasn't the natural antibodies?
♣ a seal - starve a Polar Bear
I do not have the faintest
May 17, 2008 - 19:32 ET by cleverpigI do not have the faintest clue what you are talking about!
You want to let the animals vote? Let's poll them all and see how they feel about us! That's a stupid argument.
Porcine?
May 17, 2008 - 19:39 ET by harry flashmanFrom the discourse offered - certainly.
Clever?
Hardly.
What ARE you smoking?
PETA rolling that stuff for you?
"The increase is not an
May 14, 2008 - 23:34 ET by NL207"The increase is not an indication that bears are doing great in warmer climates, just that we've stopped killing all of them!"
More Liberal Predicate Calculus? Warming and no hunting occurred simultaneously according to your previous argumentation, yet here you ascribe the entire rebound in Polar Bear numbers to regulation of hunting without any proof whatsoever that a warming climate had zero or negative impact on the Polar bear population. This is wishful thinking on your part.
It would be if numbers were
May 14, 2008 - 23:59 ET by cleverpigIt would be if numbers were all we had. Fortunately, there are people up there in the arctic watching polar bears and determining what kills them. Lately, they are finding polar bear corpses floating around in the open water.
More BS. Tell me these
May 15, 2008 - 00:25 ET by NL207More BS. Tell me these "watchers" are collecting any statistically significant data. Then prove it.
Link or slink time, piggy.
They don't have
May 15, 2008 - 00:46 ET by cleverpigThey don't have statistically significant data. They have numbers, then they have observations that suggest a meaning for those numbers. If the science in this was all wrapped up, the EPA wouldn't have been able to delay this decision as long as they did. There absolutely is uncertainty in all of this. The point, though, is that based on what we do know about polar bears, they won't make it without ice. There may be things we don't know about polar bears that will allow them to survive, but being bounded by humans who don't like having their children eaten severely limits the bears' options. Add that together and you have a grim prediction that may or may not be true.
But all listings like this are based on predictions that we try to avoid. If we didn't list animals as endangered until their destruction was a sure thing, then we'd never be able to do anything to help and the list would be meaningless. You stick them on that list before they are doomed so that you get resources and legal help to prevent it.
I hope they're wrong and the polar bear is fine.
You have nothing but lies and propaganda
May 15, 2008 - 02:59 ET by PopularTechWho has numbers? What numbers? Show me them! Put up or shut up.
What we do know is that Polar Bears have been around for over 100,000 years and absolutely no evidence that they are endangered or even "threatened".
No listings are based on empirical evidence not wishful thinking.
You are a propagandist and a fool.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
I was talking about the
May 15, 2008 - 08:28 ET by cleverpigI was talking about the numbers referenced when saying that polar bear populations have increased. You want them again?
We know polar bear
May 15, 2008 - 13:02 ET by DarkCurrentWe know polar bear population has increased dramatically since the lowpoint baseline (5,000 or so) when hunting was limited. Is there any credible evidence that the overall population has declined recently, say the last 5 ~ 15 years? The only information I've been able to find online suggests the population is either stable or still growing.
The population is stable,
May 15, 2008 - 22:32 ET by cleverpigThe population is stable, bounced back from the brink of extinction in the 60's.
The never ending emotional propaganda about Polar Bears
May 16, 2008 - 01:28 ET by PopularTechThey were not at the "brink of extinction" in the 60s. The propaganda and lies are simply getting old. Please turn off your emotions while we talk science.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
There were 5,000 of them.
May 16, 2008 - 08:21 ET by cleverpigThere were 5,000 of them. Do you have any idea how small a population that is? People already talk about tigers being a lost cause because we are down to 5 - 7 thousand of them. Polar bears have one of the lowest reproductive rates out there, and below a certain point you lose important genetic diversity, suffer inbreeding depression and the Allee effect.
Exactly what do you consider the brink of extinction? One? :)
There were 5000 not 50
May 16, 2008 - 19:04 ET by PopularTechI think 5000 is 5000 and without any historical precedent you cannot say they were on the "brink" of extinction.
I would say the "brink" of extinction would be less then 50. But see that is the problem as this is an arbitrary number that anyone can freely define as you have for propaganda purposes.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Of tapeworms and polar bears
May 16, 2008 - 20:32 ET by reasonsjesterI don't think we would be having this conversation if tapeworms were threatened by imaginary global warming. And as far as the number of polar bears, the magic number that qualifies them as 'endangered' cannot be randomly assigned by interested parties like the EPA. They will keep moving the goalposts to meet their bureaucratic objectives.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
Actually, there are people
May 17, 2008 - 02:14 ET by cleverpigActually, there are people who try to calculate that magical number, it's called the MVP-- Minimum Viable Population. However, like much of ecology, it is based on the sort of modelling that opponents are always quick to discount whenever it spits out an answer they don't like :)
More Propaganda - Arbitrary Numbers based on "Models"
May 17, 2008 - 19:20 ET by PopularTechI discount computer modeling because I know how it works! You can write computer code to get ANY results you want, if you don't like the results you can adjust the code, the data, omit code, add new code or any other number of things until you get the answer you want. Computer illiterates are the biggest SUCKERS ever, they have no idea of this scam. Your arbitrary numbers are worthless guesses and meaningless.
Computer Modelers making "predictions" are either intentional scam artists, computer illiterates who mean well or simpy ignorant.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Ice decrease, polar bear increase
May 17, 2008 - 19:27 ET by harry flashmanI heard an interview with the Asst. Sec. of Interior yesterday during which he admitted that while the ice sheet has shrunk over the last three decades the number of polar bears has increased.
Explanation?
He also had no valid answer (other than stuttering and backfilling) on why the the P-bears have been enshrined in on the "Endangered List."
I'm so confused.
Cleverpig, now you are lying
May 15, 2008 - 02:55 ET by PopularTechNow please back up your propaganda statement with facts. Who is finding "corpses" floating in open water and what is the evidence of how they died? Propaganda like this is getting old and I am sick of these lies.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
"U.S. scientists conducting
May 16, 2008 - 00:39 ET by cleverpig"U.S. scientists conducting overflights with the Minerals Management Service have reported seeing floating dead polar bears, which they attributed to drowning when the animals tried to swim the great distances to reach shore."
From the SF Chronicle.
You can decide it isn't meaningful, or not conclusive, or unimportant, but I am not just making this stuff up.
Polar Bear Drowning Propaganda
May 16, 2008 - 01:12 ET by PopularTechThat's it? The same recycled propaganda from Al Gore's movie that was debunked in a UK Court? The assertion that Polar Bears were drowning due to global warming when in reality only 4 Polar Bears drowned due to a storm:
Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore's 'alarmist' climate change film (Daily Mail, UK)
"The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm." - UK Judge
You are a propagandist and a liar and have no facts to back up your ridiculous claims.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
I don't recall the UK court
May 16, 2008 - 10:09 ET by cleverpigI don't recall the UK court saying anything about whether or not polar bears are actually drowning. (didn't they object to the pictures, as they did for most of their complaints?) You are right, we don't have hard numbers. We have people seeing things that worry them. I don't have any reason to believe that an official US minerals survey team, probably not the most environmentally friendly group out there, would lie about polar bears.
Do our geologists have some hidden agenda you know about?
I don't recall you having anything but propaganda
May 16, 2008 - 18:47 ET by PopularTechWhat is your mental disfunction? Only four damn bears died from a STORM - CAN YOU COMPREHEND THIS? Your idiotic statements about polar bears "actually drowing" implies more did or they are continuing to. There is NO EVIDENCE OF THIS! Did you not read what I stated? The only evidence they could find to support your delusional hysteria was a study that cited FOUR Polar Bears drowning due to a STORM!!! It has NOTHING to do with "pictures" let alone "global warming".
The only person lying is YOU! The USGS released a report where they used COMPUTER MODELS to simulate less ice = poar bears die, um HELLO! Anyone can create a computer model to get these results but it is absolutely IRRELEVANT to reality.
Do you have some sort of mental disfunction we do not know about?
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
You're getting screechy,
May 16, 2008 - 19:08 ET by cleverpigYou're getting screechy, calm down :)
It is more than just four polar bears. On aerial flights they've seen more bears in open water at a greater distance from land or ice. They've also seen fewer bears on ice, finding them instead in the water or on land. Those trends are much more important and meaningful than the four bears actually seen during a quick snapshot survey of the area. I quoted the Chronicle because it was where I last saw the info, and I don't know where to find the other important statistics of that study without academic library access.
The issue is more complicated than you seem to want to acknowledge. Living in the arctic means walking an energetic tightrope. All of these adjustments you think the bears should be able to make without any problem add up to more energy spent per energy consumed, and that means the population will drop.
Show me the numbers of Polar Bears Dying
May 16, 2008 - 19:45 ET by PopularTechIt is more then four bears dying? Really? Show me the empirical evidence of Polar Bears dying outside of four that did because of a storm. You can't find jack shit because there are no other numbers! WAKE UP! You don't need access to a library you have the freakin internet! My god you are crazy, do you not think the alarmists would not be propagandizing any and all polar bears found dead? You wanting there to be polar bears dying due to Global Warming does not make it so! Try doing some research.
FYI Polar Bears are great swimmers:
Polar Bear makes longest recorded swim (62 miles in 24hr) (World Wildlife Fund)
Really it is more complicated? Why because you do not understand simple facts? Prove to me that Polar Bears have never before experienced this type of climate or have never dealt with a changing climate.
In the mean time I am working on a planet orbital adjuster to stop the Milankovitch Cycles but it seems the Polar Bears have been able to adjust fine so far:
Ancient 110,000-130,000 Year Old Polar Bear Jawbone Found (BBC)
Your nonsensical assumptions are not supported by any FACTS!!
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
I meant it is not just
May 17, 2008 - 02:20 ET by cleverpigI meant it is not just about the number of bears we actually see dead in the water, but about changing trends in where they are spending their time and how much energy they spend getting places. That's what I mean by "more than just four dead bears."
I can only find secondary sources, but the same survey that found the dead bears that got so much attention also found statistically significant changes in the percentage of counted bears found swimming versus walking (It had increased from 4% swimming to something like 20%, as I recall.) There were also numbers about what percentage of bears were on ice as opposed to land.
In order to get the actual data for that, unless you can dig it up somewhere on the internet, I think I do need access to electronic journal databases.
Show me the dead Polar Bears - you still have NOTHING!
May 17, 2008 - 07:32 ET by PopularTechShow me the empirical evidence of more Polar Bears dying, I am not interested in some meaningless report of the maritime bear swimming because that is what they do! They are called the maritime bear for a reason. You still have NOTHING - no facts, no evidence. Just a lot of hot air.
Don't give me excuses that your lack of access to any database is preventing your from finding the facts no one is buying it, least of all me.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Look, you don't get to
May 17, 2008 - 10:51 ET by cleverpigLook, you don't get to decide what my point is and then demand that I prove it!
Will you accept that swimming through open water is more energetically costly than walking?
SHOW ME THE DEAD POLAR BEARS!
May 17, 2008 - 19:09 ET by PopularTechYou stated this propaganda:
"Lately, they are finding polar bear corpses floating around in the open water."
Now back it up! Show me the damn dead bears!!!
The Maritime Bear (Ursus maritimus) swimming is what they do:
Polar Bear makes longest recorded swim (62 miles in 24hr) (World Wildlife Fund)
You have no evidence of dying bears outside of the FOUR that died due to a storm and now are switching the debate to the Maritime Bear getting too much exercise.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
»→ Pigs are reportedly clever
May 16, 2008 - 01:57 ET by Cool ArrowCP, given the growing population of Polar Bears, it would seem you are in favor of human interference in the Arctic eco-system.
Why do you hate seals so much that you want to aid the population growth of their predators?
Maybe we should start feeding the Polar bears so they won't have to venture into the water for food and risk drowning.
♣ a seal
Ah, you've discovered me!
May 16, 2008 - 10:07 ET by cleverpigAh, you've discovered me! I am, in fact, terrible prejudiced against seals and all of this is just a ploy to try and destroy them. My grandmother was killed by vicious ringed seals and I've never forgiven them.
Too bad you saw through my clever plan! I guess we'll just go with the clubbing, as you suggest :)
»→ Seal clubbing
May 16, 2008 - 10:46 ET by Cool ArrowWell, at least I'm open about it.
♣ a seal - starve a Polar Bear
You might as well be making
May 16, 2008 - 10:50 ET by NL207You might as well be making it up. Nothing in that report from the SF Chronicle indicates any scientist examined any of the dead bear or bears observed to determine their cause of death. The statements there about the cause of death are entirely speculation, not scientific fact.
Moreover, it was not even established that the bears were in fact dead. Case in point: I knew some State Troopers, two in particular, some years ago whose duty it was to patrol a very rural area. One of their functions was to remove large, dead animals from the highway as a matter of public safety. One hot, sunny day, they happened upon the caracss of a large bear lying in the road. The troopers were very angry because they could see that this dead bear easily weighed at least 500 pounds. One of them got out of their cruiser, and in anger and frustration, strode over and kicked the dead bear firmly in the ass. That was when the bear woke up ....
Piggy, your guillability never ceases to amaze me.
I'd like to point out that
May 16, 2008 - 13:24 ET by cleverpigI'd like to point out that even a polar bear can only lie still in the water for so long before you can be resonably sure that it's dead :P
cpig, Where are the Pictures??
May 16, 2008 - 14:25 ET by upcountrywaterof all the HUNDREDS of floating dead P bears????
Pop Tech
May 16, 2008 - 00:06 ET by upcountrywater
The last known iceberg,
DARN those Polar bear corpses just out of photo range.
Stranded polar bears are drowning in large numbers as they try to swim
hundreds of miles to find increasingly scarce ice floes. Local hunters
find their corpses floating on seas once coated in a thick skin of ice.
Now coated in bear skins?
Just helpin out here PT , anyone can print anything they wish.
Sorry man I just gave giles & cpig another link ...
The POPE says, GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
Liberals/need/help/IranianUranium/<sleep>
The Polar Bear lies come up empty
May 15, 2008 - 19:50 ET by PopularTechJust like I thought no numbers, no facts - just a hysterical belief fabricated in your mind. Funny how when pressed liberal hysteria can never be backed up.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Pop Tech
May 15, 2008 - 23:06 ET by upcountrywaterThe last known iceberg,
DARN those Polar bear corpses just out of photo range.
Stranded polar bears are drowning in large numbers as they try to swim
hundreds of miles to find increasingly scarce ice floes. Local hunters
find their corpses floating on seas once coated in a thick skin of ice.
Now coated in bear skins?
Just helpin out here PT , anyone can print anything they wish.
Sorry man I just gave giles & cpig another link ...
The POPE says, GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
Liberals/need/help/IranianUranium/<sleep>
More Polar Bear Propaganda
May 16, 2008 - 01:33 ET by PopularTechI am not sure how that is helping? The photo is propaganda:
Australian TV Exposes 'Stranded Polar Bear' Global Warming Hoax (NewsBusters)
The 4 polar bears died due to a storm, end of story.
Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore's 'alarmist' climate change film (Daily Mail, UK)
"The only scientific study that either side before me can
find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been
found drowned because of a storm." - UK Judge
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Man, where have you been?
May 16, 2008 - 20:04 ET by CobraMan"Lately, they are finding polar bear corpses floating around in the open water."
Lately? Man, where have you been? Polar Bear carcasses have been "found floating in the open water", and just about everywhere else in the Artic, since Mankind first entered the area! Do you realize that Polar Bears die due to natural causes and that a certain parentage of them (especially the males) starve every year because, and here's the important part, OTHER Polar Bears drive them away from prime hunting areas?
You have to remember that the Polar Bears, like all other bears, are constantly competing with each other for territory. Polar Bears are VERY territorial and they will instinctively attack and drive away all comperators in their territories, especially the males as they are not only competing with each other for prime hunting areas, they're competing with each other for breading purposes too.
I know.
May 17, 2008 - 02:21 ET by cleverpigI know.
You know, so what's your point?
May 17, 2008 - 07:58 ET by CobraManYou know, so what's your point? Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing or do you actually have a point to make?
PLF Is Prepared to Bring a Legal Challenge to Polar Bear Listing
May 14, 2008 - 23:25 ET by PopularTechPacific Legal Foundation: Feds wrong to list Polar Bear under Endangered Species Act
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision to list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act was misguided, and Pacific Legal Foundation is prepared to mount a legal challenge, the Foundation announced today.
“This listing decision is unwarranted and ill-advised,” said Reed Hopper, a principal attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation, the nation’s leading legal watchdog for property rights and a balanced approach to environmental protection. “Credible estimates put the number of polar bears at as high as 25,000 – five times as many as 50 years ago. Rather than rely on speculative computer models of future events, the proper analysis would rely on actual field data – the best available science – which shows a thriving species. The Endangered Species Act was not intended, nor does it allow, the listing of a thriving species.”
"PLF is prepared to challenge this arbitrary listing of the polar bear,” said Hopper.
“The polar bear is already among the most protected species in the world,” Hopper continued. “According to the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, listing the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act would provide ‘very little added protection.’ Today’s decision conflicts with the Canadian government which has determined that the polar bear is not threatened with extinction in the foreseeable future. Two-thirds of the polar bear populations reside in Canada.”
Destructive economic impacts of the listing could be enormous. “This listing could have the effect of imposing severe restrictions on land use, job creation, and normal economic activity, not merely in Alaska but also – if global warming factors are cited in lawsuits based on the listing – throughout the lower 48 states,” said Hopper. Moreover, a listing based on global warming theory has the effect of hijacking Congress’ constitutional authority to write the laws and regulations that govern us. “Policy making on global warming is the responsibility of the legislative branch,” Hopper continued. “It shouldn’t be driven by the tail of unelected environmental regulators ‘wagging the dog’ by using the ESA to impose economic restrictions on broad sections of society.”
“Environmental groups proposed this listing, not because the bear needed to be listed, but to expand regulatory control over economic activity throughout the country,” said PLF Vice President Dave Stirling
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Well PT this is wonderful
May 14, 2008 - 23:33 ET by bigtimerWell PT this is wonderful wonderful...but do you know how many years this will all take...this is their goal...they have done this to all productions of natural resources of the US... law suits take years. That is their plan Stan.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
its all speculative crap
May 14, 2008 - 14:50 ET by wizardjrThere is absolutely no evidence past or present that shows warmer temperatures threaten Polar Bears. None. It's just a bunch of made up crap.
What you all don't get is that this will shut down all the Canadian shale, tar sands, and oil drilling not just Alaska. Canada is one of our biggest suppliers. When they get shut down to protect the bears our lights and heat will go out - permanently. This is insane.
How will a US regulation
May 14, 2008 - 14:55 ET by scamoramaHow will a US regulation affect a Canadian business?
The envirowackos can't very well hope to claim that Canada is subject to US law can they?
world court
May 14, 2008 - 14:58 ET by wizardjrIn addition they will sue in US Federal court to block purchase of Canadian oil products because they are hurting the bears. The Euro-weenies have already drunk the cool-aid so The Hague will go along with it and order the Canadians to stop hurting the bears.
Many of the Canadian businesses are either partnered with US businesses or have partial US ownership. That opens them to suit in America.
would't suprise me.
May 14, 2008 - 15:53 ET by Burgherwould't suprise me. hurting bears make our children cry and we don't like when that happens
Blame all of this on Disney for anthropomorphizing in all of thier kids wildlife films and cartoons. envronMENTAL indoctrination starts very young.
And will Russia care about the bear?
Point of fact, there is
May 14, 2008 - 15:04 ET by ThermistoclesPoint of fact, there is evidence to the contrary. If you look at the evidence over the last 6000 years or so, the earth has been warmer than it is now. So, how in the world did the Polar Bear survive?
Also, the population is on the rise. They should be listed as endangered species because we say so? Ignore the fact that they are doing well and their numbers are increasing. Just trust us that they are in mortal danger if we don't do this. What a load of global baloney.
We dodged a bullet when Gore was defeated for President. Can we stop with the Russian roulette already?
canada
May 14, 2008 - 15:40 ET by BurgherCanada has their own protection list. They have not yet placed the coke mascot on it.
a wager
May 14, 2008 - 17:15 ET by wizardjrNow that we have listed the stupid bears what's the over/under for Canada to follow suit now?
I don't think Canada will
May 14, 2008 - 17:53 ET by mjgI don't think Canada will follow suit. They are probably laughing at us right now for being stupid enough not to do anything to help ourselves, just to help the bears. (frustrating)
environment
May 14, 2008 - 15:13 ET by WR JonasWho honestly believes that there are 25000 polar bears in the world ? I do not believe anything a political/environmental organization cites as fact because they lie to further their agenda . In addition the number cited is an estimate that gives the impression it is fact. It is a guess. No one really knows how many polar bears there are ,so the truth is we don't know. Is anyone awake ? We don't know.
How can we assume polar bears are dying if the ice is melting ? I have seen them in zoos and they appear quite comfortable in moderately warm climates. Is their food supply shrinking because of climate temperature increases around 1.5 degrees ? Or is this another one of those quantum logic leaps like ,EARTH WARM-ICE MELT- WE DROWN progressions . I think AL GORE followers left out the evaporation factor in the water cycle and hoped we would ignore , or forget it. So polar bears die if the climate varies ?
Being creations of God and quite adaptable under a wide range of situations, polar bears are just fine as long as we can keep Asian bear paw poachers out of the Arctic.
Enviro- lunatics are creating another wildlife crisis. It will require constant monitoring by armies of college graduated biology scientists, a huge annual budget, vast networks of concerned eco friendly people and public service announcements every 30 minutes for the next 15 years. 30-35 billion should cover it . (Wry grin on commenters face)
Actually, 25,000 polar bears
May 14, 2008 - 15:39 ET by RESTLESS 1Actually, 25,000 polar bears would be a 5X increase over 1950. Even a 50% reduction in population over the next 30 years would still leave a net increase over 88 years.
they count 'em
May 14, 2008 - 17:19 ET by wizardjractually there are herd counts going on. I saw and article that claimed 13 herds (by area/region) and that one group was down a bit, a couple were about even (for the decade) and the rest were thriving. They do aerial survey and native hunter nose counts, etc. I'm sure it's not an exact count, but it'll do.
Bears are comfortable in
May 14, 2008 - 22:24 ET by cleverpigBears are comfortable in warm climates. The problem is that they use ice to hunt and swimming instead requires much more energy than walking.
Polar Bears can find food in many different ways
May 14, 2008 - 22:39 ET by PopularTechPolar Bear die-off unlikely: GN official (Nunatsaiq News)
"Fears that two-thirds of the world's polar bears will die off in the next 50 years are overblown, says Mitchell Taylor, the Government of Nunavut's director of wildlife research. [...] While he agrees that seals are essential food for bears as they fatten up during the spring and summer months - seal blubber makes up half of the bears' energy intake - he also suspects bears will be able to supplement their diet with other foods, such as walrus. During the summer months polar bears may also forage on berries, sedges and other plants, as well as bird eggs, to supplement their diet. And Taylor also points out female polar bears go nine months without eating at all during pregnancy. Besides, Taylor says he and numerous Inuit hunters have seen bears catch seal without the presence of sea ice. Bears sometimes find a place on shore to pounce on seals swimming by. Or they may catch seals caught in tidal pools, or sneak up on their prey at night. Taylor even suggests polar bears may float still on the water to fool seals into thinking they are hunks of sea ice."
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
I have to respectfully
May 15, 2008 - 22:45 ET by cleverpigI have to respectfully disagree with this guy. It is true that polar bears can eat things other than seals. The polar bears I know are inordinately fond of lettuce, as an example.
However, they do not consume these alternate food sources efficiently, and they are not available year round. Efficiency might not seem like a big deal to you and me, but on a population scale if animals are expending on average more energy to consume the same energy, their population will decline. A given area will support fewer bears, and individual bears will have fewer energetic reserves to deal with environmental perturbation.
Also, think of polar bears in comparison to the grizzly, from whom they are descended. Grizzlies live further south, where summers are longer. However, in order to survive on an omnivore's diet, they have to stuff their faces for every minute of nice weather and shut down their metabolism in the winter in order to survive. Now take a polar bear, who is bigger, has a much shorter summer in which to eat these alternate foods, and expends much more energy through the winter because they don't hibernate.
Can individual bears survive? Yes. Will the population decline? Based on what this guy is describing as the buffet of options available to the bears, I'd say yes.
Also, repsectfully, the gentleman is an idiot if he thinks that the long fast of a pregnant polar bear is evidence that they don't really need to eat that much! The pregnant bear survives on fat that she stored hunting seals on the ice in winter. Without that fat, she wouldn't make it nine months.
Ph.D. Polar Bear Biologist vs. cleverpig? Tough one
May 16, 2008 - 01:22 ET by PopularTechThis is a tough one for me but I will go with Dr. Mitch Taylor, Polar Bear Biologist on this as you have yet to present your Polar Bear credentials.
They don't consume walrus, reindeer, small rodents, seabirds, ducks, fish and beluga whales efficiently? Really? I had no idea.
So lets see Grizzlies are omnivores, hibernate and survive the winter. So you just proved that this is possible and now must prove that Polar Bears are incapable of doing this.
Your "opinion" on what will happen to the Polar Bear population is irrelevant to the empirical evidence.
What an idiot, what would a Polar Bear biologist know about Polar Bears, I mean um.... yeah you know.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
I do actually have some
May 16, 2008 - 10:39 ET by cleverpigI do actually have some tentative polar bear credentials, which I've tried to hint at here and there by talking about my personal experiences with polar bears, but I'm not going to tell you any more than that because it would make it too easy to figure out my name, which would lead to you knowing where I work, which would lead to me leaving the site so I don't reflect poorly on my employer like poor Crystal Dixon! My information is actually more publicly available now because of this announcement, oddly enough, so I'm going to choose to be careful. So feel free to discount me, there's no reason for you to believe me. I choose not to put up in this case :)
So yeah, I disagree with this guy, but not because I've personally gone out and done any research that contradicts what he says. I'm not a polar bear researcher. But I read about polar bears, and he's not the only one up there studying them.
Also, just evaluating that statement myself based on my own basic knowledge about biology, it doesn't really add up. You can't say that pregnant polar bears surviving a fast is evidence that they don't really need the seals as a food source if the way the females survive the fast is by eating large amounts of seal fat that they use to live on the rest of the time. I mean, maybe the guy really does know lots about polar bears and there's something I've missed, but statements like that make me doubt the rest of his contentions.
His reports were included in the large amount of research that was presented to the EPA for this decision. I certainly haven't read all of that, I don't know if it's available anywhere, but it sounds like he was overruled.
Again, I want to stress that I'm not saying we know polar bears are doomed. But I think there's enough reason to be worried about them to justify giving them some extra protection.
Is that a joke? You have "Polar Bear" Credentials?
May 16, 2008 - 18:56 ET by PopularTechYou don't even understand the basics of the debate. You repeat the same unsubstantiated hysteria and when asked to back up your position with facts you don't have any.
Dr. Mitch Taylor is a Ph.D. Polar Bear Biologist who's job is to study them and he has written and published scientific papers in respected journals about them. You reading about them on Wikipedia is meaningless!
NO ONE CARES ABOUT WHAT YOU "THINK", NO ONE CARES ABOUT HOW YOU "FEEL" - get this through your head.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PopT
May 16, 2008 - 19:05 ET by BlondeBetween you, NL, and danbo, you've deconstructed the notsocleverpig.
LOL.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
I can't argue credentials
May 17, 2008 - 02:30 ET by cleverpigI can't argue credentials with you, because I can't give you mine without letting you know who I am, and given how angry I make people here I don't think that would be a very good idea! Anyway, I'm not claiming any particularly special knowledge. I am an expert in certain aspects of polar bear biology. I am not an expert in how polar bears adjust to their environment. I read the same things you do, with the possible exception of some industry publications.
If you want to discuss the actual substance of his argument, though, I'm happy to do that.
I do enjoy hearing someone who usually scoffs at the weight of scientific evidence arguing that credentials should trump common sense, though, I must say. I'm sure you find it equally enjoyable to listen to little miss "I have a PhD so I know what I'm talking about" dismiss another scientist's conclusions!
Admit it, it's mildly ironic.
What are your credentials!?
May 17, 2008 - 07:44 ET by PopularTechEither you have credentials or not, what degrees do you hold? I could careless who you work for or what environmental socialist organizations your are affiliated with.
I have never scoffed at scientific evidence! I scoff at pseudoscience that the scientific method cannot be applied to but is propagandized by ignorant alarmists as evidence of anything but their delusional fantasies. I have always argued in the name of science and have EXTENSIVELY argued scientific credentials. I am just not under the alarmist delusional fantasy that only self-declared and self-appointed "specialists" can dictate or give a scientific opinion on climate change nor can be the final word.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Be afraid, be very afraid?
May 17, 2008 - 08:15 ET by CobraMan"I can't argue credentials with you, because I can't give you mine
without letting you know who I am, and given how angry I make people
here I don't think that would be a very good idea!"
Be afraid, be very afraid? Oh please! That’s just a copout!
This isn't the Daily Kos or the Democratic Underground. I highly doubt that anyone here is going to hunt you down and harass you for your views, or threaten your or a member of your family with bodily harm just because we disagree with you.
Expert?
May 17, 2008 - 08:25 ET by CobraMan"I am an expert in certain aspects of polar bear biology."
An expert? I don’t think so. You can’t just claim you’re an expert at anything without giving us the credentials that validates that claim. If you’re unwilling to list your credentials, then stop claiming that you’re an “expert” in anything.
I would say, from the things you have posted in this thread, that you're probably a veterinary technician who works for a public zoo. That would hardly qualify you as an "expert in polar bear biology" now, would it? If I'm wrong, then what, exactly, are you? You can give us your credentials without revealing your identity, you know.
So feel free to discount
May 17, 2008 - 11:01 ET by cleverpigSo feel free to discount me, there's no reason for you to believe me. I choose not to put up in this case :)
This is what I said. Feel free to ignore me and stop having this conversation if you can't stand not to know.
I can tell you that I have a PhD in animal behavior studying, in part, the reproductive behavior of large social carnivores. I cannot tell you anything else without affiliating myself with an organization and thus being unable to continue posting my opinion.
Id like to continue talking about the actual substance of the debate, but if you don't want to that's fine too.
»→ Social carnivores
May 17, 2008 - 11:05 ET by Cool ArrowWhich are the non-social or antisocial carnivores?
They sound interesting. Would they be like giant hermit crabs?
♣ a seal - starve a Polar Bear
Well, polar bears are
May 17, 2008 - 21:10 ET by cleverpigWell, polar bears are non-social, or more accurately, nongregarious carnivores.
That's what I thought, CP
May 17, 2008 - 23:09 ET by Cool ArrowYour PHD in studying large social carnivores automatically makes you a PHD in the study of large nonsocial carnivores.
Brilliant.
Ugh, god. I said what my
May 18, 2008 - 00:21 ET by cleverpigUgh, god. I said what my credentials were. I didn't say I had a PhD in polar bears. I studied behavioral ecology, which gives me a pretty good baseline to evaluate research done on animals other than the ones I studied directly. Stop putting words into my mouth, haven't I dug a large and annoying enough hole for myself with this whole credential thing? I hardly need your help!
You have a PhD in Animal Behavior?
May 17, 2008 - 19:15 ET by PopularTechWhen you presented your thesis did you make excuses that you do not have access to journals to back up your claims? You cannot back up anything with facts and data! Is this some sort of joke?
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Oh for goodness
May 17, 2008 - 21:16 ET by cleverpigOh for goodness sake.
When I was a graduate student, I had access to academic libraries with online journal access. I am currently not affiliated with a university, and so I no longer have access to those resources. Online databases like BIOSIS and PubMed are extremely expensive. My current employer can't afford them. Personal subscriptions to the journals I used to use cost hundreds of dollars a year. Each. I can't afford that.
I don't do research anymore, as I have been clear about this whole time. If I wanted to, I would need to find a position at a university, thus getting back the access I would need to do any background research on subjects I wanted to study.
In the meantime, I now have a few sources of information that I didn't have as a student, but when it comes to published papers in academic journals I am stuck reading what is publicly available. The USGS report I linked is. Most academic journals are not.
Satisfied?
Then you need to learn how to use the Internet
May 19, 2008 - 07:22 ET by PopularTechThen you need to learn how to use the Internet and I am not about to show you how. All this does is reaffirm the point that you do not have any data to back up your statements. Your excuse of a lack of access proves you are making unsubstantiated points.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Scoreboard
May 19, 2008 - 07:26 ET by Free StinkerPopularTech: 1
cleverpig: 0
"Don't forget to vote this fall. Not for McCain, not ever, but there might be a Conservative Rep or Senator that Needs Your Vote" --Free Stinker
"Anyway, I'm not claiming
May 17, 2008 - 09:12 ET by Cortillaen"Anyway, I'm not claiming any particularly special knowledge. I am an expert in certain aspects of polar bear biology." Contradictory statements if ever I saw them... "I don't know anything in particular, but I'm an expert in field A."
"I read the same things you do, with the possible exception of some industry publications." Ooh, just have to get in that jab at the M&IC and us dupes thereof.
"I'm sure you find it equally enjoyable to listen to little miss "I have
a PhD so I know what I'm talking about" dismiss another scientist's
conclusions!" That's odd... You know, that's exactly what proponents of AGW have been doing for years. Though, I suppose there is some difference in that the person doing the most dismissing is a failure in the field of science rather than a doctor. Admit it, it's quite ironic.
Okay, I've had my fun for the day. You can go back to your argument over the color of Good Intentions-brand cobblestones and specific weave of the hand-basket.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
CP: I'm not a polar bear
May 16, 2008 - 19:01 ET by tracheostomyCP: I'm not a polar bear researcher. But I read about polar bears, and he's not the only one up there studying them.
I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Ooh, what about me? I'm
May 17, 2008 - 09:36 ET by CortillaenOoh, what about me? I'm not a doctor, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
LMAO! I am just completely
May 17, 2008 - 17:27 ET by tracheostomyLMAO! I am just completely overwhelmed by the sheer force of the fake authority I am encountering here.
Point #1. If you can't prove the diploma, you can't attempt to threaten us or beat us over the head with it.
Point #2. Even if you did reveal your "bonafide polar bear credentials," (LOL!) it still wouldn't mean anything. Any way you slice it, you're still trying to push an argument to authority fallacy. And fake one at that.
Holy crap CP, just how stupid do you think your opponents are? I used to have at least a certain amount of respect for you, but with threads like this, that's pretty much gone into the toilet.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Oh good, then we're even :)
May 17, 2008 - 21:18 ET by cleverpigOh good, then we're even :)
A good read on the
May 14, 2008 - 15:36 ET by RESTLESS 1A good read on the stupidity adding polar bears on the endangered species list can be found here.
Another short, but good, read is here. An excerpt:
"In 1950, let us not forget, there
were about 5,000 polar bears. Now there are 25,000.
No wonder Greenpeace had trouble getting polar bears placed on the endangered
species list. A fivefold population increase isn’t exactly a catastrophic
decline."
A cold winter.
May 14, 2008 - 15:40 ET by mattmA cold winter.
I'm speechless! The Rocky
May 14, 2008 - 16:24 ET by wiwfI'm speechless!
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
hilarious!
May 16, 2008 - 10:50 ET by candanceHaving survived this past winter in Minnesota, I tell ya that was a blow to global warming kooks everywhere. The coldest winter in a decade with near record snow fall, the lakes frozen over until May...we were all saying "global warming my left foot!"
*Whoops, I did not mean to
May 14, 2008 - 16:27 ET by Schnikeys*Whoops, I did not mean to leave a comment in this spot*
------------------------------------------------------------
Grizzly Bear '08
stevepipe
May 14, 2008 - 17:19 ET by stevepipeI DEMAND that EVERYONE from OBAMA, CLINTON, McCAIN and GORE on down/up explain how they DO NOT CARE about the MILLIONS who are STARVING worldwide because grain crops are being diverted to "biofuels." Is this what "going green" means?!!?
I hate to say it
May 14, 2008 - 18:05 ET by jrandallstevepipe....those millions dying of starvation and disease and wars and riots because of biofuel policies, DDT & other invironmental policies dont vote democrat in our elections
And another thing
May 14, 2008 - 18:09 ET by jrandallPolar bears mabe having a population decline in 30 years due to a hoax....or people dying today due to hungar, disease environmental kookism...tuff choice for a democrat
Is this what ‘going green’ means?
May 15, 2008 - 01:45 ET by maggieqpublicapparently, yes
This just in....
May 14, 2008 - 18:07 ET by ckc1227This just in....
Since polar bears are CO2 polluters themselves, are they guilty of genocide, and should they be sued under this new Endangered Species Act?
Where are the dying Polar Bears? This is Madness!
May 14, 2008 - 19:20 ET by PopularTechI don't understand where are the dying polar bears? If something is to be listed as "threatened" where the hell is the evidence of the threat? You can't just base a scientific decision on emotional wishful thinking! This is Madness!
Are Polar Bears Dying? (The Heartland Institute)
Beaufort polar bears booming (Nunatsaiq News)
Bear litigation a ploy, say Inuit groups (Nunatsaiq News)
Bjorn Lomborg: Save polar bears by not shooting them (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Examining Threats and Protections for the Polar Bear (Ted Stevens, Senator Alaska)
Federal Polar Bear Research Critically Flawed, Forecasting Expert Asserts (Science Daily)
'GMA': It's All about Saving the Global Warming Mascot - The Polar Bears (Business and Media Institute)
Global warming won’t hurt polar bears, GN says (Nunatsaiq News)
Polar Bear die-off unlikely: GN official (Nunatsaiq News)
Polar Bear makes longest recorded swim (47-62 miles in 24hr) (World Wildlife Fund)
Polar Bear Plunge (San Diego Zoo)
Polar Bear numbers up, but rescue continues (National Post, Canada)
Polar Bear Meltdown? (Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences)
Polar Bear not threatened, Canadian panel finds (National Post, Canada)
Polar Bear numbers rising, Inuit elders tell wildlife board (CBC)
Polar Bear Scare on Thin Ice (The Heartland Institute)
Polar Bear worries unproven, expert says (CBC News, Canada)
Polar Bears in danger? Is this some kind of joke? (The Times, UK)
Polar Bears not threatened: Nunavut (CBC News, Canada)
Polar Bears 'thriving as the Arctic warms up' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Role of Climate in Polar Bears' Fate Under Dispute (CNSNews)
Study shows polar bear increase in Davis Strait (Northern News Services)
The Good News Bears (The New York Times)
Papers:
Demographic and Ecological Perspectives on the Status of Polar Bears (PDF) (Mitchell Taylor, Ph.D. Polar Bear Biologist)
Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit (PDF) (J. Scott Armstrong Ph.D., Kesten C. Green Ph.D., Willie Soon Ph.D.)
ESA Listing Not Needed for Polar Bears (The Heartland Institute)
"Since the 1970s, while much of the world was warming, polar bear numbers increased dramatically, from roughly 5,000 to 25,000 bears, a higher polar bear population than has existed at any time in the twentieth century."
Polar Bear - Population & Distribution (World Wildlife Fund)
"There are believed to be at least 22,000 polar bears worldwide [...] The general status of polar bears is currently stable..."
Canada - Polar Bears Not Going Extinct (Mitchell Taylor, Ph.D. Polar Bear Biologist)
"Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present."
Greenland - Polar Bears (Greenland Home Rule)
"The polar bears in Greenland are already widely protected. The polar bear is not at risk and the quotas will be lower than the average catches (between 1993 and 2003). The quotas will be based on international agreements, scientific advice and traditional knowledge. The quotas for the trophy hunt will be within these quotas, so that there is absolutely no threat to the survival of the polar bear."
USA - Chukchi/Bering Seas Stock (PDF) (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service)
"Polar bears in the Chukchi/Bering seas stock are not classified as 'depleted' under the MMPA or listed as 'threatened' or 'endangered' under the Endangered Species Act."
USA - Southern Beaufort Sea Stock (PDF) (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service)
"The Southern Beaufort Sea Stock is not classified as 'depleted' under the MMPA or listed as 'threatened' or 'endangered' under terms of the Endangered Species Act. This stock is assumed to be within optimum sustainable population levels."
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Talk about overkill
May 15, 2008 - 07:35 ET by reasonsjesterI thought I had OCD. Seriously though, you did a Funk & Wagnall's worthy overview of the subject.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
Those bears will need to be
May 14, 2008 - 19:47 ET by MidAmericaThose bears will need to be eliminated anyway. If global warming is going to make the bears habitat warmer then other species, including man can take advantage of the land. The bears are killers not afraid of humans so they will have to be shot or fenced in somehow.
Good point. "Abstain
May 14, 2008 - 19:52 ET by Clear thinkerGood point.
"Abstain from McCain"
Threatened vs. Endangered
May 14, 2008 - 20:36 ET by Mike From CanmoreKyle:
Now that it has been labelled as threatened vs. Endangered, do you know what that means from a legal standpoint?
Also, people don't worry about the Alberta/Sask oil sands. No polar bears near there.
MFC... You go that
May 14, 2008 - 20:46 ET by bigtimerMFC...
You go that right...I thought about mentioning that earlier but got side-tracked...thanks for your input.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Here's one argument that
May 14, 2008 - 20:40 ET by FoolicanHere's one argument that really gets my goat, which I refer to as begging the question.
"Okay, so maybe CO2 emissions aren't affecting global temperatures. But what if they ARE? Isn't it best to prepare, just like a safety belt, in case the worst may happen and we're right?
That may be true if it didn't cost us billions and trillions of dollars in taxpayer and corporation money. Also, consider this - the risk of anthropogenic global warming via CO2 actually occurring is almost as believable as the risk of a pink hippopotamus charging through my gates and crushing my house. Should I therefore spend thousands of dollars for a hippopotamus-proof (specifically, pink hippopotamus-proof) fence?
Would someone explain to me..
May 14, 2008 - 20:44 ET by MightyMouth...just what is so great about Polar Bears? I mean really, what do they contribute to the planet? They catch and eat fish and kill baby seals! You would think the liberals would be up in arms over these scoundrels!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
In biology we're taught
May 14, 2008 - 20:48 ET by FoolicanIn biology we're taught about the ecosystem, and how the third-party removal of a member of the food chain can disrupt the cycle and cause an increase in prey, decrease in predators, etc.. Not that Antarctica is hospitable for anyone who would care, mind you...
But it would be considered blatant genocide.
Ok...
May 14, 2008 - 20:54 ET by MightyMouthBut I'm not sure you got my sarcasim. Men catch and eat fish, and have been known to kill baby seals... That would make Polar Bears no better than man... you see? Just my way of expressing myself.. :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Foolican you are a fool
May 14, 2008 - 21:07 ET by demobaterFirst of all you stated "antartica" there are no bears in antartica bubba, secondly, the Alaskan Wildlife service employs native americans to monitor polar bears, and to count their numbers.
They conclude that there is no specific threat to the Polor Bear population and that recent counts show that the population is not only stable but doing well. Unfortuately this is just another hoax perpetrated by the limp wristed tree huggers to try and justify global warming. Get it through your thick heads, there is no global warming at least not caused by mankind. When the planet warms it it because of increased solar activity not your SUVs you morons!
The NASA weather satellite launched in 2002 has shown that over the last 6 years the planet has actually cooled about .5 of one degree, it has not heated up. The melting of artic ice and the glaciers receding is something that is repeated over & over for thousands of years. Paleontologists have discoverd that CO2 was present in 50 times more density in the atmosphere 5 million years ago and all the plant and animal life did not die off. It is a myth get it, get the facts jack. Mankind has been predicting global warming and global cooling over the last 2 hundred years just read the local newspapers and periodicals of those times and see it written for your own stupid eyes...
Those pesky facts keep
May 14, 2008 - 21:13 ET by Free StinkerThose pesky facts keep getting in the way of a "good" theory.
"Good" only if you want to establish a marxist style government.
"Don't forget to vote this fall. Not for McCain, not ever, but there might be a Conservative Rep or Senator that Needs Your Vote" --Free Stinker
What?
May 14, 2008 - 21:19 ET by FoolicanSir, I am not questioning the information that you provide. I am merely stating what I have been taught. I think that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax and a scam. Please do not call me a fool or a moron.
Foolican...Genocide....
May 14, 2008 - 21:22 ET by bigtimerFoolican...
Genocide....
Surely you jest!
ROFLMAO!
Go up there and prove it....I dare ya'...stay there for years proving it with a video camera...blah blah blah...
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
I never claimed that it was
May 14, 2008 - 21:35 ET by FoolicanI never claimed that it was genocide, I merely implied that liberals would claim that the action is genocide. I don't understand. Why are fellow conservatives attacking me? Am I speaking in tongues?
Fool.. No you never
May 14, 2008 - 21:57 ET by bigtimerFool..
No you never stated liberals would say or merely implied that in your post....reread what you posted.
It came from you.
I don't know if you are speaking in tongues, or could care less what you were taught...but you sound like a leftist to me.
Nobody is attacking you either.
Yet.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
*
May 14, 2008 - 23:05 ET by R D Helm*
Correct me if I am wrong..
May 14, 2008 - 23:00 ET by Jonah JohansenCorrect me if I am wrong but the way I read this
We are now declaring as endangered a species whose numbers are greater than at any time in the past several decades and whose numbers are not declining, based not on actual observations but on a theory that they might be endangered, if an unproven specualtive climate model of arctic temperatures which hasn't accurately predicted the last 10 years tmperatures will accurately predict the next 20 years temperatures.
Note From A Gadfly On the Wall
May 16, 2008 - 13:31 ET by reasonsjesterIf Polar Bears cannot survive global warming, why didn't the last eight global warmings in the last 3000 years do them in?
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius