Bush and Polar Bears

[jdobbin]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11...2520955,00.html

Dirk Kempthorne, the Interior Secretary, said: “We are concerned the polar bear’s habitat may literally be melting.”

By placing the polar bear under the protection of the Endangered Species Act, the US Government must prevent any activity that could further jeopardise the animal or its habitat. Environmentalists hope that the move will therefore compel the Administration to force US industries into cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

The move also reflects a significant departure for the Administration from its cautious rhetoric about the effects of global warming.

Oops on the thread title.

Quite a turn around on policy here.

[B. Max]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11...2520955,00.html

Dirk Kempthorne, the Interior Secretary, said: “We are concerned the polar bear’s habitat may literally be melting.”

By placing the polar bear under the protection of the Endangered Species Act, the US Government must prevent any activity that could further jeopardise the animal or its habitat. Environmentalists hope that the move will therefore compel the Administration to force US industries into cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

The move also reflects a significant departure for the Administration from its cautious rhetoric about the effects of global warming.

Oops on the thread title.

Quite a turn around on policy here.

What a load of nonsense. The polar bear is not endangered.

Environmentalists hope that the move will therefore compel the Administration to force US industries into cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Exactly how will they cut their emissions. What do you do take your employees out and shoot them so they don't come back to work.

[jdobbin]

What a load of nonsense. The polar bear is not endangered.

Environmentalists hope that the move will therefore compel the Administration to force US industries into cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Exactly how will they cut their emissions. What do you do take your employees out and shoot them so they don't come back to work.

The right wing should blame Bush. He approved this.

[B. Max]

What a load of nonsense. The polar bear is not endangered.

Environmentalists hope that the move will therefore compel the Administration to force US industries into cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Exactly how will they cut their emissions. What do you do take your employees out and shoot them so they don't come back to work.

The right wing should blame Bush. He approved this.

So you admit the whole thing is a scam.

[jdobbin]

So you admit the whole thing is a scam.

I don't. However, it is going to be a little hard to blame the Democrats for a decision that Bush's government is making.

[B. Max]

So you admit the whole thing is a scam.

I don't. However, it is going to be a little hard to blame the Democrats for a decision that Bush's government is making.

Of course. But the base won't be rewarding the republicans for catering to the leftwing loonies. You had better admit it is another scam. Once you see the facts.

http://www.junkscience.com/fox/milloy111204.htm

[sharkman]

That's funny, no words of appreciation from liberal, environmentalist Gore lovers on this one. Doesn't this make it harder to drill for oil in Alaska? Or are polar bears further north.

[jdobbin]

Of course. But the base won't be rewarding the republicans for catering to the leftwing loonies. You had better admit it is another scam. Once you see the facts.

http://www.junkscience.com/fox/milloy111204.htm

You should address that post to George Bush.

[BC_chick]

Of course. But the base won't be rewarding the republicans for catering to the leftwing loonies. You had better admit it is another scam. Once you see the facts.

http://www.junkscience.com/fox/milloy111204.htm

You should address that post to George Bush.

So I checked out your link on junk science. I was curious about the author's credentials, so I saw this at the end of the article....

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRwatch.com, is an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and is the author of Junk Science Judo: Self-defense Against Health Scares and Scams (Cato Institute, 2001).

Seeing how the only thing "scholarly" about the man was his stint at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, I thought I would gander on the website and learn more. I nearly laughed my head off as I read about the "instituion" given that not ONE person listed on their staff and board has any scientific credentials.

All have done their education in various fields such as economics, business, arts, and so on. The only person who is listed as having a BA and a M.Sc. is Myron Ebell, the director of energy and global warming at the said insitute.

Funny enough, his M.Sc is from the London School of Economics and there is no mention of what science it was. For all we know, it's computer science.

[White Doors]

So you can't argue with the facts of the message so you trash the messenger?

Did you read his sources? Polar Bear numbers have actually INCREASED substantially. They are not endangered. That is a fact.

[jdobbin]

So you can't argue with the facts of the message so you trash the messenger?

Did you read his sources? Polar Bear numbers have actually INCREASED substantially. They are not endangered. That is a fact.

Where is the cite for that fact? I'd like to see it.

[jdobbin]

So I checked out your link on junk science. I was curious about the author's credentials, so I saw this at the end of the article....

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRwatch.com, is an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and is the author of Junk Science Judo: Self-defense Against Health Scares and Scams (Cato Institute, 2001).

I have pointed this out a few times.

I've been told that it is shooting the messenger. With this sound statement, I think I'll give medical advice over the Internet. I am sure many people here will be happy to know that I say drinking, smoking and driving with the lights out down the wrong side of the highway are all guaranteed to lengthen your life.

Please don't shoot the messenger on the way out.

[White Doors]

Yes, you are truly a misunderstood martyr..

Here, from the link posted dispute these:

A Canadian Press Newswire story earlier this year reported that, in three Arctic villages, polar bears “are so abundant there’s a public safety issue.” The local polar bear population reportedly increased from about 2,100 in 1997 to as many as 2,600 in 2004. Inuit hunters wanted to be able to kill more bears because they are “fearsome predators.”

An aerial survey of Alaskan polar bears published in Arctic (December 2003) reported a greater polar bear density than previous survey estimates dating back to 1987.

You said you'd like to see it so there it is. If it is false then I'm sure you can find proof of this.

thanks

[jdobbin]

You said you'd like to see it so there it is. If it is false then I'm sure you can find proof of this.

thanks

I see no link to your citation so I have no idea where it came from.

This citation comes from the report late this week.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...Hk6jds&refer=us

In Canada's Western Hudson Bay, the polar bear population has declined 22 percent since 1987 and U.S. officials said they worry that similar declines may occur in Alaska.

[BC_chick]

So you can't argue with the facts of the message so you trash the messenger?

Did you read his sources? Polar Bear numbers have actually INCREASED substantially. They are not endangered. That is a fact.

The "messenger" is drawing a conclusion based on the premise that global-warming is "junk-science" when he has no scientific credentials to be making such a statement. Therefore, it's a moot point whethere or not the polar bear numbers are increasing when they will be endangered if they lose their habitat due to the melting of the polar ice-caps. It's the old misleading bait-and-switch... kinda like the Clean Air Act. Looks like it's about global-warming, when in fact the increase in numbers does not address the underlying issue at all - global warming as a result of human activity.

[BC_chick]

With this sound statement, I think I'll give medical advice over the Internet. I am sure many people here will be happy to know that I say drinking, smoking and driving with the lights out down the wrong side of the highway are all guaranteed to lengthen your life.

Please don't shoot the messenger on the way out.

LOL Excellent!

[White Doors]

You said you'd like to see it so there it is. If it is false then I'm sure you can find proof of this.

thanks

I see no link to your citation so I have no idea where it came from.

This citation comes from the report late this week.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...Hk6jds&refer=us

In Canada's Western Hudson Bay, the polar bear population has declined 22 percent since 1987 and U.S. officials said they worry that similar declines may occur in Alaska.

The same link you obviously didn't read that was previously posted. 9 of the 11 Polar Bear populations have incresed. Obviously this may be one of the two.

[White Doors]

So you can't argue with the facts of the message so you trash the messenger?

Did you read his sources? Polar Bear numbers have actually INCREASED substantially. They are not endangered. That is a fact.

The "messenger" is drawing a conclusion based on the premise that global-warming is "junk-science" when he has no scientific credentials to be making such a statement. Therefore, it's a moot point whethere or not the polar bear numbers are increasing when they will be endangered if they lose their habitat due to the melting of the polar ice-caps. It's the old misleading bait-and-switch... kinda like the Clean Air Act. Looks like it's about global-warming, when in fact the increase in numbers does not address the underlying issue at all - global warming as a result of human activity.

Why can't you just argue the facts? If you don't believe him, prove him wrong as opposed to dismiss him. Your actions lead to a narrow mind. BTW, global warming being caused by humans has not been proved nor has their been a 'consensus' in the scientific community about it.

[Black Dog]

Junk Science link is 404'd.

But based on the snippet, it's clear that it's, well, junk.

A Canadian Press Newswire story earlier this year reported that, in three Arctic villages, polar bears “are so abundant there’s a public safety issue.” The local polar bear population reportedly increased from about 2,100 in 1997 to as many as 2,600 in 2004. Inuit hunters wanted to be able to kill more bears because they are “fearsome predators.”

An aerial survey of Alaskan polar bears published in Arctic (December 2003) reported a greater polar bear density than previous survey estimates dating back to 1987.

Notice how he talks about the populations in specific areas and not the population as a whole. For all we know, the local polar bear populations are increasing as the amount of suitable habitat decreases, forcing a shriking population of bears into smaller areas, thus boosting the local numbers. Until someone can provide a link that works, I'm gonna go with that.

[jdobbin]

The same link you obviously didn't read that was previously posted. 9 of the 11 Polar Bear populations have incresed. Obviously this may be one of the two.

And links you haven't read state that there are more sightings of polar bears because they can't get out onto the ice.

The more accurate counts have indicated polar bear numbers are actually down, the weight of the bears is down and that fewer bears are surviving a season because they don't get enough to eat.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/02/opinion/edpolar.php

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6122601034.html

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,...1572970,00.html

[BC_chick]

Why can't you just argue the facts? If you don't believe him, prove him wrong as opposed to dismiss him.

I'll trim down the words this time...

In the debate of whether or not humans are affecting climate-change, it's a moot point whether polar-bear numbers are increasing.

Fact.