On the hand,

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=143012005

More alarmism for the global warming kooks.

Come on Demos in Congress. Pass a mandatory plan to confront climate change. The White House is on board, the secretary of the Interior apparently is.
Do SOMETHING other than increase your own salaries. If nothing else, get going on more nuclear power plants to replace heavily polluting coal-fired plants.

Oh for Christ's sake NOW President Bush is responsible for polar bears maybe being put on the endangered species list.

Come on !!!!

You know my merigolds' booms weren't quite a bright as I would have liked this year.....should I blame president Bush and global warming? or did I just not watert hem properly or is that a result of global warming?

I know I'll email dem Rep Malarkey from Mass.....I'm sure he can help.

30 years ago the pollution was going to cause global cooling and famine.
What happened to that?

According to the minority scientists who are very well paid by different inustries that heavily pollute, there is no global warming. I'm very comfortable believing them, as well as conservatives.

Aren't you?

In the real world, the number of polar bears is INCREASING--directly contrary to the claims of global warming alarmists.

Among other studies, the Inuits commissioned a study by a polar bear biologist which showed the numbers to be increasing. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=0KYG5S2BNTTWDQ
See also
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba551/

Why didn't you hear about these studies in the Swamp? Because Swamp reporters don't want you to hear all the facts. They only want you to hear about the studies that agree with their biases and beliefs.

Terry,

You seem so... emotional.

Bruce,

You probably should have read the entire Telegraph article more carefully before posting a link (which, by the way, did not take me directly to the article but only to the Telegraph website; a quick search of the site found the article in question). The Telegraph article actually questions the veracity of the Inuit-commissioned study and in general seems to support the claim of polar bear endangerment. Indeed, the Inuit study only covers one region of Canada in which conservationists have been aggressively at work to preserve both seals and polar bears!

The other link appears to be to a conservative think tank, and the information on the site is from a WWF report published in 2002, which means the research was done even earlier. That means it is information most likely superseded by the research cited by the Swamp--and even the WWF research in 2002 results only in the claim that the polar population is stable. Neither article, in other words, supports the claim that the polar bear population is growing.

WARMING WORLD HAS INCREASED POLAR BEAR NUMBERS
Environmental lobbyists have taken a long leap of logic to posit that human-caused global warming will melt most of the ice at the North Pole within 50 years and that without the ice, polar bears will be unable to survive as a species, says H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Fortunately, both for policy and the polar bears, anecdotal stories about polar bear cannibalism and drowning do not reflect the population trend as a whole:

Since the 1970s, while the world was warming, polar bear numbers increased dramatically from around 5,000 to as many as 25,000 today.
Historically, polar bears have thrived in temperatures even warmer than at present -- during the medieval warm period 1,000 years ago and during the Holocene Climate
Optimum between 5,000 and 9,000 years ago.
In fact, Mitchell Taylor, a biologist with Nunavut Territorial government in Canada, pointed out in testimony to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that modest warming may be beneficial to bears since it creates better habitats for its main food sources. Further, Taylor thinks that where polar bear weight and numbers are declining, arctic warming isn't the cause, but rather too many bears are competing for food.

Ironically, says Burnett, the World Wildlife Fund, while arguing that polar bears are at risk from global warming, presented data that actually bolsters Taylor's theory:

According to the WWF there are 22,000 polar bears in about 20 distinct populations worldwide.
Of those 20, only two populations -- accounting for 16.4 percent of the total number of bears -- are decreasing, and they are in areas where air temperatures have actually fallen.
Source: H. Sterling Burnett, "NO: It's a fact that their numbers are up fivefold since the 1970s," Charlotte Observer, January 22, 2007.

For more on Global Warming Science:

This isn't about just one species, folks. As superior as we try to think ourselves, we are dependent on every other species on this planet. Just consider for a moment how much healthier this planet would be without 'civilized' man. With every species that disappears, we destroy ourselves.

Gosh! Man made Global Warming is scary!

Good thing it's not real.

DD: how much better the world would be without civilized man?? That is the thought of a true Loony Whackjob Lefty. But, DD, let's not stop there. In Norway they want to cull the moose population because all their belching and farting is causing global warming. In New Zealand they want to cull the sheep and lamb population because all their belching and farting is contributing to global warming. And then there are the cows, perhaps the biggest belchers and farters in the world!!

In the millions of years this planet has existed, it has a history of warm cycles and cold cycles. Chicago at one time was buried under a mile of glacier ice. This planet has been way warmer than it is now and way colder than it is now.

Rather than being alarmist hysterical folks, how about this:
1. Most everyone wants a cleaner planet, so let's work on alternative sources of energy that get the job done while providing a cleaner planet.
2. I think most Americans would like to buy less oil from the Arabs and Chavez. Let's work to alternatives to do just that -- and to get and use more of our own oil within some environmental reason.
3. Let's have cleaner cars, trucks and planes.

And to do all of that, we need businesses, governments, special interest groups and we the consumers to work together, stop the grandstanding and be real. Banning bottled water, taxing the guts out of people and businesses, blaming excess methane exhaust on animals, and trying to scare folks while being hypocritical (i.e. Al Gore, Leo DiCaprio, rock groups, etc.) will not get the job done.

The demise of the sabre tooth tiger signaled the end of mankind! Think how much richer our lives would be chasing mastadons.
More than 94% of all CO2 is naturally produced.

Hey DD,

If you really cared you'd be living in a cave that was naturally formed by running water eating berries and only wild naturally growing fruits.

Instead you're typing on a computer powered by electricity probably created by burn fossil fuels and fretting about polar bears thousands of miles away who's numbers have increased significantly in recent years.

Notice anything odd?

The sad thing about the situation is the right-winders that cannot make a point without being insulting. There are conservationists that actually care about the environment. Are they accurate? Who knows? But are they kooks because they care? I could throw out some choice words about right wingers who always think with their wallets and what I think about their intellectual ability.

Something that William Neikirk and the left leaning Swamp failed to disclose, was easily found after a quick google search. A recent poll reports that nearly 100% of all polar bears tend to vote for democrats.

"Tom", perhaps you should take a look at the Niekirk article above, which does NOT provide a link to the report he cites, let alone provide any statistical proof of its assertions. You seem to accept the Niekirk article as gospel, without viewing any of the underlying evidence--which is about as faith-based an attitude as can be. And you exhibit a faith that this government report is unbiased, a faith I suspect you don't extend to other government reports.

Even if you believe that Gaia and evil mankind will dramatically reduce polar bear population, won't that result in a gain in seals-- which the report says the bears hunt for food? More seals, fewer bears vs. more bears, fewer seals. It is presumptious to posit that mankind can, or should, dictate what the relative mix of the two should be, let alone try and dictate that the 2007 mix is ideal and should be kept the same forever.

Doug,

I thought you wanted to debate issues, but if you want to sink, I'm flexible.

Still looking at those pictures of Rudy in a dress. I hope you wiped the drool marks up.

Terry,

Rudolph will play his reindeer games as he sees fit to cross-dress.

Odd of you to mention that?

Terry, the story that you link to DOES NOT offer any facts from a scientist regarding polar bears. The primary source of the "facts" of the story is "A leading Canadian authority on polar bears, Mitch Taylor" but offers no background to said "expert".

But to top it off, here's the money quote: "Mr Taylor estimates that during the past decade, the Canadian polar bear population has increased by 25 per cent - from 12,000 to 15,000 bears."

NO ANALYSIS, NO SCIENTIFIC STUDY - just an "estimate".

You need better sources.

from Bruce's own UK Telegraph link:

"The battle to ban the hunting of Harp seal pups has meant the seal population has soared - boosting the bears' food supply.

At the same time, fewer seal hunters are around to hunt bears.

"I don't think there is any question polar bears are in danger from global warming," said Andrew Derocher of the World Conservation Union, and a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. "People who deny that have a clear interest in hunting bears."

Bear numbers on the west coast of Hudson's Bay had shrunk by 22 per cent over the past decade, he said.

"They are declining due to global warming and changes in when the ice freezes and melts in Hudson's Bay," he added. He and other scientists in his group are concerned that the retreating ice in the Arctic may pose a danger to future generations of polar bears because of 'habitat loss'. "The critical problem is the sea ice is changing. "We're looking ahead three generations, 30 to 50 years.

"To say that bear populations are growing in one area now is irrelevant."

Hey BOB, Where did I say in my post that I wasn't part of the civilized equation? I'm saying that it's too bad that the advancement of our culture has not brought about equal advancement for the stewardship of this planet. We're wasteful (the packaging that my electricity eating computer came in was excessive) and over-populated (at least I didn't have kids). So why are you shooting me down?

I am sick and tired of liberals e.g. Algore telling us about dying species it ends up with a plethora of these animals in a few years. Everybody wants clean air, water but, you liberals worship mother earth whoever she is instead of God Almighty. These bears will be fine. This is another attempt by the greenies to stop us from ordinary commerce. You hate business, corporations and a good future for America.You want us to live like the Amish or maybe Osama in caves without convenience. Go ahead weirdos live your life of communist environmental crime but, leave me and my grandchildren and children alone. The liberal Dems have set America back by 100 years with all this ridiculous nonsense we now have to ask you communists if it's all right to have an electricty plant. Live in the dark ages dumbos I'm glad all you can do is screw up our future because I'll be fighting you at every Sierra Club, Greenspace turn of events and I'll raise capitalistic money to stop you from your stupidity. Who do you think you are leave America and join Osama in one of his quaint caves. By the way, get a walking stick so you won't stumble. America the future is bright for people who believe in our founders dreams. Enviro wackos get lost. We're not taking you any more with a grain of salt. And it's time to drill for oil you got it dummies oil God created it and guess what it works in your yugo. And by the way, you like horse manure on a street near you as these psychotic people you are listening to want you to go back to horses.Jerry White, Springfield, IL

BC,

Sorry the polar bears didn;t come forward for the census.

From the U.S. Geological Survey "...our current estimate of population size..." Emphasis on the word ESTIMATE.

Here are Mitch Taylor's creditials

http://www.environmental-action.org/blog/archives/2007/01/so_predictable.html

Also in the Swamp cited study, they do not prove why they are finding declining polar bear population, just that there is one. They conclude that is global warming, but it is not based on scientific fact.

How on earth can some of you guys take an issue like this and make it partisan? Tom got this right. The polar bear population isn't growing. You guys always let scientific facts confuse you. So your solution is... ignore the facts and buy a bigger vehicle. As a tree-hugging, Bride of Satan, I just have to say that all my Sisters of the Moon would much rather have a world inhabited by the noble Polar Bear than the cowardly prince.

Notice how the above article is topped by the picture of what must be the cutest polar bear in existence. All cuddly, and not attacking or eating anything.

The photo should instead be of what a polar bear is all about--violently sinking its teeth into a seal and tearing the seal's flesh apart. A photo of a polar bear with seal blood all over its mouth, and a torn and bloody seal carcass by its side, would be much more realistic.

Mrs Jesus, Bruce can make any issue partisan! Besides polar bears don't have oil so screw em right Bruce. Jerry White, Springfield, IL you are one scary guy. What a crazy rant.

"Go ahead weirdos live your life of communist environmental crime but, leave me and my grandchildren and children alone. The liberal Dems have set America back by 100 years with all this ridiculous nonsense we now have to ask you communists if it's all right to have an electricty plant."

Wow! What is up with that Jerry. Should all liberals be exterminated?

"Enviro wackos get lost."

Take a valium or take a time machine back to 1941, because you sound an awful lot like what your accusing liberals of being.

Bruce, I'm surprised they didn't use a pic of Knute the Cute polar bear! Also, seems to me that some environmental whacko wanted Knute killed cause he was growing up in a zoo. Hmmmmm, one says polar bears face trouble with melting ice and then another says kill the cute baby polar bear.
Geeez, these environmental nutjobs want to kill moose, sheep, lamb and cows cause they produce lots of methane, and now they want to kill cute, cuddly polar bears. Who are the true environmentalists???

Bruce,

Next time I see a photo op of the deserter-in-chief standing next to a smiling soldier on his fifth tour in Iraq, I'll remind you of your ridiculous post above. Then I'll post some really interesting war footage that our liberal media will never dare show you. You wouldn't know reality if it smacked you in the face.

The only people left that debate the reality of GW are the Exxon-Mobil paid quacks and the frightfully stupid minority that is well-represented on this post.

Everybody wants clean air, water but, you liberals worship mother earth whoever she is instead of God Almighty.
Posted by: Jerry White
-
One is real (Earth), and one is imaginary (God). And Jerry White is ????

As a magna cum laude graduate in environmental science, I try to stay informed, but it's becoming increasingly difficult trying to filter fact from fiction. I spent almost a full day recently, trying to find accurate data on exactly how much additional carbon dioxide adds to global warming. I was curious about testing a theory that adding calories to the environmental by burning fuel might impact global warming more than the concomitant increase in so-called greenhouse gases. I could find no measured data. Even in forums populated by scientists and professors, the most I could come up with were theories and calculations. This latest polar bear scare appears to be based on nothing more than further calculations and theories and is not supported by actual data. Polar bear populations have actually increased since the recent global warming trend began. Plus, it's merely a theory that numbers will decline if global warming continues. I've come to believe that the theory that humans have caused the most recent global warming trend is nothing more than that -- a theory. Scientists seldom buck consensus opinion in the scientific community because they fear ridicule. Most of those who claim global warming is caused by man also support efforts to reduce our "carbon footprint," including expensive and inefficient mass transit projects, additional taxes on those who burn fossil fuels, incentives for pursuing alternative fuels, etc. I've also noticed that many of the most prominent environmentalists imply that the best solution would be to reduce human populations. In a recent Dateline about global warming, one of the "facts" cited was that elephants are being forced to bathe in dust instead of water. Isn't there anybody intelligent enough at the network to question such a ridiculous assertion? Elephants have always dusted themselves and always will. When I was in college in the '70s, studying environmental science, the alarmists of the day were concerned more about global cooling than global warming. Their assertion then was that polllution was causing the earth to enter another ice age by preventing the sun's radiation from penetrating the atmosphere. Now the alarmists are contending that carbon dioxide is preventing infrared radiation from leaving the earth. Which is it? I think the answer lies in one's political persuasion. If you're driven by emotion rather than fact, join the global warming crowd. They'll welcome you and your theories. If you're driven by hard and cold facts, let them take you where they might. You polar bear lovers out there, what would happen if the facts indicated that limited hunting of polar bears actually helped their populations by removing mature males, allowing younger males to have territories of their own. Would you then support polar bear hunting? No. That's because you're driven by emotion, not fact.

polar bears rule motha motha

polar bears are the most cooest bears in the world and they should have the best protection that they can handle, protection from the hunters that only want there fur, and the melting polar ice capes