How can we stop the polar bear from dying out due to global warming?

[Rahul]

It is a well known fact, to most of us at least that global warming is causing the ice floes to melt off the Arctic, and polar bears are drowning due to having to swim far greater distances than before in search of food, and not being able to return to dry land.




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=433170&in_page_id=1770

Global warming sees polar bears stranded on melting ice

They cling precariously to the top of what is left of the ice floe, their fragile grip the perfect symbol of the tragedy of global warming.

Captured on film by Canadian environmentalists, the pair of polar bears look stranded on chunks of broken ice.

Although the magnificent creatures are well adapted to the water, and can swim scores of miles to solid land, the distance is getting ever greater as the Arctic ice diminishes.

"Swimming 100 miles is not a big deal for a polar bear, especially a fat one," said Dr Ian Stirling of the Canadian Wildlife Service.

"They just kind of float along and kick. But as the ice gets farther out from shore because of warming, it’s a longer swim that costs more energy and makes them more vulnerable."

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/02_1/polarbrsDM010207_468x762.jpg

The plight of the bears was highlighted as the prospect of a gloomy future emerged from leaks of the most comprehensive report into global warming yet undertaken, which is to be published on Friday.

Concluding that it is "highly likely" that mankind is to blame for climate change, it talks of more droughts, torrential rains, shrinking Arctic ice and glaciers, and rising sea levels for the next century.

And it warns that the effects of a build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will last far longer.

Studies of polar bears have revealed that not only have their numbers declined – by nearly one quarter in just 20 years to around 25,000 – but so has their physique.

The bears can be 10ft tall and 1700lbs in weight, using their body fat to keep them alive when the temperatures plummet in the harshest part of their winter to minus 45C.

But the scientists have observed that in the struggle for survival, the bears - and females especially - are now much thinner.

Scientists believe that four bears which recently drowned off the coast of Alaska had simply been unable to cope with a violent storm.

Dr Stirling says that the phenomenon of a female giving birth to triplets is now part of history with usually only single cubs recorded. Soon, he says, the species may be extinct.

Usually at this time of year, polar bears would be sheltering with their young in the dens they carve for themselves in mountain slopes near the shoreline or in snowdrifts on the sea ice.

But global warming, which has raised the temperature in the Canadian Arctic by 4C in the last 50 years, means their habitat is inexorably disappearing.

In Hudson Bay where the ice melts completely in summer, scientists have noted that it is now happening three weeks earlier than normal.

This is having a catastrophic effect on the bears which hunt seals over the winter and spring before coming ashore where they rely on their build-up of body fat to survive – and feed their cubs.

Reports are now being received of polar bears, perfectly equipped for Arctic survival with two coats of insulating fur and a four inch layer of blubber, scavenging for scraps in rubbish tips and camp sites.

Scientists say the survival of polar bears may rely on special conservation areas, but even that seems a forlorn hope with a United Nations report expected to say that sea levels will carry on rising for over 1,000 years even if greenhouse gases can be curbed.

The report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change draws on the work of 2,500 researchers from more than 130 nations and is the most comprehensive overview of climate change for guiding policy-makers.

It will say that global warming was "very likely" caused by human activity, delegates to a climate change conference said.

Dozens of scientists and bureaucrats have been editing the new report in closed-door meetings in Paris. Their report, which must be unanimously approved, is to be released today.

Two participants, speaking on condition of anonymity because the meetings are confidential, said the group approved the term "very likely" in yesterday's sessions. That means they agree that there is a 90 percent chance that global warming is caused by humans.

The last report, in 2001, said global warming was "likely" caused by human activity. There had been speculation that the participants might try to change the wording this time to "virtually certain," which means a 99 percent chance.

The report is considered an authoritative document that could influence government and industrial policy worldwide.

• Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore has been nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his wide-reaching efforts to draw the world's attention to the dangers of global warming, it emerged when nominations closed.



There are some that steadfastly deny the occurence of global warming despite the mountains of evidence proving it, but the more rational amongst us acknowledge that it is indeed a problem.

How do we save the bears?

Your thoughts and comments on this important issue would be much appreciated.

Rahul

[Dilloduck]

It is a well known fact, to most of us at least that global warming is causing the ice floes to melt off the Arctic, and polar bears are drowning due to having to swim far greater distances than before in search of food, and not being able to return to dry land.



There are some that steadfastly deny the occurence of global warming despite the mountains of evidence proving it, but the more rational amongst us acknowledge that it is indeed a problem.

How do we save the bears?

Your thoughts and comments on this important issue would be much appreciated.

Rahul

Killing all the people outta do it--I mean at least it's a start. If that doesn't do it and the Earth continues to warm, some other species can give it a shot.

[darin]

Are Polar Bears Dying?

A new study by Dr. David Legates, Delaware's State Climatologist and director of the University of Delaware's Center for Climatic Research, throws cold water on the claim that global warming threatens to cause the extinction of polar bears.
Scare Unwarranted

As part of his study titled Climate Science: Climate Change and its Impacts, expected at press time to be released in April of this year, Legates reviewed assertions by environmental alarmists that global warming is causing an unnatural increase in Arctic temperatures, posing a threat to the thickness and extent of sea ice required by polar bears. In particular, Legates examined claims made in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (Arctic Assessment), an international project of the Arctic Council--an intergovernmental forum consisting of representatives from eight Arctic nations and six groups representing indigenous peoples.

After careful review, Legates found the Arctic Assessment claims of an impending, human-induced arctic meltdown are "not supported by the evidence."

The Arctic Assessment claimed Arctic air temperature trends provide an early and strong indication of global warming causing polar ice caps and glaciers to melt. However, Legates points out that current research suggests this conclusion is unwarranted.

For example, coastal stations in Greenland are experiencing a cooling trend, and average summer air temperatures at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet have decreased at the rate of 4º F (2.2º C) per decade since measurements began in 1987.
Arctic Russia Cooling

In addition, observes Legates, the Arctic Assessment ignored a relatively recent long-term analysis of records from coastal stations in Russia.

Russian coastal station records of both the extent of sea ice and the thickness of fast ice (ice fixed to the shoreline or seafloor) extending back 125 years show significant variability over 60- to 80-year periods. Moreover, the maximum air temperature they report for the twentieth century was in 1938, when it was nearly 0.4º F (0.2º C) warmer than the air temperature for 2000. According to Legates, the Russian observations do "not support [claims of] amplified warming in Polar Regions predicted by general circulation models."
Earth Warmer Before

Legates also points out that even if warming was happening, research shows such warming has occurred before, as ice cores from Baffin Island and sea core sediments from the Chukchi Sea (north of the Bering Straight between Alaska and Russia) show.

For example, in Alaska the onset of a climatic shift--a warming--in 1976-1977 ended a multi-decade trend of cold in the middle of the twentieth century. This simply returned temperatures to those experienced in the early years of the century.
Warming a Minor Factor

According to the Arctic Assessment, human-caused warming in the Arctic will necessarily lead to decreased sea ice extent and thickness. However, Legates notes air temperature is only one of the factors that dictate sea ice coverage and thickness.

When the Arctic is relatively calm, for example, it is easier for sea ice to form. Sea ice is then moved around the Arctic by the force of the wind. During stormy periods, surface winds churn the water and move existing ice, making it more difficult for sea ice to form.

Reinforcing that point, Legates highlights a study commissioned by Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which concluded, "the possible impact of global warming appears to play a minor role in changes to Arctic sea ice." According to Legates, the "Canadian study concluded that changing wind patterns are the primary cause of changing sea ice distributions. Moreover, the response of sea ice in the Antarctic has been quite different--while it has decreased in the Arctic, it has remained relatively constant (or even increased slightly) in the Antarctic since 1978."
Bear Population Steady

The Arctic Assessment concludes, "global warming could cause polar bears to go extinct by the end of the century by eroding the sea ice that sustains them." This is misleading, Legates finds, because, as discussed above, Arctic air temperatures were as high as present temperatures in the 1930s and polar bears survived.

According to the World Wildlife Fund, about 20 distinct polar bear populations currently exist, accounting for approximately 22,000 polar bears worldwide. Of those distinct populations only two, representing about 16.4 percent of the total population, are decreasing. At the same time, 10 populations representing approximately 45.4 percent of the total population are stable, and 2 populations representing about 13.6 percent of the total number of polar bears are increasing. The status of the remaining populations is unknown.

"This [the Arctic Assessment] is nothing more than a poorly designed attempt to implement the Kyoto Protocol through the back door," said Peyton Knight, director of environmental and regulatory affairs at the National Center for Public Policy Research. "You don't list endangered species based on speculative predictions," said Knight; "you list them because there are small numbers of the species and the numbers are in fact dwindling. This is not called the 'someday-might-possibly-become-endangered-if-our-speculative-claims-prove-true' list."

http://www.globalwarming.nottinghamshiretimes.co.uk/polarbears.html

[Rahul]

Are Polar Bears Dying?

A new study by Dr. David Legates, Delaware's State Climatologist and director of the University of Delaware's Center for Climatic Research, throws cold water on the claim that global warming threatens to cause the extinction of polar bears.
Scare Unwarranted

As part of his study titled Climate Science: Climate Change and its Impacts, expected at press time to be released in April of this year, Legates reviewed assertions by environmental alarmists that global warming is causing an unnatural increase in Arctic temperatures, posing a threat to the thickness and extent of sea ice required by polar bears. In particular, Legates examined claims made in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (Arctic Assessment), an international project of the Arctic Council--an intergovernmental forum consisting of representatives from eight Arctic nations and six groups representing indigenous peoples.

After careful review, Legates found the Arctic Assessment claims of an impending, human-induced arctic meltdown are "not supported by the evidence."

The Arctic Assessment claimed Arctic air temperature trends provide an early and strong indication of global warming causing polar ice caps and glaciers to melt. However, Legates points out that current research suggests this conclusion is unwarranted.

For example, coastal stations in Greenland are experiencing a cooling trend, and average summer air temperatures at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet have decreased at the rate of 4º F (2.2º C) per decade since measurements began in 1987.
Arctic Russia Cooling

In addition, observes Legates, the Arctic Assessment ignored a relatively recent long-term analysis of records from coastal stations in Russia.

Russian coastal station records of both the extent of sea ice and the thickness of fast ice (ice fixed to the shoreline or seafloor) extending back 125 years show significant variability over 60- to 80-year periods. Moreover, the maximum air temperature they report for the twentieth century was in 1938, when it was nearly 0.4º F (0.2º C) warmer than the air temperature for 2000. According to Legates, the Russian observations do "not support [claims of] amplified warming in Polar Regions predicted by general circulation models."
Earth Warmer Before

Legates also points out that even if warming was happening, research shows such warming has occurred before, as ice cores from Baffin Island and sea core sediments from the Chukchi Sea (north of the Bering Straight between Alaska and Russia) show.

For example, in Alaska the onset of a climatic shift--a warming--in 1976-1977 ended a multi-decade trend of cold in the middle of the twentieth century. This simply returned temperatures to those experienced in the early years of the century.
Warming a Minor Factor

According to the Arctic Assessment, human-caused warming in the Arctic will necessarily lead to decreased sea ice extent and thickness. However, Legates notes air temperature is only one of the factors that dictate sea ice coverage and thickness.

When the Arctic is relatively calm, for example, it is easier for sea ice to form. Sea ice is then moved around the Arctic by the force of the wind. During stormy periods, surface winds churn the water and move existing ice, making it more difficult for sea ice to form.

Reinforcing that point, Legates highlights a study commissioned by Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which concluded, "the possible impact of global warming appears to play a minor role in changes to Arctic sea ice." According to Legates, the "Canadian study concluded that changing wind patterns are the primary cause of changing sea ice distributions. Moreover, the response of sea ice in the Antarctic has been quite different--while it has decreased in the Arctic, it has remained relatively constant (or even increased slightly) in the Antarctic since 1978."
Bear Population Steady

The Arctic Assessment concludes, "global warming could cause polar bears to go extinct by the end of the century by eroding the sea ice that sustains them." This is misleading, Legates finds, because, as discussed above, Arctic air temperatures were as high as present temperatures in the 1930s and polar bears survived.

According to the World Wildlife Fund, about 20 distinct polar bear populations currently exist, accounting for approximately 22,000 polar bears worldwide. Of those distinct populations only two, representing about 16.4 percent of the total population, are decreasing. At the same time, 10 populations representing approximately 45.4 percent of the total population are stable, and 2 populations representing about 13.6 percent of the total number of polar bears are increasing. The status of the remaining populations is unknown.

"This [the Arctic Assessment] is nothing more than a poorly designed attempt to implement the Kyoto Protocol through the back door," said Peyton Knight, director of environmental and regulatory affairs at the National Center for Public Policy Research. "You don't list endangered species based on speculative predictions," said Knight; "you list them because there are small numbers of the species and the numbers are in fact dwindling. This is not called the 'someday-might-possibly-become-endangered-if-our-speculative-claims-prove-true' list."

http://www.globalwarming.nottinghamshiretimes.co.uk/polarbears.html

That study is bogus. Of course the bears are dying. They could be extinct in 20 years.




Global warming may kill off polar bears in 20 years, says WWF

Many Arctic animals, including polar bears and some seal species, could be extinct within 20 years because of global warming, a conservation group said yesterday.

Traditional ways of life for many indigenous people in the Arctic would also become unsustainable unless the world "takes drastic action to reduce climate change", said the conservation organisation WWF.

"If we don't act immediately the Arctic will soon become unrecognisable" said Tonje Folkestad, a WWF climate change expert. "Polar bears will be ... something that our grandchildren can only read about in books."

By 2026, the earth could be an average 2C (3.6F) warmer than it was in 1750, according to research to be presented to a conference on climate change in Exeter this week.

"In the Arctic this could lead to a loss of summer sea ice, species and some types of tundra vegetation, as well as to a fundamental change in the ways of life of Inuit and other Arctic residents," the organisation said in a statement.

The total area covered by summer sea ice in the Arctic is already decreasing by 9.2% a decade, and would "disappear entirely by the end of the century" unless the situation changes.

"If ... unique ecosystems like the Arctic are not [to be] lost, the G8 meeting must take drastic action to reduce climate change," said Catarina Cardoso, a WWF expert.



There is plenty of evidence to back up the fact that polar bears are indeed drowning in large numbers.




http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0210_060210_polar_bears_2.html

Scientists with the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, reported that in September 2005 the sea ice had shrunk to its lowest level on record.

If the melting trend continues, the Arctic could see ice-free summers by 2040, according to a Canadian climate model. Other models suggest open Arctic waters by the end of the century. (See "Arctic Ice Levels at Record Low, May Keep Melting, Study Warns.")

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/images/thumbs/060210_polar_bears_170.jpg



Bears in some areas spend the summer months on land. They fast until the ice forms in the fall, when they can use the ice as a vast platform from which to hunt the seas.

Studies of the polar bear populations around the western coast of Canada's Hudson Bay (map) show that this wait, and the bears' period of fasting, has increased by three weeks since the 1970s.

The population there is noticeably skinnier now, scientists say, and has declined by 15 percent in the last decade.

In northern Alaska the U.S. Minerals Management Service has concluded that some polar bears are drowning as they try to swim increasingly long distances between the ice and land.



How would you suggest saving the bears?

[darin]

That study is bogus. Of course the bears are dying. They could be extinct in 20 years.


That's SOO EASY! isnt it? Just 'call it bogus' and somehow it IS. It's bogus because it's an inconvenient truth to you who worship Global Warming.



There is plenty of evidence to back up the fact that polar bears are indeed drowning in large numbers.


And the study I quoted debates that.


How would you suggest saving the bears?

I think Dillo said it best. We start killing humans. If we reduce the number of humans by 25% we'd know if 'we' are causing it.

I say we let things go. Species have been dying and going extinct for "Millions" of years. Maybe that's just how it's supposed to be. Arrogant HUMANS think we can fight nature - naturally occurrence such as the rising global temps.

[Dilloduck]

That study is bogus. Of course the bears are dying. They could be extinct in 20 years.



There is plenty of evidence to back up the fact that polar bears are indeed drowning in large numbers.




How would you suggest saving the bears?

How about some big ass life preservers ?

[-Cp]

How would you suggest saving the bears?'


I don't - I say let em' die... after all "Survival of the fittest" - right? I mean, who cares what happens to them if - after all - we're all from pond scum....

Additionally - why do you care what happens to them? What has a polar bear done for you lately?

[Pale Rider]

That's SOO EASY! isnt it? Just 'call it bogus' and somehow it IS.

That's the liberals M.O. d. "I said it, therefore it's true." It can be the biggest line of horse shit ever uttered by man, but they think that just saying it makes it true. And that of course, is one huge reason we all know liberals are crazy.

[Hagbard Celine]

It is a well known fact, to most of us at least that global warming is causing the ice floes to melt off the Arctic, and polar bears are drowning due to having to swim far greater distances than before in search of food, and not being able to return to dry land.



There are some that steadfastly deny the occurence of global warming despite the mountains of evidence proving it, but the more rational amongst us acknowledge that it is indeed a problem.

How do we save the bears?

Your thoughts and comments on this important issue would be much appreciated.

Rahul

We should send them oars so they can paddle their ice rafts back to the mainland!

[stephanie]

Can we save these people??

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/282045.jpg

[-Cp]

We should send them oars so they can paddle their ice rafts back to the mainland!

LOL! That's the most brilliant post you've ever made!!! :)

:lol::lol::lol:

[Kathianne]

Those poor polar bears! Heart strings tugging. Lots more pics and video at site:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1887890.htm





Snap! Freezing Bears

Watch Snap! Freezing Bears [G, 3:43min.] (Help):

Play The video

But what's the bet this photo will get a run again.





A planet on the edge
They cling precariously to the top of what is left of the ice floe, their fragile grip the perfect symbol of the tragedy of global warming.
Captured on film by Canadian environmentalists, the pair of polar bears look stranded on chunks of broken ice.

— The Sunday Telegraph, A planet on the edge, 4th February, 2007


Those stranded polar bears on the shrinking Arctic ice - victims of global warming - certainly tugged at the heart-strings.

That photo was published not only in the Sunday Telegraph.

It made it onto the front page of the New York Times.

And the International Herald Tribune.

It also ran in London's Daily Mail, The Times of London and Canada's Ottawa Citizen - and that's just to name a few.

All used it as evidence of global warming and the imminent demise of the polar bear.

But the photo wasn't current. It was two and a half years old.

And it wasn't snapped by Canadian environmentalists.

It was taken by an Australian marine biology student on a field trip.

And in what month did she take it?


The time of year was August, summer.

— Email from Amanda Byrd to Media Watch

Read Amanda Byrd's response to Media Watch's questions.


Summer, when every year the fringes of the Arctic ice cap melt regardless of the wider effects of global warming.

So were the polar bears stranded?


They did not appear to be in danger…I did not see the bears get on the ice, and I did not see them get off. I cannot say either way if they were stranded or not.

— Email from Amanda Byrd to Media Watch


And they didn't appear stranded to Denis Simard of Environment Canada.

He told Canada's National Post.





You have to keep in mind that the bears are not in danger at all. This is a perfect picture for climate change…you have the impression they are in the middle of the ocean and they are going to die...But they were not that far from the coast, and it was possible for them to swim...They are still alive and having fun.

— The National Post (Canada), Gore pays for photo after Canada didn't, 23rd March, 2007


Read “Gore pays for photo after Canada didn't” on The National Post website.


Polar bears are good swimmers. So how did all this come about?

Photographer Amanda Byrd gave her photo to fellow cruiser, Dan Crosbie - to have a look.


Dan Crosbie gave the image to the Canadian Ice Service, who gave the image to Environment Canada, who distributed the image to 7 media agencies including AP.

— Email from Amanda Byrd to Media Watch


Associated Press released the photo two and a half years after it was taken, on the day the United Nations released its major global warming report.

That's where Sydney's Sunday Telegraph got the photo, running it with a story taken from the Daily Mail as Neil Breen explains.





...the photograph represents polar bears standing on ice that’s melting. Now obviously there’s a disputed account of when that was taken now, and maybe it was taken in the Alaskan Summer when you would naturally expect ice to melt but at the time it was sent to us, Associated Press in their caption to us told us that the picture was taken of melting ice caps and to do with global warming and that it was sent to them by a Canadian ice authority and we had no reason to question it.

— Statement from Neil Breen (Editor of the Sunday Telegraph) to Media Watch

Read the full transcript of Media Watch's interview with Neil Breen.


But Amanda Byrd didn't think her photo necessarily described whether global warming is occurring.


I take neither stand, I simply took the photos...If I released the image myself, it would have been as a striking image. Nothing more.

— Email from Amanda Byrd to Media Watch


That's not how Al Gore saw it.

He used it in a presentation on man made global warming.





"Their habitat is melting... beautiful animals, literally being forced off the planet," Mr. Gore said, with the photo on the screen behind him. "They're in trouble, got nowhere else to go."
Audience members let out gasps of sympathy…

— The National Post (Canada), Gore pays for photo after Canada didn't, 23rd March, 2007


Well that's because they're bears… and at a distance, they're rather cute. http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/9149/polarbrsdm010207468x762bp5.jpg

[Rahul]

We should send them oars so they can paddle their ice rafts back to the mainland!


How about some big ass life preservers ?


'
I don't - I say let em' die... after all "Survival of the fittest" - right? I mean, who cares what happens to them if - after all - we're all from pond scum....

Additionally - why do you care what happens to them? What has a polar bear done for you lately?

These are all precisely the sort of illogical responses I wasn't looking for.


That's SOO EASY! isnt it? Just 'call it bogus' and somehow it IS. It's bogus because it's an inconvenient truth to you who worship Global Warming.

I don't worship Global Warming, in fact, I wish it had never occured in the first place. Further, I quoted you material from the WWF and National Geographic, and those are reputable sources.




And the study I quoted debates that.

That is why I think it is flawed.




I think Dillo said it best. We start killing humans. If we reduce the number of humans by 25% we'd know if 'we' are causing it.


So, your recommendation is to start killing humans in order to save the bears?



I say we let things go. Species have been dying and going extinct for "Millions" of years. Maybe that's just how it's supposed to be. Arrogant HUMANS think we can fight nature - naturally occurrence such as the rising global temps.

I disagree. Global warming isn't natural, and it isn't right to let bears die out just because you think it's "been happening for millions of years".

http://dingo.care2.com/c2p/defenders/polarbearfamily_225x175.jpg

[Hagbard Celine]

Seriously though, why don't they just swim back?

[darin]

That is why I think it is flawed.


You think it's flawed because it disputes what you believe. Wow. I suppose that makes your life easy eh? lmao.


I disagree. Global warming isn't natural,

You're saying the Earth has not gone through warming and cooling periods since day one?


and it isn't right to let bears die out just because you think it's "been happening for millions of years".

Logical fallacy of False Dilemma. Nobody is letting Polar bears "die out" - that simply isnt' happening. SOME groups are shrinking in number, some are gaining in number.

[Rahul]

Seriously though, why don't they just swim back?

The bears are being forced to swim for miles at a stretch. They think that the retreating ice floes are near land but they aren't and the bears get tired and drown during the journey.



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/02/09/MNGH6H58GK1.DTL

The sea ice is breaking up earlier in the spring, and the ocean is freezing over later in the fall. With the thinning and cracking of the pack ice, the polar bears are forced to come to land and search for food, which they are usually unable to find.

Fish and Wildlife scientists from Anchorage have found that more bears in the Beaufort Sea have come ashore in September as the distance between sea ice and land has increased, based on the first five years of an ongoing study. In earlier Canadian studies on the polar bear population in the Hudson Bay, where sea ice is shrinking the fastest, bears weighed less and had fewer births, and their young had a lower survival rate.

Scientists from the federal Minerals Management Service concluded that some bears were drowning in the long swim from ice to land. They saw four drowned bears floating in open water in 2004, apparently exhausted while trying to swim 125 to 185 miles between ice and land in high winds.


http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0402/feature2/images/zm_zoomin.2.1.jpg

The bears are starting to feel the heat.

[Monkeybone]

i would like to know how we know the exact temperatures from back in 1750 personally.

[avatar4321]

You realize that almost all the polar bear groups have doubled and tripled in population since Global warming supposedly started dont you?

You also realize that polar bears are amazing swimmers, swimming up to 60 miles offshore at times dont you?

[darin]

Oh...and...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=290&stc=1&d=1181843579

[Rahul]

You think it's flawed because it disputes what you believe. Wow. I suppose that makes your life easy eh? lmao.

No. I believe it's flawed because of the enormous amount of evidence that says so.

The Bush administration admits it, too.



http://environment.about.com/od/biodiversityconservation/a/polar_bears.htm

Polar bears need increased government protection because their icy habitat is melting as a result of global warming, according to the Bush administration.
On Wednesday, December 27, 2006, U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne proposed classifying polar bears as a “threatened” species on the government’s list of species that are in danger of extinction. The “endangered” classification is reserved for species at even greater risk.

Environmentalists hailed the move for the sake of the polar bears, but also expressed cautious optimism about what appeared to be a new willingness by the Bush administration to acknowledge the growing effects of global warming and to take action to address them.

How Global Warming Threatens Polar Bears

Current estimates place the global polar bear population at between 20,000 and 25,000, but warming temperatures have been melting Arctic sea ice at an alarming rate, depriving the polar bears of their natural habitat and making it harder for them to find food. In spring 2006, scientists found the bodies of several polar bears that had starved to death. Reduced food availability due to global warming has also resulted in polar bear cannibalism off the north coast of Alaska and Canada.

Some polar bears have drowned while attempting to swim to safety after being trapped on small islands of melting ice. The U.S. Minerals Management Service documented the drowning of at least four polar bears in September 2004, when the sea ice retreated a record 160 miles off the northern coast.

Arctic sea ice, which is the polar bears natural habitat and hunting ground, appears to be melting at a rapid rate. On December 12, 2006, scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research said that the Arctic could be ice-free in summer as early as 2040, and in the next 20 years the extent of Arctic sea ice will be reduced by 80 percent.

New Proposal is Legal Victory for Environmentalists

The proposal by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service comes as the result of a long court battle by the Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace to secure government protection for polar bears, including action to address the effects of global warming on their sea-ice habitat.

"This is a victory for the polar bear, and all wildlife threatened by global warming," said Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity, in a press release. "This is the beginning of a sea change in the way this country addresses global warming. There is still time to save polar bears but we must reduce global warming pollution immediately."

Peer Review and Public Comment

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service now has 12 months to obtain peer review and public comment on its proposal before issuing a final decision about whether to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The government already has received more than 200,000 comments in support of listing the polar bear, including letters from leading polar bear experts, climate scientists, and many members of Congress.

"Sand in the hourglass is running out for polar bears," said United States Representative Jay Inslee (D-WA). "Congress needs to take bold steps to reduce global warming pollution before time runs out for this and other species."

If the final decision is to add polar bears to the list, federal agencies will be required to ensure that any action they authorize, finance, or carry out will not jeopardize the polar bears continued existence as a species or adversely modify the polar bears’ critical habitat. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will also be required to prepare a recovery plan for the polar bear, specifying measures necessary for the species’ protection.

U.S. Track Record on Global Warming

The United States is currently the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases that trap heat and cause global warming, primarily carbon dioxide emissions from cars and trucks and power plants. Some states, such as California, have taken action to reduce global warming pollution, but the federal government has yet to take serious action.

"The United States has failed to lead the world in tackling global warming. With under five percent of the world's people, we generate more than 20 percent of the global warming pollution," said Kert Davies, Greenpeace research director. "We must start cutting greenhouse gas emissions or the polar bear will be pushed to the brink of extinction within our lifetime."

Shortly after taking office, President Bush refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for mandated controls on greenhouse gas emissions, and the Bush administration has repeatedly drawn international criticism for failing to help reduce global warming and for attempting to stop its own climate scientists from speaking out about the effects of global warming.

[theHawk]

Why should we do anything to stop the extinction of any species? Many species have come and gone, the world lives on. Shouldn't you Darwinians believe that right now new species are being created out of random mutations anywhere around the world?

[Rahul]

You realize that almost all the polar bear groups have doubled and tripled in population since Global warming supposedly started dont you?

Would you care to share your source?



You also realize that polar bears are amazing swimmers, swimming up to 60 miles offshore at times dont you?

The polar bears can swim 60 miles, but not 200 + miles. They get tired, just like humans do.

http://www.ecotravel.com/ecotravel2/content/images/de_man_curvedbears.jpg

How would you suggest saving the bears?

[Hobbit]

The polar ice caps where the bears live go through annual heating and cooling periods all the time. The layman's terms for these periods are 'summer' and 'winter.' With the sun not setting on the north pole for 6 months out of the year, and not rising the other 6 months, those caps grow and shrink by hundreds of miles...EVERY YEAR. If the ice caps were shrinking at a far greater rate than the whackos project they could sometime, it still wouldn't kill all those polar bears. They'd just change the dates they go out to sea and back, as the caps shrank and grew. I also don't buy the overheating polar bears thing, either, as there are polar bears living outdoors in Atlanta.

As for them dying out, there's no danger of that. Their numbers have grown by several hundred percent in the past 30 years. They've been moved to the protected species list as part of a settlement of a lawsuit brought against the U.S. government.

[darin]

You hate seals, don't you? That must be this fascination with Bears. Do you know how many seals are senselessly slaughter every year by Rogue Bears?

http://www.supanet.com/media/00/10/02/polar-bear.jpg

http://www.arkive.org/media/F53AC439-DCA2-4E3B-88AC-6495826A70A2/Presentation.Large/Polar_bear_eating_seal_carcass.jpg

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=291&stc=1&d=1181847503

[Trigg]

Really, we could go back and forth with this argument. There are just as many articles about polar bears dying and there are about them thriving.

Here is an interresting article, it even discusses your picture you keep posting Rahul.

"Polar bears are the poster animals of global warming. The image of a polar bear floating on an ice floe is one of the most dramatic visual statements in the fight against rising temperatures in the Arctic.

But global warming is not killing the polar bears of Canada's eastern Arctic, according to one ongoing study. Scheduled for release next year, it says the number of polar bears in the Davis Strait area of Canada's eastern Arctic – one of 19 polar bear populations worldwide – has grown to 2,100, up from 850 in the mid-1980s.

For those keeping score, that’s an almost 150 percent increase in two decades."
http://newsbusters.org/node/12694

[-Cp]

There are just as many articles about polar bears dying and there are about them thriving.

How do you know? Have you counted the amount of articles for each argument?

[Trigg]

How do you know? Have you counted the amount of articles for each argument?

I typed in polar bears population increase/decrease. Close to a million articles popped up for each. I just used my power of observation.

[-Cp]

I typed in polar bears population increase/decrease. Close to a million articles popped up for each. I just used my power of observation.

:link::link::link:

[Trigg]

:link::link::link:

Google it, I'm not about to post all the different web sights.

[remie]

You know I bet if truth be known, the polar bears are actually swimming out to these little ice islands kinda like I go to Barbados. You know as a polar bear get away.

[-Cp]

Google it, I'm not about to post all the different web sights.

Which means you didnt' do any research....

You also didn't count how many each side had because if you had, you'd still be counting if there were really "millions per side"...

[LOki]

It is a well known fact, to most of us at least that global warming is causing the ice floes to melt off the Arctic, and polar bears are drowning due to having to swim far greater distances than before in search of food, and not being able to return to dry land.

There are some that steadfastly deny the occurence of global warming despite the mountains of evidence proving it, but the more rational amongst us acknowledge that it is indeed a problem.

How do we save the bears?

Your thoughts and comments on this important issue would be much appreciated.

RahulThey wouldn't starve OR drown if we hunted them into extinction.

[darin]

Which means you didnt' do any research....

You also didn't count how many each side had because if you had, you'd still be counting if there were really "millions per side"...

Why are you nit-picking her? the point was this: Given Google and 3 minutes, one could find MANY (As in 'A shit load') of articles which are both Pro and Con of this issue.

[-Cp]

Why are you nit-picking her? the point was this: Given Google and 3 minutes, one could find MANY (As in 'A shit load') of articles which are both Pro and Con of this issue.

Because she claimed there are "millions of articles" supporting both sides... and I'm just asking her to prove it....

I HIGHLY doubt she counted them all - much less took the time to read each one to see which side they support...

It doesn't help anyone to make empty claims like that....

[Trigg]

Because she claimed there are "millions of articles" supporting both sides... and I'm just asking her to prove it....

I HIGHLY doubt she counted them all - much less took the time to read each one to see which side they support...

It doesn't help anyone to make empty claims like that....

I can't believe you are getting your panties in such a twist over this.

I googled polar bears and noticed there were MANY articles for both arguments. I then read through a few and pulled out one I thought was interresting.


Geez

[darin]

Because she claimed there are "millions of articles" supporting both sides... and I'm just asking her to prove it....

I HIGHLY doubt she counted them all - much less took the time to read each one to see which side they support...

It doesn't help anyone to make empty claims like that....

Well, thanks to the benefit of context I'm very sure most people know by 'millions' she meant 'many'. IMO, you're being too picky.

btw - tomorrow night - show up around 6:30, aight?

[Missileman]

How can we stop the polar bear from dying out due to global warming?

The answer is simple...everybody chill!

[Hobbit]

The answer is simple...everybody chill!

You just reminded me of one of the worst movies of all time. It rhymes with Fatman and Bobbin.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/docs/hateyou.gif

[Nukeman]

Because she claimed there are "millions of articles" supporting both sides... and I'm just asking her to prove it....

I HIGHLY doubt she counted them all - much less took the time to read each one to see which side they support...

It doesn't help anyone to make empty claims like that....Well no shit sherlock of course she didn't count them all. Do you count every article that comes up on google or yahoo that relates to a topic you post on. I think we should hold you accountable in the future to make sure you are giving us a running count of all articles.

I for one used COMMON sense and realized that "millions" meant a whole lot.

Do you always take everything "literaly"??:poke:

[darin]

Nobody liked my custom animation of the bear swatting the head off the seal?? C'mon! :)

[Dilloduck]

Nobody liked my custom animation of the bear swatting the head off the seal?? C'mon! :)

I loved it ! Good job----I watched it 1 million times !!! :laugh2::poke:

[Rahul]

You know I bet if truth be known, the polar bears are actually swimming out to these little ice islands kinda like I go to Barbados. You know as a polar bear get away.

The bears are drowning in search of food, not getaways.

http://www.climate.org/polarbears/pb1.jpg


Really, we could go back and forth with this argument. There are just as many articles about polar bears dying and there are about them thriving.

Actually, I have found that most of the reliable sources state they are dying out.



Here is an interresting article, it even discusses your picture you keep posting Rahul.

I only posted that once. Pictures sometimes help to get the word out faster. It's important to make one's posts visually attractive, otherwise, they get drowned amongst all the tremendously negative posts on here.

http://www.worldwildlife.org/polarbears/images/mock_pic.jpg



"Polar bears are the poster animals of global warming. The image of a polar bear floating on an ice floe is one of the most dramatic visual statements in the fight against rising temperatures in the Arctic.

But global warming is not killing the polar bears of Canada's eastern Arctic, according to one ongoing study. Scheduled for release next year, it says the number of polar bears in the Davis Strait area of Canada's eastern Arctic – one of 19 polar bear populations worldwide – has grown to 2,100, up from 850 in the mid-1980s.

For those keeping score, that’s an almost 150 percent increase in two decades."
http://newsbusters.org/node/12694

That study was likely not conducted in a scientific fashion. Some of the local hunters think the number of bears are increasing as more move inland in search of food but in actuality they do so simply because they cannot find food close to the floes on the coast and also because the floes are drifting futher apart.


They wouldn't starve OR drown if we hunted them into extinction.

These are exactly the type of comments that are not required. The point of the OP was to ask how to save the bears, not discuss different ways of killing them.

Once again, how would you propose saving the bears?

[Rahul]

The answer is simple...everybody chill!

The question is, how?




http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec04/arctic_11-10_printout.html


The Arctic is warming at a faster pace than any other part of the world, according to a new report - the most complete evaluation of the Earth's northern cap - released Monday.

A rise in temperature around the North Pole is melting large areas of Arctic ice, causing dramatic weather changes and declines in populations of polar bears and walruses, among other changes, scientists say.

While Arctic warming has been going on for decades and has been studied before, this is the first thorough assessment of the causes and consequences of the trend. The report supports the broad but politically controversial scientific consensus that global warming is caused mainly by heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

"While some historical changes in climate have resulted from natural causes and variations, the strength of the trends and the patterns of change that have emerged in recent decades indicate that human influences, resulting primarily from increased emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, have now become the dominant factor," according the report.

The findings are likely to increase pressure on the Bush administration, which has acknowledged a possible human role in global warming but says the science is still too murky to justify mandatory reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions.

The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment

The Arctic Council, a group made up of Canada, the United States, Russia, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark and Iceland, commissioned the 140-page Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA). Nearly 300 scientists worked on the study, as did elders from the native communities in the region.

The group found that the region's temperatures have risen almost 2 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 100 years, which is twice the global average. Average winter temperatures have risen 4 degrees. But in specific areas of Alaska and Russia the temperature changes have been more dramatic - an 11-degree increase in winter temperatures since the 1970s.

The rising temperatures have decreased the amount of the ocean that is covered by ice to the lowest amount ever recorded. The Greenland ice cap and other Arctic glaciers could disappear in summers by 2060-2100, according to scientists, who worry that the resulting rise in ocean levels could cause flooding at ocean coasts all over the world.

Impact on Indigenous peoples

The impact on the people living in the Arctic has been dramatic. Indigenous people report hunters falling through melting sea ice; declining polar bears, walruses, ice-living seals, and reindeer - all primary sources of food; and difficulty traveling in roadless areas where there is no snow for sleds and snowmobiles.

In some more developed areas, the permanently frozen layer of earth -- the permafrost -- has melted, destabilizing buildings and causing roads to crack.

Many young people in the area face increased chances of skin cancers and immune system disorders due to heightened exposure to ultraviolet radiation - estimated at about 30 percent higher than any earlier generation.

"Global warming connects us all," Sheila Watt-Cloutier, a Canadian Inuit who chairs the Inuit Circumpolar Council, told the Los Angeles Times. "The Arctic is the world's health barometer, and the Inuit are the mercury in that barometer."

Why?

Most of the warming is blamed on increased use of fossil fuels like crude oil, natural gas and coal, which create greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases have increased in the atmosphere by almost 30 percent since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuels, which are used in cars, factories and power plants, make up 80 percent of the world's energy use.

The Arctic is especially vulnerable to warming because snow and ice reflect heat and when they melt, the dark ground and water accelerate the warming by absorbing heat.

"The polar regions are essentially the Earth's air conditioner," explained Michael McCracken, president of the International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences. "Imagine the Earth having a less efficient air conditioner."

[Missileman]

The question is, how?

Again the answer is obvious...take these :chillpill::chillpill: and call Algore in the morning.

[-Cp]

Well no shit sherlock of course she didn't count them all. Do you count every article that comes up on google or yahoo that relates to a topic you post on. I think we should hold you accountable in the future to make sure you are giving us a running count of all articles.

I for one used COMMON sense and realized that "millions" meant a whole lot.

Do you always take everything "literaly"??:poke:

I take it literal when she's making claims of things in context with the term "millions of sites".....

[avatar4321]

So they are dying out by overpopulation then? just breed till they can no longer be sustained and then starve? cause i dont see how any animal increasing in population can by dying out.

[Rahul]

So they are dying out by overpopulation then?

Of course not. The polar bear population is actually decreasing despite what some say.




http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/europe/what_we_do/arctic/polar_bear/news/index.cfm?uNewsID=63980

The polar bear population in Canada’s western Hudson Bay has declined from around 1,200 bears in 1987 to less than 950 bears in 2004, according to the latest research from scientists, part-funded by WWF*. The decline is linked to rising temperatures.

Polar bears in the western Hudson Bay rely upon annual sea ice for access to their primary prey, ringed seals. During the summer months, when Hudson Bay is ice-free, bears remain on land where they make little use of terrestrial food sources.

http://assets.panda.org/img/polarbear140802_33435.jpg

In the past 30 years rising temperatures have increased the duration of this ice-free period – and the bears’ seasonal fast – by three weeks. Scientists say this indicates the decrease in population size appears to have been initiated by earlier summer ice break up in the Hudson Bay, which caused the bears' body condition to decline.

It also may explain why the town of Churchill, on Hudson Bay, like many communities in the Canadian Arctic, has experienced an increase in the number of bear occurrences in and around town. Apparently, a larger number of nutritionally-stressed bears are visiting the Churchill area each year in search of alternative food sources.

Because western Hudson Bay is near the southern limit of the polar bear’s range, the scientists’ findings may foreshadow how more northerly populations will respond to projected warming in the arctic ecosystem.

In February, the US Fish and Wildlife Service announced that it is opening the formal process to list polar bears as officially "threatened" due to the unprecedented meltdown of their sea-ice habitat caused by global warming. There are between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears in the Arctic.



Think about it and let us know your proposal to help the bears. Your input will be much appreciated.

[darin]

The bears are drowning in search of food, not getaways.

SEAL HATER!!!!!

[Hagbard Celine]

SEAL HATER!!!!!

I'll bet seal is tasty.

[Hobbit]

So the bears are allegedly dieing because they can't find enough food up there in the frozen north. That doesn't sound like a global warming problem to me.

[Rahul]

So the bears are allegedly dieing because they can't find enough food up there in the frozen north. That doesn't sound like a global warming problem to me.

Have you not been following the thread? I have said repeatedly that the bears have to swim greater distances to find ice floes that are moving further and further away from the coast due to global warming, and die during the long swim which they cannot complete.

http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/PolarBears/images/swim.gif

The problem is definitely one of global warming. Question is, how can we help the bears?

[Nukeman]

I take it literal when she's making claims of things in context with the term "millions of sites".....
What ever dude!!!!!!:poke:

[Nukeman]

The bears are drowning in search of food, not getaways.

http://www.climate.org/polarbears/pb1.jpg



Actually, I have found that most of the reliable sources state they are dying out.



I only posted that once. Pictures sometimes help to get the word out faster. It's important to make one's posts visually attractive, otherwise, they get drowned amongst all the tremendously negative posts on here.

http://www.worldwildlife.org/polarbears/images/mock_pic.jpg



That study was likely not conducted in a scientific fashion. Some of the local hunters think the number of bears are increasing as more move inland in search of food but in actuality they do so simply because they cannot find food close to the floes on the coast and also because the floes are drifting futher apart.



These are exactly the type of comments that are not required. The point of the OP was to ask how to save the bears, not discuss different ways of killing them.

Once again, how would you propose saving the bears?Here s the thing with you ALL OF YOUR SIGHTS ARE RELIABLE AND EVERYONE ELSE'S IS NOT. Must be great to always have the correct answer in everything you do in life. I'm going to bet you never make a mistake either (at least not one you would admit to).

You are so self centerd to think you are always right and everyone who doesn't agree with you is obviously ignorant, stupid, closedminded or flat out wrong.

[darin]

Have you not been following the thread?

Evil SEAL HATER!!!

[Hobbit]

Have you not been following the thread? I have said repeatedly that the bears have to swim greater distances to find ice floes that are moving further and further away from the coast due to global warming, and die during the long swim which they cannot complete.

http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/PolarBears/images/swim.gif

The problem is definitely one of global warming. Question is, how can we help the bears?

So...bears eat ice? I distinctly remember you saying that they were having trouble finding food.

As for them drowning looking for ice because of 'global warming,' what about summer? The Earth has warmed 1 degree farenheit in the past 100 years. The area the bears live in warms at least 40 degrees every summer...like everything else not at the equator. I don't think they'd notice that tiny difference in a place where the ice cap recedes hundreds, if not thousands of miles every year before regrowing later that same year.

[Dilloduck]

Have you not been following the thread? I have said repeatedly that the bears have to swim greater distances to find ice floes that are moving further and further away from the coast due to global warming, and die during the long swim which they cannot complete.

http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/PolarBears/images/swim.gif

The problem is definitely one of global warming. Question is, how can we help the bears?

Well if they aren't willing to participate in their recovery by giving us some clues we may have to try a Martian mind meld.

[Gaffer]

Cropped pictures help a lot in getting a point across. making sure your subject is facing the right direction and cropping out any thing around them makes the picture tell a whole different story.

Like the picture of the old woman standing by a bombed out building looking forelorn and helpless during the Israeli hiz war. Except when the full picture is shown its a building that was not bombed but being torn down by construction equipment. Lies come in pictures as well as words.

Global warming will continue until it stops and there's nothing man is going to do about it. It's not caused by man and it won't be fixed by man.

Best thing you can do for polar bears is stay out of their way. They are really mean.

[Rahul]

So...bears eat ice? I distinctly remember you saying that they were having trouble finding food.

I have explained this repeatedly. The bears find most of their food, which is ringed seals, on the floes. They thus swim to the ice floes to find food, but the floes are melting and receding from the coast line. I am unsure as to why you are finding it so difficult to comprehend about this simple fact.



As for them drowning looking for ice because of 'global warming,' what about summer? The Earth has warmed 1 degree farenheit in the past 100 years.

Not at the rate at which it is now, though.



The area the bears live in warms at least 40 degrees every summer...like everything else not at the equator.



I don't think they'd notice that tiny difference in a place where the ice cap recedes hundreds, if not thousands of miles every year before regrowing later that same year.

But, the problem here is that the ice caps are receding in the winter not the summer. The bears hunt during the winter, then come ashore to feed their cubs during the summer. That is the problem here, that there aren't any floes within accessible range at any time of the year.

[Rahul]

Cropped pictures help a lot in getting a point across. making sure your subject is facing the right direction and cropping out any thing around them makes the picture tell a whole different story.


As long as the pictures aren't retouched, there isn't anything wrong with posting a few. Pictures help to get the word out and arouse sympathy for the cause.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/88/Polar-bear.jpg

I wonder how we can save the bears.

[Hobbit]

But, the problem here is that the ice caps are receding in the winter not the summer. The bears hunt during the winter, then come ashore to feed their cubs during the summer. That is the problem here, that there aren't any floes within accessible range at any time of the year.

That's bullshit. The arctic circle doesn't see the sun for 6 months out of the year and the temperature drops dozens of degrees. For ice to be receding during that time is a scientific impossibility. It's like saying you can heat water by moving it to the shade.

[darin]

As long as the pictures aren't retouched, there isn't anything wrong with posting a few. Pictures help to get the word out and arouse sympathy for the cause.
I wonder how we can save the bears.

You are an evil, nasty Seal hater. :(

[avatar4321]

I still dont see how polar bears can be stranded on Ice bergs when they can swim freaking 60 miles.

[Rahul]

That's bullshit. The arctic circle doesn't see the sun for 6 months out of the year and the temperature drops dozens of degrees. For ice to be receding during that time is a scientific impossibility. It's like saying you can heat water by moving it to the shade.

It isn't what you think it is. In any case, what does it matter when the ice recedes? The fact is, that the ice is receding. That much has been proven.


You are an evil, nasty Seal hater. :(

Why do you keep making this statement? The bears eat seals, and the seals eat fish. Would I be a fish hater if I wanted to save the seals from harm caused by humans? Would you like me to start a thread on how the poor baby seals are being slaughtered mercilessly off the coast of Canada, by humans?


I still dont see how polar bears can be stranded on Ice bergs when they can swim freaking 60 miles.

This has been asked, and answered before. The bears drown when they try and swim way more miles than they were intended to. Perhaps you should read the quoted articles in the thread.

[Hobbit]

It isn't what you think it is. In any case, what does it matter when the ice recedes? The fact is, that the ice is receding. That much has been proven.

The ice has been receding seasonally for billions of years. You might as well say that the sky being blue proves global warming.

[Rahul]

The ice has been receding seasonally for billions of years. You might as well say that the sky being blue proves global warming.

I disagree. The floes have only recently started to recede at this alarmingly rapid rate.

http://www.komar.org/faq/churchill_polar_bear_tours/churchill_polar_bear_tours.jpg

The bears need our help.

[Abbey Marie]

They are magnificent animals. If there is scientific proof that they are dying off, whatever the reason, we need to help them.

[Said1]

I'll bet seal is tasty.

It isn't.

[Said1]

Have you not been following the thread? I have said repeatedly that the bears have to swim greater distances to find ice floes that are moving further and further away from the coast due to global warming, and die during the long swim which they cannot complete.

http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/PolarBears/images/swim.gif

The problem is definitely one of global warming. Question is, how can we help the bears?

Ya know, the actual problem is food stocks in the areas where the bears search for food. They don't have to search farther for good because of global warming (well maybe artic prey can't live in the now tropical climate) causing ice flows to melt, they have to search farther because there is no food. Why is the seal population doing fine? Bears eat seals don't they? If they don't, they should and puffins, they're cute but wtf, eh?

Actually, the above is just a wild guess based on my studies of aqua-culture, not global warming. Prove me wrong why don't cha. :)

Also, to the best of my knowledge, polar bears are not a protected species in Canada, you know what tthat means donn't you?

[Said1]

It isn't what you think it is. In any case, what does it matter when the ice recedes? The fact is, that the ice is receding. That much has been proven.



Why do you keep making this statement? The bears eat seals, and the seals eat fish. Would I be a fish hater if I wanted to save the seals from harm caused by humans? Would you like me to start a thread on how the poor baby seals are being slaughtered mercilessly off the coast of Canada, by humans?



This has been asked, and answered before. The bears drown when they try and swim way more miles than they were intended to. Perhaps you should read the quoted articles in the thread.

Do you think an over abundance of seals and over fishing MIGHT be some of the problem? Ya know, depleting fish stocks? Again, just a guess.

[Rahul]

Ya know, the actual problem is food stocks in the areas where the bears search for food.

The food stocks are getting depleted as well. I agree.



They don't have to search farther for good because of global warming (well maybe artic prey can't live in the now tropical climate) causing ice flows to melt, they have to search farther because there is no food.


They have to search further because the ice floes are retreating from the coastline at a rapid pace.


Why is the seal population doing fine? Bears eat seals don't they? If they don't, they should and puffins, they're cute but wtf, eh?

The seal population is not doing fine. Have you heard about the cruel and merciless slaughter of the baby seals by the sealers off Canada's coast? This is the second time someone has asked me about seals, and I wonder if I should start a thread on it.



Actually, the above is just a wild guess based on my studies of aqua-culture, not global warming. Prove me wrong why don't cha. :)

I have posted dozens of sources already.


Do you think an over abundance of seals and over fishing MIGHT be some of the problem? Ya know, depleting fish stocks? Again, just a guess.

There isn't an overabundance of seals. OK. Here you go.



http://www.harpseals.org/hunt/press/populationdecline.html

If sealers continue to harvest at the same rates over the next few years, it could spell trouble for the herd population, according to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' leading marine mammal scientist.

http://www.harpseals.org/images/sealdyingsmall.jpg

Dr. Garry Stenson said the combination of high mortality and low reproduction rates has caused the seal population to drop by almost half a million - from 5.8 million to 5.4 million over the last several years.

Those numbers will continue to decline, he said, if the catches remain the same, forcing it to a point where it could be an environmental concern in the very near future.

"It means if we continue to take (the current quota of) 325,000 seals (each year), what we're predicting is that we've got two, maybe three, years before it becomes a conservation concern," he said.

Decline expected

Considering the high catches, the decline was expected. He said back in 2003, scientists estimated sealers could take about 250,000 seals a year.

"Well, we've been taking out 325,000 up to 355,000, but that was OK because we said we could do that for a few years on the understanding we would have a few good years, but then we would have to cut back," said Stenson, whose current research focuses on seals population dynamics. "And that's where we are now - we're going to have to start cutting back.

While Stenson is an internationally recognized expert on seal populations, he has no official say on where seal quotas are set. However, the information he provides influences government's decision.

Fisheries and Oceans Minister Loyola Hearn is considering reducing the quotas next year. He expects to make his final decision within the next week or so after he meets with DFO management.

"Now the question becomes where do we want to be in the future?" Hearn said.

Poor ice conditions have had a big impact on the mortality rate, Stenson said. It has resulted in the deaths of many pups, which have drowned..

"You start getting to the point where there's fewer young coming in. It's kind of like our rural communities in Newfoundland - the young just aren't there," said Stenson, a biology professor at Memorial University and member of the committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada marine mammal subcommittee.

"And when it really has an impact is when those young should be there to breed, which happens (in seals), on average, at around five years of age."

Other causes of mortality include struck and loss - in which sealers shoot and kill the animal but are unable to retrieve it - and fishing gear catches, in which young harp seals are caught in fishermen's gear while they catching lump fish in the spring.

Stenson said for the commercial hunt, scientists estimate a between two and five per cent loss due to struck and loss. However, he said scientists apply a 50 per cent loss in the Arctic, where data is collected and recorded in varying ways. Seals in the Arctic and Greenland, he said, are also often shot in open waters. When compiling a population model, the seals in the Arctic and Greenland are included since they are from the same population, which is migratory.

He said seal catches in fishing gear peaked in the mid-1990s, when up to 40,000 were estimated to have been caught. However, in this era, he said it's lower, partly due to the fewer nets out and the shorter fishing season.

Stenson said scientists will continue to work with sealers to monitor reproductive rates.

While official population surveys are completed every four or five years, Stenson said counts based on the population model is used yearly, based on the reproductive and catch data. The last official survey was done in 2004, with the next in 2009.

He noted estimating populations is difficult and scientists often make assumptions based on the data they can acquire.

In the end, Stenson said the goal is to try and prevent disasters, like what happened in the cod fishery.

"That's exactly what we're trying to avoid," he said. "Now, we are nowhere near where we were with cod. We still have a very healthy (seal) population.

"We just want to make sure we keep it that way."

[Nuc]

It is a well known fact, to most of us at least that global warming is causing the ice floes to melt off the Arctic, and polar bears are drowning due to having to swim far greater distances than before in search of food, and not being able to return to dry land.



There are some that steadfastly deny the occurence of global warming despite the mountains of evidence proving it, but the more rational amongst us acknowledge that it is indeed a problem.

How do we save the bears?

Your thoughts and comments on this important issue would be much appreciated.

Rahul

My thoughts on this issue are, "Who gives a fuck?".

Fact: Polar bears don't pay taxes.
Fact: Polar bears don't go to church
Fact: Polar bears do not buy American made SUV's
Fact: Polar bears never picket abortion clinics
Fact: Polar bears do not watch nor are they contestants on "American Idol"
Opinion: "Global Warming" is a bad thing. Yeah right!!!!!!

Therefore you could almost say they are not human.

Even if they are human they are of indeterminate nationality. They might be Americans but they could just as easily be Canadians or even Siberians.

So why should we care if they go extinct? You liberal commies and your whiny anthropomorphizing. Pathetic.

[Said1]

The food stocks are getting depleted as well. I agree.



They have to search further because the ice floes are retreating from the coastline at a rapid pace.

You're missing the point. Yes, they very often fish off the ice, however, that is NOT their only method of hunting. For example, males do not forage in the spring, due to their preoccupation with finding a mate. If there are NO local food sources, or they are drasticlly depleted increasing competition between other coast dwelling animales, they will die, or become undernourished. This in turn limits their physical abilities in the summer when they do go foraging, the same time ice naturally retreats.




The seal population is not doing fine. Have you heard about the cruel and merciless slaughter of the baby seals by the sealers off Canada's coast? This is the second time someone has asked me about seals, and I wonder if I should start a thread on it.

Myth #5: The hunt is unsustainable and is endangering the harp seal population.

Reality: Since the 1960s, environmental groups have been saying the seal hunt is unsustainable. In fact, the harp seal population is healthy and abundant. A 2004 survey estimated the Northwest Atlantic harp seal population at approximately 5.8 million animals, nearly triple what it was in the 1970s.

DFO sets quotas at levels that ensure the health and abundance of seal herds. In no way are seals - and harp seals in particular – an “endangered species”.
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/seal-phoque/myth_e.htm
I have posted dozens of sources already.

Yes I have heard of the seal hunt, probably more humane than throwing a live lobster in pot of boiling water or a pig living in a 12ftx12ft pen waiting to be slautered. Ever see a lion thrash and tear at it's prey? now that's not nice, someone should protest the lions,.



There isn't an overabundance of seals. OK. Here you go.
There's tons. You're source is an anti hunt group. I did not see any legitimate data linked in that article and I think the same can be said about some of your other sources. Did sea world quote any of their sources or link studies?

[Nukeman]

You posted probably the best link so far. No leaning to one side or the other just facts about the hunt.

:clap:

[Rahul]

My thoughts on this issue are, "Who gives a fuck?".

Fact: Polar bears don't pay taxes.
Fact: Polar bears don't go to church
Fact: Polar bears do not buy American made SUV's
Fact: Polar bears never picket abortion clinics
Fact: Polar bears do not watch nor are they contestants on "American Idol"
Opinion: "Global Warming" is a bad thing. Yeah right!!!!!!

Therefore you could almost say they are not human.

Even if they are human they are of indeterminate nationality. They might be Americans but they could just as easily be Canadians or even Siberians.

So why should we care if they go extinct? You liberal commies and your whiny anthropomorphizing. Pathetic.

So, are you saying that the bears should not be saved because they are not human?

[Rahul]

You're missing the point. Yes, they very often fish off the ice, however, that is NOT their only method of hunting.

It isn't, however, the other source is human garbage and in or around human settlements which is not desirable either.



For example, males do not forage in the spring, due to their preoccupation with finding a mate. If there are NO local food sources, or they are drasticlly depleted increasing competition between other coast dwelling animales, they will die, or become undernourished.

Exactly. They are dying out, and also underweight, which is my whole point. Thank for reinforcing my point.



Yes I have heard of the seal hunt, probably more humane than throwing a live lobster in pot of boiling water or a pig living in a 12ftx12ft pen waiting to be slautered.

http://www.harpseals.org/gallery/stills/high%20res/skinnedbabyifawsmall.jpg

Am I to believe you or my own two eyes?


Ever see a lion thrash and tear at it's prey? now that's not nice, someone should protest the lions,.

The lions have no other option other than to tear at it's prey, but the sealers are not required to hunt seals. They could go fishing or learn another skill.

In addition to saving polar bears, we should boycott Canadian seafood as it would help the seals and in turn the bears.




http://www.harpseals.org/helpstop/boycott.html

http://www.sealhunt.ca/Images/Design/Menu_new.gif


Why will this boycott strategy be successful?

Here are a few powerful reasons why a targeted boycott on Canadian seafood can be effective!

* MOST sealers are fishermen. Seal products are illegal in the U.S, but these fishermen sell their seafood here. This is our direct response.

* Many seafood companies lobby for the seal kill. One of them owns one of 2 seal processing companies. Others think they’ll catch more cod if they kill off the seals. And those companies that don’t actively lobby for the kill either quietly support the massacres or are too timid to challenge government policies. This boycott will encourage all to demand an end to the killing.

* Americans purchase about 70% of the seafood exports from Canada. That gives us consumer power! Canadian seafood exports to the U.S. add up to over CAN$3 billion (compared to about CAN$16 million in income from seal pelts). Just making a dent in the sales of Canadian seafood here in the U.S. will pressure the Canadian seafood industry to demand an end to the seal kill.

Add to this the fact that the Canadian Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has said that they will not stop the seal killing until the fishery corporations demand it! That means those few fish companies that support these massacres will have to reverse their position and/ or all the others will have to speak out against the seal killing. The Canadian seafood boycott will encourage both these actions.

[LOki]

Polar bears and seals produce CO2, a known greenhouse gas--we should hunt them into extinction to save the ice shelves.

[Kathianne]

Polar bears and seals produce CO2, a known greenhouse gas--we should hunt them into extinction to save the ice shelves.

Similar to what I was thinking. Why would we want to save the polar bear or any bear species? Not that they aren't cute in zoos and such, but really, what do they add?

[MtnBiker]

Here is some irony.


Feds planning relief for ice-hampered fishermen

The federal government is preparing an emergency package for Newfoundland and Labrador fishermen who have been unable to harvest anything this season because of heavy ice.


Fish, Food and Allied Workers union president Earle McCurdy said he has been astonished that he has heard nothing back from the federal government since making an emergency plea to Hearn on May 6.

The FFAW has been seeking an emergency extension to employment insurance benefits, which ran out weeks ago for most fishermen.

"There are several thousand families that haven't had a cheque come into their household since early April," McCurdy said in a statement.


'If we're going to make an argument for assistance, we have to have our information gathered,' Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn says.
(CBC) The federal government has made extraordinary moves in the past — in 1974 and in 1990 — when heavy ice conditions obliterated the respective fishing seasons.

Hearn said the evidence is emerging that this year's season is no mere delay.

Ice has presented serious problems for weeks off northeastern Newfoundland and southern Labrador. Scores of fishermen returning from the annual seal hunt were stranded for weeks when their longliners became trapped in heavy ice.


Full article (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2007/05/24/hearn-ice.html?ref=rss)

Heavy ice, hmmmm?

[Trigg]

Here is some irony.




Full article (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2007/05/24/hearn-ice.html?ref=rss)

Heavy ice, hmmmm?


Man, now I have no idea what to think. All of these conflicting articles.

[Rahul]

Polar bears and seals produce CO2, a known greenhouse gas--we should hunt them into extinction to save the ice shelves.

What a silly argument this is.

First off, what exactly do you mean by they "produce CO2"? Are you referring to bodily emissions here?

Second, cows and humans produce CO2 also. Should we hunt them into extinction to save the ice shelves?

Third, and most important, this is not a debate to save the ice shelves though that is an admirable and necessary goal. This is a debate about how to save the polar bear, and we should stay on topic.


Similar to what I was thinking. Why would we want to save the polar bear or any bear species? Not that they aren't cute in zoos and such, but really, what do they add?

In case you didn't know, the polar bear is the apex predator in the Arctic food chain. Take one element of the chain away permanently, and the entire pyramid will collapse.

Is that a good enough reason for you? :)

[Kathianne]

What a silly argument this is.

First off, what exactly do you mean by they "produce CO2"? Are you referring to bodily emissions here? Considering your scenario, not needed.

Second, cows and humans produce CO2 also. Should we hunt them into extinction to save the ice shelves?

Third, and most important, this is not a debate to save the ice shelves though that is an admirable and necessary goal. This is a debate about how to save the polar bear, and we should stay on topic.



In case you didn't know, the polar bear is the apex predator in the Arctic food chain. Take one element of the chain away permanently, and the entire pyramid will collapse.

Is that a good enough reason for you? :)

Considering the Artic food chain is disrupted, it's moot. Kill them all off.

[darin]

Rahul - you believe a Lie...AND you are a seal-hater. :(

[Rahul]

Considering the Artic food chain is disrupted, it's moot. Kill them all off.

It isn't moot at all. Not if you care about the environment. Do you care about the environment, Kathianne?


Rahul - you believe a Lie...AND you are a seal-hater. :(

Not. It is not a lie that the bears are dying out, and I do not hate the seals, rather, I am against the cruel slaughter by the sealers every year.

[Kathianne]

It isn't moot at all. Not if you care about the environment. Do you care about the environment, Kathianne?



Not. It is not a lie that the bears are dying out, and I do not hate the seals, rather, I am against the cruel slaughter by the sealers every year.

Not to the degree of killing off humans. Sorry.

[LOki]

What a silly argument this is.Yes.


First off, what exactly do you mean by they "produce CO2"? Are you referring to bodily emissions here? Yes.


Second, cows and humans produce CO2 also. Should we hunt them into extinction to save the ice shelves?No.


Third, and most important, this is not a debate to save the ice shelves though that is an admirable and necessary goal. This is a debate about how to save the polar bear, and we should stay on topic. Actually, the debate is how we can "stop the polar bear dying out due to global warming." Shooting them all would accomplish that, with the added benefit of less CO2 emmisions doing all that greenhouse gas damage to the climate. Elegant, isn't it?

[Said1]

It isn't, however, the other source is human garbage and in or around human settlements which is not desirable either.

heh? Can you rephrase that. Thanks.




Exactly. They are dying out, and also underweight, which is my whole point. Thank for reinforcing my point.

No. You claim they are dying out etc due to the ice melting causing them to swim farhter. I'm claiming food sources are scarcer, for whatever reason causing them to swim farther - often in weakened physical conditions possibly due to what I have already posted above.



Am I to believe you or my own two eyes?

Sure, if you want to. Are you a vegan? I'm going to assume you are given that slaughter houses and chicken farms are just as vile.




The lions have no other option other than to tear at it's prey, but the sealers are not required to hunt seals. They could go fishing or learn another skill.

Something has to control the population, natural selection more than likely won't accomplish this. In many areas fish stocks are depleted and it's also big part of aboriginal culture. You don't tell the aboriginals to change their indigenous lifestyles, at least not in Canada. :laugh2:

Fishing isn't a viable option in most cases since fish stocks are seriously depleted as far as Siberia.


In addition to saving polar bears, we should boycott Canadian seafood as it would help the seals and in turn the bears.

No it wouldn't help the seals or bears in the long run. Save the fish, less competiton for food.

Perhaps your efforts would be better spent trying to save the oceans. You do know how environmentally bad aqua-culture is?

[Rahul]

Not to the degree of killing off humans. Sorry.

That wasn't suggested. What was suggested was that humans should try and take a look at what they are doing to cause global warming.


Yes.

Why do you make silly arguments?



Yes.

As I suspected.



No.

Why not?



Actually, the debate is how we can "stop the polar bear dying out due to global warming." Shooting them all would accomplish that, with the added benefit of less CO2 emmisions doing all that greenhouse gas damage to the climate. Elegant, isn't it?

Shooting them all would not stop the polar bear from dying. Your argument is moot again.

[Rahul]

heh? Can you rephrase that. Thanks.


When the bears don't get their natural food from natural sources, they tend to move further inland, and rummage amongst garbage and human settlements in search for food.




No. You claim they are dying out etc due to the ice melting causing them to swim farhter. I'm claiming food sources are scarcer, for whatever reason causing them to swim farther - often in weakened physical conditions possibly due to what I have already posted above.


Exactly. They have to swim farther to find ice. However, the melting ice is also causing food sources to become scarce. I have detailed one such example before when I was referring to the seals.




Sure, if you want to. Are you a vegan? I'm going to assume you are given that slaughter houses and chicken farms are just as vile.


This is about saving the polar bears, not my personal habits. The seal issue is a seperate issue and should not have been brought up at all.





Something has to control the population, natural selection more than likely won't accomplish this.

Perhaps you could provide an explanation as to why it wouldn't.



In many areas fish stocks are depleted and it's also big part of aboriginal culture. You don't tell the aboriginals to change their indigenous lifestyles, at least not in Canada. :laugh2:

What is your point? How would you save the poor bears? Float 'em to Antarctica? Any solutions at all?

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/polar-bear-thefts.jpg

[Dilloduck]

When the bears don't get their natural food from natural sources, they tend to move further inland, and rummage amongst garbage and human settlements in search for food.




Exactly. They have to swim farther to find ice. However, the melting ice is also causing food sources to become scarce. I have detailed one such example before when I was referring to the seals.




This is about saving the polar bears, not my personal habits. The seal issue is a seperate issue and should not have been brought up at all.





Perhaps you could provide an explanation as to why it wouldn't.



What is your point? How would you save the poor bears? Float 'em to Antarctica? Any solutions at all?

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/polar-bear-thefts.jpg


You haven't even convinced me there is a problem. Why is a struggling polar bear population a problem and from what perspective ?

[LOki]

Why do you make silly arguments?I thought this was a silly argument thread. I mean really now, if you're going to start off with the silly argument that we should do something about polar bears dying off, then I feel rather entitled to offering silly solutions.


As I suspected.Good suspecting!


Why not?Because I like some of the humans on this planet, and I definitely like steaks.


Shooting them all would not stop the polar bear from dying. Your argument is moot again.Not moot. Shooting them all would stop them from dying by the effects of global warming. Polar bears are going to die. Period. How they die seems to be of concern to you, and I offer an option that eliminates the global warming effect on their dying that you seem so terribly concerned about.

[Gunny]

It isn't moot at all. Not if you care about the environment. Do you care about the environment, Kathianne?



Not. It is not a lie that the bears are dying out, and I do not hate the seals, rather, I am against the cruel slaughter by the sealers every year.

And here is Mr Dishonesty, showing his true colors once again. Eithr believe what he tells you or you don't care about the environment.

F-ing moron.

[MtnBiker]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Mamut_lanudo.jpg

[Kathianne]

It isn't moot at all. Not if you care about the environment. Do you care about the environment, Kathianne?

.

the seals, especially the pups, are way cuter than bears. Save the seals. Heck, save the cicadas, I'm sure the bears do something to them.

Not. It is not a lie that the bears are dying out, and I do not hate the seals, rather, I am against the cruel slaughter by the sealers every year

[Dilloduck]

In case you didn't know, the polar bear is the apex predator in the Arctic food chain. Take one element of the chain away permanently, and the entire pyramid will collapse.

Garbage.

[Kathianne]

Garbage.

Don't you 'care'?

[Dilloduck]

Don't you 'care'?

I dd before Rahul started in with this classic bleeding heart liberal mock compassion.

[Kathianne]

I dd before Rahul started in with this classic bleeding heart liberal mock compassion.

LOL! Me too, now I just see a coat! :laugh:

[Dilloduck]

LOL! Me too, now I just see a coat! :laugh:

I'm trying to figure out the best way to hunt down a big one.

[Said1]

When the bears don't get their natural food from natural sources, they tend to move further inland, and rummage amongst garbage and human settlements in search for food.

That was never the point I was disputing, at least I don't think.





Exactly. They have to swim farther to find ice. However, the melting ice is also causing food sources to become scarce. I have detailed one such example before when I was referring to the seals.

My point had more to do with other reasons contributing to depelting food stocks. Over fishing is a ginormous contributor, totally removed from globabl warming.





This is about saving the polar bears, not my personal habits. The seal issue is a seperate issue and should not have been brought up at all.

Stopping global warming does affect my and your personal habits, that is what this thread is about 'bears dying due to global warming' or something to that effect, I'm parphrasing of course.





Perhaps you could provide an explanation as to why it wouldn't.

Didn't you read the link I provided? In a controlled setting, the seal population has trippled (or was it doubled?) despite the yearly hunt. I could swear I quoted that and pasted in in my post.




What is your point? How would you save the poor bears? Float 'em to Antarctica? Any solutions at all?

Are you like a total retard? I bet most fish bought at super markets is farmed fish anyway.

How would boycotting Canadian fish help given that there are heavy quotas on fishing all over coastal regions of Canada. That is, Canada already limits the amount of fish that can be taken out of the ocean within it's territorial limits, thus contributing to the replenishing of fish stocks, which is good for the bears. Canada has also signed the Kyoto Protocol, remind me, has your nation (I really forget)? Here's a suggestion, do a little research about a country's environmental and conservation policies, you might actually learn something true. But boycott away if it takes your mind off the environmental sewer your country is.

Also, I would be interesting in hearing what India is doing about the whole 'global warming' thing. I would also be interested in reading about any progressive/liberal environmental and conservation policies with resepect to fisheries and oceans, if ya got a minute and feel like doing some real research.

As for my point about aboriginals, the seal hunt is considered part of their culture and it will continue regardless of the world's or fed's thoughts as long as it takes place on their land. So again, boycott away.

[Dilloduck]

That was never the point I was disputing, at least I don't think.






My point had more to do with other reasons contributing to depelting food stocks. Over fishing is a ginormous contributor, totally removed from globabl warming.






Stopping global warming does affect my and your personal habits, that is what this thread is about 'bears dying due to global warming' or something to that effect, I'm parphrasing of course.






Didn't you read the link I provided? In a controlled setting, the seal population has trippled (or was it doubled?) despite the yearly hunt. I could swear I quoted that and pasted in in my post.





Are you like a total retard? I bet most fish bought at super markets is farmed fish anyway.

How would boycotting Canadian fish help given that there are heavy quotas on fishing all over coastal regions of Canada. That is, Canada already limits the amount of fish that can be taken out of the ocean within it's territorial limits, thus contributing to the replenishing of fish stocks, which is good for the bears. Canada has also signed the Kyoto Protocol, remind me, has your nation (I really forget)? Here's a suggestion, do a little research about a country's environmental and conservation policies, you might actually learn something true. But boycott away if it takes your mind off the environmental sewer your country is.

Also, I would be interesting in hearing what India is doing about the whole 'global warming' thing. I would also be interested in reading about any progressive/liberal environmental and conservation policies with resepect to fisheries and oceans, if ya got a minute and feel like doing some real research.

As for my point about aboriginals, the seal hunt is considered part of their culture and it will continue regardless of the world's or fed's thoughts as long as it takes place on their land. So again, boycott away.

Rahul will bury you with his economic powers !!! :laugh2:

[loosecannon]

MY Gawd People, she came in here baring her breasts (almost) and her heart and you managed to scare her off in a feeding frenzy of fear and global loathing.

Global warming is real. I will stand toe to toe with ANY of you and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to the best certainty that internet evidence can provide. You don't have a chance, i will win.

Are Polar bears becoming extinct? Who knows. We won't know until it is near their end or until they invade Minnesota.

BUT, Global warming is dramatically heating the arctic regions. MUCH more than any place else. So much so that Siberia experienced a spring 9 degrees F above normal. 9 degrees across an area the size of Siberia is an awesome climactic abnormality.

Is global warming caused by man?

Who cares. In a world in which fossil fuels are declining while populations are peaking (expected to reach 10 billion by 2050) there is no doubt that fossil fuels will become short in supply. MEANING: reduce, reuse and recycle is without doubt in our self interest. Reducing greenhouse gases is a no brainer.

Give the poor open hearted new poster a chance. She might be drinking the 'endangered polar bear" kool aid.

But she is right about the greenhouse gases and fossil fuels. And she is cuter than you.

(duh)

[MtnBiker]

No one was scared off by this thread. :rolleyes:


But she is right about the greenhouse gases and fossil fuels. And she is cuter than you.

(duh)
BTW, who is "she" are you talking about, the girl in the Tsingtao ad?

[nevadamedic]

I dd before Rahul started in with this classic bleeding heart liberal mock compassion.

:clap:

[Rahul]

I thought this was a silly argument thread.


Why are you posting it in it if you believe it's a silly thread?



I mean really now, if you're going to start off with the silly argument that we should do something about polar bears dying off, then I feel rather entitled to offering silly solutions.

The argument isn't silly.



Good suspecting!

Thank you.



Because I like some of the humans on this planet, and I definitely like steaks.


Your personal likes and dislikes are obtuse to the debate at hand.



Not moot. Shooting them all would stop them from dying by the effects of global warming.

The end result is the same, though.


Polar bears are going to die. Period.

That's why we need to do everything in our power to save them. You should consider joining PBI for one.



http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/

Sign up to become a Polar Bears International Associate (http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/give-a-gift-donation/). You'll receive our quarterly newsletter. Sales from our online polar bear gift shop cover our administrative costs, so 100% of your donations go to help polar bears.



http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/polar-bear.jpg

The bears need your help.

[Rahul]

That was never the point I was disputing, at least I don't think.

Perhaps you could be less vague and detail what you were disputing then.





My point had more to do with other reasons contributing to depelting food stocks. Over fishing is a ginormous contributor, totally removed from globabl warming.

I agree that overfishing should not be allowed.





Didn't you read the link I provided? In a controlled setting, the seal population has trippled (or was it doubled?) despite the yearly hunt. I could swear I quoted that and pasted in in my post.

I did read it but did not believe it. It does not seem the seal population has tripled. Seals are dying out all over the world.



http://www.voanews.com/english/mobile/displaystory.cfm?id=357358&metadataid=843

Monk seals are one of the most endangered mammals in the world. In the Caribbean, they already are extinct. Off the African coast of Mauritania, they are down to a few hundred. In the remote northwestern islands of Hawaii, their numbers are quickly dwindling. Producer Zulima Palacio went to Hawaii and examined the monk seals close up. Melinda Smith narrates the story.

A monk seal (background) swimming in the waters of HawaiiWe spot one of the dwindling number of Hawaiian monk seals. It is what marine biologists call a true seal -- meaning it has no external ears. It uses its hind flippers for propulsion and its front flippers as stabilizers. Some say the monk seal got its name because it likes to be alone. Monk seals are playful, they are great swimmers and very curious. This one took a long swim in order to see what a diver was doing.

Anthropologist Joe Heakock is one of a handful of dive masters who take small groups to the remote waters near Niihau Island to see the seals. "A true seal is perfectly made for water, totally hydrodynamic and you see their little flippers do this little side to side switch thing… they are fast and beautiful."

Joe HeakockFor the past three years, Heakock has taken more than 1,000 divers to see the seals in their natural habitat along dramatic lava formations and vertical rock walls running 90 meters straight down. A solitary monk seal often stays close to the divers.


"Monk seals are the most endangered marine mammal we have in the United States, so there is a lot of concern about making sure that they will be around for future generations to see,” said Heakock. “But from what biologists are saying we may only have 12 to 15 years to enjoy them."

There were three groups of monk seals. But one has been extinct for more than 50 years in the Caribbean. A second group in the Mediterranean is down to a few hundred. Here in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands the numbers are rapidly falling.

Public service campaigns promote protection of the Hawaiian monk sealsMimi Olry is Hawaii's Marine Conservation Coordinator. "The Hawaiian monk seals are really on a crisis stage now,” she says. “Their numbers are in the lowest they have ever been. They numbered about 1200 this year and we have been losing about four percent of the population since about 2000."

Until the early 1900s hunting dramatically reduced the monk seal population. And despite laws protecting them since 1972, a number of factors, including human activity, still keep them on the endangered list.

"The majority of seal loss is within the juvenile age of the pups not making it through the first and second year of age,” explains Olry, “primarily being because of lack of food supply. Other factors are shark predations and marine debris. These seals are getting entangle in floating nets and ropes and drowning basically."

Local and national authorities are trying multiple approaches to protect the seals. One is posting signs on public beaches where the seals often rest and give birth.

"And here it informs people that seals may bite and cause serious injury,” says Olry, and that they are one of the most endangered species in the world and that they rest on the beach and we ask people not to disturb them."

Many scientists believe that the seals evolved from terrestrial mammals about 15 million years ago. But their time left could be numbered unless efforts to save them are successful.





http://www.imma.org/PBR/

Harp seal population likely declining

Guelph, Ontario -- A new study, to be published in the peer-reviewed academic journal, Conservation Biology, indicates that Canada’s management plan for the Northwest Atlantic harp seal hunt is failing. Landed catches and estimated total deaths caused by human activities both exceed estimates of what the seal population can sustain.

The paper, co-authored by David Johnston, Peter Meisenheimer, and David Lavigne, of the International Marine Mammal Association, Guelph, uses the government’s own figures to show that more seals are being landed in seal hunts in Canada and West Greenland than the population can sustain and, as a consequence, the population is almost certainly declining.

"The federal government purports to adhere to a precautionary approach to seal hunt management," stated Dave Johnston. "Our study concludes that the government is not meeting its own objectives in managing the commercial harp seal hunt."

According to the biologists’ findings, the number of seals being killed by humans (including the numbers of animals landed by sealers, the number of seals killed but not recovered, and incidental catch in commercial fisheries) exceeds the levels that would be permitted by a truly "precautionary" management model by as much as two (2) to six (6) times.

"Our research has shown that the harp seal population is very likely in decline," said co-author Peter Meisenheimer. "Furthermore, there is considerable risk that the population will be seriously depleted before a decline is detected by current census methods."

The Northwest Atlantic harp seal population migrates annually between Greenland and Canada. It is hunted during the summer months in Greenland and, in the spring, along Canada’s East coast. In setting its Total Allowable Catch or TAC (275,000 in 1997,1998, and 1999), the Canadian government has not completely accounted for the number of animals landed in the increasing and unregulated Greenland summer hunt, which now takes upwards of 80,000 harp seals per year. Furthermore, the Canadian approach does not account for animals that are killed but not landed in both Greenland and Canada, nor animals that are incidentally killed in commercial fishing operations.

"To conserve the harp seal population, Canada’s total allowable catch should be reduced," added Mr. Johnston. "In order to meet its own stated objectives the federal government must set the TAC at a level which takes into account not only the Greenland hunt but all other factors affecting seal mortality."

The federal government is expected to set the TAC for this year’s commercial harp seal hunt in late December or early January.










Are you like a total retard?

Insults are unnecessary.




How would boycotting Canadian fish help given that there are heavy quotas on fishing all over coastal regions of Canada.

This has been articulated before. I am not going to repost it.

In addition though, Red Lobster should be boycotted.



http://www.seashepherd.org/seals/seals_rallies.html

RALLY AT YOUR LOCAL RED LOBSTER

http://www.seashepherd.org/seals/images/seals_rallies_lakewood3.jpg

We are encouraging our members, supporters, and friends to rally in front of local Red Lobster Restaurants. You can distribute leaflets (PDF) to educate the public and ask Red Lobster to join the Boycott of Canadian Seafood.

The Red Lobster restaurant chain is the world's largest purchaser of Canadian seafood and, (in particular, seafood sold by Canadian sealers), and therefore, can do more to end the Canadian seal slaughter than any other company. For this reason, organizations are doing all they can to convince Red Lobster to help end the Canadian commercial seal slaughter by not buying and selling Canadian seafood. So far, Red Lobster has refused to do so.

Visit the Red Lobster's location finder webpage to find a restaurant near you. http://www.redlobster.com/locator/

If you would like banners and/or posters, please e-mail: volunteer@seashepherd.org

[MtnBiker]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Mamut_lanudo.jpg

Let's save the Wolly Mammoth too, oh wait a minute.........

[LOki]

Why are you posting it in it if you believe it's a silly thread?I am unaware of any prohibitions placed on me regarding posting to silly threads. Is there one?


The argument isn't silly.Sure it is.


Thank you.You're welocome!


Your personal likes and dislikes are obtuse to the debate at hand.You asked, so apparently they're not.


The end result is the same, though.I've conceded that point already--except that with my solution, polar bears will be saved from dying out due to global warming, which is the point.


That's why we need to do everything in our power to save them. You should consider joining PBI for one.

The bears need your help.I don't think they do. If the end result is just going to be the same, as you have just pointed out, why should we make any efforts to save polar bears from dying out?

[Rahul]

I am unaware of any prohibitions placed on me regarding posting to silly threads. Is there one?

So, you admittedly waste your time on threads you consider to be silly.

Got it.



Sure it is.

Not.


I've conceded that point already--except that with my solution, polar bears will be saved from dying out due to global warming, which is the point.

But if we manage to halt global warming caused by humans, things may return to normal and the bears may not die out ultimately.


why should we make any efforts to save polar bears from dying out?

I have elaborated on this before. It seems I keep getting asked the same questions over and over again. Did you even bother to read the thread? The reason is that polar bears are at the apex of the food chain, and if you take one link of the chain away, the entire pyramid will eventually collapse.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Polar_Bear_floating.jpg/539px-Polar_Bear_floating.jpg

How would you suggest saving the bears sans gunshots?

[LOki]

So, you admittedly waste your time on threads you consider to be silly.

Got it.I admit to no such thing. You get nothing.


Not.Most certainly yes.


But if we manage to halt global warming caused by humans, things may return to normal and the bears may not die out ultimately.Global warming is caused by the sun; there's nothing abnormal about life on this planet affecting the climate; and the bears may not die out anyway--there's just no point in trying to halt global warming aside from using it for gaining greater political leverage to invade the lives of people and tell them what to do.


I have elaborated on this before. It seems I keep getting asked the same questions over and over again. Did you even bother to read the thread? The reason is that polar bears are at the apex of the food chain, and if you take one link of the chain away, the entire pyramid will eventually collapse.You elaborate on made-up stuff. You see, the record is rather clear that T-Rex was at the top of the food chain, and when it went extinct the entire pyramid did not collapse, the dodo went extinct and the entire pyramid did not collapse, the carrier pidgeon went extinct and the entire pyramd did not collapse, the neanderthal went extinct and the entire pyramid did not collase, and in fact the vast, vast, vast majority of species that have lived on this planet have gone extinct prior to the presence of human beings, and guess what?--the entire pyramid has not collapsed. Likewise, the polar bear going extinct will not cause the entire pyramid to collapse, so explain why we should make any efforts to save polar bears from dying out?


How would you suggest saving the bears sans gunshots?We could push them off bridges--global warming wouldn't get them that way either. :D

[Rahul]

I admit to no such thing. You get nothing.

Why are you then posting in a thread which you consider to be silly? The facts speak for themselves here. :)


Most certainly yes.

Repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true. The argument makes sense, and has been made by many others before me.



Global warming is caused by the sun; there's nothing abnormal about life on this planet affecting the climate; and the bears may not die out anyway--there's just no point in trying to halt global warming aside from using it for gaining greater political leverage to invade the lives of people and tell them what to do.

You are wrong. There is plenty right about halting global warming and trying to protect the environment. I am amazed you need such a simple concept to be explained to you piecemeal.



You elaborate on made-up stuff.

It isn't made up. I disagree.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15176444/site/newsweek/displaymode/1098/

Scholars are asking whether the loss of individual species could have a knock-on effect all through the food chain. "We are seeing problems from pole to pole; we see them in the oceans and we see them on land," says Lara Hansen, chief climate-change scientist at the World Wildlife Fund. "There are very few systems that I can think of that are untouched by climate change."

Not all the science points to disaster. Some species can adapt to the changing climate. But to what extent? "Climate change is happening a lot faster than the process of evolution can," says biologist Camille Parmesan, at the University of Texas. "The fact that species are going extinct is telling you that they didn't adapt."

Still others parry that the havoc credited to climate change owes more to deforestation or diseases spread by humans. Yet to many experts, that misses the point. "We already know that all kinds of diseases respond to climate conditions. We also know that the interaction of species, especially predators and parasites, can also complicate the equation—which is something the computer climate models don't take into account," says Pounds. "That makes the impact of climate change difficult to predict, but probably even more severe than you'd imagine."

The trouble at Monteverde only heightened a mystery that had scientists stumped for years: why do whole species of wildlife disappear in apparently pristine parks and nature preserves? There had been no shortage of theories to explain the demise of the harlequins, from acid rain to an overdose of ultraviolet rays. By the late nineties, attention shifted to the chytrid fungus outbreaks, which many amphibian experts concluded were the smoking gun. But Pounds wasn't satisfied. After all, it wasn't just harlequins, but all kinds of amphibians that were dying. And if the chytrid disease was killing the frogs, what was behind the deadly outbreak?

In time, Pounds learned that the fungus flourished in the wet season and turned lethal in warm (17 to 25 degrees Celsius) weather—exactly the conditions that climate change was bringing to the cloud forest. More important, he found that 80 percent of the extinctions followed unusually warm years. "The disease was the bullet killing the frogs, but climate was pulling the trigger," says Pounds. "Alter the climate and you alter the disease dynamic."






http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/16019/story.htm

TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN

"What really is important about polar bears surviving is that they are the top animal in the Arctic marine ecosystem," said Stirling, a research scientist with the Canadian Wildlife Service. "A healthy population of polar bears probably tells you that the ecosystem as a whole is pretty healthy."

Experts say there are between 22,000 and 27,000 bears in the world, divided among 20 populations varying in size from a few hundred to a few thousand in Alaska, Canada, Russia, Norway and Greenland. Sixty percent of the bears live in Canada.

They are found throughout most of their original range, and in numbers similar to those before the industrialized era. Most of the original habitat of the polar bear remains intact - and not inhabited by humans. But people do not have to live on the next iceberg to cause trouble.

Many scientists believe the burning of some fuels releases carbon dioxide and other gases into the atmosphere, trapping heat and triggering global warming, the so-called greenhouse effect. Many scientists believe the effect will be felt most acutely in polar regions.

The World Wildlife Fund report said Arctic temperatures have been rising over the past century, and the presence of sea ice has fallen.

BAD NEWS, BEARS

That's bad news for the bears. Polar bears spend months at a time roaming the frozen surface of Arctic seas in search of prey, particularly ringed seals and bearded seals, as well as young walruses, beluga whales, fish and seabirds. They eat as much as possible in order to store up fat reserves vital for surviving the ice-free summer months.

When the sea ice melts heading into summer, the polar bears are left without their hunting grounds. During this time, polar bears fast and enter a hibernation-like state.

The World Wildlife Fund report said that by 2050, the ice-free period during the summer will grow from 60 days to 150 days. That means a shorter feeding period for the bears.

Stefan Norris, head of conservation for the World Wildlife Fund's International Arctic Program in Norway and lead author of the report, said climate change already is affecting the body condition of bears in the southern range of their distribution - Canada's Hudson Bay and James Bay. When sea ice melts earlier in the spring, polar bears are forced to move to land with smaller fat reserves to ride out the summer, he said.

With reproductive success tied closely to body condition, he said those polar bears likely will be grossly reduced in number, and "local extinctions are likely" in the future.

Norris said some scientists predict that if global warming continues unabated, there may be no summer sea ice at all in the Arctic by 2080.

"That's kind of the worst-case scenario," Norris said.

"That would mean basically extinction of polar bears, at least as we know them today," he added. "We know that bears are adaptable, so it's hard to say 100 percent for sure. But the way polar bears are currently adapted to feeding on seals that are on the sea ice, it would mean obviously a dramatic impact on them, and at least extinction of many of the populations of polar bears that we have today."


You need to quit the negativity and focus on what can be done to save the bears. They need you.

http://dingo.care2.com/c2p/defenders/polarbear_cub_200x147.jpg

[LOki]

Why are you then posting in a thread which you consider to be silly?It's mostly a free country.


The facts speak for themselves here. :)What facts?


Repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.That doesn't seem to be stopping you...


The argument makes sense, and has been made by many others before me.No it doesn't. :D


You are wrong.I'm right. Global warming is, in fact, caused by the sun--global warming (and cooling) has happened without us, and will continue to happen after we're gone--get rid of the sun, and global waming is over. There's nothing at all abnormal about life on this planet affecting the climate, as it turns out, life is what made the relatively clear nitrogen and oxygen atmosphere we have now that is so conducive to the selective capture and elease of energy we experience as the climate we enjoy. And the bears may not die out anyway--or they might; considering all the species that have aready gone extinct, I'm not too terribly concerned that one more might go.

There's just remains no point in trying to halt global warming aside from using it for gaining greater political leverage to invade the lives of people and tell them what to do.


There is plenty right about halting global warming and trying to protect the environment. I am amazed you need such a simple concept to be explained to you piecemeal.The environment does not need protecting--it is just fine, and will be just fine without us doing a single thing. Trying to protect the envionment is a waste of time--but it is certainly a fine lever for motivating the emotional to give up their essential liberties to altruist nanny statist whose only real concern for the environment is it's capacity for being a rally point around which they might assert the power to tell people what to do with their lives.


It isn't made up. I disagree.Disagree all you like, it's still made up stuff unlike the following:<blockquote>"<i>You see, the record is rather clear that T-Rex was at the top of the food chain, and when it went extinct the entire pyramid did not collapse, the dodo went extinct and the entire pyramid did not collapse, the carrier pidgeon went extinct and the entire pyramd did not collapse, the neanderthal went extinct and the entire pyramid did not collase, and in fact the vast, vast, vast majority of species that have lived on this planet have gone extinct prior to the presence of human beings, and guess what?--the entire pyramid has not collapsed. Likewise, the polar bear going extinct will not cause the entire pyramid to collapse, so explain why we should make any efforts to save polar bears from dying out?"</i></blockquote>
You need to quit the negativity and focus on what can be done to save the bears. They need you.What, precisely, do the bears need to be protected from? Extinction? Consider the possibility that it is appropriate for them to become extinct, just as it was appropriate for T-Rex, and Australopithicines, to become extinct. They really don't need us (and certainly not me) at all, except, possibly as lunch--go ahead, help them out. :D

[Said1]

Perhaps you could be less vague and detail what you were disputing then.





I agree that overfishing should not be allowed.





I did read it but did not believe it. It does not seem the seal population has tripled. Seals are dying out all over the world.











Insults are unnecessary.



This has been articulated before. I am not going to repost it.

In addition though, Red Lobster should be boycotted.

Hmm nothing but hot air form India. :laugh2::clap:


Bravo.

[Gaffer]

I think rahul has a fetish for polar bears.

[Rahul]

It's mostly a free country.

And, what is your point?



What facts?

You are posting in a thread you consider to be silly.



That doesn't seem to be stopping you...

Name one fact I mentioned that wasn't true.



I'm right. Global warming is, in fact, caused by the sun--global warming (and cooling) has happened without us, and will continue to happen after we're gone--get rid of the sun, and global waming is over.

I disagree. The current global warming crisis is caused by humans, not the sun.



The environment does not need protecting--it is just fine, and will be just fine without us doing a single thing. Trying to protect the envionment is a waste of time--but it is certainly a fine lever for motivating the emotional to give up their essential liberties to altruist nanny statist whose only real concern for the environment is it's capacity for being a rally point around which they might assert the power to tell people what to do with their lives.

This is a ridiculous argument. Why does the environment not need protection, for one? How is protecting the environment a waste of time? You sound like an apologist for those that don't care much for either nature or the environment.



Disagree all you like, it's still made up stuff unlike the following

Did you even read the link I quoted?



What, precisely, do the bears need to be protected from? Extinction?

Exactly that.

http://maxysoft.com/screens/animals/polar-bear-big.jpg

How would you help them?

[loosecannon]

How would you help them?

rent them an air conditioned room?

http://www.duiops.net/seresvivos/galeria/osos/Unexpected%20Guests,%20Polar%20Bears.jpg

so they can
http://home.comcast.net/~baloo.bear/fuzzyadult23l.jpg

make cubs?

Polar bears aren't really on the brink of extinction. The environmentalist noise machine may have you convinced that they are but data about their numbers is not convincing.

The same folks told us that peak oil was gonna ruin the worlds economy if prices rose as much as they already did a few years ago (thanks Jerod Diamond) and they were wrong.

And for 30 years global warming has been posed as a threat that was gonna cause Ice Ages of all things. Nobody really believes that anymore.

And global warming may or may not be a bad thing. Nobody knows. I suspect that in the big pic it will be bad for man, and large mammals, but extremely good for insects and cold blooded creatures. Reptiles may make a comeback.

But what is known is that the US would be best served to wean ourselves off most of our fossil fuel addiction and end our reliance on ME oil and ME oil wars.

We can, easily. Reduce, reuse and recycle. It isn't rocket science, it doesn't require a new industry or a new fuel source. It need not be painful. The technology exists. It won't destroy the economy.

We could simply enjoy making it a mission of patriotism and good ole American ingenuity to increase the milage of our auto fleets 30%, improve efficiency in all of our energy consumption and production.

We could reduce our impact and reliance much more by converting 10% of our energy production to far more efficient decentralized electrical generation that was sustainable, reliable and clean.

If man continues to expand, populate and pollute without limits we will eventually condemn hundreds of thousands of species into extinction. Right now approx 700/year are served that sentence.

But the Polar Bear isn't one of those yet. And it might even thrive with a little warming for a while.

But Polar Bears are never gonna out run the Human population explosion.

Cute pics aside, the Polar bear will run out of habitat before it succumbs to climate change. They are not yet endangered. That's a fact Jack.

And they are the only animal in North America that will stalk, kill and eat humans. Well some folks say that Kodiaks will too, but not for hundreds of miles like a PB.

[Rahul]

rent them an air conditioned room?


No.



so they can
make cubs?

The bears need to feed properly in order to feed their cubs otherwise the cubs will grow up malnourished.




And for 30 years global warming has been posed as a threat that was gonna cause Ice Ages of all things. Nobody really believes that anymore.

Nonsense. Global warming is occuring whether you care to admit it or not.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8c/Global_Warming_Map.jpg



And global warming may or may not be a bad thing. Nobody knows.

Everyone knows. I have provided links stating all the ill effects of global warming. Did you even read them?


I suspect that in the big pic it will be bad for man, and large mammals, but extremely good for insects and cold blooded creatures. Reptiles may make a comeback.

This thread is about bears, not insects/reptiles. Perhaps you could stick to the topic being discussed. Thanks in advance for your co-operation.




But what is known is that the US would be best served to wean ourselves off most of our fossil fuel addiction and end our reliance on ME oil and ME oil wars.

I agree.




We can, easily. Reduce, reuse and recycle. It isn't rocket science, it doesn't require a new industry or a new fuel source. It need not be painful. The technology exists. It won't destroy the economy.


We could simply enjoy making it a mission of patriotism and good ole American ingenuity to increase the milage of our auto fleets 30%, improve efficiency in all of our energy consumption and production.

We could reduce our impact and reliance much more by converting 10% of our energy production to far more efficient decentralized electrical generation that was sustainable, reliable and clean.

If man continues to expand, populate and pollute without limits we will eventually condemn hundreds of thousands of species into extinction. Right now approx 700/year are served that sentence.

Wow. I agree again. I didnt expect this from you!




But the Polar Bear isn't one of those yet.

Not as yet, but the bears could be extinct by the end of the century.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2642773.stm

Polar bear 'extinct within 100 years'

The polar bear could be driven to extinction by global warming within 100 years, warns an ecology expert. The animal, which relies on sea ice to catch seals, is already starting to suffer the effects of climate changes in areas such as Hudson Bay in Canada.

Scientists say Arctic sea ice is melting at a rate of up to 9% per decade. Arctic summers could be ice-free by mid-century.

Dr Andrew Derocher, of the University of Alberta, Edmonton, has used the data to assess the impact on the Arctic's top predator.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38675000/jpg/_38675383_bear_derocher150.jpg

He believes the polar bear could disappear in the wild by the end of the century unless the pace of global warming slows.

He told BBC News Online: "Polar bears are a species whose whole life history is dependent on having sea ice.

"As the sea ice changes in distribution and pattern we can expect this to have fundamental changes on the ecology of polar bears.

"As the sea ice disappears, so will the polar bears."








Cute pics aside, the Polar bear will run out of habitat before it succumbs to climate change. They are not yet endangered. That's a fact Jack.

They are already endangered and coul die out soon.





And they are the only animal in North America that will stalk, kill and eat humans. Well some folks say that Kodiaks will too, but not for hundreds of miles like a PB.

What is your point? How will you help the bears?

http://i.pbase.com/u49/erichmangl/small/36343037.05299019ied.jpg

[LOki]

And, what is your point?I'm not trying to make a point regarding why I'm posting to this thread, so what's your point?


You are posting in a thread you consider to be silly.What's it to you?


Name one fact I mentioned that wasn't true.Only one? Ok. Here you go:<blockquote><b>Rahul:</b>
"<a href="http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=78482#post78482">Take one element of the chain away permanently, and the entire pyramid will collapse."</a></blockquote>
I disagree. The current global warming crisis is caused by humans, not the sun.Nope. The notion that it is a crisis is caused by humans, but the actual warming itself is caused by the sun.


This is a ridiculous argument.No it's not.


Why does the environment not need protection, for one?Because the environment can't be hurt.


How is protecting the environment a waste of time?Because there's nothing that harms the environment.


You sound like an apologist for those that don't care much for either nature or the environment.You sound like someone who perceives nature and the environment anthropormorphically. Furthermore, you sound like an apologists for those who manufacture crisis in order to rationalize their authoritarian power ponzi schemes.


Did you even read the link I quoted?Sure. What of it? It was scary, and frothy, and all, but completely refuted by:<blockquote><i>"You see, the record is rather clear that T-Rex was at the top of the food chain, and when it went extinct the entire pyramid did not collapse, the dodo went extinct and the entire pyramid did not collapse, the carrier pidgeon went extinct and the entire pyramd did not collapse, the neanderthal went extinct and the entire pyramid did not collase, and in fact the vast, vast, vast majority of species that have lived on this planet have gone extinct prior to the presence of human beings, and guess what?--the entire pyramid has not collapsed. Likewise, the polar bear going extinct will not cause the entire pyramid to collapse, so explain why we should make any efforts to save polar bears from dying out?"</i></blockquote>
Exactly that.What entitles you to demand of others that the polar bear should not go extinct? Have you considered that it is appropriate that the polar bear should go extinct at this time?


How would you help them?Help them what? Defy their fate? Live in a world they are not suited to live in? What should I be helping them with?

[Rahul]

I'm not trying to make a point regarding why I'm posting to this thread, so what's your point?

It was a question. Why are you posting in this thread if you consider it to be silly?




Only one? Ok. Here you go:<blockquote><b>Rahul:</b>
"<a href="http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=78482#post78482">Take one element of the chain away permanently, and the entire pyramid will collapse."</a></blockquote>


This is completely true. Do you even read the links provided to you?




No it's not.

Yes it is.



Because the environment can't be hurt.

Global warming hurts the environment.



Because there's nothing that harms the environment.


There are plenty of activites that harm the environment, and these have been detailed before as well.



You sound like someone who perceives nature and the environment anthropormorphically. Furthermore, you sound like an apologists for those who manufacture crisis in order to rationalize their authoritarian power ponzi schemes.

I did not manufacture Global Warming. It's a real problem, regardless of what you think.



Sure. What of it? It was scary, and frothy, and all, but completely refuted by:<blockquote><i>"You see, the record is rather clear that T-Rex was at the top of the food chain, and when it went extinct the entire pyramid did not collapse, the dodo went extinct and the entire pyramid did not collapse, the carrier pidgeon went extinct and the entire pyramd did not collapse, the neanderthal went extinct and the entire pyramid did not collase, and in fact the vast, vast, vast majority of species that have lived on this planet have gone extinct prior to the presence of human beings, and guess what?--the entire pyramid has not collapsed. Likewise, the polar bear going extinct will not cause the entire pyramid to collapse, so explain why we should make any efforts to save polar bears from dying out?"</i></blockquote>What entitles you to demand of others that the polar bear should not go extinct? Have you considered that it is appropriate that the polar bear should go extinct at this time?

Perhaps you'd care to share your source.



Help them what?

http://www.alaskastock.com/akfacts/images/125SIDI0004001.jpg


Defy their fate?

Their fate won't be grim if you actually helped instead of pontificating about useless things.



Live in a world they are not suited to live in?

http://www.alaskastock.com/akfacts/images/125FMAC0008001.jpg




What should I be helping them with?

You should be helping stop global warming for one. It would help the bears.

[LOki]

It was a question. Why are you posting in this thread if you consider it to be silly?Because I do not consider the silliness of a thread to be a deterent to my posting to it.


This is completely true. Do you even read the links provided to you?I did read the links, and if every example of every extinction that ever occurred is any evidence what-so-ever, your assertion of fact that I cited is completely wrong.


Yes it is.No it's not.


Global warming hurts the environment.No it doesn't, it just makes the environment warmer.


There are plenty of activites that harm the environment, and these have been detailed before as well.None of them harm the environment.


I did not manufacture Global Warming. It's a real problem, regardless of what you think.I didn't say you manufactured Global Warming; Did I? Despite being real, it's not a global problem, it's a local problem--some even consider it a boon.


Perhaps you'd care to share your source.Let me get this straight--I need sources to demonstrate to you that T-Rex is extinct, the neanderthal is extinct, and millions of other species have gone extinct? Is this so?

Then, while you are having a sandwich obtained from the food chain, you need me to cite sources that the entire food chain has not collapsed? Is this also so?

Because if it is, I am just the guy to post them only if it also means that the magnificently obtuse retard will finally shut the fuck up about how one extinction will cause the entire food chain to collapse. If it is not so, then I won't waste my time.


Their fate won't be grim if you actually helped instead of pontificating about useless things.I'm not the one pontificating here, and grim is what you call their fate, I call it natural.


You should be helping stop global warming for one.I think I'd rather enjoy it than stop it.


It would help the bears.Why should I help the bears?

[loosecannon]

Nonsense. Global warming is occuring whether you care to admit it or not.

See I can tell you are a spirited cub. Young, naive and full of honorable tho misguided intent.

I KNOW global warming is real. Tho nobody yet knows it's true causation.

But almost 30 years ago I was reading in scientific journals that global warming would accelerate an ice age. It was all the rage of scary futuristic enviro fear mongering when you were either not born or in diapers.

And those fears were wrong.

BTW youngster with little history, Global warming in no way extends automatically to include the dire extinction of the polar bear.

The polar bear will be around at least 20 more years no matter what.





Everyone knows. I have provided links stating all the ill effects of global warming. Did you even read them?

Sure but I don't believe idiobabble just because somebody posts it. I have studied this myself for over 20 years. I am not about to just fall in line because some enviro propagandist who loves cuddly bears can post an article somewhere that you in turn read and accept as if it is from God's mouth.






Not as yet, but the bears could be extinct by the end of the century.

Well they probably WILL be extinct by the end of the century. By then a million creatures will have been driven into extinction by the overpopulation of man.

You can not stop this unless you can reverse population growth.












What is your point? How will you help the bears?



I can do very little to help the Bears. What little i can do begins most immediately by lobbying for reduction of fossil fuel consumption. That will help but not enough.

The real issue is overpopulation. I don't need cute bear pics to see the future. Even humans could be extinct if things went wrong. We are testing the limits of the whole earth to accommodate us in our excess.

[Rahul]

Because I do not consider the silliness of a thread to be a deterent to my posting to it.

In other words, you are posting just for the sake of posting.



No it's not.

Sure it is.



No it doesn't, it just makes the environment warmer.

None of them harm the environment.

It hurts the ice floes. That in turn hurts the bears and seals, and the entire ecosystem is affected.



I didn't say you manufactured Global Warming; Did I? Despite being real, it's not a global problem, it's a local problem--some even consider it a boon.

What do you mean by "local" problem?



Let me get this straight--I need sources to demonstrate to you that T-Rex is extinct, the neanderthal is extinct, and millions of other species have gone extinct? Is this so?

No. You need sources to demonstrate that disrupting one element of the food chain/pyramid doesn't impact the others.



Then, while you are having a sandwich obtained from the food chain, you need me to cite sources that the entire food chain has not collapsed? Is this also so?

My having a sandwich doesn't impact anything. Thousands of bears dying out does, though.



Because if it is, I am just the guy to post them only if it also means that the magnificently obtuse retard will finally shut the fuck up about how one extinction will cause the entire food chain to collapse.

Name calling is not required. Do you always insult those whose opinions you are critical of?



If it is not so, then I won't waste my time.

You are already wasting your time by postin in a thread you consider to be silly and of no use. :)



I'm not the one pontificating here, and grim is what you call their fate, I call it natural.

I think I'd rather enjoy it than stop it.

I don't enjoy the bears dying unlike you.





Why should I help the bears?

[img]http://www.savebiogems.org/images/polar/polar_main.jpg

They need you.

[Rahul]

See I can tell you are a spirited cub. Young, naive and full of honorable tho misguided intent.

I am neither misguided nor naive. I am simply saying that global warming is causing the bears to die out. I am, in other words, stating a fact.



I KNOW global warming is real. Tho nobody yet knows it's true causation.

Human activities are causing global warming.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm

Humans cause global warming, US admits

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38053000/jpg/_38053473_bushpowerplantap300.jpg

The US Government has acknowledged for the first time that man-made pollution is largely to blame for global warming.

But it has again refused to shift its position on the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty designed to mitigate global warming which the Bush administration rejected last year.


[The report] undercuts everything the president has said about global warming since he took office

In a 268-page report submitted to the United Nations, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) endorsed what many scientists have long argued - that human activities such as oil refining, power generation and car emissions are significant causes of global warming.

The White House had previously said there was not enough scientific evidence to blame industrial emissions for global warming.

The submission of the EPA report came on the same day that all 15 European Union nations ratified the Kyoto pact.

At odds with industry

"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing global mean surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise," the report concluded.

"The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities."

That position is at odds with the president's supporters in the motor, oil and electricity industries - who maintain that more research is needed to be certain of the link between global warming and the by-products of manufacturing.

The United States is the world's largest emitter of so-called greenhouse gases.

Bush says the Kyoto treaty would damage US economic interests

Last year, the Bush administration triggered international outrage when it walked away from the Kyoto treaty.

President Bush said the treaty's goal of reduction in emissions would be too costly to the American economy.

Despite the admission of a link between human activities and global warming, the US Government has still refused to ratify the treaty, instead emphasising a voluntary approach to greenhouse gas emissions.

Such an approach is "expected to achieve emission reductions comparable to the average reductions prescribed by the Kyoto agreement, but without the threats to economic growth that rigid national emission limits would bring," the report said.

Areas 'wiped out'

The EPA report also acknowledged that global warming was set to continue - forecasting that total US greenhouse gas emissions will increase by 43% from 2000 and 2020.

The report recommended various adaptation strategies, such as "changing planting dates and varieties to significantly offset economic losses and increase relative yields".

It also concluded that global warming would probably wipe out certain fragile areas altogether.

"A few ecosystems, such as alpine meadows in the Rocky Mountains and some barrier islands, are likely to disappear entirely," the report said.

Environmental groups claim the new report is a major U-turn by the Bush administration.

"[The report] undercuts everything the president has said about global warming since he took office," said Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust.

Climate change is on the agenda of a global summit on sustainable development taking place in Johannesburg in August.

The US is expected to face heavy criticism at the meeting, especially from the EU, for not doing more to fight global warming.





But almost 30 years ago I was reading in scientific journals that global warming would accelerate an ice age. It was all the rage of scary futuristic enviro fear mongering when you were either not born or in diapers.

Provide a link and I will view it.



And those fears were wrong.

There is evidence to the contrary.



BTW youngster with little history, Global warming in no way extends automatically to include the dire extinction of the polar bear.

Perhaps you should go back and read the thread for more information on this.



The polar bear will be around at least 20 more years no matter what.

Is that good enough for you?




Sure but I don't believe idiobabble just because somebody posts it.

You are wrong about the nature of my posts. I post scientifc facts.


Well they probably WILL be extinct by the end of the century. By then a million creatures will have been driven into extinction by the overpopulation of man.

Population growth is not the issue here. Global warming is.


The real issue is overpopulation. I don't need cute bear pics to see the future. Even humans could be extinct if things went wrong. We are testing the limits of the whole earth to accommodate us in our excess.

The real issue is global warming. The bears are feeling the heat.



http://www.exn.ca/bears/readstory.asp?ID=19980819-59&Topic=Bears

Hudson Bay polar bears are feeling the heat

http://www.exn.ca/news/Images/1998/08/19/19980819-polarbearcu.jpg

The polar bears of Hudson Bay are not amused. An ongoing, long-term study by the Canadian Wildlife Service of a group of polar bears near Churchill, Manitoba suggests the bears are not their normal, healthy selves. In fact, Ian Stirling, the research scientist leading the bear population study says the situation is "really puzzling me."

Stirling, along with fellow researchers Nick Lunn and Dennis Andriashek, have been monitoring the bear population in the western part of Hudson's Bay since about 1980. It's one of 14 polar bear populations in Canada. And while the researchers are aware of lower survival rates of cubs and a weight loss across the entire Churchill polar bear population, they can only speculate on why it's occurring.


"One possibility is that somehow climatic change is influencing them," Stirling remarks. "But while that seems like a reasonable possibility, we're hard pressed to find any evidence to say for sure that's what it is." Stirling is sure of one thing, though. "If the break-up (of the ice) begins earlier, then the bears are coming ashore with less food reserves, and that's going to cause this trend to continue going down."

That's because polar bears get most of their food energy from eating ring seals betweefn April and mid-July. But if the ice breaks up earlier than usual, those seals that make up a large part of the bears' diet are less abundant and the bears are forced to make it onto dry land where food is much less attainable.

But while their situation seems to be deteriorating, Stirling is not yet ready to sound any alarms. "Although their condition and reproduction are declining, it hasn't affected population size yet," he states. "They're still producing more cubs than they need to maintain the population. So the population isn't increasing, but it doesn't seem to be decreasing yet, either." But that's cold comfort for someone who's monitored the Churchill bears' status for the past two decades.

"Of course one of the things about trying to look at long-term ecological changes is they take a long time to find out if anything is happening,' he admits. "I'd love to be able to say we've pinned the problem down." But that's just not the case. And as Stirling puts it, "if we're seeing things that are affecting animals at the top of the ecological pyramid, then it says there's something probably happening further down." Exactly what remains a mystery.

Besides the climatic change theory, Stirling has pondered everything from pollutants to the potential unknown effects of hydro-electric developments in the area and even the ecological status of the seals that the bears feed on. "But without anything to back those possibilities up," confesses the scientist, "I'm reluctant to speculate too wildly."

What Sirling and his colleagues will do is continue to monitor the status of the Churchill polar bear population – at least for one more year. Having followed the situation this far, Stirling, despite a critical lack of funding, is reluctant to halt the research without coming to a more satisfactory answer. After all, he's all too familiar with how frustrating this mystery is to crack.

"One of the things that's really difficult is that these kind of monitoring studies require a long period of time," he says. "You don't get a flashy result in 6 months or a year."



So, how would you suggest saving the bears?

[loosecannon]

I am neither misguided nor naive. I am simply saying that global warming is causing the bears to die out. I am, in other words, stating a fact.

No you are stating something that is claimed to be a fact but is not yet known to be true by a preponderance of the evidence.


Human activities are causing global warming.


Again it is definitely not yet known to what degree human activities are causing global warming. Maybe 100%, maybe 30% nobody knows yet. Nobody.


Provide a link and I will view it.


Google it kid, I am the one who knows wtf he is talking about, you are the knee jerk reactionary to environmental propaganda.

And I don't mean that condescendingly, it just happens to be the truth.

YOU owe it to yourself to do more research than just eating the environmental movement's candy.

BOTH sides lie. Left AND right. Environmentalists AND corporate sleaze. BOTH sides lie.


Population growth is not the issue here. Global warming is.


At best global warming is a subset of effects of overpopulation. Virtually ALL of the worlds man made problems are the result of overpopulation. Including Global warming.


You are wrong about the nature of my posts. I post scientifc facts.

You think those are facts, and your intent is honorable. And wrong. At best your enviro articles are half truths crafted with the intention to deceive.

Even Al Gore admitted that he exaggerated the threat of global warming so as to spread the core message that was probably true.


So, how would you suggest saving the bears?

I already told you: all we can do is reduce fossil fuel use and reverse global population trends.

That's it.

Here is a present, courtesy of that enviro propaganda left wing Org Common Dreams. Written by one of the shining stars of the left Thom Hartman:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm

How Global Warming May Cause the Next Ice Age...


While global warming is being officially ignored by the political arm of the Bush administration, and Al Gore's recent conference on the topic during one of the coldest days of recent years provided joke fodder for conservative talk show hosts, the citizens of Europe and the Pentagon are taking a new look at the greatest danger such climate change could produce for the northern hemisphere - a sudden shift into a new ice age. What they're finding is not at all comforting.

In quick summary, if enough cold, fresh water coming from the melting polar ice caps and the melting glaciers of Greenland flows into the northern Atlantic, it will shut down the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe and northeastern North America warm. The worst-case scenario would be a full-blown return of the last ice age - in a period as short as 2 to 3 years from its onset - and the mid-case scenario would be a period like the "little ice age" of a few centuries ago that disrupted worldwide weather patterns leading to extremely harsh winters, droughts, worldwide desertification, crop failures, and wars around the world.....

This isn't the same theory that was peddled 30 years ago about how global warming would precipitate a long Ice Age. Just a similar one.

The thermohaline conveyor is not yet in any way known to be capable of just stopping, so don't get too alarmed. People have been setting off enviro alarms for 40 years and so far nothing cataclysmic has happened.

But it does show you that global warming may produce the opposite effects than those your sources predict.

Polar Bears like Ice Ages.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Global+warming%2C+%22ice+age%22

914,000 more hits for "global Warming, "ice Age"

scan them and get a more realistic POV.

The future is still a mystery no matter what any internet link says.

Them Bears ain't dead yet yungster.

[Rahul]

No you are stating something that is claimed to be a fact but is not yet known to be true by a preponderance of the evidence.


The dead bears are all the evidence we need.
http://www.animaltrial.com/Resources/polarbearswimming.jpeg



Again it is definitely not yet known to what degree human activities are causing global warming. Maybe 100%, maybe 30% nobody knows yet. Nobody.

But, it is known that they do cause global warming. What more do you need to know? All causes of global warming should be stopped, whether they are man made or not.



Google it kid,

Where is your link?



I am the one who knows wtf he is talking about, you are the knee jerk reactionary to environmental propaganda.

There isn't any evidence you know what you are talking about.



And I don't mean that condescendingly, it just happens to be the truth.

Nonsense. The truth is that global warming will cause the bears to die out.



YOU owe it to yourself to do more research than just eating the environmental movement's candy.

I have cited plenty of links. What was not clear in them?



BOTH sides lie. Left AND right. Environmentalists AND corporate sleaze. BOTH sides lie.

I agree. And Lies are not required. Actions are.



At best global warming is a subset of effects of overpopulation. Virtually ALL of the worlds man made problems are the result of overpopulation. Including Global warming.

Perhaps. I never denied overpopulation was a cause. . .




Even Al Gore admitted that he exaggerated the threat of global warming so as to spread the core message that was probably true.

If he exaggerated to spread a true core message, then the intent was honorable.


This isn't the same theory that was peddled 30 years ago about how global warming would precipitate a long Ice Age. Just a similar one.

That theory is obviously wrong as the ice floes are melting at an alarmingly fast rate.




Them Bears ain't dead yet yungster.

They will be if we don't help them.

http://www.animaltrial.com/Resources/polarbearlooking.jpeg

I wonder how to save them.

[LOki]

In other words, you are posting just for the sake of posting.No. Yet you seem to be trying to make a point about my posting to this thread. That point seems to be that you'd rather I not post. The question I'd have is, why would you rather I not post to this thread of yours? I suspect that your appeals to emotion will not withstand rational scrutiny. Consistent with your appeal to emotion strategy, you question why I'd post to a thread that holds a silly premise, as if doing so is an admission that I am silly for doing so.

It won't work, Rahul. You have no basis for "shaming" me away from your feckless emotionally derived demands that polar bears need saving.


Sure it is.No. It's not. The environment does not need protecting--it is just fine, and will be just fine without us doing a single thing. You can deny over and over that the environment can be hurt, but I defy you to show what exactly constitutes "hurt" to the environment. Saying you can do harm to the environment is like saying you can do harm to the number 4--it's meaningless. Since you can't actually hurt the environment, trying to protect the environment is a waste of time.

Yet these bullshit emotional appeals to protect an anthropomorphized environment from being "hurt" are certainly useful for motivating the irrational to give up their essential liberties--to give up their humanity--to altruist nanny statists whose only real concern for the environment is it's capacity for being a rally point around which they might assert the power to tell people exactly what to do with their lives.


It hurts the ice floes. That in turn hurts the bears and seals, and the entire ecosystem is affected.Ice flows can't be hurt. And though I'll agree that diminished ice fields may be detrimental to seals and bears, I also know that ecosystems are affected by lots of things, and diminished ice fields are likely to be beneficial to other species that you are perhaps less concerned about "helping" for emotional reasons, rather than rational ones.


What do you mean by "local" problem?

<a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/local">Local</a> <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/problem">problem</a>: A source of perplexity, distress, or vexation, relating to, or characteristic of, a particular place.


No. You need sources to demonstrate that disrupting one element of the food chain/pyramid doesn't impact the others.

My having a sandwich doesn't impact anything. Thousands of bears dying out does, though.Backpedaling some are we? Or just deflecting from your fatuous assertion of fact? You demanded that it is <b>FACT</b> that the extinction of one species does not merely effect others as you suggest now, but causes the ENTIRE food chain/pyramid to collapse. I admit that causes lead to effects, but one of the effects of a single extinction is clearly not the collapse of the entire food chain/pyramid.

Having your sandwich is not accusing you of impacting anything, it is demanding that you live in a state of denial that the food chain/pyramid has NOT collapsed despite millions of years since the first species went extinct, and millions more species gone extinct since.


Name calling is not required. Do you always insult those whose opinions you are critical of?I didn't insult you. I did, after a manner, demand you accept being a magnificently obtuse retard if you insist upon demanding that your assertion that one species going extinct will cause the entire food chain to collapse, is a fact.

You really have only four choices Rahul:
Assert that no species have ever gone extinct, and that is why the entire food chain/pyramid has not collapsed--which explains the possibilty of every meal you've eaten throughout your life.

Accept that species have indeed gone extinct, and assert that the entire food chain/pyramid has actually collapsed in patent denial of every meal you (and everything else) have eaten throughout your (and their) life.

Accept that species have indeed gone extinct, that every meal you've eaten throughout your life is evidence that the entire food chain/pyramid has not collapsed, and accept that you were wrong in asserting otherwise.

Maintain the assertion that the extinction of one species would cause the collapse of the entire food chain/pyramid, desipite all the evidence of extinctions and sandwiches that argue the contrary; thereby affirming yourself to be a magnificently obtuse retard.


You are already wasting your time by postin in a thread you consider to be silly and of no use. :)I am not wasting my time if it is instructive to illuminate the silliness of the thread's premise.


I don't enjoy the bears dying unlike you.Do you always engage in false accusations of those whose opinions are critical of yours?


They need you.For what? To help them defy their fate? To help them live in a world they are not suited to live in? What do they need me for?


PS: Do everyone a favor and go back through your emo-picture festival and resize your images, or PM an admin so they can do it for you--they are certainly messing up the viewing of the thread for those without 24" wide monitors.

[loosecannon]

Rahul, Your intentions appear admirable, but I did provide you with a strong scientifically founded article written by one of the lefts most famous authors, that appeared in one of the lefts most popular news digests that stated emphatically that the Pentagon and many other scientists believe that global warming may lead to northern arctic cooling, or Ice Age conditions.

I also provided you with 914,000 links more than half of which supported that idea.

If you are gonna just brush off the expertise of thousands of folks who know far, far more than you do just because it conflicts with your biased position then you will remain ignorant, and a knee jerk reactionary until you get the concept that the future is uncertain and can not be known.

Nobody CAN know if the earth will cascade into a warmer cycle, or a colder one.

Nobody CAN know if the Polar Bears will be killed off via Global warming.

And at this point nobody CAN know to what degree man is or is not contributing to the warming that has occured over the last century.

It is simply beyond the ability of humans to know these things yet.

And that includes you. You CAN not know what you are talking about when you make definitive statements about a future you CAN not predict.

I on the other hand can speak with certainty when I say that the consensus of the scientific community has predicted both warming and cooling trends as the likely outcome of our increased greenhouse gas emissions. AND they still do.

IOW I am arguing a position that CAN be known, while you are arguing a position that CAN NOT be known. And I have provided absolutely overwhelming evidence in support of that position.

That's the facts Jack.

Meanwhile reducing fossil fuel consumption, and acting to minimize population growth is all you can do to save the bears.

And to save perhaps a million other species you aren't as focused on, and to accomplish many other much more compelling goals than saving a bear who lives in a precarious climactic eco-perch in the first place.

BTW, you might want to check into it yourself because the polar bears genetic code is so similar to that of the Grizzly Bear that even if the white bears ALL disappear the genetic strains will still be latent in hundreds of thousands of Brown cousins.....just waiting there for the arctic to become a cold miserable place for white bears to re emerge. They are so closely related that they interbreed and spawn bear cubs that are fertile which technically makes them the same species.

You should listen more, you don't know nearly as much as you think you do.

But thanks for sharing your sincere opinions.

[Rahul]

No. Yet you seem to be trying to make a point about my posting to this thread.

You were the one that brought that point up, if you remember.



That point seems to be that you'd rather I not post. The question I'd have is, why would you rather I not post to this thread of yours?

You keep saying the thread is silly, so I wonder why you post in a silly thread.



It won't work, Rahul. You have no basis for "shaming" me away from your feckless emotionally derived demands that polar bears need saving.

No-one is attempting to shame you away. The bears do need to be saved.

http://www.seaworld.org/animal-info/info-books/polar-bear/images/pic-stalking.jpg



No. It's not. The environment does not need protecting--it is just fine, and will be just fine without us doing a single thing.


That is not true. I have provided plenty of facts stating that human activities can and do hurt the environment greatly.



You can deny over and over that the environment can be hurt,

I havent denied it even once. If you had been following the debate, you'd know my position by now. Duh.



but I defy you to show what exactly constitutes "hurt" to the environment.

The hole in the ozone layer is one thing.

Rising temperatures due to human activities are another.

Overpopulation and encroaching on animal's territories are yet another thing.

How many more examples do you require?



Saying you can do harm to the environment is like saying you can do harm to the number 4--it's meaningless. Since you can't actually hurt the environment, trying to protect the environment is a waste of time.

Nonsense.




Ice flows can't be hurt.

They can be melted.

http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov//5518/Canada.A2003186.1755.115x150.jpg



And though I'll agree that diminished ice fields may be detrimental to seals and bears, I also know that ecosystems are affected by lots of things, and diminished ice fields are likely to be beneficial to other species that you are perhaps less concerned about "helping" for emotional reasons, rather than rational ones.

What other species are melted ice floes beneficial to? Why does this take away from the fact that the bears are dying out due to global warming?




Backpedaling some are we? Or just deflecting from your fatuous assertion of fact? You demanded that it is <b>FACT</b> that the extinction of one species does not merely effect others as you suggest now, but causes the ENTIRE food chain/pyramid to collapse. I admit that causes lead to effects, but one of the effects of a single extinction is clearly not the collapse of the entire food chain/pyramid.

It may cause the chain to collapse, but we need to prepare for the worst case scenarios. Arguing over this is silly.



Having your sandwich is not accusing you of impacting anything, it is demanding that you live in a state of denial that the food chain/pyramid has NOT collapsed despite millions of years since the first species went extinct, and millions more species gone extinct since.

How does my sandwich significantly impact the food chain? I have thought about it but cannot figure it out. Maybe you could explain.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a5/Grilled_cheese_with_soup.jpg/699px-Grilled_cheese_with_soup.jpg



I didn't insult you. I did, after a manner, demand you accept being a magnificently obtuse retard if you insist upon demanding that your assertion that one species going extinct will cause the entire food chain to collapse, is a fact.

You called me magnificently obtuse and a retard. What are those if not insults?



You really have only four choices Rahul:
Assert that no species have ever gone extinct, and that is why the entire food chain/pyramid has not collapsed--which explains the possibilty of every meal you've eaten throughout your life.

What is the co-releation between my sandwich and the food chain?



Accept that species have indeed gone extinct, and assert that the entire food chain/pyramid has actually collapsed in patent denial of every meal you (and everything else) have eaten throughout your (and their) life.

This is silly. Species have gotten extinct before. Everyone knows this. I am still unsure as to what the relationship is between my sandwich and the food chain.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Italian_Sandwich.jpeg/180px-Italian_Sandwich.jpeg



Accept that species have indeed gone extinct, that every meal you've eaten throughout your life is evidence that the entire food chain/pyramid has not collapsed, and accept that you were wrong in asserting otherwise.

Maintain the assertion that the extinction of one species would cause the collapse of the entire food chain/pyramid, desipite all the evidence of extinctions and sandwiches that argue the contrary; thereby affirming yourself to be a magnificently obtuse retard.

Sandwiches and food chains, what is the link? :)

[QUOTE=LOki;80167] Do you always engage in false accusations of those whose opinions are critical of yours?

Name one false accusation you claim I engaged in.



For what? To help them defy their fate? To help them live in a world they are not suited to live in? What do they need me for?

They are perfectly suited to live in icy conditions.

http://www.biosbcc.net/ocean/marinesci/04benthon/arcimg/pb5123.jpg

The bears need your help to survive.

[LOki]

You were the one that brought that point up, if you remember.I actually remember it like this:<blockquote>
Why do you make silly arguments?</blockquote>
You keep saying the thread is silly, so I wonder why you post in a silly thread.No. You keep reminding us that I said the thread was silly, and I keep responding to those reminders--there's a difference that a magnifcently obtuse retard would surely not percieve.

If you wonder why I keep responding, it is to fully illuminate the grand majesty of one retard's magnificent obtuseness.


No-one is attempting to shame you away.I suppose I should feel relieved then.


The bears do need to be saved.No, they don't. You want them to be saved, but they don't actually need to be saved.


That is not true. I have provided plenty of facts stating that human activities can and do hurt the environment greatly.It is true, and you have provided not a single human activity that can, or does, hurt the environment to any extent what-so-ever.


I havent denied it even once. If you had been following the debate, you'd know my position by now. Duh.I mispoke. That should have read, "You can deny over and over that the environment <b>CAN'T</b> be hurt, but I defy you to show what exactly constitutes "hurt" to the environment."

Apologies.


The hole in the ozone layer is one thing.This does not hurt the environment. It just means that the enviroment now features a hole in the ozone layer. The environment is no more hurt by a hole in the ozone than it is hurt by a hole in the ground.


Rising temperatures due to human activities are another.This does not hurt the environment. It only means that the temperature is warmer. The temperature was much warmer in the past, and the environmet was not hurt then. The temperature cooled, and the environment was not hurt then. The temperature of this planet has risen and fallen a number of times, and none of those changes hurt the environment, and neither does this change in temperature.


Overpopulation and encroaching on animal's territories are yet another thing.This does not hurt the environment for the exact same reasons that your previous examples do not hurt the envoronment--hurting the environment can't happen because it's a meaningless notion.


How many more examples do you require?More? You only have to provide one, and I'm still waiting for it. If it will help you weed out the bullshit, I'll let you know that each example you've submitted illustrates nothing but a change in the environment, not "hurt." Show me what exactly constitutes "hurt" to the environment. It can't simply be change in the environment.


They can be melted.So? How does that hurt them? In the event you actually attempt to answer, the follow up question will be, "Does freezing hurt the water? And if so, why is it better to hurt water than hurt ice?"


What other species are melted ice floes beneficial to?Any species that finds cold, fresh water beneficial. Many species of fish are fine examples. There has been discussion for some time about the lack of water suitable for drinking--I would think that melting ice would be a swell source for replenishing shrinking aquifers.


Why does this take away from the fact that the bears are dying out due to global warming?First, that the bears are dying out due to global warming is not established fact. Secondly, I never said that diminished ice fields takes anything away from the fact (should it be actually established) that the bears are dying out due to global warming. Why do you imply that I said, or I should think, it does?


It may cause the chain to collapse, but we need to prepare for the worst case scenarios.There is zero evidence that one extinction will cause the entire food chain to collapse, and an enormous body of evidence that one extiction will not cause the entire food chain to collapse--We need to prepare for the actual case scenario.


Arguing over this is silly.No. Demanding that we imagine a worst case scenario to respond to, rather than respond to the actual case scenario is silly.



Having your sandwich is not accusing you of impacting anything, it is demanding that you live in a state of denial that the food chain/pyramid has NOT collapsed despite millions of years since the first species went extinct, and millions more species gone extinct since.How does my sandwich significantly impact the food chain? I have thought about it but cannot figure it out. Maybe you could explain.Anyone but a magnificently obtuse retard can see that I never said, or implied, that your sandwich had any impact on the food chain, let alone a significant one. A magnificently obtuse retard would not, however, be able to percieve that the existence of his sandwich is evidence that the entire food chain has NOT collapsed.


You called me magnificently obtuse and a retard. What are those if not insults?They could be fair observations. Or more likely, I have clearly identified the nature of magnificently obtuse retard clown shoes, and rather than take them off, you are gleefully jamming your feet into them because they suit you.



You really have only four choices Rahul:
1. Assert that no species have ever gone extinct, and that is why the entire food chain/pyramid has not collapsed--which explains the possibilty of every meal you've eaten throughout your life.What is the co-releation between my sandwich and the food chain?A magnificently obtuse retard would not percieve that their sandwich is food, thus part of, and derived from, the food chain. Furthermore, this magnificently obtuse retard would not percieve that the existence of said sandwich is prima facie evidence that the entire food chain has not collapsed.



2. Accept that species have indeed gone extinct, and assert that the entire food chain/pyramid has actually collapsed in patent denial of every meal you (and everything else) have eaten throughout your (and their) life.This is silly. Species have gotten extinct before. Everyone knows this. I am still unsure as to what the relationship is between my sandwich and the food chain.Well, I'm glad then that i do not have to provide sources for my assertion that species have gone extinct. Yet still, a magnificently obtuse retard who demands that it is <b>FACT</b> that one extinction would lead to the entire food chain to collapse, would still not percieve that their sandwich is food, thus part of, and derived from, the food chain; and furthermore, this magnificently obtuse retard would not percieve that the existence of said sandwich is prima facie evidence that the entire food chain has not collapsed, thus demonstrating his assertion of fact to be patently false.



3. Accept that species have indeed gone extinct, that every meal you've eaten throughout your life is evidence that the entire food chain/pyramid has not collapsed, and accept that you were wrong in asserting otherwise.

4. Maintain the assertion that the extinction of one species would cause the collapse of the entire food chain/pyramid, desipite all the evidence of extinctions and sandwiches that argue the contrary; thereby affirming yourself to be a magnificently obtuse retard.Sandwiches and food chains, what is the link? :)A magnificently obtuse retard would fail to percieve the link between his sandwich (which is derived from, and part of the food chain) and the food chain.


Name one false accusation you claim I engaged in.<blockquote><b>Rahul:</b>
<i><a href="http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=79607#post79607">"I don't enjoy the bears dying unlike you."</a></i></blockquote>
They are perfectly suited to live in icy conditions.I do not disagree, and since they don't need saving from icy conditions, I will not attempt to save them from icy conditions.


The bears need your help to survive.You just said they were perfectly suited to their conditions, why do they need help from me to survive?




PS: Do everyone a favor and go back through your emo-picture festival and resize your images, or PM an admin so they can do it for you--they are certainly messing up the viewing of the thread for those without 24" wide monitors.

[Rahul]

You keep reminding us that I said the thread was silly, and I keep responding to those reminders--there's a difference that a magnifcently obtuse retard would surely not percieve.If you wonder why I keep responding, it is to fully illuminate the grand majesty of one retard's magnificent obtuseness.

I am unsure as to why you are constantly engaging in name calling. The polar bears don't need your name calling, but need your help.

http://www.biosbcc.net/ocean/marinesci/04benthon/arcimg/pb5128.jpg


I suppose I should feel relieved then.

I am glad to be of aid.



No, they don't. You want them to be saved, but they don't actually need to be saved.

Of course they need to be saved. They could die out without our help.



It is true, and you have provided not a single human activity that can, or does, hurt the environment to any extent what-so-ever.

I have provided plenty of sources before. I am not going to repost them.



Apologies.

There is no need to apologize.



This does not hurt the environment. It just means that the enviroment now features a hole in the ozone layer. The environment is no more hurt by a hole in the ozone than it is hurt by a hole in the ground.

I disagree.



A GIANT UMBRELLA OVER THE EARTH

http://www.ec.gc.ca/ozone/DOCS/KIDZONE/images/ozn_layr.gif

You have probably heard people talk about a "hole" in our ozone layer. Damage to our Earth's giant protective umbrella is more severe in the South Pole, but, even there, no actual "hole" exists. And only a slight thinning occurs over the rest of the world. So no matter where you stand, you won't find a true "hole".

About 20 kilometres thick, this giant umbrella is made up of a layer of ozone gas. This gas is found some 15 to 35 kilometres above the Earth's surface in the upper atmosphere or "stratosphere".


Like a good pair of sunglasses, the ozone layer acts like a natural filter, blocking out most of the sun's harmful UV (ultraviolet) rays. Without the ozone layer, more people would get sunburns, skin cancer and cataracts. Plants and animals would also be affected. So we can think of the ozone layer as our planet's own protective sunscreen.

Did You Know?

If the ozone layer were brought down to the Earth's surface, air pressure and temperature conditions would compress the ozone into a layer 2 to 5 mm thick!

Fact: Ozone (O3) has three atoms of oxygen. The form of oxygen be breathe (O2) has two oxygen atoms.

Sniff, sniff

If you have ever noticed the "sharp" clean smell after a thunderstorm or the "electric" smell of a subway train, then you've smelled a bit of ozone gas. In larger amounts, ozone is unpleasant with a strong odour that irritates the eyes and lungs.

Good and Bad Ozone

The ozone layer contains almost all the ozone gas that exists. This is "good" ozone because it protects us from the sun's UV rays. At ground level we find "bad" ozone, as a result of emissions from car exhaust, for example. During the summer it causes smog in large cities.

Unfortunately, ground level ozone is increasing while stratospheric ozone decreases. We cannot move the lower ozone gas up to help the ozone layer. The best solution is to continue to reduce all sources of pollution affecting our atmosphere.

Important Scientific Discoveries!

In 1985, British scientists found an ozone "hole" or large thin area over the Antarctic. After this discovery, Canadian scientists looked for ozone thinning in the Arctic. They found that the ozone damage over the Arctic was much less severe than the damage over the South Pole and that there was little increased risk to people living in the far north.

Even though the ozone layer is an invisible shield, scientists have found a number of ways to measure it; one way is to use helium-filled balloons that carry measuring instruments into the atmosphere and transmit information back to Earth. Environment Canada has also invented a very sensitive instrument that takes ozone layer measurements from the ground.

Did You Know?

Our own astronaut, Steve Maclean, used a Canadian-made instrument on a recent U.S. space shuttle mission to measure the ozone layer from space!

What are CFCs?

CFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals were first mass-produced in the 1950s for use as refrigerants, industrial solvents, cleaning fluids and agents in making foam products. In the late 1960s, they were widely used in spray cans. In 1980, Canada and other countries banned CFC use in aerosol sprays.

Fact : Scientists have shown that certain chemicals are slowly eroding the ozone layer. The main culprits are chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs.

Although CFCs do not harm the environment near the ground, they slowly travel upwards to the ozone layer where they are broken down by UV light into chlorine atoms. Here, the chlorine atoms eat away at the ozone like pac-men.

Did you know?

If all ozone-depleting chemicals were successfully phased out, the ozone layer would eventually heal itself.






The temperature of this planet has risen and fallen a number of times, and none of those changes hurt the environment, and neither does this change in temperature.

It's amazing you say that. How about the Ice Ages?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/AntarcticaDomeCSnow.jpg/300px-AntarcticaDomeCSnow.jpg



More? You only have to provide one, and I'm still waiting for it. If it will help you weed out the bullshit, I'll let you know that each example you've submitted illustrates nothing but a change in the environment, not "hurt." Show me what exactly constitutes "hurt" to the environment. It can't simply be change in the environment.

I provided you with an article stating how the CFC's damage the environment and am waiting on a response.



So? How does that hurt them? In the event you actually attempt to answer, the follow up question will be, "Does freezing hurt the water?

Water is not a living thing and cannot be hurt. The bears can be hurt and drown when the floes retreat way off the coast.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article767459.ece

Polar bears drown as ice shelf melts

The researchers were startled to find bears having to swim up to 60 miles across open sea to find food. They are being forced into the long voyages because the ice floes from which they feed are melting, becoming smaller and drifting farther apart.

Although polar bears are strong swimmers, they are adapted for swimming close to the shore. Their sea journeys leave them them vulnerable to exhaustion, hypothermia or being swamped by waves.

According to the new research, four bear carcases were found floating in one month in a single patch of sea off the north coast of Alaska, where average summer temperatures have increased by 2-3C degrees since 1950s.

The scientists believe such drownings are becoming widespread across the Arctic, an inevitable consequence of the doubling in the past 20 years of the proportion of polar bears having to swim in open seas.

“Mortalities due to offshore swimming may be a relatively important and unaccounted source of natural mortality given the energetic demands placed on individual bears engaged in long-distance swimming,” says the research led by Dr Charles Monnett, marine ecologist at the American government’s Minerals Management Service. “Drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice continues.”

The research, presented to a conference on marine mammals in San Diego, California, last week, comes amid evidence of a decline in numbers of the 22,000 polar bears that live in about 20 sites across the Arctic circle.

In Hudson Bay, Canada, the site of the most southerly polar bears, a study by the US Geological Survey (USGS) and the Canadian Wildlife Service to be published next year will show the population fell 22% from 1,194 in 1987 to 935 last year.

New evidence from field researchers working for the World Wildlife Fund in Yakutia, on the northeast coast of Russia, has also shown the region’s first evidence of cannibalism among bears competing for food supplies.

Polar bears live on ice all year round and use it as a platform from which to hunt food and rear their young. They hunt near the edge, where the ice is thinnest, catching seals when they make holes in the ice to breath. They typically eat one seal every four or five days and a single bear can consume 100lb of blubber at one sitting.

As the ice pack retreats north in the summer between June and October, the bears must travel between ice floes to continue hunting in areas such as the shallow water of the continental shelf off the Alaskan coast — one of the most food-rich areas in the Arctic.

However, last summer the ice cap receded about 200 miles further north than the average of two decades ago, forcing the bears to undertake far longer voyages between floes.

“We know short swims up to 15 miles are no problem, and we know that one or two may have swum up to 100 miles. But that is the extent of their ability, and if they are trying to make such a long swim and they encounter rough seas they could get into trouble,” said Steven Amstrup, a research wildlife biologist with the USGS.

The new study, carried out in part of the Beaufort Sea, shows that between 1986 and 2005 just 4% of the bears spotted off the north coast of Alaska were swimming in open waters. Not a single drowning had been documented in the area.

However, last September, when the ice cap had retreated a record 160 miles north of Alaska, 51 bears were spotted, of which 20% were seen in the open sea, swimming as far as 60 miles off shore.

The researchers returned to the vicinity a few days later after a fierce storm and found four dead bears floating in the water. “We estimate that of the order of 40 bears may have been swimming and that many of those probably drowned as a result of rough seas caused by high winds,” said the report.

In their search for food, polar bears are also having to roam further south, rummaging in the dustbins of Canadian homes. Sir Ranulph Fiennes, the explorer who has been to the North Pole seven times, said he had noticed a deterioration in the bears’ ice habitat since his first expedition in 1975.

“Each year there was more water than the time before,” he said. “We used amphibious sledges for the first time in 1986.”

His last expedition was in 2002, when he fell through the ice and lost some of his fingers to frostbite.




And if so, why is it better to hurt water than hurt ice?"

This is obtuse to the debate.



Any species that finds cold, fresh water beneficial. Many species of fish are fine examples. There has been discussion for some time about the lack of water suitable for drinking--I would think that melting ice would be a swell source for replenishing shrinking aquifers.

This debate is about saving the bears. I suggest you start a new thread if you wish to discuss replenishing the aquifers and I will contribute.



First, that the bears are dying out due to global warming is not established fact.

Yes it is.


Secondly, I never said that diminished ice fields takes anything away from the fact (should it be actually established) that the bears are dying out due to global warming. Why do you imply that I said, or I should think, it does?

I can read. You say the melting ice floes don't affect the bears.

http://www.biosbcc.net/ocean/marinesci/04benthon/arcimg/pb4224.jpg



There is zero evidence that one extinction will cause the entire food chain to collapse, and an enormous body of evidence that one extiction will not cause the entire food chain to collapse--We need to prepare for the actual case scenario.

Where is your source showing there is zero evidence?



No. Demanding that we imagine a worst case scenario to respond to, rather than respond to the actual case scenario is silly.

Nonsense. We must prepare for the worst possible outcomes.



Anyone but a magnificently obtuse retard can see that I never said, or implied, that your sandwich had any impact on the food chain, let alone a significant one.

How many times have you called me names today? Further more, you are the one who said my sandwich would cause the food chain to collapse.



A magnificently obtuse retard would not, however, be able to percieve that the existence of his sandwich is evidence that the entire food chain has NOT collapsed.

Why would the existence of the sandwich mean anything either way?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e5/ClubSandwich.JPG/180px-ClubSandwich.JPG



They could be fair observations. Or more likely, I have clearly identified the nature of magnificently obtuse retard clown shoes, and rather than take them off, you are gleefully jamming your feet into them because they suit you.

I am not going to respond to your baits.



A magnificently obtuse retard would not percieve that their sandwich is food, thus part of, and derived from, the food chain. Furthermore, this magnificently obtuse retard would not percieve that the existence of said sandwich is prima facie evidence that the entire food chain has not collapsed.


More insults, more baits.



Well, I'm glad then that i do not have to provide sources for my assertion that species have gone extinct. Yet still, a magnificently obtuse retard who demands that it is <b>FACT</b> that one extinction would lead to the entire food chain to collapse, would still not percieve that their sandwich is food, thus part of, and derived from, the food chain; and furthermore, this magnificently obtuse retard would not percieve that the existence of said sandwich is prima facie evidence that the entire food chain has not collapsed, thus demonstrating his assertion of fact to be patently false.

You keep repeating the same statements over and over again here. . .



A magnificently obtuse retard would fail to percieve the link between his sandwich (which is derived from, and part of the food chain) and the food chain.

. . . and here, amongst many other places. Perhaps you could be a bit more original.


You just said they were perfectly suited to their conditions, why do they need help from me to survive?

The human activities are causing their conditions to deteoriate.
PS: Do everyone a favor and go back through your emo-picture festival and resize your images, or PM an admin so they can do it for you--they are certainly messing up the viewing of the thread for those without 24" wide monitors.

I am sorry. Here is a resized image for you.

http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/PolarBears/images/fight.gif

The bears need all the help they can get.

[LOki]

Of course they need to be saved.From what?


They could die out without our help.So what?


I have provided plenty of sources before. I am not going to repost them.You have not supplied even one.


I disagree.Your little article on ozone depletion confirms my argument and does nothing for yours. I agree that the ozone layer has a hole in it. So now the environment features an ozone layer with a hole in it. The environment has changed, and we're the cause of it. What of it?


It's amazing you say that. How about the Ice Ages?It's not the least bit amazing that a magnificently obtuse retard would not percieve that I was talking about the ice ages. The cooling that characterizes the ice ages did not hurt the environment, neither did the warming periods between them.


I provided you with an article stating how the CFC's damage the environment and am waiting on a response.Now you have it.


Water is not a living thing and cannot be hurt.Ice is not a living thing and cannot be hurt either.


The bears can be hurt and drown when the floes retreat way off the coast.That has always been true since the beginning of polar bears--So what?


This is obtuse to the debate.You're the one who asserts that ice can be hurt--it's not obtuse to that.


This debate is about saving the bears. I suggest you start a new thread if you wish to discuss replenishing the aquifers and I will contribute.I suggest that you look back to the post where you asked me for this response.


I can read. You say the melting ice floes don't affect the bears.Not even once.


Where is your source showing there is zero evidence?First, there can not be a source for "no evidence." Secondly, you have accepted that there have been extinctions, and the evidence that the entire food chain has not collapsed, is in your hands when you eat a sandwich. There a millions of examples of extinctions, that have occured over millions of years, and not a single example of the entire food chain collapsing is the evidence that what you claimed is fact, is false in fact.


Nonsense. We must prepare for the worst possible outcomes.Nonsese is preparing for outcomes that won't happen--wether they're the worst or the best.


Further more, you are the one who said my sandwich would cause the food chain to collapse.I never said your sandwich would cause the food chain to collapse.


Why would the existence of the sandwich mean anything either way? How magnificently obtuse.


I am not going to respond to your baits.This only confirms that I can't be insulting you.


More insults, more baits.Nothing but a retarded refusal to percieve that the existence of your sandwich is prima facie evidence that the entire food chain has not collapsed.


You keep repeating the same statements over and over again here. . . As do you, but I don't do so to avoid the points, I only do so in an effort to avoid your refusal to remember your posts I am responding to, and to drive home the point that any magnificently obtuse retard can stop being so by refusing to put on the magnificenty obtuse retard clown shoes.


. . . and here, amongst many other places. Perhaps you could be a bit more original.A magnificently obtuse retard would fail to percieve the link between his sandwich (which is derived from, and part of the food chain) and the food chain, and instead complain about originality.


The human activities are causing their conditions to deteoriate.Well then, at the risk of repeating, why should I help them survive in conditions that they are not suited to?


I am sorry. Here is a resized image for you.
Thanks. Still, please do everyone a favor and <b>GO BACK</b> through your emo-picture festival and resize your images, or PM an admin so they can do it for you--they are certainly messing up the viewing of the thread for those without 24" wide monitors.

[Rahul]

From what?

From drowning for one.

http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/PolarBears/images/underwater3.gif


So what?

So, we should save them. Duh.



Your little article on ozone depletion confirms my argument and does nothing for yours. I agree that the ozone layer has a hole in it. So now the environment features an ozone layer with a hole in it. The environment has changed, and we're the cause of it. What of it?

So, you agree that human activities have changed the environment for the worse. Good. This is a good start.



It's not the least bit amazing that a magnificently obtuse retard would not percieve that I was talking about the ice ages.

There you go with the name calling again.


The cooling that characterizes the ice ages did not hurt the environment, neither did the warming periods between them.

Actually, it seems that human hunting is another factor responsible for many species dying out during the Ice Age.




http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18789488/

Comet chilled and killed Ice Age beasts

Extraterrestrial explosion could have devastated mastodons of the day

Mega die-off

During the last catastrophic animal extinction, more than three-fourths of the large Ice Age animals, including woolly mammoths, mastodons, saber-toothed tigers and giant bears, died out. Scientists have debated for years over the cause of the extinction, with both of the major hypotheses-human overhunting and climate change-insufficient to account for the mega die-off.

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070522/070522_mastodon_hmed_9a.hmedium.jpg

An extraterrestrial explosion could have triggered a wave of massive wildfires that reduced to ashes the mastodons of the day, say the scientists. At one site called Murray Springs in Arizona, a well-known Clovis site, the scientists found megafauna covered by the comet debris.

"This black mat drapes over the bones of partially butchered mammoths as if somebody was in the process of working on these animals while they were actually killed," Firestone told LiveScience in a telephone interview. "And between this black mat and the bones of this mammoth we find this ejecta layer. So it's as if the [impact] event occurred right on top of these mammoth bones and then this black mat occurs on top of that."

Once put out, the fires would have left a barren landscape devoid of food for any remaining animals.

"I would argue that most of the megafauna either died or starved after this thing," Firestone said. "But certainly there must've been pockets of survival of large animals even mammoths that may have survived for thousands of years beyond that, ultimately to be hunted to death or whatever happened to them."

Chill out

The comet theory could also explain the abrupt plunge in temperatures during the Younger Dryas period. Presenters at this AGU symposium argue that the comet impact or explosion would have heated up the area, causing the Laurentide Ice Sheet to melt and send massive amounts of water into the Atlantic Ocean. The input would affect ocean currents, which are responsible for keeping the atmosphere at livable temperatures.






Now you have it.

Yes.



Ice is not a living thing and cannot be hurt either.

Did I say it could? I said it could be melted.



That has always been true since the beginning of polar bears--So what?


No. The floes were not way off the coasts before but are now.



http://www.awionline.org/pubs/Quarterly/06-55-02/06_55_2p10.htm

It was a troubling site. In September 2004, US Minerals Management Service researchers found four dead polar bears floating in the Beaufort Sea. The scientists concluded that as many as 40 polar bears likely drowned as they swam between ice floes—their traditional hunting grounds. Though polar bears are skilled swimmers, as the floes retreat due to warming air and ocean temperatures, the greater distances they must travel have proven to be deadly. That same month, the polar ice cap was reported to have retreated 160 miles north of the northern coast of Alaska. This was not an anomaly. As the arctic temperature rose 5 degrees Fahrenheit over the past several decades, the total amount of sea ice was reduced by 250 million acres, and ice thickness declined from 10 to only 6 feet. With an annual loss of approximately 14,000 square miles of sea ice, it is of no surprise that many scientists predict polar bears could become extinct within the next century.

http://www.awionline.org/pubs/Quarterly/06-55-02/gifs/10.gif

Despite the plight of the polar bear and other evidence of global warming, no serious steps have been taken to stop or at least slow the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases—primarily carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide—are emitted mostly as a result of human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels. They have led to a 0.6 to 1.2 degrees F temperature increase since the late 19th century, ten of the warmest years on record since 1990 and up to a 10-inch rise in sea levels due to melting polar ice. Unfortunately, scientists affiliated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change now predict that global temperatures may rise up to 8.1 degrees F by 2100. And while polar bears may be the most noticeable and charismatic species to be first to fall victim to climate change, they will certainly not be the last. Not a single species, including humans, will be spared the impacts of this warming climate. Coastal flooding, prolonged droughts, more ferocious and unpredictable storms and climate patterns, fresh water shortages and increased disease will become commonplace as the mercury continues to rise.

While scientists have known for years that the warming temperatures melt the ice floes, few imagined how dramatic and rapid the loss would be. The annual loss of Greenland’s ice sheet, according to scientists from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the University of Kansas, has risen from 21.6 cubic miles in 1996 to 36 cubic miles in 2005. In Alaska, scientists estimate the summertime Arctic could be ice-free within 70 years. Responding to the significant loss of polar ice in Antarctica, top NASA climate scientist James Hansen has predicted that without a dramatic cut to emissions, the sea level could rise 80 feet by the time today’s children reach middle age.

The potential consequences to the world’s oceans are dramatic. In the Arctic, crabs and other bottom dwelling species will either have to move north with the retreating sea ice or perish. In the Antarctic, the number of krill (the primary food source for whales, seals and penguins) has already declined by 80 percent since the 1970s as global warming causes the species’ food supply to diminish. As the oceans warm, they also are becoming more acidic due to escalating rates of carbon dioxide input into the sea. Increasing ocean acidity threatens the very existence of crabs, oysters and mussels by dissolving their shells or preventing shell formation. Such changes, including alterations in the abundance and distribution of plankton— a critical food species in an ocean ecosystem—will have dramatic impacts on the health of our oceans. This means disastrous consequences for a wide variety of species, including crabs, salmon, seals and whales.





You're the one who asserts that ice can be hurt--it's not obtuse to that.


Your assertions are not backed up by facts.



I suggest that you look back to the post where you asked me for this response.

I am not debating aquifers rather polar bears.



Not even once.

So you agree that it does?



First, there can not be a source for "no evidence."

But, how do you know there is no evidence? Where is your source?



Secondly, you have accepted that there have been extinctions, and the evidence that the entire food chain has not collapsed, is in your hands when you eat a sandwich. There a millions of examples of extinctions, that have occured over millions of years, and not a single example of the entire food chain collapsing is the evidence that what you claimed is fact, is false in fact.


You haven't articulated what the relationship is between a sandwich and the food chain.



Nonsese is preparing for outcomes that won't happen--wether they're the worst or the best.

Regardless, we need to prepare for the worst.



I never said your sandwich would cause the food chain to collapse.

So, what did you say?




How magnificently obtuse.


Insults are unnecessary and do nothing to prove your point.



This only confirms that I can't be insulting you.


You have insulted me twice already in this post and innumerable times in other posts.




Well then, at the risk of repeating, why should I help them survive in conditions that they are not suited to?


They are suited to the original conditions. We should do all we can to keep the floes from melting.



Thanks.


Your welcome.


Still, please do everyone a favor and <b>GO BACK</b> through your emo-picture festival and resize your images, or PM an admin so they can do it for you--they are certainly messing up the viewing of the thread for those without 24" wide monitors.

I cannot resize the images, as I linked them directly from the site, however, I do not have a 24" monitor & can view the thread just fine. Anyhow, advise which image it is you have issues with and I will try to help.

In the meantime, I wonder how to help the Bears.

http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/PolarBears/images/eatingfish.gif

[LOki]

From drowning for one.I understand polar bears are already excellent swimmers.


So, we should save them. Duh.Why? Why save them?


So, you agree that human activities have changed the environment for the worse. Good. This is a good start.I only agree that human activities have changed the environment--I have made no judgement regarding wether it's for the worse or otherwise.


There you go with the name calling again.Look Rahul, there is no doubt that a magnificently obtuse retard would not percieve that I was talking about the ice ages; I described them adequately for anyone but a magnificently obtuse retard. If you wish to uphold the proud standard of a magnificently obtuse retard, I will continue to give that standard all the recognition it demands--just stop demanding such recognition to being an insult while you are gleefully, and enthusiastically upholding that standard.


Actually, it seems that human hunting is another factor responsible for many species dying out during the Ice Age.Irrelevent to the point, and the fact, that the cooling that characterizes the ice ages did not hurt the environment, and neither did the warming periods between them. It is however illustrative that your asstion of fact that that a single extinction will cause the entire food chain to collapse is patently false in fact.


Did I say it could? I said it could be melted.<a href="http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=79607#post79607">You said global warming hurts the ice flows</a>; then, by implication, <a href="http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=80530#post80530">you said that melting is what constitututes hurting the ice.</a>


No. The floes were not way off the coasts before but are now.So the polar bear is now unsuited for it's habitat?


Your assertions are not backed up by facts.My assertions that ice cannot be hurt are backed by facts--you anthropormorphic notions that ice can be hurt are not backed up by facts.


I am not debating aquifers rather polar bears.Irrelevent to the fact that you asked for the response given, and the response given is relevent to the point of debate you wished a response to.


So you agree that it does?I'm sure it does--this explains why I wouldn't have said otherwise.


But, how do you know there is no evidence? Where is your source?What part of "There can not be a source for "no evidence."" do you fail to understand?


You haven't articulated what the relationship is between a sandwich and the food chain.I certainly have, in plain language, a number of times. Only the most magnificently obtuse retard would have failed to grasp it by now, but I will spell it out one more time: A sandwich, being food, is derived from the food chain; all the things that make up a sandwich are in the food chain--the relationship that the food chain has to a sandwich, is that a sandwich is food, and a sandwich's existence is contingent upon the existence of the food chain.


Regardless, we need to prepare for the worst.Why should we prepare for the worst rather than what will actually occur?


So, what did you say?The existence of you sandwich is prima facie evidence that the entire food chain has not collapsed despite the fact that millions of extinctions have occured over the millions of years that life and the food chain have existed on this planet. This is in direct refutaion of you assertion that the loss of a single species will result in the collapse of the entire food chain.


Insults are unnecessary and do nothing to prove your point.That was not an insult. Your response exhibited the characteristic of <a href="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=obtuse">not having or showing an ability to absorb ideas readily</a> on an <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/magnificently">impressively grand scale</a>--ergo, accurate descrition, rather than insult.


You have insulted me twice already in this post and innumerable times in other posts.No. You insult yourself, if insult is happening at all. I merely describe and illuminate upon what it means to be a magnificently obtuse retard, and cannot be faulted that you demand to conform to it.


They are suited to the original conditions. We should do all we can to keep the floes from melting.Why? Why should the ice flows not melt?


I cannot resize the images, as I linked them directly from the site, however, I do not have a 24" monitor & can view the thread just fine. Anyhow, advise which image it is you have issues with and I will try to help.Searching back, it appears at least that <a href="http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=79195#post79195">one of loosecannon's pictures</a> is blowing the thread width. Apologies to you, and a request to loosecannon that he resize the picture, or get an admin to do it for him.

[Rahul]

I understand polar bears are already excellent swimmers.


They aren't adapted to swim such long distances.




http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article767459.ece

The researchers were startled to find bears having to swim up to 60 miles across open sea to find food. They are being forced into the long voyages because the ice floes from which they feed are melting, becoming smaller and drifting farther apart.

Although polar bears are strong swimmers, they are adapted for swimming close to the shore. Their sea journeys leave them them vulnerable to exhaustion, hypothermia or being swamped by waves.

According to the new research, four bear carcases were found floating in one month in a single patch of sea off the north coast of Alaska, where average summer temperatures have increased by 2-3C degrees since 1950s.

The scientists believe such drownings are becoming widespread across the Arctic, an inevitable consequence of the doubling in the past 20 years of the proportion of polar bears having to swim in open seas.





Why? Why save them?

Why not? They are magnificent creatures and wildlife should be preserved.



I only agree that human activities have changed the environment--I have made no judgement regarding wether it's for the worse or otherwise.


The bears are the proof in the pudding.

http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Y2QN3NBEL._AA240_.jpg



Look Rahul, there is no doubt that a magnificently obtuse retard would not percieve that I was talking about the ice ages; I described them adequately for anyone but a magnificently obtuse retard. If you wish to uphold the proud standard of a magnificently obtuse retard, I will continue to give that standard all the recognition it demands--just stop demanding such recognition to being an insult while you are gleefully, and enthusiastically upholding that standard.

I have already talked about the ice ages. Your name calling is not required. Please stop.




Irrelevent to the point, and the fact, that the cooling that characterizes the ice ages did not hurt the environment, and neither did the warming periods between them. It is however illustrative that your asstion of fact that that a single extinction will cause the entire food chain to collapse is patently false in fact.

Of course it hurt the environment. What about the species that died out?





So the polar bear is now unsuited for it's habitat?

Of course not. The habitat is becoming unsuitable for the bears.

http://www.biosbcc.net/ocean/marinesci/04benthon/arcimg/pb5123.jpg



My assertions that ice cannot be hurt are backed by facts--you anthropormorphic notions that ice can be hurt are not backed up by facts.


You still haven't provided a quote which states I said the ice can be hurt.


What part of "There can not be a source for "no evidence."" do you fail to understand?

How did you know there was no evidence?



A sandwich, being food, is derived from the food chain; all the things that make up a sandwich are in the food chain--the relationship that the food chain has to a sandwich, is that a sandwich is food, and a sandwich's existence is contingent upon the existence of the food chain.


So, are you saying eating causes the food chain to be disrupted? I am unclear as to what your point is here.



Why should we prepare for the worst rather than what will actually occur?


It's prudent to prepare oneself for the worst.




Why? Why should the ice flows not melt?


It seems you wish to ask the same thing over and over again. I have already said why. It is because the poor bears are drowning due to swimming large distances.



Searching back, it appears at least that <a href="http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=79195#post79195">one of loosecannon's pictures</a> is blowing the thread width.Apologies to you, and a request to loosecannon that he resize the picture, or get an admin to do it for him.

No problem.

http://www.biosbcc.net/ocean/marinesci/04benthon/arcimg/pb6481.jpg

The bears need our help, not our disagreements.

[LOki]

They aren't adapted to swim such long distances.If they are not adapted to swim such long distances, then it makes sense that they should drown when they try.


Why not? They are magnificent creatures and wildlife should be preserved.Not if they aren't suited to live in their environment--for instance, they may not be capable of swimming far enough to forage for food.


The bears are the proof in the pudding.There is no proof that polar bears need to be saved in pudding.


I have already talked about the ice ages.I have not said otherwise.


Your name calling is not required.That is good to know.


Please stop.I will, but not until after I have started.


Of course it hurt the environment.Demonstrate how it hurt the environment--I see only change in the environment.


What about the species that died out?What about them?


Of course not. The habitat is becoming unsuitable for the bears.Then it makes perfect sense that they should fail to thrive.


You still haven't provided a quote which states I said the ice can be hurt.<blockquote>
It hurts the ice floes.</blockquote>


How did you know there was no evidence?There is only one piece of evidence that can demonstrate as fact that the loss of one species will cause the entire food chain to collapse: it is the collapse of the entire food chain after one species goes extinct. The continued existence of the food chain, demostrates that your assertion is false in fact.


So, are you saying eating causes the food chain to be disrupted?No.


I am unclear as to what your point is here.You asked for the relationship between food [i.e. a sandwich] and the food chain. Typical of a magnificently obtuse retard, you are unclear on the point.


It's prudent to prepare oneself for the worst.It is much more prudent to prepare ones self for what will actually happen, rather than what they imagine will happen.


It seems you wish to ask the same thing over and over again. You seem to respond with the same non-sequitur over and over again. I'll just ask until you actually answer the question asked.


I have already said why. It is because the poor bears are drowning due to swimming large distances.It is approprite that they should die if they attempt swimming distances farther than they are cpable of.

[Rahul]

If they are not adapted to swim such long distances, then it makes sense that they should drown when they try.

Would you rather the bears starve to death?

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41030000/jpg/_41030654_bearpaws_bbc_203.jpg



Not if they aren't suited to live in their environment--for instance, they may not be capable of swimming far enough to forage for food.

They are capable of swimming long distances. However, the floes are retreating way off the coast. Polar bears are bears, not ships and they do tire.



There is no proof that polar bears need to be saved in pudding.

I said the proof is in the pudding. Read carefully.



I have not said otherwise.

Good.


Demonstrate how it hurt the environment--I see only change in the environment.

I already showed you how lack of an ozone layer can cause diseases amongst other things, but you didn't read the link.



What about them?

They died out.



Then it makes perfect sense that they should fail to thrive.

I disagree.



You asked for the relationship between food [i.e. a sandwich] and the food chain. Typical of a magnificently obtuse retard, you are unclear on the point.

There isn't any relationship between the food chain getting disrupted and a sandwich.

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/seabird_foragefish/marinehabitat/images/Food_Web3.gif
http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/cdic/cpns/press/downloads/Sandwich.png



It is approprite that they should die if they attempt swimming distances farther than they are cpable of.

I disagree. The bears are swiming to find food not swimming for the hell of it.

In the meantime, a more serious problem is occuring. The bears are turning cannibalistic.




ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea may be turning to cannibalism because longer seasons without ice keep them from getting to their natural food, a new study by American and Canadian scientists has found.

The study reviewed three examples of polar bears preying on each other from January to April 2004 north of Alaska and western Canada, including the first-ever reported killing of a female in a den shortly after it gave birth.

Polar bears feed primarily on ringed seals and use sea ice for feeding, mating and giving birth.

Polar bears kill each other for population regulation, dominance, and reproductive advantage, the study said. Killing for food seems to be less common, said the study's principal author, Steven Amstrup of the U.S. Geological Survey Alaska Science Center.

"During 24 years of research on polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea region of northern Alaska and 34 years in northwestern Canada, we have not seen other incidents of polar bears stalking, killing, and eating other polar bears," the scientists said.

Environmentalists contend shrinking polar ice due to global warming may lead to the disappearance of polar bears before the end of the century.

... ...

How would you suggest feeding the hungry bears?

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41030000/jpg/_41030658_bearplay_bbc_203.jpg

[LOki]

Would you rather the bears starve to death?I would prefer them to to not starve, or drown; but if there is not enough food for them where they are, it is appropriate that some of them should starve.


They are capable of swimming long distances. However, the floes are retreating way off the coast. Polar bears are bears, not ships and they do tire.I am aware of this. My point stands.


I said the proof is in the pudding. Read carefully.
Read carefully: There is no proof, that polar bears need saving, in pudding. You should look elswhere for proof.


I already showed you how lack of an ozone layer can cause diseases amongst other things, but you didn't read the link.Do you always make false accusations of those who disagree with you?


They died out.I am aware of this.


I disagree.Why should the polars bears thrive where the environment does not suit them?


There isn't any relationship between the food chain getting disrupted and a sandwich.I never said there was.


I disagree. The bears are swiming to find food not swimming for the hell of it.I never said they were.


In the meantime, a more serious problem is occuring.I am certain though, you will misidentify it.


The bears are turning cannibalistic.I was right.


How would you suggest feeding the hungry bears?I suggest sending you there to feed them.

[Rahul]

I would prefer them to to not starve, or drown; but if there is not enough food for them where they are, it is appropriate that some of them should starve.

How is it appropriate? Why? If you don't have food tomorrow, is it appropriate that you should starve to death?


I am aware of this.

If you are aware, then you should not have complained saying the bears were excellent swimmers.



Do you always make false accusations of those who disagree with you?


What have I accused you of? Could you possibly be more specific?



I am aware of this.

And it wasn't good the species died out.



Why should the polars bears thrive where the environment does not suit them?

Again, you are unable to grasp the simple fact that humans are the one changing the environment not the bears.

http://www.biosbcc.net/ocean/marinesci/04benthon/arcimg/pb5128.jpg



I never said there was.

You kept referring to sandwiches. What did you expect me to think? That you were hungry? :)



I never said they were.

So, why do you think they are drowning?


I was right.

You did not even bring it up. I did.



I suggest sending you there to feed them.

Instead of making silly remarks, we should think about how to stop the floes from melting.

http://www.biosbcc.net/ocean/marinesci/04benthon/arcimg/pb5118.jpg

[MtnBiker]

You need to learn Chinese so you can concentrate your efforts with those people. Your supposed hypothesis of man made global warming via carbon emmissions is mostly comming from China.


China Becomes World's Biggest Carbon Dioxide Emitter

By Alex Morales

June 20 (Bloomberg) -- China overtook the U.S. last year as the world's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas blamed for the bulk of global warming, a policy group that advises the Dutch government said.

China produced 6,200 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels and producing cement last year, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency said in a statement posted yesterday on its Web site. That pushed it past the U.S., which produced 5,800 million tons of the gas, the agency said.


Full article (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=a8EmrjB_wSuo&refer=canada)

Try posting cute pictures to the Chinese at an attempt to pull at there heart strings.

[LOki]

How is it appropriate? Why?It is appropriate because that is the precise nature of starvation; that if there is not enough food for them where they are, it is appropriate that some of them should starve.


If you don't have food tomorrow, is it appropriate that you should starve to death?If I cannot obtain enough food to sustain my life, it is appropriate that I should starve to death.


If you are aware, then you should not have complained saying the bears were excellent swimmers.I did not complain.


What have I accused you of? Could you possibly be more specific?You accused me of not reading the link; a false accusation.


And it wasn't good the species died out.If you are not just making this up out of nothing, you can demonstrate that it wasn't good. Please do so now.


Again, you are unable to grasp the simple fact that humans are the one changing the environment not the bears.Do you always make false accusations against those who disagree with you?


You kept referring to sandwiches. What did you expect me to think? That you were hungry? :)I was perfectly clear on my point.


So, why do you think they are drowning?They are attempting to swim distances they are not capable of covering.


You did not even bring it up. I did.I did not claim otherwise.


Instead of making silly remarks, we should think about how to stop the floes from melting.I thought you would like to feed the bears. Why do you now think suggesting that sending you to feed the bears is a silly remark?

[Rahul]

You need to learn Chinese so you can concentrate your efforts with those people. Your supposed hypothesis of man made global warming via carbon emmissions is mostly comming from China.



Full article (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=a8EmrjB_wSuo&refer=canada)

Try posting cute pictures to the Chinese at an attempt to pull at there heart strings.

I don't need to "learn" Chinese. . . ;)

Anyway, global warming is being caused by India, China, the US, and many other countries. They all need to make an effort to resolve the situation.

[Rahul]

If I cannot obtain enough food to sustain my life, it is appropriate that I should starve to death.

But, is it not appropriate to try and resolve the condition that led to your starving or starvation?



I did not complain.

You have complained numerous times.



You accused me of not reading the link; a false accusation.

You kept asking me questions that have been answered numerous times. What was I to think?




Do you always make false accusations against those who disagree with you?


Do you always ask the same question over and over again?


I was perfectly clear on my point.

No you weren't.



They are attempting to swim distances they are not capable of covering.

Finally you understand. Good job!

We need to make sure they have plenty of ice so they dont have to swim long distances.


I thought you would like to feed the bears. Why do you now think suggesting that sending you to feed the bears is a silly remark?

I wish for the bears to stay wild and find their own food rather than me spoonfeeding them.

http://www.saskschools.ca/~gregory/arctic/animals/pbearice.jpg

How would you suggest putting an end to global warming?

[MtnBiker]

Anyway, global warming is being caused by India, China, the US, and many other countries. They all need to make an effort to resolve the situation.

Conjecture

[LOki]

But, is it not appropriate to try and resolve the condition that led to your starving or starvation?Not necessarily. What is neccessary is that I resolve the condition of starving. That resolution may (or may not) involve the condition leading to being starving, but ultimately the condition that actually requires resolution is the starving; failing to do so, it is appropriate that I starve to death.


You have complained numerous times.Not even once, and certainly not regarding the swimming capabilities of polar bears. Why do you level this false accusation against me?


You kept asking me questions that have been answered numerous times.You make answers that are unrelated to the questions asked, leaving the question unanswered, so I must ask them again hoping that you will answer the question asked. Why is it that you don't answer certain questions asked of you?


What was I to think?I make no demands regarding what you should think--I only ask that you try to think rationally. Why do you think I should have expectations regarding what you should think?


Do you always ask the same question over and over again?Not as often as you do, and not for the purpose of evading the point presented, as you do.[Go on Rahul, demand a quote as if there aren't plenty to choose from.]<blockquote>
Again, you are unable to grasp the simple fact that humans are the one changing the environment not the bears.</blockquote>^^The point in case this time, is that you again, leveled a false accusation against me. Why do you level false accusations against me?


No you weren't.I was absolutely clear. I was ambiguous in no way. A child would have understood; a magnificently obtuse retard would require it to be explained in tiny steps, several times over. Why do you continue to deny that I have spoken clearly and unambiguosly about this?


Finally you understand. Good job!Why do you think I have not understood this until now? There is no "finally" involved. I have been clear that this should be a reason polar bears would drown from the very begining. I have never asserted or suggested otherwise. Celebrate elsewhere for something else.


We need to make sure they have plenty of ice so they dont have to swim long distances.No we don't. There is not one compelling rational reason we should make sure they have plenty of ice.


I wish for the bears to stay wild and find their own food rather than me spoonfeeding them.Frankly, so do I. Yet if they fail to do so, I have no problem with them starving because of that failure.


How would you suggest putting an end to global warming?Why must I make suggestions for putting an end to global warming?

[Rahul]

Conjecture

No. You are wrong. The US and EU lead the pack, followed by China, Russia, Japan and India.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3143798.stm

Climate change: The big emitters

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40415000/gif/_40415961_co2_emissions2_gra416.gif

[Rahul]

Not necessarily. What is neccessary is that I resolve the condition of starving.

How would you resolve the condition of starving without getting to the root cause of it all?

http://www.spiritofmaat.com/announce/images/globwarm_ttl.jpg


That resolution may (or may not) involve the condition leading to being starving, but ultimately the condition that actually requires resolution is the starving; failing to do so, it is appropriate that I starve to death.

So, how would you resolve the plight of the bears that are starving? How would you suggest they obtain food without drowning?



Not even once,

I disagree.



and certainly not regarding the swimming capabilities of polar bears. Why do you level this false accusation against me?

You asked why the bears were drowning when they were adapted to swimming in the ocean and were strong swimmers implying you do not believe they are strong swimmers.

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/PTGPOD/178012~Polar-Bear-Swimming-in-Water-Posters.jpg



You make answers that are unrelated to the questions asked,

Nonsense. My arguments and answers are related to the questions being asked.



leaving the question unanswered, so I must ask them again hoping that you will answer the question asked. Why is it that you don't answer certain questions asked of you?

What question did I not answer?



I make no demands regarding what you should think--I only ask that you try to think rationally.

Maybe you could advise where I was irrational and how.


I was absolutely clear. I was ambiguous in no way. A child would have understood; a magnificently obtuse retard would require it to be explained in tiny steps, several times over. Why do you continue to deny that I have spoken clearly and unambiguosly about this?

We are discussing bears not sandwiches.




Celebrate elsewhere for something else.

OK.



No we don't. There is not one compelling rational reason we should make sure they have plenty of ice.

Do you wish for the bears to die out?



Why must I make suggestions for putting an end to global warming?

It would help the bears for one thing.

http://www.whoi.edu/arcticedge/arctic_west03/images/06_pensive_n.jpg

C'mon. Think of the bears instead of yourself for a change. They need you.

[LOki]

So, how would you resolve the plight of the bears that are starving? How would you suggest they obtain food without drowning?Faulty premise. This is not my problem to solve; it is theirs.


I disagree. You asked why the bears were drowning when they were adapted to swimming in the ocean and were strong swimmers implying you do not believe they are strong swimmers.I made verifiable statements of fact, not complaints. The fact of the matter is, they are either strong enough swimmers to survive, or they are not. If they are, then there's no issue; if they are not, then it is appropriate that they not survive.


Nonsense. My arguments and answers are related to the questions being asked.Nonsense? I asked you what constitutes hurt to the environment, and all you did was post pictures of polar bears, list changes to the environment, and engage in false accusations--never actually answering the question asked. When I ask why I prevent the polar bears from drowning, you post pictures of polar bears, post the question begging response that polar bears need help, and engage in false accusations--again, never answering the question. I predict you will continue to do so, because the environmet cannot be hurt, there is no rationally compelling reason for me to prevent polar bears from drowning, and you will not admit to your inabilty to demonstrate otherwise.


We are discussing bears not sandwiches.I see. After asserting that you have posted only facts, and then challenged me to show you one instance where this is not so; and after I have clearly identified your statement of non-fact and successfuly met your challenge; you now wish to avoid admitting you are wrong in fact, to assert as fact, that the extinction of one species will cause the entire food chain to collapse. This is intellectual dishonesty, and it is cowardice.


Do you wish for the bears to die out?I hace already answered this question, but I will answer it again. As before, I have no wish for the bears to die out. Yet my wishes are not relevent to the fact that there is not one compelling rational reason we should make sure they have plenty of ice. Furthermore your question is not relevent--it serves only to imply that I wish the bears to die out. Your question is just more intellectual dishonesty.


It would help the bears for one thing.Circular. Why must I make suggestions for putting an end to global warming?


Think of the bears instead of yourself for a change.Why?

[Rahul]

Faulty premise. This is not my problem to solve; it is theirs.

You were the one that claimed that it "was necessary to resolve the condition of starving". If you do not wish to suggest a solution, why are you posting in this thread?



The fact of the matter is, they are either strong enough swimmers to survive, or they are not. If they are, then there's no issue; if they are not, then it is appropriate that they not survive.

They can swim upto 60 miles or so, but they aren't strong enough to swim 100 or more miles in open ocean but are being forced to due to the floes retreating farther and farther off the coast. You have been advised repeatedly of this. What part did younot understand?

I have almost given up trying to explain this simple concept to you. The bears look frustrated too.

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Technology/nm_polar_bears_060906_sp.jpg



Nonsense? I asked you what constitutes hurt to the environment, and all you did was post pictures of polar bears, list changes to the environment, and engage in false accusations--never actually answering the question asked.

I have posted exhaustive lists of what constitutes danger to the environment and I will not repeat myself over and over again. It must be sad for you not to be able to understand.



When I ask why I prevent the polar bears from drowning, you post pictures of polar bears, post the question begging response that polar bears need help, and engage in false accusations--again, never answering the question. I predict you will continue to do so, because the environmet cannot be hurt, there is no rationally compelling reason for me to prevent polar bears from drowning, and you will not admit to your inabilty to demonstrate otherwise.

I agree you don't HAVE to stop the polar bear from drowning, but I am unsure as to why you are posting in this thread if you do not wish to save them.



I see. After asserting that you have posted only facts, and then challenged me to show you one instance where this is not so; and after I have clearly identified your statement of non-fact and successfuly met your challenge; you now wish to avoid admitting you are wrong in fact, to assert as fact, that the extinction of one species will cause the entire food chain to collapse. This is intellectual dishonesty, and it is cowardice.

I disagree. It is important to study the extinction of species as it could have a long term effect on the food chain and could indeed cause it to collapse.




http://www.newstatesman.com/200207080015

How many species-to-species links does it take to link any two organisms in some chain of cause and effect? In the ecological setting, two species are linked if one feeds upon the other, be it a fox eating a rabbit or a beetle munching an oak leaf. Last year, a Spanish physicist, Ricard Sole, and an ecologist, Jose Montoya, studied Silwood Park, an ecosystem in the UK for which researchers know the fairly complete food web. They found the number of degrees of separation to be only two or three. The tapestry of life is made of a truly dense cloth.

Silwood Park does not represent the global ecosystem; it is certainly more than two steps from a woodpecker in Illinois to a shrimp in the South China Sea. Even so, whales and many species of fish populate the oceans as a whole, and numerous birds migrate between the continents. Bacteria, algae, tiny spiders and other creatures fly round the world in storm systems. These organisms provide links that tie the biological world together. For the global ecosystem, the number of degrees of separation may not be two, but it is probably not much higher than ten.

This discovery is not comforting. It suggests that the extinction of one species will affect not only everything that the species eats, competes with, or is eaten by, but will send out fingers of influence which, in a few steps, will reach most other species in the entire system. It suggests that any belief in our capacity to control the effects of ecological destruction is badly misplaced. That lesson becomes clearer as one delves more closely into the small world phenomenon and into exactly how large networks - such as the human social network - can be so remarkably small.

As first suggested by the American sociologist Mark Granovetter in the 1970s, the answer can be seen by making a distinction between "strong" and "weak" social ties. Strong ties bind us to family members and good friends, or to colleagues at work. These links form the threads of a dense fabric of social structure, and are socially most important to us. But these are not the ties that make for a small world.

Each of us also has "weak" links to people we see rarely, or may never see again. Think of some of your friends from the past - long-lost college mates, say. Or someone you met when travelling. Perhaps you went to Japan and briefly made friends with a fellow tourist from Australia. Your links to this person, or to those friends now out of touch, are weak social links.

What makes them especially important is that they connect you to people who otherwise belong to quite distinct social spheres. Your link to the Australian tourist, for example, establishes a social bridge that connects you in just two steps to every person this man knows. Not only that, but this single link connects each of your local acquaintances, in London, say, to every one of his local acquaintances in Australia. In this way, weak links act like short cuts through the social world.

Mathematics backs up this insight. In 1998, in a paper published in Nature, two mathematicians from Cornell University showed that the effect of weak ties in a social network really does explain six degrees of separation. In a large network - even one of six billion people - just a few weak links running between people from distant places will indeed make for an extremely small world, with every pair of persons linked by a short chain of intermediaries.

The small-world character of the world's ecosystems can be traced to similarly weak links - that is, to links between species that interact only occasionally. Perhaps just one bird in an English wood migrates long distances, and, en route, settles briefly in southern Spain. This is enough to link the organisms of these two food webs together by short chains of cause and effect.

(read more at the link)





As before, I have no wish for the bears to die out.

I don't believe you.



Why?



Hit by a double whammy of toxic chemicals and global climate change, polar bears face extinction

It is late April, nine days since the return of the midnight sun, and a 450-pound polar bear and her cubs walk on the finger of a frozen fjord. Spring has arrived on the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard, a favorite nursery for polar bears. About 670 miles from the North Pole, the mother bear lumbers along in her hunt for ringed seals, leaving a zigzagged path of 12-inch-wide craters followed by the smaller paw prints of her two young sons.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/03/on_thin_ice_265x189.jpg

A few miles away, from the front seat of a helicopter, scientist Andy Derocher has spotted the family’s fresh trail. The chopper’s pilot loops, spins, and straddles the tracks, following their erratic path for several miles. “She’s running here,’’ Derocher tells the pilot, pointing to the edge of a craggy glacier. “I think she’s ahead of us here somewhere.”

One of the world’s leading polar bear experts, Derocher is monitoring the health of a species imperiled by a double whammy of toxic chemicals and global climate change. He and other wildlife biologists now predict that some populations of the world’s 22,000 to 25,000 polar bears could become extinct by the end of this century.

Born at Christmastime, cradled in pure white snow, polar bears emerge blind, toothless, a pound apiece, as feeble as kittens. Yet before they even leave the safety of their dens on Svalbard, polar bear cubs already harbor more pollutants in their bodies than most other creatures on the planet. Mother polar bears store a lifetime of chemicals in their fat and then bequeath them, via their milk, to their young.

Several hundred of the industrialized world’s most toxic chemicals, especially PCBs and organochlorine pesticides such as DDT, have transformed Svalbard and much of the Arctic into a giant chemical repository, and polar bears into its unintentional lab rats. Newcomers are joining the older chemicals there, including flame retardants called PBDEs and a compound used in the manufacture of Teflon. Originating mostly in North America and northern Europe, the pollutants hitchhike to Svalbard, Greenland, and other remote reaches of the Arctic on northbound winds and ocean currents. There, they magnify in animals each step up the food web, leaving polar bears, killer whales, and other top predators highly contaminated.

Scientific studies suggest that these extraordinary loads of chemicals are weakening polar bears, culling the old and the young. Their immune cells and antibodies have been suppressed, and their sex hormones, thyroid hormones, and even their bone composition have been altered. And perhaps most curious of all, small numbers of strange pseudohermaphroditic bears have been discovered. Of every 100 female bears captured on Svalbard, three or four have partial male genitalia.

Could you realistically put 200 to 500 foreign compounds into an organism and expect them to have absolutely no effect?” asks Derocher. “I would be happier if I could find no evidence of pollution affecting polar bears, but so far, the data suggest otherwise.”

While toxic substances are jeopardizing bears, the melting of the Arctic is a more immediate threat to their survival. In Canada’s western Hudson Bay, the sea ice where they hunt seals breaks up three weeks earlier now than 30 years ago, polar bears have declined from 1,200 in 1985 to fewer than 950 in 2004. That same year, marine biologists in Alaska reported finding four drowned polar bears, perhaps because they were unable to swim long distances to reach solid ice. Forty wildlife scientists, representing all five nations inhabited by polar bears, adopted a resolution last June declaring that the bears are “susceptible to the effects of pollutants” and those effects are exacerbated by the stresses of global warming.

In 20 years of Arctic research, first with the Norwegian Polar Institute and now with the University of Alberta, Derocher has captured and tested more than 4,000 bears. It is dangerous work, but the only way that scientists can monitor their health. Scanning the ice below, he has picked up the bear family’s trail, and soon the mother and cubs are below the helicopter. In the backseat, Norwegian scientist Magnus Andersen injects a syringe of tranquilizer into a dart and screws it onto a shotgun. The helicopter spins in circles perilously close to the ground to give Andersen a clear shot. He leans out the open door, takes aim, and fires. Hit in the rump, the mother wobbles, but she isn’t going down. Andersen readies another syringe and fires again. The bear lies down on her stomach, one giant paw splayed back. The two cubs nuzzle her, trying to awaken her, then curl up beside her.

The cubs, only four months old, are wide-eyed and curious as the helicopter lands and the scientists cautiously approach on foot, their boots crunching in the crusty snow. Derocher sets down his black toolbox, removes some dental pliers, and opens the sleeping bear’s jaw, deftly extracting a tooth the size of a cribbage peg that will be used to confirm her age. Andersen slices a quarter-inch-diameter plug of blubber from her rump with a biopsy tool and siphons a tube of blood from a vein in her inner thigh. Then Derocher kneels beside the mother and milks her to sample the creamy liquid she is feeding her sons. The milk, fat, and blood will be analyzed for a suite of chemicals. Before departing, the scientists tranquilize the cubs. The threesome will snooze for a couple of hours, then shake off the drowsiness and continue on their way.

Aloft again, the helicopter glides north between Svalbard’s snow-draped peaks until Derocher spots more tracks—this time, a mother and two yearlings. Relishing the clarity of spring’s eternal light, the scientists know that polar winter will soon descend, plunging Svalbard into darkness again. Into that darkness the next generation of ice bears will be born—to a very uncertain future.



As you can, the problems are many.

[LOki]

You were the one that claimed that it "was necessary to resolve the condition of starving". Right...when the discussion was about resolving me starving--not the bears. I must resolve my own survival problems, and the bears must resolve their own survial problems. Stop attempting to misrepresnt me--it is intellectually dishonest.


They can swim upto 60 miles or so, but they aren't strong enough to swim 100 or more miles in open ocean but are being forced to due to the floes retreating farther and farther off the coast. You have been advised repeatedly of this. What part did younot understand?I have NOT EVER ASSERTED DIFFERENTLY. Stop attempting to misrepresnt me--it is intellectually dishonest. What part of "...they are either strong enough swimmers to survive, or they are not. If they are, then there's no issue; if they are not, then it is appropriate that they not survive." Do you not understand?


I have posted exhaustive lists of what constitutes danger to the environment and I will not repeat myself over and over again. It must be sad for you not to be able to understand.You have only posted exhaustive lists of changes to the environment; you have not once--NOT EVEN ONCE--demonstrated what constitutes hurt to the environment.


I disagree. It is important to study the extinction of species as it could have a long term effect on the food chain and could indeed cause it to collapse.I never said it was unimportant to study the extinction of species. Why would you imply otherwise? The statement I refuted has nothing to do with the value of studying the extinction of species. I suggest that you imply otherwise because you now wish to avoid admitting you are wrong in fact, to assert as fact, that the extinction of one species will cause the entire food chain to collapse. This is intellectual dishonesty, and it is cowardice.


I don't believe you.I don't require you to.


As you can, the problems are many.Unsurprisingly, this is not an answer to the question.

[Rahul]

Right...when the discussion was about resolving me starving--not the bears.

Nonsense. This thread is and has been about the bears. It seems I need to constantly remind you of this.

http://maxysoft.com/screens/animals/polar-bear-big.jpg


I must resolve my own survival problems, and the bears must resolve their own survial problems. Stop attempting to misrepresnt me--it is intellectually dishonest.

I am not attempting to misrepresent anything. I simply said the bears need food to survive following which the whole debate about how to resolve the issue started. Anyway, how would you suggest resolving the issue?


. If they are, then there's no issue; if they are not, then it is appropriate that they not survive." Do you not understand?

It is you who isn't understanding, not me. The bears are being forced to swim greater distances than they are adapted for and are drowning.



You have only posted exhaustive lists of changes to the environment; you have not once--NOT EVEN ONCE--demonstrated what constitutes hurt to the environment.

Those changes constitute hurt. Duh.



Unsurprisingly, this is not an answer to the question.

The question is, how do we save the bears?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Polar_Bear_floating.jpg/539px-Polar_Bear_floating.jpg

[LOki]

Nonsense. This thread is and has been about the bears. It seems I need to constantly remind you of this. Again you deflect when you're patently wrong. Here you go, proof you are wrong:<blockquote>
Not necessarily. What is neccessary is that I resolve the condition of starving. That resolution may (or may not) involve the condition leading to being starving, but ultimately the condition that actually requires resolution is the starving; failing to do so, it is appropriate that I starve to death.</blockquote>Every time you are wrong, you try this bait-and-switch. Why?


I am not attempting to misrepresent anything. I simply said the bears need food to survive following which the whole debate about how to resolve the issue started.You said I made complaints, you implied I did not understand that polar bears can swim upto 60 miles or so, but they aren't strong enough to swim 100 or more miles in open ocean but are being forced to due to the floes retreating farther and farther off the coast, you are plainly misrepresenting me.


Anyway, how would you suggest resolving the issue?Faulty premise. The issue of polar bear survival is an issue that polar bears must resolve. If they fail to do so, then their demise is the appropriate result.


It is you who isn't understanding, not me. The bears are being forced to swim greater distances than they are adapted for and are drowning.Who is forcing them? I know I am not.


Those changes constitute hurt. Duh.Demonstate exactly how those changes constitute hurt to the environment.


The question is, how do we save the bears?That is not the question I asked. Why do you continue to misrepresent me? Why don't you answer the question I really asked?

[Rahul]

Again you deflect when you're patently wrong. Here you go, proof you are wrong:<blockquote></blockquote>Every time you are wrong, you try this bait-and-switch. Why?

I don't bait and I don't switch. I am not wrong on the issue of polar bears dying out due to global warming.




You said I made complaints, you implied I did not understand that polar bears can swim upto 60 miles or so, but they aren't strong enough to swim 100 or more miles in open ocean but are being forced to due to the floes retreating farther and farther off the coast, you are plainly misrepresenting me.

Regardless, the bears are being forced to swim farther and farther and are drowning.




Faulty premise. The issue of polar bear survival is an issue that polar bears must resolve. If they fail to do so, then their demise is the appropriate result.


Why should the bears resolve an issue the humans created?




Demonstate exactly how those changes constitute hurt to the environment.


Be specific and name one, and I will articulate how it hurt the environment.



Why don't you answer the question I really asked?

You have it upside down and backwards. The only relevant question is how to save the polar bears as this is a thread about saving the polar bears. Everything else is moot in comparision.

http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/polar-bear.jpg

So, how would you save them?

[MtnBiker]

No. You are wrong. The US and EU lead the pack, followed by China, Russia, Japan and India.


Co2 as a cause of global warming is conjecture.

[LOki]

I don't bait and I don't switch. I am not wrong on the issue of polar bears dying out due to global warming.Here you continue with the bait and switch. We were discussing the issue in of a particular post, then when you got punked, you switched to discussing a differnet issue, and now you switch to the broader issue of the whole thread.


Regardless, the bears are being forced to swim farther and farther and are drowning.Forced by whom?


Why should the bears resolve an issue the humans created?Because it's still the bear's issue. If the bears created an issue that posed a problem for human survival, human would be required to resolve that issue for themselves. The same is true for the bears; if they have a survival issue, they must resolve it themselves.


Be specific and name one, and I will articulate how it hurt the environment.Global warming.


You have it upside down and backwards.I do not.


The only relevant question is how to save the polar bears as this is a thread about saving the polar bears. Everything else is moot in comparision.Why don't you answer the question I really asked?

[Rahul]

Co2 as a cause of global warming is conjecture.

It isn't my problem if you ignore every source presented to you.
Regardless, the bears need our help.

http://autone.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/snap1.jpg

[Rahul]

Because it's still the bear's issue. If the bears created an issue that posed a problem for human survival, human would be required to resolve that issue for themselves. The same is true for the bears; if they have a survival issue, they must resolve it themselves.

I disagree. The bears would have been killed if they posed a problem but the reverse is not true.



Why don't you answer the question I really asked?

What question? I may have missed it the first time. It seems I get asked the most number of questions here on the Forum.

Anyway, the bears need our help.

http://www.northrup.org/Photos/polar-bear/low/polar-bear-resting2.jpg

[MtnBiker]

It isn't my problem if you ignore every source presented to you.




Conjecture (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/numerical_models_integrated_ci.html)

[Abbey Marie]

Beautiful pics of a beautiful animal. I enjoyed looking at them, and as I posted earlier, we need to help them if they are dying, whatever the cause.

Btw, what do you think about the endangered species below? I trust it matters to you, even thought it's threat is from poachers in India, not global warming, and the USA has no complicity in its endangerment.


One of the primary threats to the Bengal tiger is the destruction of its habitat. This is due to a complete lack of political will on the part of the Indian government to realize the importance of the tiger's situation and act accordingly. An increasing population and economic liberalization has opened all areas to development including tiger habitats across India which pollutes and destroys the land.

The second primary threat to tigers is their illegal poaching of them for their bones, skins, teeth, nails among other parts. Tiger parts are used in Chinese medicine. This contributes to at least one tiger death everyday in India.

When poachers and dealers are apprehended for killing tigers in India, they are usually released on bail and re-offend. For this reason, tiger reserves, national parks, and sanctuaries can no longer be considered as 'asylums' for the tiger.

Conservation staff are poorly trained and equipped. In some areas, conservation staff are stranded at guard posts so they cover the the immediate region visible to them instead of the entire park.
http://www.geocities.com/wildbengaltigers/

http://www.geocities.com/wildbengaltigers/pics/mother01.jpg

[LOki]

The bears would have been killed if they posed a problem but the reverse is not true.Humans having means available for resolving our survival issuses that the bears don't have, is no argument that the bears don't need to resolve their own survival issues.


What question?Why must I think of the bears instead of myself?


Anyway, the bears need our help."Need" doesn't mean "deserve."

[loosecannon]

The polar bear is the most carnivorous member of the bear family, and the one that is most likely to prey on humans as food. It feeds mainly on seals, especially ringed seals that poke holes in the ice to breathe, but will eat anything it can kill: birds, rodents, shellfish, crabs, beluga whales, young walruses, occasionally musk oxen or reindeer, and very occasionally other polar bears. Still, reindeer and musk oxen can easily outrun a polar bear, and polar bears overheat quickly: thus the polar bear subsists almost entirely on live seals and walrus calves, or on the carcasses of dead adult walruses or whales. They are enormously powerful predators, but they rarely kill adult walruses, which are twice the polar bear's weight, although this has been known to happen.[22] Humans and larger bears of their own species are the only predators of polar bears.

As a carnivore which feeds largely upon fish-eating carnivores, the polar bear ingests large amounts of vitamin A, which is stored in their livers; in the past, humans have been poisoned by eating the livers of polar bears.[23] Though mostly carnivorous, they sometimes eat berries, roots, and kelp in the late summer.

Polar bears are excellent swimmers and have been seen in open Arctic waters as far as 60 miles from land. In some cases they spend half their time on ice floes. Their 12 cm (5 in) layer of fat adds buoyancy in addition to insulating them from the cold. Recently, polar bears in the Arctic have undertaken longer than usual swims to find prey, resulting in four recorded drownings in the unusually large ice pack regression of 2005.[24]



That's right 4, this whole thread is about 4 bears drowning.

Polar bears are enormous, aggressive, curious, and potentially dangerous to humans. Wild polar bears, unlike most other bears, are barely habituated to people and will quickly size up any animal they encounter as potential prey.

Like other bear species, they have developed a liking for garbage as a result of human encroachment. For example, the dump in Churchill, Manitoba is frequently scavenged by polar bears, who have been observed eating, among other things, grease and motor oil.[25].

wiki


They have almost no predators, they eat anything from birds to motor oil, they are among the most likely animals on earth to kill and eat humans, they kill/eat anything they can kill/eat. They will kill/eat other polar bears if they can.

Which kinda throws a logical monkey wrench into this thread. The more of them we save, the more of them will kill/eat each other.

And yet we must save them because 4 of them died in 2005.

Cry me a river. How many people died in 2005 from starvation alone? About 900,000. 25,000/day.

Yes folks humans died of starvation at 225,000:1 the known rate of polar bears and yet it is polar bears (who would love to eat you now, if of course, they are not too busy eating another polar bear) who deserve our concern.

This thread is an illogical hysteria thread at best.

Rahul, get a clue. Try to balance your mothering instinct with some rational balance. Stop buying all the whacko enviro propaganda as if it was either true to a scientific certainty or pragmatic generally.

Meanwhile almost as many leftist enviromentalists believe that global warming will usher in a new arctic ice age as believe that the arctic will continue to warm.

And none of them know what will happen, because such knowledge is impossible.

[manu1959]

Scientists believe that four bears which recently drowned off the coast of Alaska had simply been unable to cope with a violent storm.

interesting ..... four bears and there is a crisis.....

[loosecannon]

Scientists believe that four bears which recently drowned off the coast of Alaska had simply been unable to cope with a violent storm.

interesting ..... four bears and there is a crisis.....

yes, exactly, precisely.

[Rahul]

Beautiful pics of a beautiful animal. I enjoyed looking at them, and as I posted earlier, we need to help them if they are dying, whatever the cause.

Btw, what do you think about the endangered species below? I trust it matters to you, even thought it's threat is from poachers in India, not global warming, and the USA has no complicity in its endangerment.



http://www.geocities.com/wildbengaltigers/pics/mother01.jpg

I think the problem is serious, and the tiger is in danger of dying out unless poaching is stopped. The Chinese tiger has already died out, and the Bengal tiger will soon die out too if protective measures are not taken (in fact, their numbers have already diminished greatly in some parks around India).

Stopping poaching is a complex issue, especially with all the poverty and corruption in India.

You keep painting me out to be an anti-American, but I have said and shown that India and China contribute to global warming too which you seemingly ignored.

All that being said, this is a thread about polar bears, and we should stick to the topic. I would like to respectfully ask you to please not hijack the thread, and stick to the topic. Thanks a lot!

Rahul

PS: You keep bringing India up at every turn, but let me tell you, I am just here for the moment. I am not a jingoistic Indian, the likes of which you have probably come across on the Interne. Start a thread on India, and you'll see where I REALLY stand.

[Rahul]

interesting ..... four bears and there is a crisis.....

The four bears are but the tip of the iceberg (no pun intended).

The problem is acute. How would you suggest putting an end to global warming?

[manu1959]

The four bears are but the tip of the iceberg (no pun intended).

The problem is acute. How would you suggest putting an end to global warming?

they were bad swimmers, caught in a violent storm darwins therory and evolution weeding out the weak ones.....the gene pool will be better for it....as for global warming......there are now computer models concerned about global cooling.....anyway ever stop to think that the natural order of things is for the earth to get hotter and hotter and burn up....has man ever been able to control nature....come on dude get over yourself

[Rahul]

they were bad swimmers,

The bears are strong swimmers and can swim up to 60 miles or so. However, they cannot swim for 100, 200 miles. They do get tired. They don't have an engine motoring them on as a ship does.

http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/PolarBears/images/underwater2.gif

I have articulated this repeatedly, but most do not seem to comprehend it. I wonder why.


the gene pool will be better for it....as for global warming......there are now computer models concerned about global cooling.....

Perhaps you could share some of those models.



anyway ever stop to think that the natural order of things is for the earth to get hotter and hotter and burn up....has man ever been able to control nature....come on dude get over yourself

Get over myself? Perhaps you could focus on the polar bears instead of my character for a change.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/88/Polar-bear.jpg

[loosecannon]

http://www.poinography.com/images/wh7e/Polar_bear_kills_seal.jpg

http://www.prijatelji-zivotinja.hr/data/image_2_188.jpg

http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/Images/figures/2003/2003-0401pbseal.jpg

http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040414/040414_seal_hunt_vlrg_7a.widec.jpg

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/polar-bear.jpg

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/03/30/31SEALS_wideweb__430x272.jpg




Man kills seal = bad

Polar bear kills seal, man, another polar bear = good

4 polar bears die in storm = acute problem

900,000 humans die in same period from starvation = no mention

bear bites man
http://blogidaho.biz/polarbearattack/pbearattack3.jpg

http://rupert.krapp.org/blog-uploads/polarbearattack5.jpg

http://www.bestoday.com.au/sick/images/bear-food.jpg

how cuddly

Bear kills man= good

Man kills bear = bad

[Rahul]

Bear kills man= good

This wasn't suggested. However, what do you expect if humans venture into bear territory?


Man kills bear = bad

Global warming is bad and is killing the bears off.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40811000/jpg/_40811329_polarbear203.jpg

I wonder how we can save the bears.

[manu1959]

This wasn't suggested. However, what do you expect if humans venture into bear territory?



Global warming is bad and is killing the bears off.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40811000/jpg/_40811329_polarbear203.jpg

I wonder how we can save the bears.

the article says violent storms killed em.....why do they need to be saved?

[Rahul]

the article says violent storms killed em.....why do they need to be saved?

Which article? Could you provide a link for me? Thanks so much.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/images_small/bear45_sm.jpg

All the articles I've read said the bears drowned because they ran out of steam while attempting to return to shore.

[manu1959]

Which article? Could you provide a link for me? Thanks so much.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/images_small/bear45_sm.jpg

All the articles I've read said the bears drowned because they ran out of steam while attempting to return to shore.

the quote is in the first post of this thread....says they drowned in a violent storm...says maybe four died...as i said earlier....the gene pool just got stronger.....darwins theory....natural selection.....see evolution....moother nature is adapting already....

[Rahul]

the quote is in the first post of this thread....says they drowned in a violent storm...says maybe four died...

I disagree. THe OP said the ice floes are moving farther away from the coast. I provided a picture to back my statement up.



as i said earlier....the gene pool just got stronger.....darwins theory....natural selection.....see evolution....moother nature is adapting already....

Nonsense. Nature isn't causing global warming. The bears need our help.

http://library.thinkquest.org/3500/images/polarbear_large.jpg

[manu1959]

I disagree. THe OP said the ice floes are moving farther away from the coast. I provided a picture to back my statement up.

Nonsense. Nature isn't causing global warming. The bears need our help.

http://library.thinkquest.org/3500/images/polarbear_large.jpg

the quote from the article is this:

"Scientists believe that four bears which recently drowned off the coast of Alaska had simply been unable to cope with a violent storm."

gues the bbears should have A: stayed on the ice B: gotten off sooner

and where in this do i say nature is causing global warming?

"as i said earlier....the gene pool just got stronger.....darwins theory....natural selection.....see evolution....moother nature is adapting already...."

but just for fun.....if man came from primordial oz....aka nature and man is the cause of global warming then nature actual caused global warming by creating man .....

[Rahul]

gues the bbears should have A: stayed on the ice B: gotten off sooner




Polar bears drown amid Arctic thaw

http://images.scotsman.com/2006/09/15/2006-09-15T153451Z_01_NOOTR_RTRIDSP_2_OUKTP-UK-ENVIROMENT-ARCTIC.jpg

OSLO (Reuters) - Polar bears are drowning and receding Arctic glaciers have uncovered previously unknown islands in a drastic 2006 summer thaw widely blamed on global warming.

Signs of wrenching changes are apparent around the Arctic region due to unusual warmth -- the summer minimum for ice is usually reached between mid-September and early October before the Arctic freeze extends its grip.

"We know about three new islands this year that have been uncovered because the glaciers have retreated," said Rune Bergstrom, environmental adviser to the governor of Svalbard, a Norwegian archipelago about 1,000 km (600 miles) from the North Pole.

The largest is about 300 by 100 metres, he told Reuters.

On a trip this summer "We saw a couple of polar bears in the sea east of Svalbard -- one of them looked to be dead and the other one looked to be exhausted," said Julian Dowdeswell, head of the Scott Polar Research Institute in England.

He said that the bears had apparently been stranded at sea by melting ice. The bears generally live around the fringes of the ice where they find it easiest to hunt seals.







and where in this do i say nature is causing global warming?

It seems as if you implied it.



"as i said earlier....the gene pool just got stronger.....darwins theory....natural selection.....see evolution....moother nature is adapting already...."

I disagree. The bears are getting weaker, not stronger.




http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,395014,00.html


The Polar Bears' Last Stand
By Annika Thomé

Global warming is causing famine-like conditions for polar bears in the Canadian province of Manitoba. The feeding season is shorter and the ice is thinner -- bears are slowly starving, weak bears are drowning and they are leaving behind orphans. Scientists in Canada are trying to save the species by finding foster families for orphaned cubs.






but just for fun.....if man came from primordial oz....aka nature and man is the cause of global warming then nature actual caused global warming by creating man .....

This isn't about having fun. You have it upside down and backwards.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Play_fight2.JPG/635px-Play_fight2.JPG

How would you suggest saving the bears?

[nevadamedic]

Global Warming is a myth created by Liberals to get movie awards, scam people out of money and take the attention of all the crooked things they are doing.

[Rahul]

Global Warming is a myth created by Liberals to get movie awards, scam people out of money and take the attention of all the crooked things they are doing.

I disagree. The bears would probably disagree as well.

http://courses.ma.org/sciences/dowen/StudentWork/Global_Warming/Images/Griffin_do_the_dew.jpghttp://courses.ma.org/sciences/dowen/StudentWork/Global_Warming/Images/Griffin_cartoon.gif

How would you save the bears?

[theHawk]

How would you save the bears?


How about you fly to the pole and spend the rest of your life building them bridges in between icebergs.

[darin]

Fried Polar Bear Balls

Ingredients:
First, you must have a big set of balls yourself to kill a polar bear, because they don't kill so easy. A lot of times when you are tracking the bastards, you find that the bastards are really tracking you. I think they enjoy man balls just as much as we do polar bear balls. A good thing to do is not bathe for 6 months before going after the bear, so you smell more like him. You are going to need a big f**king gun as they don't stop coming at you so easy either too! Of course, after all this you will need a sled dog team to bring the sumbitch back to camp to skin and de-ball him.

Preparation:
Some people like their Polar Bear Balls boiled but I think there is nothing like a fried pair. Put the balls in a frypan and light up your Sterno. Carve down a piece of leg bone from the bear while you can sit by the fire thinking how lucky you are not to have your balls in that pan.

[OCA]

Fried Polar Bear Balls

Ingredients:
First, you must have a big set of balls yourself to kill a polar bear, because they don't kill so easy. A lot of times when you are tracking the bastards, you find that the bastards are really tracking you. I think they enjoy man balls just as much as we do polar bear balls. A good thing to do is not bathe for 6 months before going after the bear, so you smell more like him. You are going to need a big f**king gun as they don't stop coming at you so easy either too! Of course, after all this you will need a sled dog team to bring the sumbitch back to camp to skin and de-ball him.

Preparation:
Some people like their Polar Bear Balls boiled but I think there is nothing like a fried pair. Put the balls in a frypan and light up your Sterno. Carve down a piece of leg bone from the bear while you can sit by the fire thinking how lucky you are not to have your balls in that pan.

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Guess it sucks to be a polar bear during a naturally occurring warm period in the history of the earth.

[jimnyc]

How would you save the bears?

Serve them in those little paper wrappers just like at McDonald's! Hopefully they taste like cow. YuMmmy!

[jimnyc]

Fried Polar Bear Balls

They anything like 'Rocky Mountain Oysters"? :)

[Kathianne]

They anything like 'Rocky Mountain Oysters"? :)

Related, I've been wanting to post this for days:

http://www.bowhunting.net/susieq/bear.html

Tons of recipes!

Die thread, die!

[loosecannon]

Global Warming is a myth created by Liberals to get movie awards, scam people out of money and take the attention of all the crooked things they are doing.


No global warming is an indisputable fact and it is to some degree caused by Man. To what degree nobody knows.

But nobody knows what the longer term results of global warming will be. Good/bad/cataclysmic/nominal. We have no idea. We only know what the very early results are. And so far no real problems.

CO2 levels have risen a lot, like at least 50% in the last 50 years and this almost certainly is a man made effect.

But ironically the early theories were that the more CO2 was introduced into the atmosphere, the more the atmosphere would heat, and in turn more CO2 would dissolve out of ocean water (where an enormous mass of it is stored. Think about what happens when you open a carbonated beverage and warm it up. Those bubbles are CO2 dissolved into the beverage, as the drink warms the CO2 is released. The opposite happens when you aerate that bevrage with CO2 when it is very cold, the gases dissolve into the beverage. And if you think about it, a single 12 oz coke contains a LOT of CO2). A self generating feedback loop. The opposite happened. The oceans continued to obsorb far more CO2 than anybody thought would occur.

What has been discovered since then is that there are biotic systems that store vast amounts of CO2 and methane that could dramatically alter any predictions about warming and cooling. And virtually nothing is known about how those systems cycle.

Global warming is also warming the arctic regions far more than anybody expected. And scientists are divided as to whether or not the earth will net warm or net cool because of the climate cycles global warming contributes to.

Nobody knows.

Which is what makes the whole cuddly bear thread so childish and absurd.

Actually it borders on idiotic esp since the bears aren't even yet endangered and it isn't even yet known if their numbers are decreasing at all due to climate changes.

Global warming might kill man and cause the bears to prosper, nobody knows.

On the bright side the Bald Eagle was removed from the endangered species list this week.

Score one for man.

[Rahul]

How about you fly to the pole and spend the rest of your life building them bridges in between icebergs.

How long should the bridges be? The floes are melting at record speed and retreating farther away from the coast.




http://images.scotsman.com/2006/09/15/2006-09-15T153451Z_01_NOOTR_RTRIDSP_2_OUKTP-UK-ENVIROMENT-ARCTIC.jpg
In this file photo an Arctic polar bear jumps as he crosses ice floes at Herald Island in the Chukchi Sea, July 27, 1999. Polar bears are drowning and receding Arctic glaciers have uncovered previously unknown islands in a drastic 2006 summer thaw widely blamed on global warming. REUTERS/Greenpeace/ Beltra

Polar bears drown amid Arctic thaw

OSLO (Reuters) - Polar bears are drowning and receding Arctic glaciers have uncovered previously unknown islands in a drastic 2006 summer thaw widely blamed on global warming.

Signs of wrenching changes are apparent around the Arctic region due to unusual warmth -- the summer minimum for ice is usually reached between mid-September and early October before the Arctic freeze extends its grip.

"We know about three new islands this year that have been uncovered because the glaciers have retreated," said Rune Bergstrom, environmental adviser to the governor of Svalbard, a Norwegian archipelago about 1,000 km (600 miles) from the North Pole.

The largest is about 300 by 100 metres, he told Reuters.

On a trip this summer "We saw a couple of polar bears in the sea east of Svalbard -- one of them looked to be dead and the other one looked to be exhausted," said Julian Dowdeswell, head of the Scott Polar Research Institute in England.

He said that the bears had apparently been stranded at sea by melting ice. The bears generally live around the fringes of the ice where they find it easiest to hunt seals.

NASA projected this week that Arctic sea ice is likely to recede in 2006 close to a low recorded in 2005 as part of a melting trend in recent decades. A stormy August in 2006 had slightly slowed the 2006 melt.

"There are very unusual conditions this year from Svalbard to Alaska," said Samantha Smith, director of the WWF's environmental group's Arctic Programme.

One international study in 2004 projected that summer ice could disappear completely by 2100, undermining the livelihoods of indigenous peoples and driving creatures such as polar bears towards extinction.

WAKE-UP CALL

Smith said the shrinking ice should be a wake-up call for governments to cut emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from power plants, factories and cars that most scientists say are causing global warming.

"The Arctic is likely to warm more than any other part of the world" because of global warming, said Dowdeswell. Darker water and soil, once exposed, soaks up far more of the sun's heat than mirror-like ice and snow.

The melt may also open up the Arctic to more exploration for oil, gas and minerals, increase fisheries and open a short-cut shipping route linking the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

Ian Stirling, a researcher with the Canadian Wildlife Service, said polar bears were finding it harder to find food, threatening their ability to reproduce.

"In 1980 the average weight of adult females in western Hudson Bay was 650 pounds (300 kg). Their average weight in 2004 was just 507 pounds," he said in a report this week. Numbers in the Hudson Bay region dropped to 950 in 2004 from 1,200 in 1989.

[Rahul]

Global warming is also warming the arctic regions far more than anybody expected.

Exactly.


And scientists are divided as to whether or not the earth will net warm or net cool because of the climate cycles global warming contributes to.

The effect on the Arctic is plainly visible for all to see.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4290340.stm

Arctic ice 'disappearing quickly'

The area covered by sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk for a fourth consecutive year, according to new data released by US scientists.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40852000/gif/_40852824_arctic_ice_melting_map203.gif

They say that this month sees the lowest extent of ice cover for more than a century.

The Arctic climate varies naturally, but the researchers conclude that human-induced global warming is at least partially responsible.

They warn the shrinkage could lead to even faster melting in coming years.

"September 2005 will set a new record minimum in the amount of Arctic sea ice cover," said Mark Serreze, of the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), Boulder, Colorado.

"It's the least sea ice we've seen in the satellite record, and continues a pattern of extreme low extents of sea ice which we've now seen for the last four years," he told BBC News.

September lows

September is the month when the Arctic ice usually reaches a minimum.

The new data shows that on 19 September, the area covered by ice fell to 5.35 million sq km (2.01 million sq miles), the lowest recorded since 1978, when satellite records became available; it is now 20% less than the 1978-2000 average.

ARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT - SEPTEMBER TREND, 1978-2005

The current rate of shrinkage they calculate at 8% per decade; at this rate there may be no ice at all during the summer of 2060.

An NSIDC analysis of historical records also suggests that ice cover is less this year than during the low periods of the 1930s and 40s.

Mark Serreze believes that the findings are evidence of climate change induced by human activities.

"It's still a controversial issue, and there's always going to be some uncertainty because the climate system does have a lot of natural variability, especially in the Arctic," he said.

"But I think the evidence is growing very, very strong that part of what we're seeing now is the increased greenhouse effect. If you asked me, I'd bet the mortgage that that's just what's happening."




.
Which is what makes the whole cuddly bear thread so childish and absurd.
Actually it borders on idiotic esp since the bears aren't even yet endangered and it isn't even yet known if their numbers are decreasing at all due to climate changes.

Of course the numbers are decreasing.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Ursus_maritimus_us_fish.jpg/800px-Ursus_maritimus_us_fish.jpg

The polar bears need you.

[loosecannon]

Related, I've been wanting to post this for days:


Tons of recipes!

Die thread, die!

I have eaten bear once. Slow cooked underneath a fire that burnt for two days. An Indian wedding.

It was still acceptable food at best.

Meanwhile a backstrap or flank steak from an Elk Cow is unreal. Moose makes outstanding sausage and venison is OK. King crab, fresh halibut and three of the five common salmon species are magnitudes above beef or freshwater fish.

The point is Bear is horrible food unless you are starving.

The problem is Bears eat people. I have lived in places where you had to pack a 50 cal. in order to defend yourself from bears who would maim you, kill you or eat you if they could. Everybody packed, even women. Sometimes kids.


Bears in the wild are NOT our friends. They are more likely to eat you than Cougars and by a long shot.

Only Moose attack people more often, because there are more of em.

None of this has a damned thing to do with global warming today in 2007.

[loosecannon]

The effect on the Arctic is plainly visible for all to see.

Sure today. But just like this effect wasn't visible 10 years ago, it could reverse in two years.

You have no idea. Meanwhile the Bears aren't even yet endangered which makes this thread ridiculous nonsense no matter how honorable your intent.

Global warming scientists still have no idea whether the arctic will warm or cool overall because of the climate change associated with global warming.

Neither do you.

You are just jerking our chain with sophmoric claims that you accept blindly from opportunistic manipulators in the faux news industry.

You have no idea what you are really talking about. You just cut and paste propaganda and cute picks of man-eating bears.

[nevadamedic]

I have eaten bear once. Slow cooked underneath a fire that burnt for two days. An Indian wedding.

It was still acceptable food at best.

Meanwhile a backstrap or flank steak from an Elk Cow is unreal. Moose makes outstanding sausage and venison is OK. King crab, fresh halibut and three of the five common salmon species are magnitudes above beef or freshwater fish.

The point is Bear is horrible food unless you are starving.

The problem is Bears eat people. I have lived in places where you had to pack a 50 cal. in order to defend yourself from bears who would maim you, kill you or eat you if they could. Everybody packed, even women. Sometimes kids.


Bears in the wild are NOT our friends. They are more likely to eat you than Cougars and by a long shot.

Only Moose attack people more often, because there are more of em.

None of this has a damned thing to do with global warming today in 2007.

Bears usually are easily scared. When I worked at scout camp back in the day they tought us if we saw a bear to make a lot of noise and it would run away. I have seen it work, granted I was to afraid to try it. :laugh2:

[loosecannon]

Of course the numbers are decreasing.

Please detail your personal knowledge of the bear populations, or university studies, or scientifically reviewed articles. Because quite frankly your "news" articles are a complete waste of time.

Do you have anything real to offer aside from enviro propaganda?

[loosecannon]

Bears usually are easily scared. When I worked at scout camp back in the day they tought us if we saw a bear to make a lot of noise and it would run away. I have seen it work, granted I was to afraid to try it. :laugh2:

NM, SOME of them are easily scared, usually the ones that are not used to people. I have one freind who runs a camp in Southern CA of all places. Bears down there will not retreat from people. They will rip the door right off your parked car to get to your potato chips (their favorite food). Don't feed the bears!

In AK it is much worse. They will eat you if they are hungry, no hesitation. If they are starving they will track you and kill you.

[nevadamedic]

NM, SOME of them are easily scared, usually the ones that are not used to people. I have one freind who runs a camp in Southern CA of all places. Bears down there will not retreat from people. They will rip the door right off your parked car to get to your potato chips (their favorite food). Don't feed the bears!

In AK it is much worse. They will eat you if they are hungry, no hesitation. If they are starving they will track you and kill you.

The damn bears at Camp Fleischmann would eat Deodarant, Hairspray, Soap anything with a scent. We had to run everything up a tree in a bear bag. Those damn bears are persistant too they will even stay by that tree for a while if it has a strong enough scent. Then you would get smart asses who would put food in peoples tents with out them knowing it as a prank no realizing how dangerous that really was. I would hate to wake up right next to a brown bear.

[loosecannon]

The damn bears at Camp Fleischmann would eat Deodarant, Hairspray, Soap anything with a scent. We had to run everything up a tree in a bear bag. Those damn bears are persistant too they will even stay by that tree for a while if it has a strong enough scent. Then you would get smart asses who would put food in peoples tents with out them knowing it as a prank no realizing how dangerous that really was. I would hate to wake up right next to a brown bear.


NM I spent half my life living in the wilderness and there is nothing as unpredictable, as determined and as inherently dangerous as a hungry bear.

Worse than people.

[nevadamedic]

NM I spent half my life living in the wilderness and there is nothing as unpredictable, as determined and as inherently dangerous as a hungry bear.

Worse than people.

I just thought it was funny when youd hear about them eating personal hygene products, when they do they have to be wondering what the fuck just happened. :laugh2:

[Rahul]

Of course the numbers are decreasing.

I agree.


Please detail your personal knowledge of the bear populations, or university studies, or scientifically reviewed articles. Because quite frankly your "news" articles are a complete waste of time.


News articles are what everyone reads. They are based upon factual occurences and are not a waste of time.

Anyway, NASA is a reliable source.



http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/polar_bears.html

Warming Climate May Put Chill on Arctic Polar Bear Population

Some travel agencies touting Arctic tours have been revving up their recent promotions to tourists about the increased likelihood they will spot polar bears in this region where several populations of polar bears live. According to scientists from NASA and the Canadian Wildlife Service, these increased Arctic polar bear sightings are probably related to retreating sea ice triggered by climate warming and not due to population increases as some may believe.

The new research suggests that progressively earlier breakup of the Arctic sea ice, stimulated by climate warming, shortens the spring hunting season for female polar bears in Western Hudson Bay and is likely responsible for the continuing fall in the average weight of these bears. As females become lighter, their ability to reproduce and the survival of their young decline. Also, as the bears become thinner, they are more likely to push into human settlements for food, giving the impression that the population is increasing. The study will be published this week in the September issue of the Journal Arctic.

Claire Parkinson, a scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., and Ian Stirling, a senior scientist with the Canadian Wildlife Service, Edmonton, Alberta, used NASA satellite observations captured from 1979 to 2004 to show the reduction in sea ice cover in several specific areas where there are known polar bear populations. In most of the areas studied, they found that ice break-up in these areas has been occurring progressively earlier.

"Our research strongly suggests that climate warming is having a significant and negative effect on a primary species reliant on the sea-ice cover for survival," said Parkinson.

The researchers studied the sea ice in regions that are home to five different polar bear populations: western Hudson Bay, eastern Hudson Bay, Foxe Basin, Baffin Bay and Davis Strait-Labrador Sea. "Polar bears live much of their lives on the sea ice, which is fundamental for their survival, at least in terms of their traditional lifestyles," said Parkinson. "It’s the sea ice surface that provides them a platform from which to hunt seals and other marine mammals for food."

Sea ice is most scarce during the summer months, causing the bears to retreat to land and fast on their stored fat reserves until sea ice comes back in the fall. "Our concern is that if the length of the sea ice season continues to decrease, then the polar bears will have shorter periods on the ice, when they can feed, and longer periods on the land, during the open-water season in summer and early fall," she said. "Their stored fat from life on the ice will likely not provide enough nourishment for the fasting period on land, posing a clear danger to their health and, in the long term, possibly to their species."

Sea-ice cover in these regions has decreased since at least 1978, the beginning of consistent satellite monitoring. The researchers used 26 years of satellite data using data from NASA's Nimbus 7 satellite and the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program's Special Sensor Microwave Imager.

"By reviewing satellite data, we found that sea-ice cover break-up in western Hudson Bay took place about seven to eight days earlier per decade," said Stirling. "An extra month of fasting resulting from this phenomenon over four decades can significantly impact the polar bears' eating habits and survival."

[Rahul]

You just cut and paste propaganda and cute picks of man-eating bears.

It is not propoganda. I disagree. Further, so long as the pictures help generate sympathy for the bears, what does it matter?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Two_polar_bears_sparring.jpg

So, how would you suggest saving them?

[Gunny]

It is not propoganda. I disagree. Further, so long as the pictures help generate sympathy for the bears, what does it matter?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Two_polar_bears_sparring.jpg

So, how would you suggest saving them?

I'm in favor of feeding YOU to one of them. That would be doing my little part.

[OCA]

The climate is cyclical and cannot be changed, currently we are in a warming trend that is no fault of mankind. If the polar bear goes the way of tyranausaurus rex so be it although we all know the polar bear will survive.

Global warming is a made up scare tactic used to further the interests of anti-business and anti-industrial groups, it is used to further their socialist agendas.

[loosecannon]

I agree.

That is good because you are agreeing with a quote from Rahul, not from me.



News articles are what everyone reads. They are based upon factual occurences and are not a waste of time.

Bullshit, maybe 25% of what you read in "news" articles is actually true, and it takes an incredibly astute observer to identify the truth from the fiction.


Anyway, NASA is a reliable source.

Yes then please show me all of the actual quotes from NASA in that packaged news article. No Shit, of the several hundred words in that article how many were actually quoting NASA, in what context and attributable to exactly whom?

[loosecannon]

It is not propoganda. I disagree. Further, so long as the pictures help generate sympathy for the bears, what does it matter?



OK lets just reframe: It is not propoganda. I disagree. Further, so long as the pictures help generate money for my corporation what does it matter?

It matters Babe because what you just said is that whatever helps your sweet special man eating bears is good even it is all BS, lies and propaganda.

For example it doesn't matter if they are actually dying at all, or endangered..........

In other words you just admitted that you don't care if you lie to us as long as it helps the bears.

OK, I will assume that you are lying hereafter.

[loosecannon]

The climate is cyclical and cannot be changed, currently we are in a warming trend that is no fault of mankind. If the polar bear goes the way of tyranausaurus rex so be it although we all know the polar bear will survive.

Global warming is a made up scare tactic used to further the interests of anti-business and anti-industrial groups, it is used to further their socialist agendas.

You don't know anything at all about global warming OCA, no surprise.

The climate can be changed, we have already changed it, we just don't know how much.

And global warming, man made or not, may kill 90% of all humans. Maybe even more. Ice ages are the norm not the exception. Warming may be worse than the status quo.

WE DO NOT KNOW.

And you of all people do not know.

Why you even bother to open your mouth astonishes all of us. All you do is prove beyond doubt that you are a fool.

[loosecannon]

I just thought it was funny when youd hear about them eating personal hygene products, when they do they have to be wondering what the fuck just happened. :laugh2:


Bears are inquisitive, and reasonably smart. Certainly smarter than OCA.

But they eat motor oil for gods sake. They peel the skin off salmon and throw away the meat.

I dunno if deoderant really registers. They will gladly eat garbage.

[OCA]

You don't know anything at all about global warming OCA, no surprise.

The climate can be changed, we have already changed it, we just don't know how much.

And global warming, man made or not, may kill 90% of all humans. Maybe even more. Ice ages are the norm not the exception. Warming may be worse than the status quo.

WE DO NOT KNOW.

And you of all people do not know.

Why you even bother to open your mouth astonishes all of us. All you do is prove beyond doubt that you are a fool.

Man cannot change the climate, only a vain fool believes that he can.

I certainly know that global warming is a farce which puts me miles ahead of you douche.

Drink up the kool-aid, drink it up boy.

[NightTrain]

Bears are inquisitive, and reasonably smart. Certainly smarter than OCA.

But they eat motor oil for gods sake. They peel the skin off salmon and throw away the meat.

I dunno if deoderant really registers. They will gladly eat garbage.

No, Bears do not eat motor oil. I don't know of any animal that would willingly ingest oil, that's absurd.

Bears do not peel the skin off of salmon and throw away the meat. At the beginning of the Salmon run in the Spring, when they're very hungry from their hibernation, they will eat the whole fish. As Summer progresses, they will begin to get picky. I notice this trend here in Alaska about late July or so usually, the bears will only eat the back of the head to get the high fat concentration from the brain of the Salmon. This is to maximize their goal to get as fat as they possibly can before Winter strikes.

As far as this Global Warming crap goes, we had ice on the lakes here in South Central Alaska in mid-May, (last month) by far and away it was the coldest Spring that anyone could remember.

"Global Warming" is simply the natural cycle of our planet. There wasn't any SUVs that brought us out of the last Ice Age, or the one before, or the one before that.

By the way, in no way would I ever consider the WWF an impartial source. They'd be about as impartial as PETA at a baby seal clubbing party.

BTW, hello to all you old-school USMBers :salute:

[Rahul]

The climate is cyclical and cannot be changed, currently we are in a warming trend that is no fault of mankind.


Nonsense. I have shown plenty of sources stating that global warming is caused by humans. How sad it must be for you not to be able to understand.



If the polar bear goes the way of tyranausaurus rex so be it although we all know the polar bear will survive.

How do we know this? Where is your source?



Global warming is a made up scare tactic used to further the interests of anti-business and anti-industrial groups, it is used to further their socialist agendas.

The bears do not have any agendas.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Knut_IMG_8095.jpg


That is good because you are agreeing with a quote from Rahul, not from me.


Am I to disagree with myself?



Bullshit, maybe 25% of what you read in "news" articles is actually true,

Source, please.



and it takes an incredibly astute observer to identify the truth from the fiction.


Ignoring the evidence is stupid to say the least.


Yes then please show me all of the actual quotes from NASA in that packaged news article. No Shit, of the several hundred words in that article how many were actually quoting NASA, in what context and attributable to exactly whom?

They were quoting NASA, so NASA made teh comments. Duh!


OK lets just reframe: It is not propoganda. I disagree. Further, so long as the pictures help generate money for my corporation what does it matter?

The pictures here are not generating anything except for ridicule, it seems.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Mother_cubs.JPG/800px-Mother_cubs.JPG



For example it doesn't matter if they are actually dying at all, or endangered..........


Of course it matters. I have been saying it does all along. If you had been following the argument, you would have known this.



In other words you just admitted that you don't care if you lie to us as long as it helps the bears.

OK, I will assume that you are lying hereafter.

Do you always accuse others who you disagree with of lying?

In the meantime, the bears need our help.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Polar_Bear_2004-11-15.jpg/792px-Polar_Bear_2004-11-15.jpg

[Rahul]

No, Bears do not eat motor oil. I don't know of any animal that would willingly ingest oil, that's absurd.


The bears have been observed scavenging the dump in Churchill, Manitoba.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear
http://www.loe.org/images/060317/polartruck.gif

Like other bear species, they have developed a liking for garbage as a result of human encroachment. For example, the dump in Churchill, Manitoba is frequently scavenged by polar bears, who have been observed eating, among other things, grease and motor oil.[25].



How would you suggest saving the bears?

[Gunny]

The bears have been observed scavenging the dump in Churchill, Manitoba.



How would you suggest saving the bears?


Are you just a freakin' broken record? The bears don't need to be saved. What DOES need to be saved is all the bandwidth you've wasted posting pity-party pics and the same stupid question.

[NightTrain]

The bears have been observed scavenging the dump in Churchill, Manitoba.

Uh, you do understand how a Wiki works, right? I suspect that the anonymous uneducated person who wrote that saw a bear sniff or perhaps even lick an oil bottle out of curiousity as it was scavenging at a dump. Bears do that, you know. Scavenging is a perfectly normal passtime.


How would you suggest saving the bears?

240 grain, fully jacketed. I've shot and killed numerous bears, and Spring bear is best served as a roast with carrots, potatos, onions, etc.

I haven't shot a Polar bear yet, but I'm certainly willing to do my part.

[Gunny]

Uh, you do understand how a Wiki works, right? I suspect that the anonymous uneducated person who wrote that saw a bear sniff or perhaps even lick an oil bottle out of curiousity as it was scavenging at a dump. Bears do that, you know. Scavenging is a perfectly normal passtime.



240 grain, fully jacketed. I've shot and killed numerous bears, and Spring bear is best served as a roast with carrots, potatos, onions, etc.

I haven't shot a Polar bear yet, but I'm certainly willing to do my part.

:laugh2:

[shattered]

240 grain, fully jacketed. I've shot and killed numerous bears, and Spring bear is best served as a roast with carrots, potatos, onions, etc.

I haven't shot a Polar bear yet, but I'm certainly willing to do my part.

LMFAO!!!!!!

If an animal lover laughs at it, it HAS to be funny.

[Rahul]

Uh, you do understand how a Wiki works, right?

Yes.



I suspect that the anonymous uneducated person who wrote that saw a bear sniff or perhaps even lick an oil bottle out of curiousity as it was scavenging at a dump.

How do you know it was an uneducated person?



Bears do that, you know. Scavenging is a perfectly normal passtime.


Not in human areas.




I haven't shot a Polar bear yet, but I'm certainly willing to do my part.

The bears need your sympathy not your bullets.

http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/polar-bear.jpg

How would you suggest saving the poor bears?

[NightTrain]

Yes.

Good, then you understand that what's written in the Wiki is not necessarily written by qualified people, yes?




How do you know it was an uneducated person?

Because you're dumb as a stump if you believe that bears ingest oil.


Not in human areas.

I guess you'd better hop on a plane to Alaska ASAP to educate our bears that they're not supposed to do that. They do.


The bears need your sympathy not your bullets.

They do? How am I going to add to my collection of bearskin rugs and wall mounts?

[Said1]

Boycott India!

Get the terminology down, Rahul. Animals scavenge, in the wild, near humans etc. They scavenge and forage. It's what they do.

[Said1]

Rahul, why aren't you worried about the few pastoral societies left out there? Why no pitty for the Africans, since it's getting so gosh darn hot these days? Nothing to scavenge/forage in the wild dessert anymore. Not like the old days when it was cold and rainy and stuff grew. What's the matter, you don't like Africans, ain't they cute enough fer ya? Don't you care about their dead cows and goats? For shame Rahul, all God's creatures are created equal.

[loosecannon]

No, Bears do not eat motor oil. I don't know of any animal that would willingly ingest oil, that's absurd.

Read the thread!


Bears do not peel the skin off of salmon and throw away the meat.

You are totally full of shit, I have watched it in Kodiak with my own eyes. They bite the King right behind the gills and peel the skin off and throw the body back into the stream.



At the beginning of the Salmon run in the Spring, when they're very hungry from their hibernation, they will eat the whole fish. As Summer progresses, they will begin to get picky.

exactly, precisely during the runs they get waaaay picky.

[loosecannon]

Man cannot change the climate, only a vain fool believes that he can.

I certainly know that global warming is a farce which puts me miles ahead of you douche.



Well you must have legs up on 95% of all the scientists in the world Dr. Obvious Dumbfuck.

That's more than you deserve. Later idiot.

[loosecannon]

Nonsense. I have shown plenty of sources stating that global warming is caused by humans. How sad it must be for you not to be able to understand.

No I understand as well or better than your sources. But the mere fact that they say it doesnt make it true. I happen to understand it while you just accept anything that resonates with your personal barometer. Which makes you a media chump.




Source, please.

OK, try reading some Noam Chomsky, what the press says is about as true as what the psychics say. But more dutifully refined to "manufacture consent".




They were quoting NASA, so NASA made teh comments. Duh!

Then please list only those quotes, with attributions, because quite frankly I am relatively sure that they didn't actually quote ANY NASA officials.




Do you always accuse others who you disagree with of lying?

no only when they are lying.


In the meantime, the bears need our help.

in the meantimne those bears will eat you if they get a chance.

[loosecannon]

Because you're dumb as a stump if you believe that bears ingest oil.





Actually no. No matter how motor oil may taste to you it is actually extremely likely that the Polar bears taste receptors would not be able to distinguish motor oil from fat.

Even humans have a strong reaction to ingestion of fat in taste receptors (feelings of euphoria) which is why we like and eat meat.

Arctic animals much moreso to the degree that Great whites will reject prey that does not present a sufficient fat content.

In the arctic fat is the prime food. Even Eskimos eat pure putrefied seal blubber rather than seal meat. And high altitude solo climbers eat fat as the most concentrated energy source. And the Army packages chocolate as a K ration for troops. High calorie/high fat.

It is extremely likely that just as animals can not tell the sweet smell of antifreeze (a poison)from food, they also can not differentiate between motor oil (fat) and animal fat.

Fat and oil are essentially the same, just long hydrocarbon chains.

[loosecannon]

Rahul, why aren't you worried about the few pastoral societies left out there? Why no pitty for the Africans, since it's getting so gosh darn hot these days? Nothing to scavenge/forage in the wild dessert anymore. Not like the old days when it was cold and rainy and stuff grew. What's the matter, you don't like Africans, ain't they cute enough fer ya? Don't you care about their dead cows and goats? For shame Rahul, all God's creatures are created equal.

Rahul seems to be immune to the plight of 900,000 humans who die of starvation each year Said1.

Instead she seems to only care about the plight of the man eating bears.

I have no idea why.

But it makes you wonder if Rahul is a polar bear instead of a human.

That would explain everything including the low grasp of concepts like propaganda in the enviro media.

[Rahul]

Boycott India!

Perhaps you could explain what connection India has to the debate and how boycotting India would help the bears.


What's the matter, you don't like Africans, ain't they cute enough fer ya? .

This thread is not about Africans. It is about polar bears. If you wish to debate issues in Africa, start a thread and I will contribute.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/68/Millenium_Park_Fountain_3.jpghttp://www.animaltrial.com/Resources/polarbearsquating.jpeg

[Rahul]

No I understand as well or better than your sources.

There isn't any evidence of that.



But the mere fact that they say it doesnt make it true. I happen to understand it while you just accept anything that resonates with your personal barometer. Which makes you a media chump.

Provide me another source and I will view it.





in the meantimne those bears will eat you if they get a chance.

What would you rather have 'em eat?

http://www.wildfoto.com/wildlife_image10.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/Motor_oil.jpg/225px-Motor_oil.jpg

[NightTrain]

You are totally full of shit, I have watched it in Kodiak with my own eyes. They bite the King right behind the gills and peel the skin off and throw the body back into the stream.

No, slick. What happens is a playful bear that's not very hungry will mutilate their playtoy of the moment similar to a cat toying with a mouse. Bears do not skin their fish deliberately. I don't care what your hippie tour guide told you, but it just doesn't happen like you describe.


Actually no. No matter how motor oil may taste to you it is actually extremely likely that the Polar bears taste receptors would not be able to distinguish motor oil from fat.

You're wrong. When I was growing up in the bush in Talkeetna, we lived 20 miles away from the nearest road and were smack dab in the middle of bear country. We had daily dealings with them coming into our yard or our boat landing due to the fact that we had hundreds of salmon in our smokehouse. Since our landing was well stocked with both 2-stroke oil and 4-stroke oil (even diesel!), I'm confident that at least ONE of the hundreds of bears that wandered through would have taken a bite if what you propose had any merit.

It didn't happen. Not once. In fact, I would venture to say that they were repelled by it, since just about every other item was sampled, including my Dad's brand new $1500.00 canvas top for his jet boat. Everything EXCEPT petroleum products was bitten.

[Said1]

Perhaps you could explain what connection India has to the debate and how boycotting India would help the bears.

I see. You too follow your countries theory of the most developed countries cutting emissions. Good for you. :clap:


This thread is not about Africans. It is about polar bears. If you wish to debate issues in Africa, start a thread and I will contribute.

So you don't care. Maybe they could make cute faces instead of sad and starving faces. Would that help? :laugh2:

[Said1]

There isn't any evidence of that.



Provide me another source and I will view it.






What would you rather have 'em eat?

http://www.wildfoto.com/wildlife_image10.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/Motor_oil.jpg/225px-Motor_oil.jpg


:lol:

[Rahul]

I see. You too follow your countries theory of the most developed countries cutting emissions. Good for you. :clap:

Actually, I posted a link showing the list of countries contributing the most to global warming, but you did not read it. Oh well. :)




So you don't care.

Of course I care.

How would you save the polar bear?

http://maxysoft.com/screens/animals/polar-bear-big.jpg

[Said1]

Actually, I posted a link showing the list of countries contributing the most to global warming, but you did not read it. Oh well. :)

You didn't read mine either. Typical. But still, boycott India. OYE!





Of course I care.

How would you save the polar bear?

I live in Canada. IF the polar bears needed protecting, the govenment would do it for me. Socialism does rock at times. What's India doing again? Oh, yeah, nothing. OYE!

[Said1]

OYE!


AGREEMENT ON CONSERVATION OF POLAR BEARS
Oslo, 15 November 1973

The Governments of Canada, Denmark Norway, the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of
America,

Recognizing the special responsibilities and special
interests of the States of the Arctic Region in relation
to the protection of the fauna and flora of the Arctic
Region;

Recognizing that the polar bear is a significant
resource of the Arctic Region which requires additional
protection;

Having decided that such protection should be
achieved through co-ordinated national measures taken by
the States of the Arctic Region;

Desiring to take immediate action to bring further
conservation and management measures into effect;

Having agreed as follows:


Article I

1. The taking of polar bears shall be prohibited except
as provided in Article III.

2. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term "taking"
includes hunting, killing and capturing.



Article II

Each Contracting Party shall take appropriate action
to protect the ecosystems of which polar bears are a
part, with special attention to habitat components such
as denning and feeding sites and migration patterns, and
shall manage polar bear populations in accordance with
sound conservation practices based on the best available
scientific data.

Article III

I . Subject to the provisions of Articles II and IV any
Contracting Party may allow the taking of polar bears
when such taking is carried out:

a) for bona fide scientific purposes; or
b) by that Party for conservation purposes; or

c) to prevent serious disturbance of the management of
other living resources, subject to forfeiture to that
Party of the skins and other items of value resulting
from such taking; or

a) by local people using traditional methods in the
exercise of their traditional rights and in accordance
with the laws of that Party; or

e) wherever polar bears have or might have been subject
to taking by traditional means by its nationals.

2. The skins and other items of value resulting from
taking under sub-paragraph (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 of
this Article shall not be available for commercial
purposes.

Continued here: http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/entri/texts/polar.bears.1973.html

To date, hunting has always been the biggest threat to polar bears, hence the landmark argreement quoted above. This also included protection of their environments and natural ecosystems. Although receeding ice does present potential problems in the future, the degree with whicht he ice is melting is up for debate as are the causes. Also, redistribution of Polar Bear populations does have some bearing on their ACCESS to ice. Traditional HUNTERS think changes in distribution patterns MAY (not is the result, but may be the result. PLS, Rahul, pay attention to word usage, your links are full of 'may', 'might' 'possibly' etc, etc') be the result of increased populations as has been the case in the past. There are several threats to all wild life, Rahul. Repeating the same garbage over and over isn't convincing, nor is it intelligent. You have more work to do.

[MtnBiker]

BTW, hello to all you old-school USMBers :salute:

Hello NightTrian.

Watch Your Six

[Rahul]

You didn't read mine either. Typical.

I don't read biased right wing sources. Next time, do as I did, and quote a piece from a rational source such as those I quote from.


But still, boycott India. OYE!

So, how would a boycott help the bears?

http://www.komar.org/faq/churchill_polar_bear_tours/churchill_polar_bear_tours.jpg




I live in Canada.

That's good to know.



IF the polar bears needed protecting, the govenment would do it for me.

The government is immoral and is doing little to protect the bears.




Socialism does rock at times. What's India doing again? Oh, yeah, nothing. OYE!

Socialism does not rock. Am I assume you to be a socialist apologist? Or are you just an anti-bear Commie?

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/02/09/svPOLAR_narrowweb__300x447,0.jpg

[MtnBiker]

It looks like Rahul will not find any help in the US Congress, but perhaps with sportsmen.


U.S. House Rejects Polar Bear Hunting Ban
Contributed by U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance
Friday, 29 June 2007

Washington -- The nation's sportsmen have stood up on behalf of polar bear conservation. Congressmen have refused
to impose restrictions on big game hunters that would have crippled polar bear conservation.


On June 27, the U.S. House of Representatives defeated a last minute amendment to HR 2643, the House Interior
Appropriations Bill, which would have banned the import of polar bear trophies. Voting 188 to 242, the House turned
down anti-hunters' efforts to prohibit American big game hunters from pursuing healthy, sustainable polar bear
populations in Canada.



"It appears U.S. representatives recognized that the effort to ban Americans from polar bear hunting is baseless from a
conservation standpoint," said U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance Senior Vice President Rick Story. "Science that shows polar
bear populations are at historic highs and that there are no imminent threats to the healthy, huntable populations."

American sportsmen comprise approximately 90 percent of the foreign hunting clientele in Canada, annually pouring
millions of dollars into polar bear conservation and management, not to mention the financial benefits to the local
communities. American hunters are the primary source of essential funding for conservation and research that allows for
continued success of the populations.



Link (http://www.lonestaroutdoornews.com/content/view/128/27/)

[Said1]

I don't read biased right wing sources. Next time, do as I did, and quote a piece from a rational source such as those I quote from.

I quoted leftist government studies, not right wing propaganda. I also quoted actual protectionist agreements, signed by several nations (India not included, of course :) ), not cutsie little pics of bears. There are cute though, I must admint that. :clap:


So, how would a boycott help the bears?

Dude, use your head, it's not a display unit.





The government is immoral and is doing little to protect the bears.

I see you missed the last link I posted. Nice. Yet typical.





Socialism does not rock. Am I assume you to be a socialist apologist? Or are you just an anti-bear Commie?

Yes, I am a bear hating commie. Pretty funny given the leftist gobbly goop you've been posting as fact. Pretty funny indeed.

Again, let me ask you, what morally righteous actions is India taking to help save the polar bears? Did they draft any legislation, donate money to any causes, fund any artic studies, cut back on emmissions? And don't tell me their half-baked stance on Kyoto counts. Your government is one of the most corrupt and immoral of them all, Rahul. Let's not forget that.

What would Ghandi do? Feed the bears Shiks, whatelse. :laugh2:

[nevadamedic]

I love bears, they are beautiful creatures.

[Said1]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/68/Millenium_Park_Fountain_3.jpg[]

BTW, wtf is that photo supposed to signify? Are they at Bollywood? Are they you're friends? Do they want to save the polar bears too?

Don't tell me those sneakers are made out of polar bear!

[loosecannon]

No, slick. What happens is a playful bear that's not very hungry will mutilate their playtoy of the moment similar to a cat toying with a mouse. Bears do not skin their fish deliberately. I don't care what your hippie tour guide told you, but it just doesn't happen like you describe.

I have seen it with my own eyes. And it was fully deliberate. The big Brown Bears place a paw on the head, grab the skin behind the gills and strip one whole side off in one motion, then discard the whole fish, not even bothering to strip the skin off the other side. The fat is almost all in the skin, so that' what they ate.

[loosecannon]

You're wrong. When I was growing up in the bush in Talkeetna, we lived 20 miles away from the nearest road and were smack dab in the middle of bear country. We had daily dealings with them coming into our yard or our boat landing due to the fact that we had hundreds of salmon in our smokehouse. Since our landing was well stocked with both 2-stroke oil and 4-stroke oil (even diesel!), I'm confident that at least ONE of the hundreds of bears that wandered through would have taken a bite if what you propose had any merit.

It didn't happen. Not once. In fact, I would venture to say that they were repelled by it, since just about every other item was sampled, including my Dad's brand new $1500.00 canvas top for his jet boat. Everything EXCEPT petroleum products was bitten.


I am guessing those were browns or blacks not Polar bears.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear


Like other bear species, they have developed a liking for garbage as a result of human encroachment. For example, the dump in Churchill, Manitoba is frequently scavenged by polar bears, who have been observed eating, among other things, grease and motor oil.[25].

http://www.polar-bear.info/food.php


Now one might think that there is nothing else for the polar bear to eat out on the frozen tundra, but that is incorrect. Even humans living at those latitudes throw out trash and as most other bears the polar bears are extremely drawn to the possibility of raiding human trashcans a little now and then for a little snack. The garbage dump in Churchill, Manitoba is known for its polar bear visits and as it seems the polar bears are not really picky about what they eat, including car tires and motor oil.

[Rahul]

I see you missed the last link I posted. Nice. Yet typical.

I read it. Hunting is a problem, but the bears are listed as an endangered species in the US so the issue is moot, at least in the US. However, global warming is a very real problem.




Yes, I am a bear hating commie.

I feel bad for you.



Pretty funny given the leftist gobbly goop you've been posting as fact. Pretty funny indeed.

I don't find humor in this situation.



Again, let me ask you, what morally righteous actions is India taking to help save the polar bears?

What could they do other than try and stop global warming?



Did they draft any legislation, donate money to any causes, fund any artic studies, cut back on emmissions? And don't tell me their half-baked stance on Kyoto counts. Your government is one of the most corrupt and immoral of them all, Rahul. Let's not forget that.

I agree. The Indian government is doing nothing to stop global warming. I posted a link showing the US, Europe, Japan, India and China to be the biggest contributors to global warming. The US leads the pack, though.

Further, this is debatepolicy.com, and the focus of debates is on the US. If you wish to start debatepolicyindia.com, by all means do so and I will contribute.


BTW, wtf is that photo supposed to signify?


http://www.hi.is/~oi/Svalbard%20wildlife%20and%20landscape/Swimming%20polar%20bear.jpg

What do you think?

[NightTrain]

I am guessing those were browns or blacks not Polar bears.

You win a cookie. Are you suggesting that Polar Bears have super powers allowing them to digest oil?

Hell, if that's the case, then we should have shipped them all down to Valdez during the Exxon-Valdez oil spill and saved ourselves millions of dollars in cleanup costs!

Maybe the US Coast Guard can make that a requirement for every oil tanker to carry it's own Polar Bear Oil Response Team.

Oil spill? No sweat! Unleash the Polar Bears!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear

Do you know how Wiki works? The ignorant bastard that wrote that entry for Wiki obviously referenced your little gem at polar-bear.info as it's almost word-for-word!


http://www.polar-bear.info/food.php

Are you shitting me? Take a good close look at www.polar-bear.info and tell me that site was created (in 2006, no less) by a qualified person. Do you really believe that an animal can ingest motor oil and rubber tires? Are you out of your mind?

Who owns that site? What's his qualifications? Nope, doesn't say, does it? Probably a damn good reason for that.

You liberals really have to step back and think for yourself for once.

Read my lips :

Bears. Don't. Consume. Motor. Oil. Or. Tires.

[Rahul]

Bears. Don't. Consume. Motor. Oil. Or. Tires.

The bears scavenge through garbage, and will eat anything they can find. Are we to believe you or our own eyes?

http://www.indexstock.com/store/GetThumb.asp/ImageNum=903187&VOLID=3515&gc=gc1&ss=1/Dump-903187.jpg

[NightTrain]

The bears scavenge through garbage, and will eat anything they can find. Are we to believe you or our own eyes?

Got lots of Polar Bears there in India, do ya?

Why don't you tell us of your own personal experiences with Bears.

[darin]

http://www.bearbroscatering.com/Photos/steak.gif

Polar bear meat is an excellent source of iron and protein. Polar bear fat provides us with vitamin A and omega-3 fatty acids. These fatty acids help to reduce the risk of heart disease. Polar bear meat is usually baked or boiled in a soup or stew.

[Said1]

I read it. Hunting is a problem, but the bears are listed as an endangered species in the US so the issue is moot, at least in the US. However, global warming is a very real problem.

Hunting is he NUMBER 1 PROBLEM, which, btw is REAL. The point is not moot because the agreement includes protecion of their ecosystems. However, no one is powerful enough to control he weather. Also, I hope you recycled that juice box.



I feel bad for you.

I feel sorry for you too. But I won't say why. :laugh:




I don't find humor in this situation.

Poor Rahul. The humor is in your factual links, from leftist fear mongers - then you calling me a commie who posts from right wing studies. Duh.




What could they do other than try and stop global warming?

I think I listed some suggestions in the form of questions. Go back and read.



I agree. The Indian government is doing nothing to stop global warming. I posted a link showing the US, Europe, Japan, India and China to be the biggest contributors to global warming. The US leads the pack, though.

Interesting. I didn't look at your data. Did your data also note that on a PER CAPITA basis Canada outranks the US by far? Countries with larger populations tend to look better using a per capita comparisons and can be decieving. That is, the stats can give the false impression of being better or worse based on the TOTAL population - which is also and easy way to skew data in your favor when trying to present senstional, emotion grabbing garbage like you've posted through out this thread.



Further, this is debatepolicy.com, and the focus of debates is on the US. If you wish to start debatepolicyindia.com, by all means do so and I will contribute.

The focus of debate is on anything posted in the correct forum. How about you take your snivellilng little self elsewhere and start your own "Rahul's Rules board" if you can't handle it.






What do you think?

I have no idea what those two children have in common polar bears.

[Said1]

www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=676

The Science Isn't Settled: The Limitations of Global Climate Models
Publication Date: July 2004
Publication Format: Public Policy Sources

Author(s):
Tim Ball, Climatologist, Author & Environmental Consultant,

Dr. Kenneth Green, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute

Steven Schroeder, Postdoctoral Researcher, Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M

Executive Summary: Computerized models of the earth's climate are at the heart of the debate over how policy should respond to climate change. Global climate models (GCMs)--also called general circulation models -- attempt to predict future climatic conditions starting with a set of assumptions about how the climate works and guesses about what a future world might look like in terms of population, energy use, technological development, and so on.

Analysts have pointed out, however, that many of the assumptions used in modeling the climate are of dubious merit, with biases that tend to project catastrophic warming, and have argued that climate models have many limitations that make them unsuitable as the basis for developing public policy. This paper examines two major limitations that hinder the usefullness of climate models to those forming public policy.

Download real, academic study below:

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/ScienceIsntSettled.pdf

[OCA]

Really after 16 pages of this tripe who gives a fuck, if the polar bear is a casualty of this natural cyclical warm period in the history of the earth(no fault of mankinds) so be it. So they go the way of t-rex, don't give two shits.

[jimnyc]

Rahul, my son wanted to sponsor a Polar Bear. We had him send some money to a conservation group to help them. In return, they sent him a personal photograph and a stuffed animal bear.

If you're so concerned, have you done the same? How about you put your money where your mouth is? And post proof here showing you did your part. Let me know if you need a few links of places you can send your donations.

[darin]

http://www.trichinella.org/images/epid/russia-severo/bear-meat-recipe.jpg

[Kathianne]

http://www.trichinella.org/images/epid/russia-severo/bear-meat-recipe.jpg

A man after my own heart. If you weren't way too young, married, and opinionated, I'd be in love. :laugh2:

[loosecannon]

You win a cookie. Are you suggesting that Polar Bears have super powers allowing them to digest oil?

Hell, if that's the case, then we should have shipped them all down to Valdez during the Exxon-Valdez oil spill and saved ourselves millions of dollars in cleanup costs!

Maybe the US Coast Guard can make that a requirement for every oil tanker to carry it's own Polar Bear Oil Response Team.

Oil spill? No sweat! Unleash the Polar Bears!



Do you know how Wiki works? The ignorant bastard that wrote that entry for Wiki obviously referenced your little gem at polar-bear.info as it's almost word-for-word!



Are you shitting me? Take a good close look at www.polar-bear.info and tell me that site was created (in 2006, no less) by a qualified person. Do you really believe that an animal can ingest motor oil and rubber tires? Are you out of your mind?

Who owns that site? What's his qualifications? Nope, doesn't say, does it? Probably a damn good reason for that.

You liberals really have to step back and think for yourself for once.

Read my lips :

Bears. Don't. Consume. Motor. Oil. Or. Tires.


Look Comatose, and I mean that in the most endearing possible way, I have personally watched goats eat the glass out of tempered sliding glass doors.

Nobody sed that Polar bears can digest oil, just that they eat it. Just like a dog might eat a whole loaf of bread in 1.5 seconds and then lose it out the back door.

Regardless of what Wiki and that other sites creds are, they are better than yours, you have NO personal knowledge of Polar bears.

Wiki 1
other site.5
you 0

You lose 1.5:0

[loosecannon]

The bears scavenge through garbage, and will eat anything they can find. Are we to believe you or our own eyes?



Neither, he has never seen a wild polar bear.

[loosecannon]

A man after my own heart. If you weren't way too young, married, and opinionated, I'd be in love. :laugh2:


No he is too old or young, marinated and onionated. What's not to love?

[OCA]

The only Bush that Loose has lived in is the bush his neighbor Bill has in his pants.

[OCA]

I have personally watched goats eat the glass out of tempered sliding glass doors.



You are so full of shit that i'm sure even you don't believe the bullshit you feed us. You are talking to a bonofied country boy dumbass, i've forgotten more about livestock and wild animals than you've ever know and i'll guaranfuckingtee you that if I lock up a goat in a cinderblock room with nothing to eat but glass, any kind of glass, that goat will die of starvation.

You simply believe too many myths...........city boy.

[loosecannon]

You are so full of shit that i'm sure even you don't believe the bullshit you feed us. You are talking to a bonofied country boy dumbass, i've forgotten more about livestock and wild animals than you've ever know and i'll guaranfuckingtee you that if I lock up a goat in a cinderblock room with nothing to eat but glass, any kind of glass, that goat will die of starvation.

You simply believe too many myths...........city boy.


Again shit for brains, I spent half my life not in the country, but in the wilderness.

And yes I have watched goats eat glass off the fringes of broken sliding glass doors. I am certain they would starve if that is all they ate. But then again you really are too stupid to follow the nuance of that detail.

Eating, digesting and nourishment actually are three different things.

Can you grok that, goat fuckin greekie?