Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 58

• 0%

  Wil3 months, 2 weeks ago

  So Bush will be launching a war against giraffes, to protect the polar bears, right?

  Reply

  14 Replies

  • 0%

    capecoralM3 months, 2 weeks ago

    ScienceDaily (May 10, 2008) â;; Research done by the U.S. Department of the Interior to determine if global warming threatens the polar bear population is so flawed that it cannot be used to justify listing the polar bear as an endangered species, according to a study being published later this year in Interfaces, a journal of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences.

    "These studies are meant to inform the US Fish and Wildlife Service about listing the polar bear as endangered. After careful examination, my co-authors and I were unable to find any references to works providing evidence that the forecasting methods used in the reports had been previously validated. In essence, they give no scientific basis for deciding one way or the other about the polar bear."

    This is really getting out of hand.

    Reply

    12 Replies

    • 0%

      capecoralM3 months, 2 weeks ago

      Nunavut blames 'misinformed public opinion'

      Condemnation came swiftly from Canada's North to Wednesday's decision by the U.S. government to list polar bears as a threatened species, as Inuit groups and northern politicians denounced the bears' new status.

      In a news release, the Nunavut government said the U.S. decision is based on "misinformed public opinion which disregarded sound science and Inuit traditional knowledge."

      "Our scientists in the field as well as Inuit elders have observed an overall increase in the polar bear population," Premier Paul Okalik said in the release.

      "It is unfortunate the [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] has decided to disregard facts collected by those who have the greatest contact and longest history with polar bears. The truth is that polar bear populations are at near record levels."

      Reply

      4 Replies

      • 0%

        DaneL3 months, 2 weeks ago

        They will mess this up as badly as they did with the wolf populations here in Wyoming. You get some dumb a$$ that doesn't live in the area telling the locals how to live. Why don't all you tree huggers take care of your own backyard first.

        Reply

      • lovermanComment removed: User banned.2 Replies

        • 0%

          DaneL3 months, 2 weeks ago

          I went to your link and found it interesting.

          "The researchers say it is unlikely that any force but human-influenced climate change could be driving all this; factors like deforestation or natural climate variations could not explain it." The word unlikely just sticks out in my mind as a definite maybe. Sounds unsure to me.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • lovermanComment removed: User banned.
    • 0%

      NoWayMan3 months, 2 weeks ago

      Q1: so then, whats killing all the polar bears and causing the loss of polar bear habitats?

      Q2: why don't you google "global warming threatens polar bears" and see the thousands of articles that pop up instead of staking your claim on one single paragraph in one single article?

      Reply

      6 Replies

      • 0%

        Teagen3 months, 2 weeks ago

        There has been a huge increase in the polar bear population. 12,000 to 25,000 since 1960's. So that means the there's a problem? This is nothing more than a left leaning moron trying to find one more reason why we shouldn't be drilling for oil up there. Global warming and all of the Al Gore experts are scrambling because the "proof" of global change has been proven wrong. We're not seeing an increase in temperatures, we're seeing a drop. Even here, the temps are lower this year than last. Granted, it was still 118 F but it's cooler this year.

        Reply

        3 Replies

        • 0%

          NoWayMan3 months, 2 weeks ago

          um, Bush's sec of the interior is hardly a "left leaning moron" as you'd like to think. he's the one who pushed for the re-classification of the polar bear.

          In areas where long-term studies are available, populations are showing signs of stress due to shrinking sea ice. Canada's Hudson Bay polar bear population has dropped 22% since the early 80s.

          global warming has been more than proven. we're now trying to determine humanity's role in the whole thing. you're way behind on that one obviuosly.

          we're not seeing a drop in temps. you're just wrong. ocean temps have levelled after rising for many years. and they are expected to rise again.

          and the fact remains that spring is beginning earlier worldwide and fall is beginning later. already proven.

          and the arctic just had its hottest winter ever:

          http://www.barentsobserver.com/hottest-arctic-w...

          and I don't know where "here" is for you, but it sure ain't the west coast.

          its HOT!

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            BB643 months, 2 weeks ago

            Ice shrinking? I was up in that region and there's tons of ice. Hudson Bay is seeing a decrease? Could it be that there are more homes and people there?

            As to you load of bull on the warming, tell you what skippy, I still have a mountain of snow in my plants parking lot. Okay, it really doesn't look much like snow anymore but it's frozen stuff of some sort. Last year we had over 100" of the stuff. Over the last several years we've seen more snow, less heat and the like. Even your Sky is Falling preacher, Al Gore isn't calling it Global Warming, it's now being called Global Climate Change. In the Navy our weather people called them cycles. With over 100 years of weather patterns to compare, we're not seeing the terrible changes your team is claiming. I think it's a political move. New ice age when Ford was in. Acid Rain when Reagan was in. Now Warming when Bush was in. Funny how you didn't notice the problems when Dems were in. Too drunk or high?

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              NoWayMan3 months, 2 weeks ago

              Ice shrinking? I was up in that region and there's tons of ice.

              so were the scientists. they have been this entire time. and by every measure, the ice is shrinking numbskull.

              I stopped reading right there.

              Reply
      • 0%

        Teagen3 months, 2 weeks ago

        I've had a few hours of total boredom so I found a book on the polar bear and their habitats. Now this is an older book from the 70's but it was pretty clear they need lots of space. Other than during mating season, they have many miles between each other, they don't like crowds. That being said, with the 25K now out there, they're actually over populated.

        On the warming, I've asked this before. The planet is around 4 billion years old. Your "expert" models are based upon a little more than 100 years of knowledge. That's less than even your most liberal margins of error. You don't have enough evidence to form a idea, theory or hypothesis much less than drawing a conclusion.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          NoWayMan3 months, 2 weeks ago

          the experts' knowledge is based on 700,000 years of ice core samples, not simply 100 years of weather pattern knowledge.

          do some more research and get back to me.

          Reply
  • 0%

    mesodude3 months, 2 weeks ago

    Be reasonable...Anyone could confuse the tundra with the serengeti. ;-P

    Reply
• 0%

  dexlovex23 months, 2 weeks ago

  "After months of delay, the Interior Department has finally recognized that polar bears are on the brink of extinction. But the administration's decision is riddled with loopholes, caveats and backhanded language that could actually undermine protections for the polar bear and other species." - Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope

  Reply

  17 Replies

  • 0%

    libsRfunny3 months, 2 weeks ago

    On the "brink of extinction"? Hardly. Since when is it the U.S.'s responsibility to watch out for an animal that mostly lives in Canada?

    Reply

    15 Replies

    • 0%

      DropkickaLib3 months, 2 weeks ago

      It's nice to see public policy resulting from Al Gorebbels piece of science fiction.

      Reply
    • 0%

      saintetienne3 months, 2 weeks ago

      "Since when is it the U.S.'s responsibility to watch out for an animal that mostly lives in Canada?"

      Well, we DO take care of Cana-duh's every OTHER need, so why not their polar bears?

      Reply

      5 Replies

      • 0%

        wtagg3 months, 2 weeks ago

        Do we take care of Canada's need for oil? If not, your statement is false.

        Reply

        4 Replies

        • 0%

          Teagen3 months, 2 weeks ago

          That depends on how you look at the big picture. Companies like P&H mining build the equipment used in the oil sands of Alberta Canada. Canada has some of the largest oil reserves in the world. In 2003, it was felt they had some oil. New studies show they may have more oil than most of the Middle East combined. They really don't need any oil from us.

          Reply

          3 Replies

          • 0%

            libsRfunny3 months, 2 weeks ago

            I just saw a job ad in Vegas looking for workers for that oil sands operation in Alberta. Pay is $35.50. Assuming you have to pay Canadian taxes, probably more like $5.50 after taxes.

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              wtagg3 months, 2 weeks ago

              Ironically, it is not much different than here.

              http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/individuals/faq/ta...

              Their consumption tax is higher, but as a US citizen, there is a portion of that you can get back. If you keep it in Canadian funds, you might be able to hedge against our dropping dollar.

              I guess the source of your information is misleading you. We are constantly bombarded with incorrect information. I would think that you would investigate what you are told before believing it lock, stock, and barrel.

              Reply
          • 0%

            wtagg3 months, 2 weeks ago

            Exactly my point. Some of us Americans are still living as if it was the 60's. I wonder how much money we owe Canada?

            Reply
    • 0%

      NoWayMan3 months, 2 weeks ago

      on the brink of extinction? true.

      and the US watches out for many animals that cross int'l borders. the bald eagle is a perfect example.

      Reply

      6 Replies

      • 0%

        Teagen3 months, 2 weeks ago

        When researched the Bald Eagle wasn't at risk as a whole.

        Reply

        3 Replies

        • 0%

          NoWayMan3 months, 2 weeks ago

          thats not the point.

          but keep trying.

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            crghss3 months, 2 weeks ago

            "on the brink of extinction? "

            False

            Reply
          • 0%

            Teagen3 months, 2 weeks ago

            You've sighted a bogus study that took DDT off the market. This was because the egg shells of eagles was being destroyed by DDT. Turns out that wasn't the case and it was an over zealous save the planet tree hugging, don't shave your legs woman who created the study for grant money. I'd like to know how many charges of murder should be brought against her. There are an estimated 50 million humans who died from mosquito born illnesses that would be alive had DDT been used. But then again, she was trying to save the planet.... Yea right.

            Reply
      • 0%

        libsRfunny3 months, 2 weeks ago

        "threatened" and on the brink of extinction are not the same. I've seen Polar Bears basking in summer temps at the Detroit Zoo. Seems to me the whole thing is baloney.

        NOt too many Polar Bears amble into the U.S., if any. Maybe a few up in Alaska.

        Reply
      • 0%

        BB643 months, 2 weeks ago

        So let me get this straight, you want us not to police wild life? I suppose you thought it was a good idea when Obama suggested invading Pakistan, forgetting they're our ally. Polar bears are not extinct nor will they be. The sky isn't falling. I remember how we were facing a "New Ice Age" in the 70's. Then in the 80's when we all didn't freeze to death, it was Acid Rain. This was caused by all of the new coal fired power plants that the left forced on us because of the movie "China Syndrome". Then Clinton came in and we didn't hear anything about this. Then Bush came in and "Global Warming. It was all Bush's fault too. All of the models created showed we would be dying from heat. Well last winter we had huge amounts of snow. None of which could be explained in your models. So now we call it Climate change. Chicken little, the sky isn't falling. Go away. Find some other crazy hoax to preach and leave the rest of us alone.

        Reply
    • 0%

      wtagg3 months, 2 weeks ago

      Viewing how we seem to be interested in what goes on in almost, if not all, countries, I am surprised that you even need to ask this question.

      Are you suggesting that this is another example of our current administration's incompetencies? Is the current administration wrong about its findings?

      Reply
  • 0%

    Blackacereturn3 months, 2 weeks ago

    It was only a few months ago that we were told this is all a fools notion. Now they are recanting on this. Yet they are others who think this is not true. I say if this administration is doing something about it it must be worse than we think!

    Reply
• 0%

  CORVIDIVS3 months, 2 weeks ago

  ... heavens to betsy, let's not get all precipitate; finding excuses to address a threat to the future of the ecosystem that is Earth.Better to put the breaks on than to threaten such all dominant[need say 'important'?]vested interests that juggernaut there way along lemming boulevard.

  Reply

  10 Replies

  • 0%

    libsRfunny3 months, 2 weeks ago

    "Lemming" boulevard? Ohh .. you mean the Church of Global Warming.

    Reply

    9 Replies

    • 0%

      Dionys3 months, 2 weeks ago

      The Church of Global Warming Deniers, you mean. Since science proves global warming with an anthropogenic source, denying global warming has to be faith-based.

      Reply

      8 Replies

      • 0%

        mesodude3 months, 2 weeks ago

        Dionys, wingjobs can't make up their minds from one minute to the next. I'm currently watching Chuck Grassley (R-IA) defend ethanol production on C-SPAN. Depending on the day of the week, cons are telling us ethanol production is causing world starvation, or is more hazardous to the environment than nuclear waste.

        Reply
      • 0%

        saintetienne3 months, 2 weeks ago

        Look Diodipsh*t, nobody is denying that the Earth is getting warmer. It has gotten warmer, then cooled, then gotten warmer, then cooled throughout time and will continue to do so.

        What I find hard to swallow is that suddenly humans are responsible for Global Warming. What a preposterously arrogant statement, made by a big, fat, balding blowhard hayseed from Tennessee who, despite his admonitions for everyone else, continues to live in a 20-room, energy-sucking mansion, ride around in limousines, and criss-cross the country in private jets, telling the general public that we must conserve energy. All while Tipper continues to use industrial strength hairspray by the pound on that Southern-fried wig-do of hers.

        There are as many scientists that say humans are causing global warming as there are who say they aren't. Therefore, it's still speculative and up for grabs. In the meantime, Al Gore needs to shut his yap and go on a diet. THAT will help cool things down.

        Reply

        5 Replies

        • 0%

          djrevelky3 months, 2 weeks ago

          Oh please...don't you know that carbon emissions ended the ice age in the BC's?

          Oh please, you republicans...always running around destroying the enviorment and poluting with your factories, even before factories existed!

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            BB643 months, 2 weeks ago

            Actually in the 70's their models claimed it was caused by carbon emissions. This is the same group who built the Biosphere 1 in Arizona thinking they could create a prefect climate balance. All they really did was prove they have no clue how the planet works. Give them a couple more winters like this and they'll be claiming we're heading for a new ice age.

            Reply
        • 0%

          mesodude3 months, 2 weeks ago

          "What I find hard to swallow is that suddenly humans are responsible for Global Warming."

          --Why? Bush told you that the reason gas prices have tripled since Bill Clinton left the White House is due to increased demand from India and China and you guzzled that down and begged for more. ;-(

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            crghss3 months, 2 weeks ago

            Maybe cause it's true. Coupled with devaluation of the dollar.

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              mesodude3 months, 2 weeks ago

              Lots of things are "true" but some people prefer to suck down only the administration's version of the truth. We've been fighting wars in two countries singlehandedly for the last 6 years and blasting through obscene amounts of fuel and it can't help matters that Bush gets on TV every other night hinting that he's inches away from bombing Iran.

              Reply
      • 0%

        libsRfunny3 months, 2 weeks ago

        Um, no, there is no conclusive proof that humans are causing any drastic changes .

        Reply
• 0%

  joeblowe3 months, 2 weeks ago

  That's odd - last I heard the polar bear population was INCREASING due to laws protecting them. Is an INCREASING population now the criteria to be put on an endangered species list? If so, humans should be added immediately. I think it's also irresponsible to be adding to the list based on supposition, prediction, and possibilities instead of FACTUAL evidence of endangerment. It tends to dilute the entire process.

  Reply

  3 Replies

  • 0%

    cleare3 months, 2 weeks ago

    yes i heard the population is increasing slightly too. i also heard from the same source that the bears are less healthy, finding less food and dying young.

    sounds to me like a species struggling for survival.

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 0%

      joeblowe3 months, 2 weeks ago

      Now we'll see if evolution really works. The SMART bears who are able to adapt and find food in other ways will survive.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        djrevelky3 months, 2 weeks ago

        hahahah oh gosh, classic!

        I think I'm going to take that line. Instead of creating endangered species lists, lets just test evolution.

        If they evolve...then they are fine and evolution exists. If they don't evolve....eh.

        I guess liberals aren't willing to put their money where their foots are on this one?

        Reply
• 0%

  joeblowe3 months, 2 weeks ago

  And besides - what's the NUMBER 1 THREAT to America? BEARS! They SHOULD be exterminated! {8>D)=

  It's too bad Steven got bumped out of the race. Honestly, I think he would do a better job than Hillary, Barry, or John. And besides, can you just imagine if the President were INTENTIONALLY trying to be funny? Wow!

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    djrevelky3 months, 2 weeks ago

    The number 1 threat to America is ... manbearpig. I'm super serial guys!

    Reply
• 0%

  Cityslicker3 months, 2 weeks ago

  Don' worry help is on the way , Scientist in Germany have discovered that in fact we are in a Global Cooling phase and will continue for some years , so the Bears are safe .

  German Scientist have figured out that Warm Ocean Currents are not as prominent and therefore causing a Global Cooling Cycle .

  Gullible Warning has caused Global Cooling , was just a matter of time , Gullible Warning is the cause for everything .

  May 15th and 12* degrees below normal temperature .

  Keep your stick on the Ice !

  Reply

  4 Replies

  • 0%

    markmawn23 months, 2 weeks ago

    You keep posting this in every opportune posting, yet you never point to your souse. Please provide one for our scrutiny.

    Reply

    3 Replies

    • 0%

      capecoralM3 months, 2 weeks ago

      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191...

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • mishandledComment removed: User banned.

      • mishandledComment removed: User banned.