Science – The Interior Department declared the polar bear a threatened species Wednesday because of the loss of Arctic sea ice but also cautioned the decision should not be viewed as a path to address global warming.
"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
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?
"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?
Do we take care of Canada's need for oil? If not, your statement is false.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When researched the Bald Eagle wasn't at risk as a whole.
thats not the point.
but keep trying.
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.
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.
... 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.
"Lemming" boulevard? Ohh .. you mean the Church of Global Warming.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
"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. ;-(
Maybe cause it's true. Coupled with devaluation of the dollar.
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.
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.
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.
Now we'll see if evolution really works. The SMART bears who are able to adapt and find food in other ways will survive.
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?
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!
Not a member? Sign-up today!
suzanemichel
rhettdejesus1975
gigzapix
slashup67
adrielh791966
rylandl831968
asolious
romeohoover1968
rontravel
AbeNichols
Grant774
Carlo972
PrettyWoman911
CatarinaTobin
GreenBayFan
LianaV
SouthernLadyX
mickoleon
KimoHuitt
_kam0_
SunnyDays
Redneck
MrsAnn2008
msaleem
EngineerTiat
MidnightPrism
loverman
vvv63vvv
leeharris1969
mesodude
dirtyfratboy
nopatacious
Danavo
Anatoliks
Raiderwall
tbhurst
DiffeeOnline
Angelina2008
Oneworldviewer
prevajanje
investment123
howtomakemoney
dadesider
alexander1380
andrewbmorris
BronxBomber
schristoforides
Eagle Eye
daducha
58)
So Bush will be launching a war against giraffes, to protect the polar bears, right?
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.
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."
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.
capeman,
If you were truly honest about this subject AND like to use Science Daily to prove your point, then you would also have provided this link which refutes your point.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/08...
Yeah, its a real lefty, commie, pinko, and liberal piece of trash. So disingenuous of the suckers.
I know, its tough being a denier and shill for pseudo-science against Global Warming.
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.
dane,
True. The sentence says, "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 meaning is that researchers are saying that the principal factor is human-influenced climate change and it's more important than deforestation or natural climate variations. Therefore, these researchers are concluding that human activity is responsible for Global Warming and the losses incurred in the amount of ice in the Artic Ocean.
So why all the fuss from those that disbelieve it?
BTW, the volcanic activity in Chile and Sicily in recent weeks, I believe, may usher a trend to rein in Global Warming - a respite - which may provide some time to catch up with slowing down this phenomenon. Let's see how far this idea will play out in the next few months.
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?
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
Be reasonable...Anyone could confuse the tundra with the serengeti. ;-P