Polar bears not endangered, US confirms

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
BBC News Dec 22


Environmental campaigners in the US have lost a battle to have the polar bear listed as an "endangered" species.

The US department of the interior has upheld a decision to classify the bear as "threatened" - a status that gives them less protection under the law.

The government said it did not find that polar bears were on the brink of extinction, needed to qualify for the status of "endangered".

Environmental campaigners have said they will challenge the decision.

'Anti-science decision'

Under the Endangered Species Act, the status of "endangered" requires the government to assess the impact of greenhouse gases on the bears' Arctic homelands.

When the government is considering permits for oil development in northern Alaska, it must include greenhouse gas emissions in its decision.

When the polar bear was listed as "threatened" by the administration of former US President George W Bush, officials invoked a special rule saying the Endangered Species Act could not be used to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

So an "endangered" listing is a more powerful tool for limiting industrial activity that causes greenhouse gases.

The Centre for Biological Diversity - one of the groups trying to get the polar bear listed as "endangered" - said the ruling showed that the administration of US President Barack Obama was continuing to defend Bush-era "anti-science decisions".

It says polar bears face an 80% chance of extinction within 40 years and it will continue to challenge the US government in court
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Conservation of Polar Bears in Canada

Polar Bears are found in Russia, Denmark (Greenland), Norway, the United States (Alaska) and Canada. Canada is home to approximately 15 500 of the estimated 20 000 to 25 000 Polar Bears in global polar regions.
Canadian Polar Bear populations are managed by the provinces, territories and wildlife management boards where the populations live. Research is primarily conducted by government agencies and universities, including the Government of Canada.
Environment Canada plays a key role by providing scientific expertise on Polar Bears, and by working collaboratively with other jurisdictions on national and international committees to ensure that populations are managed sustainably.

Environment Canada - Conservation of Polar Bears in Canada
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
BBC News Dec 22


The Centre for Biological Diversity - one of the groups trying to get the polar bear listed as "endangered" - said the ruling showed that the administration of US President Barack Obama was continuing to defend Bush-era "anti-science decisions".

It says polar bears face an 80% chance of extinction within 40 years and it will continue to challenge the US government in court

to counter....

In 2008, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) assessed the Polar Bear as a single overall population in accordance with established criteria. In its report, COSEWIC also reported trends by subpopulation. Population models project that 4 of 13 subpopulations (27% of Canada's 15 500 polar bears) have a high risk of declining by 30% or more over the next three bear generations (36 years). Declines are partly attributed to climate change for western Hudson Bay (Nunavut and Manitoba) and the southern Beaufort Sea (Northwest Territories), but are mostly due to unsustainable harvesting in Kane Basin and Baffin Bay (Nunavut). Seven subpopulations (43% of the total population) are projected to be stable or increasing. Trends currently cannot be projected for two subpopulations (Davis Strait, Foxe Basin - Nunavut - 29% of the total population).
For most subpopulations, population counts over time suggest a slight increase in the last 10-25 years. At the same time, bears in some subpopulations show declining health and changes in habitat location linked to decreased sea ice. The Polar Bear cannot persist witbased nonprofit programs and projects, including more than $24 hout seasonal sea ice.

any study work that is done by the U of Alaska is tainted with Oil money...

Since 2000, ConocoPhillips has given more than $80 million to Alaska based nonprofit programs and projects, including more than $24 million to the University of Alaska.
 
Last edited:

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
This bs has been going on since algore (brother to egore) started this Global warming bs and said the artic ice was melting and the polar bears were losing the ice to live on and were all going to drown because they were stranded on ice floats....here are 2 articles from 2007 (and i have more then a few that i can put up, but there really is no reason to..

Polar Bear Baby Boom Occurring in Eastern Arctic, Will Media Notice?
By Noel Sheppard | May 11, 2007 | 13:42

Polar Bear Baby Boom Occurring in Eastern Arctic, Will Media Notice? | NewsBusters.org

This one is really too funny, folks, and definitely requires all potables, combustibles, and sharp objects be properly stowed (grateful and humorous h/t to NBer dscott).

Despite all the carping and whining by folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and his not so merry band of sycophant devotees about global warming killing polar bears, there is actually a baby boom occurring in this species in Canada’s eastern Arctic.

As marvelously reported May 3 by the Christian Science Monitor (emphasis added throughout):

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.

The article continued:

"There aren't just a few more bears. There are a ... lot more bears," biologist Mitchell Taylor told the Nunatsiaq News of Iqaluit in the Arctic territory of Nunavut. Earlier, in a long telephone conversation, Dr. Taylor explained his conviction that threats to polar bears from global warming are exaggerated and that their numbers are increasing. He has studied the animals for the Nunavut government for two decades.

Hmmm. So, a local biologist that has studied polar bears for two decades says their population is increasing. How marvelous.

The study by Taylor and his team has received widespread media coverage in Canada, shaking the image of the polar bear as endangered. There are even questions about the famous photograph of a polar bear adrift on what looks like an isolated and melting ice floe. Even scientists who firmly believe that the bears are under threat from climate change say the picture doesn't tell the whole truth.

Polar bears often travel on ice floes, and they can swim "easily" in open water for 60 miles,
according to [Andrew Derocher of the World Conservation Union]. "Bears will often hang out on glacier ice or large pieces of multiyear ice. To me that picture looked a little fudged," he says. "But some colleagues of mine said it was legit."

Finally, the Monitor addressed what people who actually live in the Arctic are saying about the polar bear population:

Inuit hunters make their own estimates of the polar bear population based on the number of animals they encounter on their travels. Taylor says scientists have ignored the anecdotal evidence of the Inuit, who say bear numbers were rising. Inuits also report more polar bears wandering into their towns and villages, where they are a threat to children.

"I'm pretty sure the numbers [of polar bears] are climbing," says Pitselak Pudlat, an Inuit hunter and manager of the Aiviq Hunters and Trappers Organization at Cape Dorset, Baffin Island. "During the winter there were polar bears coming into town." His community is north of the bear population studied by Taylor.
Why should we care what he or the Nunavut biologist say when people in Hollywood like Leonardo DiCaprio, Sheryl Crow, and Laurie David say otherwise?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Polars bears on the brink? Don't you believe it'

By DAVID JONES
Last updated at 20:55 07 December 2007
'Polars bears on the brink? Don't you believe it' | Mail Online

When you're up above the Arctic Circle, on the trail of polar bears who haven't eaten a square meal in months, it's advisable to follow a few basic rules.

Number one, as perishing cold as you may be, is don't drink too much coffee.

Unfortunately, as an incurable caffeine addict, wildlife documentary maker Nigel Marven can't adhere to this great unwritten imperative while filming his latest series out on the frozen North Canadian tundra.

As a result, I find myself peering anxiously from the safety of a frosten-crusted Jeep, wondering whether I am about to witness the moment that Nigel becomes his star performer's lunch.

Polar bears, you see, have an acute sense of smell which helps them to track down prey up to 60 miles away.

Doomed? The polar bear population today is around 25,000

Normally, they use it to sniff out seal pups or Arctic foxes, but when the call of nature forces Nigel to venture out on to the ice (coffee being a diuretic), one keen-nosed 1,200-pounder scents the unusual smells of coffee.

Unseasonably warm weather has left the huge male bear stranded for almost four months, far from his winter hunting ground on the edge of the sheet-ice - so a meaty, 6ft human looks too appetising to resist.

Nigel is just emerging from behind a snow-dusted willow bush when the great white bear comes loping towards him. His instinct is to turn and run for it back to the Jeep.

But the 46-year-old, famed for his daringly close encounters with dangerous animals, quickly remembers the rest of the bear-stalker's survival code

Realising he will never outpace a creature capable of springing across the slithery surface at 25mph by using his huge paws like snow-shoes, Nigel stands stock still.

Then, showing the bear that he isn't afraid, Nigel raises himself to his full height.

At the same time, he avoids eye contact to let it know he isn't a threat (a fact that seems rather obvious, given that the approaching beast is 3ft taller and seven times heavier).

Alarmingly, however, the bear just keeps on coming.

He is within eight or nine yards of Nigel - close enough for even a man who has swum with Great White sharks to feel concerned - when he is stopped in his tracks by two loud cracks from a pump-action rifle.

The warning shots have been fired by Dennis Compayre, a grizzled old polar bear hand hired to act as Nigel's "eyes and ears" as he films Polar Bear Week, a captivating five-part series which begins on Channel 5 next week.

Since the cameras have stopped rolling, and we are making our way back to base in the gathering gloom, viewers will not see this relatively narrow escape.

Later, however, Nigel is quick to praise his minder.

"This man is my best friend!" he grins, giving Dennis a hearty slap on the back.

Dennis, whose white-flecked woolly beard and thick grey hair make him look remarkably like the creatures he has been observing at close quarters for almost 30 years, accepts the gratitude with a "seen-it-all-before" nod.

To explain what might have happened, he recounts the chilling story of a female researcher in her 20s who was savaged near here.

The only predator that will actively stalk a human, the polar bear had hidden in wait behind the huge tyres of a tundra buggy and pounced as the woman disembarked from a helicopter and dashed to the vehicle.

"She had four huge puncture wounds in her back, and would have died if a guy hadn't jumped out of the buggy and hit the bear with a long pole," Dennis says.

"Those bears seem to love the scent after people drink coffee, and I'd hate to have to shoot one."

We are filming in Churchill, Manitoba, the so-called Polar Bear Capital of the world, where these creatures seem to have more rights than the humans - for good reason.

Not long ago, this isolated outpost on Hudson Bay was in financial trouble.

Then, wealthy tourists discovered the thrill of nature-watching breaks and Churchill, home to the most easily accessible polar bear population, became a fashionable - and newly prosperous - adventure holiday destination.

Although the town is still accessible only by train or light aircraft, its guesthouses are packed during late summer and autumn, when the vast ice-sheet over the bay melts, forcing around 1,000 bears to lollop around for months on the shore.

Lately, however, it is not only polar bear watchers who come flocking.

With the clamour over global warming, it has become a magnet for an army of environmentalists and climatologists who have given Churchill an air of impending doom.

The Arctic ice-cap is shrinking fast, is their message, and as it disappears, so too will the polar bears.

Today, the polar bear population may hover healthily around 25,000 (they live in Russia, Alaska, Greenland, Norway and Canada).

Yet, we are repeatedly warned, if the planet continues to overheat at the present rate, within four decades our biggest carnivore will be extinct, starved to death as its natural hunting grounds disappear.

"Come up and see them while you still can," is the gist of their depressing refrain.

To some Churchill residents, who base their opinions on personal experience rather than fancy charts and computer models, this is so much nonsense put about by scaremongers for their own dubious ends.

When outsiders question whether anyone would be so cynical, they are reminded of that now-famous photograph of a polar bear which appears to be teetering precariously on an Arctic ice-floe, melting faster than ice-cream, in the depths of winter.

For a while, it became a powerful symbol of the perils of global warming - until it was revealed to have been taken three years ago and during the height of summer.

And so the battle lines between Churchill's optimists and pessimists have been drawn.

Nigel Marven's new series does not pretend to answer the complexities of this increasingly heated debate.

True to his easy-going style, he prefers to glory in the natural wonders of the Arctic.

In addition to countless polar bears, he came eye-to-eye with musk ox and moose, blubbery great walruses and curious little lemmings which, we discover, aren't really suicidal after all.

He also met fluffy white seal cubs, giant owls and snow buntings, and foxes whose coats change colour from cinnamon to silver with the passing seasons.

He took an icy dip with mystical white beluga whales and marvelled at the most breathtaking light show on Earth: the Aurora Borealis.

Inevitably, after studying the bears for 80 days and speaking to the people who live among them, he formed his own view about "the disappearing polar bear" controversy.

Flying into Churchill, the weather seems cold enough.

If minus 5C means the greenhouse effect is upon us, heaven knows what it was like before.

According to my taxi driver, however, the seasons have changed, and by rights it should be a whole lot colder.

"Last week, it was minus 20C, but now it's suddenly warmed up again, and not long ago that never happened," he informs me.

In Churchill, the effects of this odd upsurge in temperature are clear.

By this time of year, Hudson Bay has usually refrozen and the bears are beginning to slide off to hunt seals on the fringe of the ice-sheet.

After freezing briefly, however, it has now melted again, and so the bears are still very much among us.

One morning, disconcertingly, I awake to learn that a family of five has been wandering around outside my hotel.

Meanwhile, at the so-called "polar bear jail" - where bears who persistently loiter around town are held after being tranquillised, pending their re-release into the wild - all the concrete cells are full.

This presents the local wildlife authorities with a major headache.

Most of these errant bears are adolescents who haven't yet learned to behave.

But you can hardly give a loutish bear an ASBO. Venturing out of town, we also find bears in abundance.

Researchers have found that their weight has dropped by up to 20 per cent because the melting ice has reduced their feeding time and forced them to swim longer distances hunting for prey. But the ones we see look healthy enough.

Filming these deceptively cuddly-looking creatures is a precarious business, but our cameraman, Peter Thorn, captures some amazing footage.

One afternoon, we watch from a few yards as two fully grown adults stand on their hind legs and box one another, in a sparring context that seems specially staged for us.

"This behaviour is unique to the Churchill bears," whispers Nigel.

"We think they do it because this is the only place they congregate.

"They're testing their mettle because, next spring, they will be fighting for real, over females."

Later, out on the tundra, we encounter a big, ten-year-old old male with distinctive scars on his nose.

"Old battle wounds," remarks Dennis Compayre knowingly.

He calls to the animal which he knows well and has nicknamed Dancer - and the bear immediately pads over to us and rises up to the viewing platform on his hind-legs, coming so close that our minder can pat him on the head.

The bond between bear and man looks uncanny until, with a wry grin, our minder explains that he used to share his breakfast with the bear - violating strictly enforced laws that forbid feeding them, for fear they may become sensitised to humans, and therefore more dangerous.

"Well, why shouldn't we feed them, if they're really so hungry?" he says, hankering for the days when he was allowed to take to the ice with a bottle of Scotch (for himself) and a tub of lard (for the bears).

"What do these do-gooders think we should do? Just let them starve?"

Born and raised in Churchill, Dennis is among those who eye the new "experts" in town with deep suspicion.

According to Polar Bears International, the most prominent and widely respected campaign organisation, the West Hudson Bay bear population has fallen by 22 pc since 1987 and its prospects are bleak.

"If we lose the sea ice, we're going to lose the bears," says Dr Andrew, who serves on the group's scientific advisory council, arguing that they will not be able to adapt quickly enough to become vegetarians if and when the ice melts, leaving them with no hunting grounds.

His world-renowned colleague, Dr Ian Sterling, who has studied the bears since the mid-1970s, says that the ice now breaks up about three weeks earlier and so the bears have a shorter time in which to store up fat.

"There's a direct relationship between the date of the ice breakup and survival.

"The health, or condition, of the bears has declined over the past 30 years."

Dr Sterling says this is the reason why more "problem bears" are appearing in Churchill - and perhaps even why one came sniffing after Nigel Marven drank all that coffee.

"A starving bear isn't going to lie down and die. It's going to look for an alternative food source.

"In West Hudson Bay, that means either garbage dumps, hunting camps or, occasionally, people."

Dennis Compayre raises bushy grey eyebrows as he listens to the environmentalists predict the polar bear's demise.

"They say the numbers are down from 1,200 to around 900, but I think I know as much about polar bears as anyone, and I tell you there are as many bears here now as there were when I was a kid," he says as the tundra buggy rattles back to town across the rutted snowscape.

"Churchill is full of these scientists going on about vanishing bears and thinner bears.

"They come here preaching doom, but I question whether some of them really have the bears' best interests at heart.

"The bear industry in Churchill is big bucks, and what better way to keep people coming than to tell them they'd better hurry to see the disappearing bears."

After almost three months of working with those who know the Arctic best - among them Inuit Indians, who are appalled at the way an animal they have lived beside for centuries has become a poster species for "misinformed" Greens - Nigel Marven finds himself in broad agreement.

"I think climate change is happening, but as far as the polar bear disappearing is concerned, I have never been more convinced that this is just scaremongering.

"People are deliberately seeking out skinny bears and filming them to show they are dying out. That's not right.

"Of course, in 30 years, if there's no ice over the North Pole, then the bear will be in trouble.

"But I've seen enough to know that polar bears are not yet on the brink of extinction."

Just then, spotting a red fox close to the ice track, Nigel calls for the driver to stop.

The timid creature makes off across the snow-blanketed scrubland as Nigel, reaching for his binoculars, dashes off in pursuit.

Within a few seconds, he has almost disappeared from view. Out in prime polar bear territory as darkness descends.

"That Nigel's a hell of a nice guy, but he gets my old blood pressure up," sighs Dennis, reaching for his rifle.

Polar Bear Week With Nigel Marven begins on Channel 5 on Monday, December 17 at 7.15pm.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
I do believe the bears will adapt to new hunting grounds, so naturally there will be a learning period and a drop in numbers for awhile maybe 50-60 yrs..then the numbers will climb with a new generation bear adapted for the weather change...as the world warms in some regions and cools in other regions...the animals will adapt...
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
A few years ago, right after the demise of the Polar Bear was predicted, they had a guy on the radio (BBC) who's job it is to track Polar Bear populations all over the arctic. He said there are certain populations that are shrinking, and certain populations that are growing, and these populations shrink and grow in the different regions all the time. He said, in effect, that people who don't know what they are looking at will look at one small sample or a particular region of Polar Bears (like western Hudson Bay) and see a drop in population, and because they want to badly for there to be something bad happening here, they will apply what they have seen to what they haven't seen, and draw the conclusion they want to draw. In the meantime, there's nothing unusual going on, nothing to see here, move along.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
You can say that about the snow too.

Some places it is less while others it is more.

Got to look at the big picture - snow in England was to vanish and those poor little kids would not know what snow is because of global warming.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
I like it when something happens, like a big snowfall, or flowers growing on Greenland, and they say something along the lines of, "This hasn't happened for 2000 years!" Well, what did man do 2000 years ago to cause it? "Nothing, but this time, man caused it."

Ah.
 

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
So does that mean you are an advocate of the Global Warming Theory or perhaps that Humankind is guilty of encroachment, in the Animal Kingdom, for their own gain?

;)
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
I don't subscribe to the warming theory...Just the natural weather patterns of the earth...
Question: When the earth cools down again...will they blame man then? Probably..:rolleyes:
 

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
I don't subscribe to the warming theory...Just the natural weather patterns of the earth...
Question: When the earth cools down again...will they blame man then? Probably..:rolleyes:

What about Humankind is guilty of encroachment, in the Animal Kingdom, for their own gain?
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Our planet has had countless warmings and coolings throughout its history. "Climate Change" on a global scale is the norm for this planet. 500 years from now history will show the current "Global Warming" (or Climate Change, if you prefer) is just one more of those, and would have happened whether man was here or not.

Our Solar System ebbs and flows back and forth within an outstretched arm of the Milky Way Galaxy, with every ebb and flow having an effect on the weather of our planet, not to mention everything else within the Solar System. Thinking that man has caused the current changes we are seeing in global weather patterns is arrogant at best, and politically motivated at worst.

What about Humankind is guilty of encroachment, in the Animal Kingdom, for their own gain?
Encroaching on the Animal Kingdom? It's not like we came here from someplace else, you know. That assumes Humankind isn't a part of the Animal Kingdom. Yet it is, absolutely. Name for me one place where man can go and not encroach on the Animal Kingdom. You can't, because the entire planet is the Animal Kingdom, and we all, man and animal alike, live on it and are a part of the same Animal Kingdom.

Man goes swimming in ocean and gets eaten by shark. Is that because man encroached on the Animal Kingdom, or is it because man is already a part of it and became lunch that day?

Paper wasps build those nests hanging under the eaves of buildings and porches. Ever see one of those hanging off something that wasn't man-made? Same with mud dauber wasps. They pretty much stick to sheltered areas that were made by man. Quite an encroachment for their own gain, I'd say.

To say that man is wrong for doing so and should not encroach on the Animal Kingdom, since it is quite impossible to live on this planet and not do so, is to say that man should not exist on this planet.

This isn't to say that we should not be good stewards of the planet we live on. We should be. But make no mistake, all living things on this planet encroach upon other living things on this planet, and do so for their own gain.
 

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
Encroaching on the Animal Kingdom? It's not like we came here from someplace else, you know. That assumes Humankind isn't a part of the Animal Kingdom. Yet it is, absolutely. Name for me one place where man can go and not encroach on the Animal Kingdom. You can't, because the entire planet is the Animal Kingdom, and we all, man and animal alike, live on it and are a part of the same Animal Kingdom.

.


LOL now you know very well what I meant - in line with this story :p

Is "man" interfering with "nature" for his own gain? In this case oil, another case elsewhere could be logging and so on and soforth .....
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
LOL now you know very well what I meant - in line with this story :p
LOL Just a test to see what level of tree hugger you might be. :D

Is "man" interfering with "nature" for his own gain? In this case oil, another case elsewhere could be logging and so on and soforth .....
The simple answer is, yes, of course he is. But since man really and truly is a part of nature, by definition he cannot be "interfering" with nature, and anything he does is also a part of that nature. It's just that man can affect changes in nature on time scales which are much faster than "nature" can, so to speak. Man may very well be interfering with the otherwise natural order of things on local scales, as with logging, home building, roads, even oil, but on the grand scale it's all just a part of the nature.

The fact that man is able to change things that wouldn't change if man was not here, in some people's minds that becomes a bad thing. But ducks change things that wouldn't otherwise be changed if there were no ducks. Same can be said about every other animal.

It's akin to evolution and the whole ' the weak perish and the strong survive' thing. Mankind has devised a veritable plethora of ways to keep weak people alive who would otherwise perish if it were not for technology. In many cases these weak people procreate and pass on their weak genes to further generations, thereby weakening the species overall, in a sense. It can be said that doing this is messing with the natural process of evolution. But in reality, allowing for the weaker of us to survive becomes an integral part of the natural evolution, it's just different than before, is all. Whether this evolutionary change is an improvement or a degradation, only time will tell.

Has man's "encroachment" resulted in some species becoming endangered or even extinct? Yes, absolutely, but more species became extinct long before man got here than man will ever cause to become extinct. It's all just part of the bigger picture and and larger time frame. More species have become extinct than there are currently alive species.

A moth is born, lives and dies in a single day, and thinks a day is all there is. Man does the same thing, where they see a large storm or a really hot day that they haven't experienced before, and think the sky is falling. Record cold or record snowfall must mean man-induced climate change, right? Same with record highs, or record rains, or Earthquakes, because the Earth is a static thing, never changing, always staying the same except for "normal" weather patterns that we are familiar with. Yet whatever happens today has happened in the past, and it's been a lot worse.

There have been (at least) five major Ice Ages in the Earth's past. Not the least of which was the Cryogenian Period where the Earth was essentially one big snowball with glaciers reaching the Equator. That one was 850 to 630 million years ago, and man had nothing to do with it.

In between all these Ice Ages, and many of the "mini" Ice Ages within them, the Earth warmed up to be essentially ice-free. The Earth is currently in an interglacial period, and the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago. In other words, all this "Global Warming" mess started 10,000 years ago, long before man even knew what a diesel engine or a greenhouse gas was.

Global Warming, Climate Change, man encroaching on the natural order of things, it's all just a part of one great big natural order of things, and man can't do a thing to stop it.
 

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
Global Warming, Climate Change, man encroaching on the natural order of things, it's all just a part of one great big natural order of things, and man can't do a thing to stop it.

So you are of the opinion that since the Industrial Revolution, man has had no effect at accelerating "Global Warming" - correct?

:rolleyes:














;
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
50 years ago who would have thought of possums in Canada?? Now they are all over the place..they have adapted to the cold weather just fine..:)
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
So you are of the opinion that since the Industrial Revolution, man has had no effect at accelerating "Global Warming" - correct?

:rolleyes:
No. There's not enough data to support a definitive position one way or the other. On the surface there certainly seems to be, but that's not a substitute for is.

There have been interglacial warming periods where rapid warming occurred at a rate far faster than it has since the Industrial Revolution, so it's impossible to point to what all has happened in the last 120 years or so and make any kind of definitive statement as to its cause. Based on the records of past ice ages, it's not unusual after a mini ice age such as the one we just had to be followed by relatively rapid warming. The Little Ice Age happened from 1650 to somewhere around 1900, and had nasty cold snaps as well in 1770 and 1850, each separated with slight levels of warming. The Little Ice Age followed the Medieval Warming Period that took place between 950–1250. There's a reason the Vikings were able to sail an ice-free North Atlantic, and man had nothing to do with it. At the other end, there's a reason Mongols were able to walk across the Bering Straight, instead of having to swim it, and man had nothing to do with that, either.

Thanks to radiocarbon-dated box cores from the Sargasso Sea and from sediment samples taken from Puerto Rico, the Gulf Coast, and the Atlantic Coast from Florida up to Maine, we know that there was hurricane activity in the north and mid Atlantic during the Medieval Warming Period that makes the worst of what we've seen in the last 100 years look like a misty fog on a cool London evening. Camile? Small potatoes. Katrina? Puhleeze. Try a Camile and a Katrina
a week for 100 years.

The warming we're seeing now isn't even remotely like what it was in the early stages of the Medieval Warming Period, which lasted 300 years. Are we 100 years into another 300 year warming period? I dunno. Neither does anyone else. Did the Industrial Revolution accelerate the current warming period? The Medieval Warming Period suggests not, since it was warmer and more severe far earlier on than we are into the Industrial Revolution and this warming period.


But does dumping a bazillion pounds of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have some effect? Almost certainly, since everything has at least some effect. The question that will remain unanswered for centuries is just how much of an impact can, does and did man have on it.


There are
people, even smart ones, that will tell you straight up that the current rate of global warming is unprecedented and is being caused by humans. Unprecedented, they'll say, and they'll mean it. Or at least they'll believe it. The really smart ones will at least qualify it somewhat by the use of the term "modern times" and "likely", as in the current rate of global warming is unprecedented in modern times and is likely being caused by humans. But they don't know. At least the qualified latter statement has a plausible chance of being correct.

Generally, other than those who tend to be Chicken Little about things anyway (A.K.A., The Gullible), the people who speak up about this the loudest tend to derive all or part of their livelihood from human-caused Global Warming and Climate Change. For example, take careful note of who the UN and most of the "have-not" world blames for it all, and where they want the money to come from to make all this nasty climate change stuff all go away.

The planet is, and always has been, going through cycles of warming and cooling, of localized and global climate changes. Humans can and probably do have an effect, but just how much of an effect are we really having? Read the reports with a careful eye. If you follow the money, you'll have your answer. They scare the bejezus out of people about global warming and climate change, and once that has been accomplished, then they put forth their remedies and recommendations on how to fix it. Follow the money.

The forests are being cleared in Central America, South America, Southeast Asia, Africa and other parts of the world. It has been found that up to nine times as much carbon dioxide will be emitted by biofuels compared to conventional gasoline and diesel because biofuel crops are typically grown on land which is burned and reclaimed from tropical forests. We're gonna save the planet, by gum, even if we have to kill it in the process.


Mount St Helens put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in one day than man has, since
ever. Other eruptions have made St Helens look like a hiccup. I do find it interesting that, at the urging of the UN, the Climate Change scientific community no longer uses water vapor as a factor in Climate Change. Water vapor is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas (everything else combined is hardly a factor when compared to water vapor), but since water vapor is largely under the control of the world's oceans and not in the control of man, it was thusly decided that the attention should only be focused on what man can control, and leave water vapor completely out of the equation. So when we look at climate change, the one thing that has the biggest impact gets ignored, because there's no money in it.

Another interesting aspect of Global Warming is the subtle morphing of the term into Climate Change. Neither Global nor Warming strike fear into the hearts and minds of the people. Global? No one lives there. Warming? That's a gradual thing. Not scary enough. Over the last few years it's become Climate Change, because everyone knows what their Climate is, and no one wants it to change. People don't like change. But even that's not fearful enough. Some want the term to become
Global Climate Disruption, because that allows people to lay the blame for the disruption of the current climate squarely at the feet of man.

A moth is born, lives and dies in a single day, and thinks a day is all there is.
When the hole in the ozone over the South Pole closed up, people said, "See, getting rid of CFCs worked!". Then they mostly went "Whoops" when the hole opened back up a few years later, and then it was discovered in ice core samples that the ozone hole does that on a pretty regular basis, and had been for a long, long time. The moth is us.

Now we have Global Warming.

"Well whoops, the Earth stopped warming in 1998, right along with the subsiding of solar activity, and it's been cooling ever since. What will we do, whatever will we do?"


"I know, let's call it Climate Change. That one can't come back to bite us because the climate is always changing! We can still get money in order to study ways to tell people what to do and how to do it! Yay!"


Global warming was supposed to have started happening already, but when it didn't they pushed that one back to 2020, and said they have been saying 2020 all along (which is a lie). Now it's climate change, instead. If you notice, the whole climate change has some religious parallels, too, in that if you don't behave, something you can't see will punish you, so you'd better behave and do what we say.

People are all bent out of shape because we need to clean up the planet or we'll die. But they fail to realize that for the last 40 or 50 years that's exactly what we've been doing, and now the planet is the cleanest it has been at any time since the start of the industrial revolution.


Polar bears are now coming into camps and towns, ostensibly because they are losing habitat, but no one wants to point out that polar bears have been coming into camps and towns since the very first camp and town. They make it out to be new, but it's not.


In 2020 when climate change hasn't happened, they'll either push the dates back again, or they'll come up with something else to frighten us and keep us in line. They're already started pushing it back to 59 years from now is when we'll
really start seeing things change. How convenient.

In any case, there is no question the Earth is warming, going through changes. But what they are doing is trying to blame man for something that will happen regardless. The computer models are all flawed, even the modelers will admit that, especially in light of the fact that water vapor has been removed from the equation, so it's hard to believe that any scientific conclusion can be trusted insofar as man's culpability in the matter, much less to what degree. They have formulated a theory, and they gather up all the evidence they can find to support it, while at the same time dismissing evidence that doesn't support it, and it's junk science at its finest.

If you take a look at all of the solutions to curb or slow down Climate Change, most of them point right at the money, and at those who have it.
 
Last edited:
Top