Climate fight traps polar bears -- Nature, Coca-Cola Company, J...

Polar bears, long depicted as the cuddliest of children's stuffed animals and the cute, animated stars of Coca-Cola 's wintertime advertising, are taking on a new leading role at the center of the debate on ...

[Joe Breier]

Usually, something endangered, has declining populations. In the case of the polar bear, the population has tripled since 1987 and quadrupled since 1982. This is all global warming hype people. And I for one, am a little tired of it. The temperature of our planet has not increased in 10 years. Reciding ice is a solar vs. cloud cover thing and it's that simple.

[Bill]

This is lousy reporting. I just googled "polar bear population" and found articles stating the polar bear population is increasing. Why is this information not in the article?

[Jason]

Well, clearly a senator from Oklahoma should be the authority on Polar Bears.

I'm sure this is another case of Republicans being right about everything, not unlike "Mission Accomplished" in 2003, or the war only costing a few billion.

When will we Democrats learn to trust Republicans? I mean, they've GOT to be correct about something one of these days, right?

(Now I'm just wondering how many minutes until I get a reply about Reverend Wright? Republican Rule #1 - When you can't answer the question at hand, bring up something else totally irrelevant...)

[Jason]

Bill wrote:

This is lousy reporting. I just googled "polar bear population" and found articles stating the polar bear population is increasing. Why is this information not in the article?

Hey Bill, I just Googled "Is Elvis Alive", and - no kidding - got thousands of hits telling me he is.

Believing Google over a group of scientists in the arctic? Who are you, Sean Hannity?

[Danaidh]

It seems like this should be an easy decision: If the polar bear population is declining, then the law says the government must take action. If it is increasing or unchanged, then there is no obligation.

Unfortunately, "polar bears" are not a homogeneous group. There are nearly twenty sub-species of them, and they live in various parts of the arctic.

Some groups are increasing; others unchanged; still others, declining.

Further, this isn't the U.S. Census for which we have records going back to 1790. Population studies of polar bears only go back about 3 decades. We don't really have enough information to make a decision in some of these cases.

[Jacobi]

More undocumented hooey. The London Telegraph reports the following: "A survey of polar bear numbers in Canada's eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining. In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today." That study was conducted by the Inuit government of the area. Aren't we all getting tired of environmental extremists making claims for which they have no documentation? Just yesterday, the global warming nonsense was debunked by the United Nations' World Meteorological Organization which reported that global temperatures have not increased since 1998. It further expects temperatures to get COOLER. Surely you read that in the Tribune. No? Wonder why. It was on the BBC.

[jojo]

another problem is people and garbage dumps, some polar bears have moved more inland, so to speak to feast on garbage and beleave it or not the scientist in the polar regions leave quite a bit of garbage, mounds of it.

[prometheon123]

In the UK, a judge has ruled, correctly for once, that no data exists to corroborate this pseudo scientific fear mongering even if Al Gore tried to say so with cute little animations in his movie.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/11/gore_...

[Idiotic]

Jacobi wrote:

More undocumented hooey. The London Telegraph reports the following: "A survey of polar bear numbers in Canada's eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining. In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today." That study was conducted by the Inuit government of the area. Aren't we all getting tired of environmental extremists making claims for which they have no documentation? Just yesterday, the global warming nonsense was debunked by the United Nations' World Meteorological Organization which reported that global temperatures have not increased since 1998. It further expects temperatures to get COOLER. Surely you read that in the Tribune. No? Wonder why. It was on the BBC.

This person knows a lot about hooey. Just read his letter. There is a lot more documented evidence by actual scientists that disagree. But nay-sayers will jump on anything that supports their precious wallets.

[rkeo]

Jason wrote:

Well, clearly a senator from Oklahoma should be the authority on Polar Bears.
I'm sure this is another case of Republicans being right about everything, not unlike "Mission Accomplished" in 2003, or the war only costing a few billion.
When will we Democrats learn to trust Republicans? I mean, they've GOT to be correct about something one of these days, right?
(Now I'm just wondering how many minutes until I get a reply about Reverend Wright? Republican Rule #1 - When you can't answer the question at hand, bring up something else totally irrelevant...)

Hey Jason.....read your own post before you accuse others of doing what YOU just did. LOL

[ttextyler]

Isn't unique some are so out of touch.$5.00 gasoline,$8.00 diesel fuel, decides the survival of the humans-who is more important?

[Dont Be Silly]

The polar bears are the latest spoke in the environmental machine. The people behind this farce have ulterior motives that have nothing whatsoever to do with bears.
They destroyed the logging industry in the Pacific Northwest with the spotted owl, they tried to stop the fence on our southern border, and now they're using the polar bear as their latest pawn. Always using the cute cuddly animals to do their dirty work for them.
Do not fall for their lies.

[agj]

a)george bush is to blame for the increase to the polar bear population.

b)china is to blame for global warming.

c)i saw jimmy hoffa today.

which one is a true statement?

[rkeo]

Jason wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey Bill, I just Googled "Is Elvis Alive", and - no kidding - got thousands of hits telling me he is.
Believing Google over a group of scientists in the arctic? Who are you, Sean Hannity?

That a boy Jason...dont let facts stand in your way.

[Shawn]

There is not one shred of scientific evidence supporting their global warming theory. We can start with very basic first quaestion: How do we know what was 10 years ago was ideal or standard? If the climate is changing, there in not one shered of scientific evidence supporting their thesis that humans are responsible. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to prove negative. These "global warmining" scientists are all charlatans and should be sued for scietific (and in Algore's case finacial) fraud.

[Idiotic]

Shawn wrote:

There is not one shred of scientific evidence supporting their global warming theory. We can start with very basic first quaestion: How do we know what was 10 years ago was ideal or standard? If the climate is changing, there in not one shered of scientific evidence supporting their thesis that humans are responsible. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to prove negative. These "global warmining" scientists are all charlatans and should be sued for scietific (and in Algore's case finacial) fraud.

You are wrong. There is plenty of evidence. Just because you refuse to accept it doesn't make it wrong. I know you are not a scientist, because no reputable scientist would be in this forum.

[JonQPublik]

Jason wrote:

Well, clearly a senator from Oklahoma should be the authority on Polar Bears.
I'm sure this is another case of Republicans being right about everything, not unlike "Mission Accomplished" in 2003, or the war only costing a few billion.
When will we Democrats learn to trust Republicans? I mean, they've GOT to be correct about something one of these days, right?
(Now I'm just wondering how many minutes until I get a reply about Reverend Wright? Republican Rule #1 - When you can't answer the question at hand, bring up something else totally irrelevant...)

...and when liberals can't think beyond their nose they fall back on 'the war' or 'bush-bashing'. Now I gues YOU are going to say something vile about me being a'neocons' or a 'NAZIpublican'....

[JonQPublik]

Idiotic wrote:

<quoted text>
You are wrong. There is plenty of evidence. Just because you refuse to accept it doesn't make it wrong. I know you are not a scientist, because no reputable scientist would be in this forum.

And I guess by 'reputable', you mean one who agrees with you? Tell you what- give us some bullets of information that you believe supports your position, and it'll give us pin-heads something to think about.

[JonQPublik]

Shawn wrote:

There is not one shred of scientific evidence supporting their global warming theory. We can start with very basic first quaestion: How do we know what was 10 years ago was ideal or standard? If the climate is changing, there in not one shered of scientific evidence supporting their thesis that humans are responsible. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to prove negative. These "global warmining" scientists are all charlatans and should be sued for scietific (and in Algore's case finacial) fraud.

There can't be a standard, because that would imply that there is no change. There can be an average over a period of time, but as the perameters change, so will the average as the atmosphere is dynamic.