For polar bears, deadline looms if gov't wants to reverse a Bus...

A decision involving the iconic polar bear could determine whether protecting endangered species might also help save the earth from global warming.

[Dmac]

Let me see if I got this right. All greenhouse gases have just been declared a danger to public Health by the EPA. Now we do know that Methane gas, that is given off by all living things, is twenty (20) times more hazardous towards warming our planet than any carbon dioxide burning from a fossil fuel. If I read correctly there are twice as many polar bears as there were in the 1960's. That's doubling the amount of Methane gas in the artic, so that is fourty (40) times that of CO2 levels toward warming the planet than existed in the 1960's. We also know we have had catilitic converters on on cars since the 1980's which have considerable dampened our CO2 emissions. It seems to me maybe our scientists are not spending enough time in the artic. Our problem might be more local. Maybe we need to burn a few matches at night where the polar bears are sleeping. Maybe the ice is melting up there because it's getting a little crowded, and the BP's diet is getting a little saucy. I like my science. It's less nuttier than shuting down the greatest economy in history than trying to save an over populated endangered species.

[mememine69]

Dmac wrote:

Let me see if I got this right. All greenhouse gases have just been declared a danger to public Health by the EPA. Now we do know that Methane gas, that is given off by all living things, is twenty (20) times more hazardous towards warming our planet than any carbon dioxide burning from a fossil fuel. If I read correctly there are twice as many polar bears as there were in the 1960's. That's doubling the amount of Methane gas in the artic, so that is fourty (40) times that of CO2 levels toward warming the planet than existed in the 1960's. We also know we have had catilitic converters on on cars since the 1980's which have considerable dampened our CO2 emissions. It seems to me maybe our scientists are not spending enough time in the artic. Our problem might be more local. Maybe we need to burn a few matches at night where the polar bears are sleeping. Maybe the ice is melting up there because it's getting a little crowded, and the BP's diet is getting a little saucy. I like my science. It's less nuttier than shuting down the greatest economy in history than trying to save an over populated endangered species.

We deniers welcome the sound of more reason. Thanks for that.

[litesong]

mememine69 wrote:

We deniers welcome the sound of more reason.

The words 'deniers' & 'reason' are mutually exclusive terms.

[Brian_G]

That kind of confuses me too, shouldn't an endangered species have a declining population?

Isn't that what endangered means?

[mememine69]

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
The words 'deniers' & 'reason' are mutually exclusive terms.

Believer, witch burner, climate pussie, freak, fear monger, hate lover, troll, "end of the world nut case", environMENTALists, WMD scamer (Weather is Man's Domain).........

[litesong]

Brian_G wrote:

That kind of confuses me too, shouldn't an endangered species have a declining population?
Isn't that what endangered means?

Older data indicated that of the 19 distinct PB populations, 5 were declining. More recent data indicate that 8 populations are declining, while only one population is increasing. If the world's human populations were decreasing in 42% of its populations, humans would be aghast for their lives....& humans aren't 25,000 world-wide.

[litesong]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Deniers need proof.......

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/...

[Glasnos]

Polar bears are NOT endangered! The polar bear population has been growing every year for 40 years!!!
This is all computer modeling based on faulty, biased data.
The socialists are going to use the "endangered" species act to limit carbon ... and tax capitlism to support socialism ... It is not about the Polar Bear or "globlal warming"

[litesong]

Glasnos wrote:

Polar bears are NOT endangered! The polar bear population has been growing every year for 40 years!!!
This is all computer modeling based on faulty, biased data.
The socialists are going to use the "endangered" species act to limit carbon ... and tax capitlism to support socialism ... It is not about the Polar Bear or "globlal warming"

NO. Polar bear researchers & those intimately involved with polar bears show that whatever increases in populations there were, were due to strict restrictions on PB hunting. But changes in the Arctic climate are stressing bear populations.

[Glasnos]

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
NO. Polar bear researchers & those intimately involved with polar bears show that whatever increases in populations there were, were due to strict restrictions on PB hunting. But changes in the Arctic climate are stressing bear populations.

You can claim whatever reason you want ... the FACT is the polar bear population is INCREASING ... and has been for the last 40 yrs!!!
What you A**holes base the "endangered" part is pure speculation ... based on faulty computer models.
Based on a computer model the Uk's met office predicted:
The world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007, the UK's Met Office says.
An extended warming period, resulting from an El Nino weather event in the Pacific Ocean, will probably push up global temperatures, experts forecast. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/622...

In fact, 2007 saw the coldest one year drop in recorded history ... a .75 degree drop in ONE year ... and the coldest winter in 100 yrs in China.

So much for "computer models" when idiots are plugging in the data.

Liberals are touting predictions over fact.... A sure way to send the world behind the looking glass ... Alice.

[Brian_G]

Polar bears are dangerous animals, I'd be happy to see their populations decline.

[Earthling]

litesong wrote:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Deniers need proof.......
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/...

Proof of what?

Three populations appear to be stable and seven are too poorly monitored to gauge a trend.

No proof there?

The data gaps exist in important regions, including the Russian Arctic, where there are no ongoing population studies despite poaching problems.

And no proof there either?
For a broader view:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba551
And:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/154...

Mankind has for a long time been the biggest threat to polar bears, but because of hunting them, they will survive GW, if it happens.

[litesong]

Brian_G wrote:

Polar bears are dangerous animals, I'd be happy to see their populations decline.

Just carry your 300 Magnum....even a hot load in a 35 Whelan should do the trick.