Is anyone else as concerned about the polar bears and global warming as I am?

Question

I love polar bears very much and I hate the fact that global warming is decreasing their numbers...it really concernes me!
Does anyone else care about them as much as I do?

Answer 1

We all should be.

Answer 2

I'm not.

Why?

Because it's not true, that's why.

The whole "polar bears will soon be extinct" idea is simply a ploy by the Global Warming Alarmists to try and gather support for the global warming “cause”.

They know that everybody loves polar bears, so if they tell everyone that they’re all dying because of global warming, the public will jump on their bandwagon.

The truth is that polar bears are doing fine. Dr. Mitchell Taylor is a Polar Bear Biologist, for the Canadian Department of the Environment. He says…

“Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada , 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present… it is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria.”

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Taylor/last_stand_of_our_wild_polar_bears.html

Trevor, above, suggest that a “terrible catastrophe” will befall the polar bears due to the “total melting of the entire Arctic ice cap”. But hang on a minute. The Earth has been warm enough in the past to melt the polar ice caps and the polar bears survived it – we know they did, because they’re still around today! So what makes people think that they won’t survive it this time? Of course they will.

Don’t forget that the vast majority of life will benefit from global warming, because warmer is better as far as life is concerned - despite what the Global Warming Alarmists would have you believe – think about it: where is there more life, the Amazon, or Antarctica?

Who decides which animals are worth helping and which aren’t? In other words, do we have the right to spend trillions of pounds in an attempt to cool the planet to help the polar bears, if that means millions of other species will suffer as a result?

I think not.

Answer 3

alright....heres my side. I don't know what to believe. I am not specialized in any of this I actually work construction. I drive a large 3/4 ton Diesel truck and I wont give it up. That diesel truck gets better fuel mileage than a regualr gas engine would and it has so much more torque and power and you can tow so much more. Diesel is dirty, what else is there to use? Bio diesel? I dont know much about that but I do know a lot about ethonal. I do live in the country, worked on many farms as well. I do know that ethonal in Minnesota was 50 cents less than gas per gallon now it is 40 cents less per gallon. When it was 50 cents less my s-10 would break even on the cost to run ethonal as it would with gas. Ethonal I was getting 13 mpg and gas I was getting 18 mpg. Ethonal was cheaper but I had to fill up more often. What a pain, as for Ethonal in genral, who is making the money? Not the farmers. They dont get the money from ethonal, its all big corprate sob's who feel they need to jack the price of it up so that they can make more money just like the oil tycoons. As for me its gas and diesel no other way. Ethonal should be a very cheap alternative, but its not. As for global warming I really dont know, our records only go back to the 1800's and who knows, we have soposidly had an ice age and all that stuff how many years ago and came from apes and yeah I believe god made each and everyone of us and that the world is comming to an end soon, so as for me I am going to let it be. The world is so crupted its not even funny. Maybe we are going into a warming trend opposite from the ice age I really dont know and I dont think anyone else does either.

Answer 4

I love polar bears as well, I've been lucky enough to watch them and they're amazing animals which need protecting.

I also study global warming and all the related stuff and have done for many years - it's my job.

Both sides of the global warming debate can be accused of exaggerating facts and taking things out of context. Fortunately for the polar bears their imminent demise is something that has been somewhat exaggerated. Polar bears are being affected by global warming and it's irresponsible and ignorant to claim otherwise. However, a greater threat is probably that posed by hunters.

Indications are that polar bear numbers have been increasing of late, what we can't say is how much more their numbers would have increased by had it not been for global warming.

For the moment they seem safe but there is a terrible catastrophe that could befall them unless we act now. That catastrophe is the total melting of the entire Arctic ice cap.

We've known for decades that the Arctic ice is melting but it's now known that it's melting much faster than was previously thought. In as little as 50 years the Arctic could be gone and with it the habitat of the polar bears and other Arctic species.

Fifty years may seem like a long time but polar bear numbers will start declining long before then and in terms of climate change 50 years is a blink of the eye. Even if we stopped all greenhouse gas emissions as of now, the gases that are already in the atmsphere will keep warming the planet for many decades to come.

Action needs to be taken now if we're to preserve the polar bears in the future.

Here's a funny advert using global warming as it's theme, it features a 'polar bear' - http://www.dailymotion.com/related/864837/video/x10auw_ours-polaire-climat/1

Answer 5

Yes I am concwerned for polar bears and global warming but im also scared about other ice liveing creatures. When there specific ice chunk (for lack of better terms) melts they will have to swim to the nearest one which is miles away and they can't swim in that cold of water for that long. Unless they learn to evolve they will not make it. Plus polar bears are towards the top of the food chain so if people don't car they should cause it will trow off the whole food web.

Answer 6

There's no evidence the global warming speculation has yet decreased the number of polar bears, thus far.

I sincerely hope nothing decreases the number of polar bears. That something might would distress me a lot more than I'm distressed about the prospects of global warming, the evidence for which leaves me cold.

Answer 7

Alarmist Global Warming Claims Melt

Under Scientific Scrutiny ---

By James M. Taylor --- Chicago Sun-Times --- 30 June 07

In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop
tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end
to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of
intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore
repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing
as the central focus of public discourse.

If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a
difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming.

A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and
honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and
mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of
building support for a desired political position.

Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,''
have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can
show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging
where science has rebutted his claims.

For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global
warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American
Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing
in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who
recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to
blame."

Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that
global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of
Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global
warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is
the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously
moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is
evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."

Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has
been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.

Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes.
However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1
documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past.
Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27,
that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic
coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in
the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind
shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane
activity.

Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts.
However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's
deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in
what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."

Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise
sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of
Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing
inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the
Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the
coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.

Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming.
Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a
whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists
reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and
Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet
showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change
panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice
mass during the remainder of the century.

Each of these cases provides an opportunity for Gore to lead by example in
his call for an end to the distortion of science. Will he rise to the
occasion? Only time will tell.

Answer 8

The polar bears are not dying out.

Despite the scare-mongers, the evidence for this is nil, and evidence to the contrary is abundant.

See for example the director of the University of Delaware's Center for Climatic Research's latest paper
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18971

The US Geologic Survey: "We are confident that the growth we detected in the Beaufort Sea population is real. A finite rate of growth of 1%-2% and a current population of approximately 1,500 are both reasonable. Increased numbers of polar bears seen along Alaska's north coast in recent years, increased encounter rates by researchers, and matrix models all suggest the population is larger now than in the recent past."
http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/noframe/s034.htm

""We’re seeing an increase in bears that’s really unprecedented" -- Canadian expert Mitch Taylor
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=143012005


Remember that all the furor about polar bears started with a hoax photograph -- i.e., taken completely out of context and lied about:
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/02/the_polar_bear_.html

Answer 9

Insult to injury....yesterday the US House of Representatives REJECTED an amendment to ban the import of sport-hunted polar bears with the Republicans weighing the amendment down with their votes. Boo hiss.....

Answer 10

yes i do think about those polar bears.i believe it can be put in the same thought i have about the rain forest ;being cleared for farming,and the need for wood.once both places are gone the beings that live there are no longer in there habitat.so if they can adapt great.but if not they fall to disease and hunger;because it affects the whole food chain.each being cant contribute,there part in it.so extinction.

Answer 11

Check your facts. Their populations are not decreasing. There are about 20 distinct herds. Of course a couple of those herds have declining populations for one reason or another--as always. The press only reports on those. The other herds are thriving to the point where they have to be hunted to maintain their overall health.