Sorry, I don't want this thread to turn into another name calling back and forth he said she said!
On the other thread on Global Warming hysteria, the "Al Gore" side were adamant the so called scientific view of New Scientist was it could not be trusted as a reliable source.
Something the venerable Wiki is supportive of:
In September 2006, NewScientist drew criticism from the writer Greg Egan, who distributed a public letter stating that "a sensationalist bent and a lack of basic knowledge by its writers" was making the magazine's coverage sufficiently unreliable "to constitute a real threat to the public understanding of science".
But when it suits the agenda, out it comes again as presto, an authoritative source nonetheless! And admittedly the Polar Bear "poster boy" is being used effectively to prove that we are the cause of Global warming (or more recent "Climate Change" which covers all bases conveniently) and that if we all buy Prias we will save him and the planet to boot the same way Iraq was responsible for 9/11.
The quote above about Polar Bears actually proves nothing. 2 populations are rising, 2 are supposedly falling. Out of some 21 Arctic populations that is hardly acceptable proof of anything!
We are supposed to believe from that the Polar bear is doomed and has never had any challenges in its survival or adaptation in its long history in the Arctic!
Well here’s a different point of view, that of polar bear biologist Mitch Taylor as reported by Margaret Wente of the Globe & Mail:
The polar bear population has rebounded since the early 1990s, when — thanks to the environmental movement — tight new restrictions were imposed on hunting. The world polar bear population is estimated at between 22,000 and 24,000, of which two-thirds are in Canada. Of our 13 distinct subpopulations, 11 are stable or increasing in number.
‘They're not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present, says Dr. Taylor.The climate in parts of the Arctic is definitely changing. In Hudson Bay, for example, the polar ice pack failed to consolidate for the second year in a row. The bear population in western Hudson Bay has been declining. But the connection between those two facts is unclear. The polar bears in southern Hudson Bay seem fine. In Igloolik, the ice is breaking up earlier, but the bears are abundant. In some southern areas, there are so many bears they're harassing the people. And don't worry yet about the ice cap. Nothing has melted it for 30 million years.
Regardless of what or who is behind the rhetoric, the climate is changing and has been changing throughout earths history. Man may be to blame, partly, wholly or not at all! However man will not be able to reverse it through more tinkering as is shown in the Sourcerers Aprentice! We are just not as all powerful as we would delude ourselves into thinking.
We must accept the reality of the situation we are in and stop pointing the fingers at the very structure that has provided us the best standard of living the planet has experienced since humans first stood upright!
Yes we need to be responsible with our resources and all evidence points to the fact that we are becoming better stewards, but we need to be realistic too, which requires honesty and frankness, not Mary Poppins!
Polar bears seem remarkably adaptable to climate change. Biologists think they probably evolved from brown bears that got stranded on the ice a couple of hundred thousand years ago. Since then, they've survived both warmer times and colder times than these. As Dr. Taylor says, ‘They've been through this before.’It's even possible that Arctic warming might benefit some bears by increasing their food supply. A reduction in the ice cover might create a better habitat for seals, which are the bears' main food. Less ice cover would also let more sunlight into the water, which would produce more phytoplankton, which might increase the supply of other potential food. On land, blueberries, which bears adore, might become more abundant in more places. Dr. Taylor has seen bears so full of blueberries they waddle.
The Polar Bear is an example of the positives of change. Animals must react after the fact but we as humans can anticipate and make preparations for adaptation as opposed to hoping some miracle or divine intervention will make things all better taking us back to the pioneer times in the process.
Really which makes more sense after thinking it through with the Rose colored glasses off?
Dr Taylor is Nunavut's manager of wildlife.(Another interview with him here that deals with US Wildlife warning) Before you yell "foul", consider that an ecological disaster involving the Polar Bear would mean more money and prominence for him. Speaking the way he has is actually against his personal enrichment and advance. That is usually what happens when someone tells the truth isn't it?
Frank75
