An Inconvenient Truth...

[TheDoctor]

I would suggest to you, like many mammals whose environment changes, they will adapt.

The experts (in the bush administration no less) disagree with you. http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/d...&m=January&x=20070104134253mlenuhret0.3304254

Amstrup, who has researched polar bears for nearly 30 years, told USINFO: “As far as rescuing polar bears before their habitat disappears, there is really no rescue.” As sea ice declines, he said, so does their capacity to hunt for their primary food, the ring seal. “Polar bears are entirely dependent upon the sea ice because it is only from that platform that they are able to harvest the bounty from the sea,” Amstrup said.

The quality of ice appears to matter, too. “Not all ice is equal in the eyes of polar bears,” said George Durner, research zoologist with the USGS Alaska Science Center. Durner studies how bears use the habitat. Although they adapt readily on the harsh ice fields, polar bears do not thrive on land. Of the 19 polar bear populations that live in the Arctic, those on the Hudson Bay have been forced to spend part of the year on the shore, but they do not significantly feed there. To survive summers on land, they bulk up on high-energy seal and walrus diets during the winters, but shorter winters reduce their ability to feed sufficiently. Food sources available on shore do not offer the rich nourishment these giant bears require.

Less ice and less time to feed leave the bears malnourished and vulnerable. Low reproduction and high mortality rates for cubs further reduce their numbers. Since 2004, several incidents of polar-bear cannibalism have been documented, something not seen previously, according to Amstrup.

Polar bears have drowned while trying to swim the increasing distances from one ice platform to another – also a disturbing trend. Although strong swimmers, polar bears are not aquatic mammals, Armstrup said.

 

[TheDoctor]

I would suggest to you, like many mammals whose environment changes, they will adapt.

Does this mean that you believe in evolution?

 

[DawnCt1]

Does this mean that you believe in evolution?

It does mean that.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Sorry kids, I'm not giving up my 4-Runner. I've wanted one ever since I first saw one, and I've worked darn hard to get it.
Given the fact that I work 2 days a week from home and consolidate my trips when I do go out, I probably use less gasoline than typical bungie Mom does in her mini van.

Bungie Mom/Bungie Parent-one who is in charge of driving children to and from school, sports practice, games, music lessons, Sunday School, and other assorted events.

 

[DawnCt1]

The experts (in the bush administration no less) disagree with you. http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/d...&m=January&x=20070104134253mlenuhret0.3304254

That is so funny. There are only EXPERTS in the Bush administration when they agree with you. The rest of the time they are a bunch of bozos (according to you)

 

[TheBellhop]

I'm quite up-front about the fact that I'm not changing anything in my life due to global warming. If it does exist, I'm totally for it. I hate snow and ice!

I'll drive my SUV and play on my computer and burn my lightbulbs. We don't even turn them off when we leave rooms. House glows with wild electrical abandon!

But, if you are all that concerned about your personal energy conservation, you can switch the computer off and save even more. If you are really, truly concerned about it, that is. It'd save WAY more than a lightbulb!!!

I'm so glad that you're considerate of future generations.

 

[Tiziminchac]

I'm more worried about how our (America in particular) consumption of fossil fuel is perhaps financing unfriendly regimes and terroristic forces. That reason alone makes me wish for a cleaner fuel source.

 

[DawnCt1]

I'm more worried about how our (America in particular) consumption of fossil fuel is perhaps financing unfriendly regimes and terroristic forces. That reason alone makes me wish for a cleaner fuel source.

Or wish that we could access our own in the meantime. Mexico is drilling in the Gulf of Mexico but for some reason "we can't".

 

[nativetxn]

We are doing well Kyle. Wilgus left for Costa Rica this AM.

Katholyn

 

[Golf4food]

I think the truth lies in the middle somewhere on the global warming issue. We are certainly not helping the Earth with all our fossil fuels, etc. But at the same time, Al "I Invented Global Warming" Gore himself admits to exaggerating some info in an effort to more or less scare more people into caring.

The Earth goes in cycles. We can help (which we should try to do), we can hurt (which we should try not to do), but we can't control the weather. Only Dr. Evil can do that.

Although.... Al Gore is so stiff and robotic that he reminds me of Dr. Evil... you don't think? Nah...

 

[Charade]

Well, according the Bill Nye the science guy (from Ellen's Universe of Energy), we recently (when the video was made) found about 200 years worth of coal. There is a plan to get coal-to-oil refinement going. It looks promising and that should help. I wonder if the tree-huggers will oppose that? Aslo, there are billions of barrels of oil in shale in the mid western states. That was more expensive to extract when oil was $20 a barrel. Now that's $60, it's much for feasible to get that going too. I wonder if the tree-huggers will oppose that as well. One last tidbit. We haven't built a nuclear plant in a very long time. There's renewed interest in building some new ones. See people, there is alternative sources for foreign oil and alternative sources of energy, but the tree-huggers usually oppose anything that will help our situation. Thanks.

 

[Liberty Belle]

Although.... Al Gore is so stiff and robotic that he reminds me of Dr. Evil... you don't think? Nah...

I don't see him as stiff and robotic. Of course he's not bobbing his head, wiggling his eyebrows, shrugging his shoulders, and constantly licking his lips like the head bozo likes to do.

 

[BetteDavis]

I like to look at the POSITIVE aspects of Global Warming--

Schlitterbahn waterpark will be open year round!
Beaches in MISSOURI (yay)

besides-i'm doing my part by throwing ice cubes in the ocean and not using hairspray!

 

[TheDoctor]

Greenpeace is happy about the polar bear decision. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/victory-polar-bear-protected

This is a huge victory for polar bears, even if it did take a Greenpeace lawsuit to accomplish it. This action comes in response to a lawsuit filed last December under the federal Endangered Species Act by Greenpeace, Center for Biological Diversity, and NRDC.

What this means for the polar bear

Listing under the United States Endangered Species Act -- America’s safety net for plants and animals on the brink of extinction -- will provide broad protection to polar bears, including a requirement that United States federal agencies ensure that any action carried out, authorized, or funded by the United States government will not “jeopardize the continued existence” of polar bears, or adversely modify their critical habitat.

Thin Ice

Polar bears live only in the Arctic and are totally dependent on the sea ice. A growing body of evidence shows that the Arctic ice is vanishing much faster than previously expected. The thick multiyear ice has been shrinking eight to 10 percent per decade, with some climate models predicting that the Arctic could be ice-free in summer as early as 2050.

In some polar regions, the sea ice season has shortened as much as three weeks, and scientists have discovered that the polar ice caps are melting at an alarming rate - more than a million square miles - losing an area the size of Colorado in just the last year.

 

[Chicago526]

I always ask this in enviromental debates and never get an answer.

What, exactly, is the down side of cleaning up the enviroment? Even if all the nay-sayers are right and global warming is either a myth or a natural occurance, where is the harm in cleaner air and water, and less dependance on fosil fuel?

 

[TheBellhop]

People are lazy and selfish.

 

[Galahad]

I always ask this in enviromental debates and never get an answer.

What, exactly, is the down side of cleaning up the enviroment? Even if all the nay-sayers are right and global warming is either a myth or a natural occurance, where is the harm in cleaner air and water, and less dependance on fosil fuel?

IMO, there is no downside as far as that statement goes. The question for me is 1) how you go about it and 2) how intrusive and balanced the remedies are after the fact. If it is done in a way that doesn't do sudden unnecessary damage to the economy, to jobs, to legal business activity, etc. then let's go. If it just more of the "business is the enemy, we must smite them" stuff, then you'll have a nice clean environment and lose the global economic battle to China and India who are not going to do the same things we do to clean up.

The other potential downside is the possibility of solving the wrong problem and making another problem worse. We really aren't all that flawlessly smart yet, IMO.

 

[reeeoga]

I always ask this in enviromental debates and never get an answer.

What, exactly, is the down side of cleaning up the enviroment? Even if all the nay-sayers are right and global warming is either a myth or a natural occurance, where is the harm in cleaner air and water, and less dependance on fosil fuel?

Zip, Zero, Nada. I like having a clean enviroment. I would also REALLY LIKE to have a lot of zero emission cars on the road (can't stand the smell).

So I don't have a problem with the clean part, I have a problem with the Doom and Gloom parts.

EDit to add: make the cleanup cost effective (profit) and it will happen. Make zero emission cars cost effect and run the same distance, and people will buy them.

 

[Soubrette]

There is also the argument that it is in America's best economic interest to "go green." I read an article recently (sorry no linky) about how Kinko's recently changes many of their business practices to reflect greener policies. Then when gas prices went up, they benefited greatly from these changes. There are also a number of European companies that are adopting greener processes; if American industry doesn't do the same, it might get shut out of a lot of new trade markets.

 

[Galahad]

There is also the argument that it is in America's best economic interest to "go green." I read an article recently (sorry no linky) about how Kinko's recently changes many of their business practices to reflect greener policies. Then when gas prices went up, they benefited greatly from these changes. There are also a number of European companies that are adopting greener processes; if American industry doesn't do the same, it might get shut out of a lot of new trade markets.

I absolutely think it is in our best interest. The more the economy goes green on it's own the better. I worry about how badly it will be mucked up when governments start telling markets what to do and how. We can't make the global economy reteat of "protect" ourselves. We need to make decisions with our competitiveness in mind.