Anyone who has driven through the Rocky Mountains and other high-altitude Western areas in recent months has seen the work of the mountain pine beetle. Pine trees that once spread gloriously over millions of acres are now either dead or dying.
The beetle, not much bigger than a bedbug, is native to the West and has always been known as a tree killer. For centuries it has killed a few diseased trees here, a patch of trees there, but never before has it caused destruction on the scale being seen today.
U.S. Forest Service scientist Jesse Logan and other forest researchers have discovered that the beetles are responding to higher average temperatures by breeding almost nonstop. They are no longer being held in balance by the lower winter temperatures that once prevailed.
The death of so many trees, which imperils the habitat of animals and threatens catastrophic forest fires, is further evidence that the planet is warming at an alarming rate. Appearing on a National Public Radio show this week, Logan said the warming is not part of a natural cycle, as many climate-change deniers insist. “It is directly our actions that are taking these forests out,” Logan said.
Scientists around the world agree with Logan: Human activity, principally the burning of fossil fuels for energy, is responsible for rapidly accelerating warming. Worldwide consequences include the melting of polar ice and weird weather, including shorter springs and extended summers that cause droughts.
That is why Congress is nearing debate on a climate-change bill that would cap the emissions of greenhouse gases from American industries and set goals for converting to non-emitting power sources such as solar and wind. Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, trap heat in the atmosphere that would otherwise escape harmlessly into space.
It is imperative to pass this bill so more and bigger changes in energy production can start immediately. Those who deny the urgency should take a drive through the West.
Well a U.S. Forest Service scientist, Jesse Logan, is their source.
A little more about him:
esse A. Logan Was a Research Entomologist for the Interior West Bark Beetle Project (RMRS RWU-4501). He retired in 2006, and moved to Emigrant, Montana in order to continue his research, and pursue life's true quest; backcountry skiing and fly fishing. Before joining the Forest Service, he held research and teaching positions at Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University and Colorado State University. His primary research interests are quantitative insect ecology, dynamical systems theory and analysis, and historical ecology. All of these interests are applied to disturbance ecology in montane and subalpine ecosystems of the Interior West. He is a Federal Cooperator / non-tenured Professor in the Department of Forest Resources at Utah State University. His principal responsibilities for RMRS RWU-4501 were to provide research leadership, conduct research on climate/weather influences on bark beetle populations, and coordinate population modeling efforts.
Education:
Ph.D. (Entomology) Washington State University, 1977
M.S. (Entomology) Colorado State University, 1969
B.S. (Biology) Colorado State University, 1967
And Phargo's source for science would be some laughable right wing institute like the heartland institute or OISM or another GOP approved political propaganda site.
I purchased a small condo in Brian Head Utah in the Dixie National Forest almost ten years ago and I visit there frequently. Early on I noticed there were hundreds of trees dead all through the forest. I asked questions of some of the old timers there and found out that it was caused by the mountain pine beetle.
The Forest Service found a small area of the forest infected with the pine beetle and decided the best way to deal with it was with some aerial spraying. As soon as they announced their plan they were sued by several environmantal groups. They went into court and the environmantal groups brought in "expert" witnesses who swore under oath that the cold weather would kill off the infestation of the beetles. They were dead wrong and the beetles spread throughout the forest and ended up destroying hundreds of thousands of trees.
The spreading has slowed down dramatically since that time as I see few signs of further infestation. I also notice that It has not gotten any warmer there as the temperature in winter is about the same as it has always been. There is less snow but that is due to the drought not global warming.
So now jlb101's personal observations count as something more than a worms eye view of what is happening to the natural world around us. Must be hard to see the forest for your tree outlook.
Couldn't this effect be more easily explained by the fact that America has stopped maintaining and managing our forests. All that dead wood laying around awaiting the next carbon releasing forest fire is a great home for bugs of all kinds.
Why is every problem caused by global warming?
Here in Sweden we have had this problem in the south since a couple of decades ago, and the beetle is surviving further north for each year that goes by. However there is positive side to all of this, as it becomes warmer, ie the winters becoming shorter, for some reason the beetle does not like it too warm, in so much as we do not spruce trees attacked anymore. Pine trees have never been attacked by this beetle.
r4akese,
The beetles are attacking live trees...
As for every problem caused by global warming you obviously favor hyperbole.
Liberal propaganda again. Will it never end?
Another skewed editorial. No information in this about fire and fire suppression. The Rocky Mountains have had historically high fuel build up due to very wide spread fire suppression. Without fire, parasitic species become prevalent. Not that rising temps or climate do not contribute, it's just that when the people at the Sun attempt to be scientific, they always have to throw in a political agenda. Is all that thinking giving you all a headache?
If you actually interviewed Dr. Logan instead of skewing her words over politics, you would not have missed this important element. Most of the scientists who are examining the effects of pine beetles actually cover ALL the details, climate change being only one of them. I vote the Sun as the most misinformed about climate change and the paper with the least ability to hide their political agenda.
Yes humans do drastically change the climate around them. Just check out how much damage the US government did to the environment when it created the National Park service.
But the Las Vegas sun really doesn't care that much about the environment. If they did they wouldn't be trumping up the Brookings Institution's bogus policy preferences for the west. Massive energy and water subsidies will only continue to fuel rapid, unsustainable growth and adversely affect our climate.
Then again, it's entirely possible that the Sun simply doesn't get it. They want to eat their cake and keep it too.
I would not give this Jesse Logan any credence at all. He works for the government and like all government dregs he parrots what his higherups tell him to say. I'm sure if he said what he really believed he would lose his job. Don't take anything this clown says seriously.
jlb, don't attack someone for who they are and who they work for. Attack the points they are making with factual counterpoints on your own.
You may not trust Jesse Logan, but you can't discredit him just because he's employed by the government.
Attacking people like this makes you no better than Rachael Maddow or Kieth Olbermann.
Cap-N-Trade is simply Bait-N-Switch, another ineptly written law that will make a few rich at the public trough but do little to reduce pollution or the real/imagined threat of global warming.
Congress would have more impact on pollution, unemployment, balance of trade and national security if it simply required all vehicles produced and sold in the US to be E85 compatible electric hybrids with an an average EPA rating of at least 35 mpg -- or pay a heavy penalty(fully reimbursable if needed for business). I know it limits choice -- but maybe it's time the gas guzzlers went the same way horse and buggies went before we get in between a rock and a hard place.
I hear that Al Gore is raising these beetles in his basement and is sowing them from his private jet.
Anyway, what's worse, these beetles eating our trees or politicians taking all of our money.
The little buggers are eating live trees and the big buggers are eating live taxpayers...
I think we have another crisis on our hands and the White House should appoint a bug czar...
From the editorial...
"Scientists around the world agree with Logan: Human activity, principally the burning of fossil fuels for energy, is responsible for rapidly accelerating warming."
...This is not true! Many scientists do not agree with Logan. First of all, the earth has stopped warming; there has been NO temp increase since 1998, while at the same time, burning of fossil fuels and CO2 emissions have increased. Any kindergarten student knows that the Sun, our star not this liberal rag, is the major factor in global warming. Manmade CO2 emissions play a very minor role especially since the major greenhouse gas is water vapor, not CO2 anyway.
Climate change has been occurring since the dawn of time and will continue to do so with or without human activity. If we did stop burning all fossil fuels, the resulting decrease in CO@ would NOT make a whit's difference in global warming/climate change.
Here's one scientist among many who do not agree with Logan...
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But -- and I cannot stress this enough -- we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."[53] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas -- albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."[54]
Hey enteaser,
I see you are still unable to understand the science behind AGW. Your first assertion that there have been no temperature increases since 1998 turns out to be, surprise!, false.
Statistics experts reject global cooling claims
By SETH BORENSTEIN (AP) -- 4 days ago
WASHINGTON -- The Earth is still warming, not cooling as some global warming skeptics are claiming, according to an analysis of global temperatures by independent statistics experts.
The review of years of temperature data was conducted at the request of The Associated Press. Talk of a cooling trend has been spreading on the Internet, fueled by some news reports, a new book and temperatures that have been cooler in a few recent years.
The statisticians, reviewing two sets of temperature data, found no trend of falling temperatures over time. And U.S. government figures show that the decade that ends in December will be the warmest in 130 years of record-keeping.
Global warming skeptics are basing their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998. They say that since then, temperatures have fallen -- thus, a cooling trend. But it's not that simple.
Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, dropped again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998.
And, widespread destruction of trees also means less carbon sequestration. It's a vicious cycle. You skeptics need to retake all of your science classes.
Hey mschaffer,
I'll see your Borenstein and raise you a couple of my own scientists...
At December's U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"
I asked myself, why would such obviously smart guy say such a ridiculous thing? But it turns out he's right.
The earth's temperature peaked in 1998. It's been falling ever since; it dropped dramatically in 2007 and got worse in 2008, when temperatures touched 1980 levels.
Meanwhile, the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center released conclusive satellite photos showing that Arctic ice is back to 1979 levels. What's more, measurements of Antarctic ice now show that its accumulation is up 5 percent since 1980.
In other words, during what was supposed to be massive global warming, the biggest chunks of ice on earth grew larger. Just as an aside, do you remember when the hole in the ozone layer was going to melt Antarctica? But don't worry, we're safe now, that was the nineties.
Dr. Kunihiko, Chancellor of Japan's Institute of Science and Technology said this: "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or the other ... every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so." Now why would a learned man say such a crazy thing?
This is where the looney left gets lost. Their mantra is atmospheric CO2 levels are escalating and this is unquestionably causing earth's temperature rise. But ask yourself -- if global temperatures are experiencing the biggest sustained drop in decades, while CO2 levels continue to rise -- how can it be true?
Ironically, in spite of being shown false, we must now pray for it. Because a massive study, just released by the Russian Government, contains overwhelming evidence that earth is on the verge of another Ice Age.
Based on core samples from Russia's Vostok Station in Antarctica, we now know earth's atmosphere and temperature for the last 420,000 years. This evidence suggests that the 12,000 years of warmth we call the Holocene period is over.
Apparently, we're headed into an ice age of about 100,000 years -- give or take. As for CO2 levels, core samples show conclusively they follow the earth's temperature rise, not lead it.
It turns out CO2 fluctuations follow the change in sea temperature. As water temperatures rise, oceans release additional dissolved CO2 -- like opening a warm brewsky.
To think, early last year, liberals suggested we spend 45 trillion dollars and give up five million jobs to fix global warming. But there is good news: now that we don't have to spend any of that money, we can give it all to the banks.
mschaffer needs to read this...
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
An Expensive Urban Legend
October 24th, 2009
...and a pertinent excerpt from the article...
"In the case of global warming, the "putatively trustworthy sources" would be the consensus of the world's scientists. The scientific consensus, after all, says that global warming is"is what? Is happening? Is severe? Is manmade? Is going to burn the Earth up if we do not act? It turns out that those who claim consensus either do not explicitly state what that consensus is about, or they make up something that supports their preconceived notions.
If the consensus is that the presence of humans on Earth has some influence on the climate system, then I would have to even include myself in that consensus. After all, the same thing can be said of the presence of trees on Earth, and hopefully we have at least the same rights as trees do. But too often the consensus is some vague, fill-in-the-blank, implied assumption where the definition of "climate change" includes the phrase "humans are evil".
It is a peculiar development that scientific truth is now decided through voting. A relatively recent survey of climate scientists who do climate research found that 97.4% agreed that humans have a "significant" effect on climate. But the way the survey question was phrased borders on meaninglessness. To a scientist, "significant" often means non-zero. The survey results would have been quite different if the question was, "Do you believe that natural cycles in the climate system have been sufficiently researched to exclude them as a potential cause of most of our recent warming?"
And it is also a good bet that 100% of those scientists surveyed were funded by the government only after they submitted research proposals which implicitly or explicitly stated they believed in anthropogenic global warming to begin with. If you submit a research proposal to look for alternative explanations for global warming (say, natural climate cycles), it is virtually guaranteed you will not get funded. Is it any wonder that scientists who are required to accept the current scientific orthodoxy in order to receive continued funding, then later agree with that orthodoxy when surveyed? Well, duh."
Warming killing trees? now yer killing me Larry!
I'll start worrying about the global warming of tree's as soon as the obama's do!
I would suggest that any readers ignore enteaser as it doesn't understand the science. All it's points and experts have been thoroughly discredited and have no credibility in the science literature. The proper starting point for anyone looking to understand this serious problem is your local college or university geology, physics, or chemistry department. There are many subtleties to this issue that escape enteaser's intellectual grasp because of some (apparent) idealogical bent.
For a good primer on the subject please look here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
Enteaser won't do this but will deride this link because to read and understand the credible sources linked to from Real Climate would require a level of mea culpa simply beyond its ability to face.
For more background on why Dr. Spencer is untrustworthy see here:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?tit...
I will respond to third party questions but it is a waste of my time to respond beyond this post to enteaser.
LarryVegas - LOL - Thanks
So, if we are so worried about carbon emissions, why are we still using carbon based fuel? It seems the answer is to stop debating whether the problem exists and start burning Hydrogen instead.
I seem to remember basic chemistry class in High School where burning Hydrogen produced only H2O and in the same class it was explained how CO2 is produced by inefficient burning of fossil fuel. The main by product of burning fossil fuel was H2O.
It's been a while though, perhaps all that has changed through Gubment funded research.
If you are worried about global cooling set off a couple of H bombs above the surface and over the "Dead Zones" in the middle of the Pacific. Warm the planet and incinerate the garbage at the same time. ;)
LOL mschaffer,
Now I'm an "it"...LOL...I admit that I am so intelligent that it appears that I must be some sort of computer, but I can assure you that I am a person and thus your use of the impersonal pronoun is just as wrong as your blind acceptance of the man-made global warming propaganda.
By the way, any third party can tell from reading Dr Spencer's article that he certainly raises some valid questions about man-made global warming, whether he is "trustworthy" or not. Why do you have to "trust" someone to open your mind and evaluate a question? That is what the liberal left wing wants, blind acceptance of their man-made global warming without any thought or dissent. They have found their man in mschaffer.
For the open minded readers here...this is from Dr. Roy Spencer's website...
About Dr. Roy Spencer
Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA's Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer's work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.
Dr. Spencer's research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.
Dr. Spencer's first popular book on global warming, Climate Confusion (Encounter Books), is now available at Amazon.com and BarnesAndNoble.com.
enteaser...your political axe grinding obscures any valid points you
might be trying to make to the "open minded" among us.
"...the liberal left wing wants blind acceptance.." etc.
Thus, one assumes that your sources and quotes are simply right wing
scientists and/or sympathizers, and one might just as well reply to
your posts by quoting and linking to sources and scientists who
espouse global warming (who are far more numerous, world wide,
by the way) rather than seriously consider your arguments.
Get rid of the Rush rhetoric and you might be taken seriously.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2...
Also.
These bugs are really starting to bug me. Are they edible?
The more I read about the buggers, the less I think outbreaks are due to global warming. For freezing temperatures to affect a large number of larvae during the middle of winter, temperatures of at least 30 degrees below zero (Fahrenheit) must be sustained for at least five days.
The Mountain pine beetle (MPB), Dendroctonus ponderosae, is native to the forests of western North America.
So, don't kill too many of the buggers or they will be put on the endangered species list...
Put the pine beetle in at City center and bring it down to size LOL
i believe we are destroying this planet. you have polar bears swimming miles for food they are not built for that. it make me sick you hear this crap from fox news and some of the grand old PRICKS (gop) saying there is no global warming. these idiot worrying about the budget we leaving to your grand kid who gives a crap about the grandkid they should worrying about our earth. you know these car company can make a 50 plus mph car without hybrid
perry,It's called english my man. Next time have your anchor baby help you, What's next?
This is what MJB's link says:
"Survey: Scientists agree human-induced global warming is real
While the harsh winter pounding many areas of North America and Europe seemingly contradicts the fact that global warming continues unabated, a new survey finds consensus among scientists about the reality of climate change and its likely cause.
A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.
The findings appear today in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.
In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.
Continued below
Continued.
"Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. The nine-question survey was short, taking just a few minutes to complete.
Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.
"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," he said. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."
He was not surprised, however, by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.
"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman conclude that "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes." The challenge now, they write, is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."
Also see here for a complete debunking of Dr. Spencer:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
"These days, when global warming inactivists need to trot out somebody with some semblance of scientific credentials (from the dwindling supply who have made themselves available for such purposes), it seems that they increasingly turn to Roy Spencer, a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama. Roy does have a handful of peer-reviewed publications, some of which have quite decent and interesting results in them. However, the thing you have to understand is that what he gets through peer-review is far less threatening to the mainstream picture of anthropogenic global warming than you'd think from the spin he puts on it in press releases, presentations and the blogosphere. His recent guest article on Pielke Sr's site is a case in point, and provides the fodder for our discussion today.
Actually, Roy has been pretty busy dishing out the confusion recently. Future posts will take a look at his mass market book on climate change, entitled Climate Confusion, published last month, and his article in National Review. We'll also dig into some of his peer reviewed work, notably the recent paper by Spencer and Braswell on climate sensitivity, and his paper on tropical clouds which is widely misquoted as supporting Lindzen's IRIS conjecture regarding stabilizing cloud feedback. But on to today's cooking lesson." Continued by clicking on the link.
mschaffer, you libs are caught in a conundrum; You can't spray the trees due to all your protesting and you can't prove your theory without spraying.
The weather in British Columbia hasn't turned warmer and the beetle is destroying more trees there than here.
I know, I am a hateful, free thinking person. Ooops, I forgot to use your favorite word, I am also an idiot.
Well, at least I am not clueless.
"Survey: Democrats agree that global warming is real and caused by George Bush.
Perry writes...
"i believe we are destroying this planet. DESTROYING.. REALLY?
"you have polar bears swimming miles for food they are not built for that." WHY ARE THERE SO MANY AND WHERE ARE THEY SWIMMING TO?
"it make me sick you hear this crap from fox news and some of the grand old PRICKS (gop) saying there is no global warming." THEY ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES WHO SAY THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING...
"these idiot worrying about the budget we leaving to your grand kid who gives a crap about the grandkid" OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T...
"they should worrying about our earth." IT DOES A LOT OF GOOD TO WORRY ABOUT THE EARTH, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU ARE HUNGRY...
"you know these car company can make a 50 plus mph car without hybrid" IF YOU ARE THAT WORRIED ABOUT DESTROYING THE EARTH, RIDE A BICYCLE...
LarryVegas writes responding to Perry, "WHY ARE THERE SO MANY (polar bears) AND WHERE ARE THEY SWIMMING TO?"
LarryVegas, you need to watch something other than Fox News for a change. No, I'm not talking CNN or MSNBC. I'm talking about a nature program on one of the many non-news channels. You sure like to poke fun a polar bears from seeing a lot of your past postings. Polar bears need sea ice to travel around and find their most valued food source- seals. As the ice continues to disappear (which it is, but you won't believe the cause), polar bears are finding themselves swimming to find food. Thus, they are ending up drowning more often. Thus, there population is in danger. Does this little bit of simple scientific explanation help you in your understanding of plight of polar bears? Not that I would expect you to care about anything "natural" in this world since you are a Republican in Independent's clothing.
djeco...
Marlin Perkins had a segment on polar bears a while back that I watched and I was impressed how much the polar bears had adapted to their ever changing living conditions.
According to published reports, the polar bear population is approximately 25,000 today while in 1950 it was estimated at around 5,000.
The NCPA states: "Are human activities causing a warming in the Arctic, affecting the sea ice extent, longevity and thickness? Contradictory data exists. What seems clear is that polar bears have survived for thousands of years, including both colder and warmer periods. There may be threats to the future survival of the polar bear, but global warming is not primary among them."
And you my friend are an Al Gore in a polar bear skin trying to scare people with your promises of doom and gloom...
What "published reports" are these? I'd like to read them if they exist. Who are they coming from? Exxon? Fox News? Probably flawed studies that use incidental reporting rather than real science. More people are in the arctic today versus 1950 and the polar bear habitat is shrinking, thus, more sightings of polar bears are occurring. Just like with any wild animal, sightings will increase as we encroach on their habitat. Habitats are shrinking thus forcing more animals into contact with people.
The NCPA states: "Interestingly, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), an international organization that has worked for 50 years to protect endangered species, has also written on the threats posed to polar bears from global warming. However, their own research seems to undermine their fears. According to the WWF, about 20 distinct polar bear populations exist, accounting for approximately 22,000 polar bears worldwide. As the figure shows, population patterns do not show a temperature-linked decline:"
Now don't get me wrong there djeco. I like polar bears just as much as the next guy, but I think that there's a lot of hype out there about global warming being fanned by Al Gore and others who may have something to gain by using scare tactics to push their agendas.
Like a wise man once said: "Never trust a prophet who is out to make a profit."
if i ever need any scientific advice i know where to go, right here in the lv sun. what do you guys do full time, work at the race track?
How did you guess, dipstick?
I work at the race track cleaning out the horse stables. That's why I hang around here with you guys...
What LarryVegas forgot to mention is that the main reason for rebounding polar bear populations is more complicated than reading faux news would have you believe. For the complete story look here and ignore the misinformed LarryVegas:
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/a...
Actually mschaffer, I had already been to your referred site, but did not find much of interest and I believe that have a bias...
And while you are there...
Join Polar Bears International.
"Members contributing $75 or more receive a print subscription to our fun and informative quarterly newsletter."
Watching FOX News had taught me to take a fair and balanced view of "reported facts" and then make my own opinion...
mschaffer, Just finished reading your link and I have to admit that your links are still hogwash speckled with drivel.
The article refers to overhunting and a rebound and then discusses pack ice. Hmmm, that would be okay if they looked at the big picture. They then go on and couch their estimates based on two groups. Two groups!! If I were to extrapolate those findings into reality I would come up with this; All enviro-leftist-libs are crazy and have an agenda bigger than my datebook. This of course is solely based on your posts.
Sea ice isn't fresh water and takes on many forms and I know this is nuts, but it can refreeeze, oh yeah, cool stuff. BTW, not one Island is underwater like the great mental midget AlGore predicted. If only he stopped flying that plane or better yet, stopped with the carbon neutral garbage maybe things would get better.
Back on point - Climate change is real, just not the climate change that makes people rich while imploding an already weak economy.
Remember it is about Agenda's. Mine is simple, common sense, yours, not so much.
and when all arguments for global warming are debunked, just remember, "global warming is responsible for global cooling". That is the next lie to come from the left.
Any readers can decide whether LarryVegas with an unknown background and uncertain identity should be believed over these people:
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/b...
Notice the scientists involved, the ethical construction of this organization, and the non-sequitur presented by LarryVegas to weakly attack the credibility of this organization.
If there are no questions by other than the three misanthropes above I am done.