 |
| Iceberg formed by waves, not “global warming™.” |
“The Bush administration is violating the law, and that is why we’re here today,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, opening the hearing. “These species do not have an indefinite time to be saved. . . . Time is running out for the polar bear, and time has run out for this decision.”
Here’s the thing on this one: the polar bears are not declining in population. The action needs to be taken because they might drop in population because of global warming (try to remain calm.)
One of the most controversial aspects of the pending decision is that it would be largely based not on current populations but on estimates of the threat posed by predicted shrinkage of Arctic sea ice, on which the animals rely to hunt their prey.
Not an actual threat, but “estimates of the threat.”
Before we go any farther, I want to talk about the current polar bear population. Did you know there are five times as many polar bears today than there were 30 years ago? It’s true. From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:
Fortunately, both for policy and the polar bears, the plight of this one population does not reflect the population trend as a whole. Indeed, since the 1970s — all while the world was warming – polar bear numbers increased dramatically from around 5,000 to as many as 25,000 today (higher than at anytime in the 20th century). And historically, polar bears have thrived in temperatures even warmer than at present – during the medieval warm period 1000 years ago and during the Holocene Climate Optimum between 5,000 and 9,000 years ago.
So what, right? That was then and this is now. But, according to statistics, there is no decline in polar bear population. If anything, the population is growing:
According to the February 7, 2005 Edinburgh Scotsman ( http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=143012005), “The world’s polar bear population is on the increase despite global warming.
“According to new research,” the Scotsman reports, “the numbers of the giant predator have grown by between 15 and 25 per cent over the last decade.
“We’re seeing an increase in bears that’s really unprecedented, and in places where we’re seeing a decrease in the population it’s from hunting, not from climate change,” Canadian polar bear expert Mitch Taylor told the Scotsman.
The March 9, 2007 London Telegraph confirmed the ongoing polar bear population explosion ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/09/wpolar09.xml). “A survey of the animals’ numbers in Canada’s eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining,” the Telegraph reports.
“In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today,” added the Telegraph.
The supposed danger is manifested in the threat of Arctic ice melting, and the bears having to swim miles from shore in search of food. But the Arctic ice is back, and thicker than before:
Satellite images are showing that the cold spell is helping the sea ice expand in coverage by about 2 million square kilometres, compared to the average winter coverage in the previous three years.
…
“Clearly, we’re seeing the ice coverage rebound back to more near normal coverage for this time of year,” said Gilles Langis, a senior ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa.
The cold is also making the ice thicker in some areas, compared to recorded thicknesses last year, Lagnis added.
“The ice is about 10 to 20 centimetres thicker than last year, so that’s a significant increase,” he said.
So why focus on polar bears if they are not threatened?
Polar bears are cute. Remember Knut? When you don’t have facts on your side, turn to emotion. People worry about those cuddly little fellas, so we must do something.
Right? Think of the poor baby polar bears!
This is an appeal to your pity. It certainly isn’t based on facts. Look at this article from Think Progress on the photograph used above. This photo has been used over and over again to show the danger polar bears face from global warming. Think Progress says this ” isn’t ‘nature.’ It’s human-induced global warming.”
Sorry kids, but this is nature:
Ann Althouse calls attention to an image of Polar Bears making the rounds, again – it was allegedly taken by Dan Crosbie in 2004 and is currently number one on Yahoo’s photo list. The image I have up at right also involves Dan Crosbie from the same period in 2004 during a scientific trip during which they carried rifles to run off polar bears while planting equipment in the ice – ice that was much thicker than they expected it to be. (pertinent excerpted text at bottom)
But what’s this? Scroll down and you’ll see the same picture was first published with a credit to another person on the trip and the caption made it clear what was really going on.
Mother polar bear and cub on interesting ice sculpture carved by waves. photo © Amanda Byrd.
Wow! I didn’t know Global Warming caused …. waves, too!
Our Democrat led Congress is spending your tax dollars to save polar bears based on propaganda. They count on you being blind to the other side of the story. They want you to see Knut and the other polar bears, feel bad, and demand something be done. Because then when they take more and more control of your life, they can lay the blame at your feet.
It helps to know the whole story.
