New Endangered Species - Page 3

cloneu · 05-14-2008, 11:38 PM

Originally Posted by cmoneyr

Sure, in Alaska. But how many do you see in the United States? Ha.

Alaksa is still part of the United States isn't it?

But to answer your question I think I saw some in the Denver zoo once. So they must be ok in some parts.

Phaedrus · 05-15-2008, 12:11 AM

Originally Posted by Bewilderme

Do you think that the number of Polar Bears before European contact was 8,000-10,000? The reason that the legislation was passed to protect the Polar Bear in 1973 was because it had been hunted down to such a low population level. Now that the polar ice is melting, they are starving because of a loss of critical hunting habitat.

This phenomenon IS happening, whether or not we humans are having all that much to do with it. However, there are very few things on this planet that our actions do not have a large effect upon. This planet is all we have; it needs to be respected, no matter what.

How can Polar Bears be "starving" and "dying" if their population numbers are staying the same? (And have for a few decades, now.)

I'm curious how that works....

CYKOFAN · 05-15-2008, 01:00 PM

It's amazing how many "experts" on this board know more than the scientists who are experts in their fields of study. I think I'll trust the vast majority of scientists, including the experts at NASA, when it comes to the global warming issue, as well as whether or not the polar bears are endangered.

Cyclonepride · 05-15-2008, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Clone9

This is ridiculous.

Ah yes, another member of my fan club.

That was a joke.

Kind of.

I mean, those things are cool and really cute

, I'd go hug one right now if it wouldn't eat me

,but we really need to keep a Darwinistic perspective, do we not?

joefrog · 05-15-2008, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by CYKOFAN

It's amazing how many "experts" on this board know more than the scientists who are experts in their fields of study. I think I'll trust the vast majority of scientists, including the experts at NASA, when it comes to the global warming issue, as well as whether or not the polar bears are endangered.

Oh yes. And of course none of them have any stake in the matter. If there is not global warming, we don't need more money to study it, but if we say there is, voila! Another problem, and it threatens us all, give us more of your money so we can study the problem and do nothing about it.

Fact: The Earth has heated and cooled drastically on its own without any influence of humans. That is a fact. Guess what? It will continue to do so.

Anyone else also notice that the phrase "climate change" is slowly replacing "global warming". It is subtle, but watch for yourselves. The propaganda campaign is underway. I believe there is a recent report that over the last 10 years, worldwide temperatures have not changed measureably, hence the change.

People still have not answered, raise your hand if you want $5 a gallon gas. It will happen sooner than people think, especially with people refusing to investigate things on their own. Don't worry though, we can still blame the oil companies.

Clone9 · 05-15-2008, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

The polar bear population has increased over the last 50 years and is relatively stable today.

Historically, polar bears have thrived in temperatures far warmer than at present -- during the medieval warm period 1,000 years ago and during the Holocene Climate Optimum between 5,000 and 9,000 years ago.

I thought nobody was allowed to believe what the data from the past? These scientists clearly have an agenda!

If I can't see it, then I don't believe it!

CYKOFAN · 05-15-2008, 02:33 PM

joefrog- If big oil is going to continue to make the big bucks, they have to discredit the greenhouse gas theory so who has more at stake in this than them? And what monetary stake does NASA have in this? Their top climatologist is a conservative republican and former skeptic, but now says the scientific evidence is overwhelming and he believes global warming is being caused by over 100 years of sending billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Common sense also tells us that that's not good and will eventually lead to problems. And regarding $5 gas, that will happen if the oil industry can get away with it. Oh, I forgot it's a supply and demand issue. We're in such short supply that OPEC is cutting production and Bush wants to up the billions of barrells going into the stragetic oil reserve. Sounds like you've bought the oil pitch hook, line and sinker. I think I'll listen to the scientists and experts who's main stake in this is the future of the planet for their kids, not how many extra billions they can make in profits.

Cyclonepride · 05-15-2008, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Clone9

I thought nobody was allowed to believe what the data from the past? These scientists clearly have an agenda!

If I can't see it, then I don't believe it!

It was all cool when scientists were those weird, unshaven old dudes who would pick up a bone that looked roughly like a cross between a rock and bird poop, and then come up with an elaborate story about what the critter ate and how he lived millions of years ago.

Now, they're saying that we need to alter our economy, our standard of living and our way of life to avoid something that may be unavoidable.

Clone9 · 05-15-2008, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Cyclonepride

It was all cool when scientists were those weird, unshaven old dudes who would pick up a bone that looked roughly like a cross between a rock and bird poop, and then come up with an elaborate story about what the critter ate and how he lived millions of years ago.

Now, they're saying that we need to alter our economy, our standard of living and our way of life to avoid something that may be unavoidable.

So it was one thing when you didn't care, but when it starts to affect you then all of a sudden you don't believe it. I think this pretty much sums it up.

I wish I could believe only what is convenient.

Cyclonepride · 05-15-2008, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Clone9

So it was one thing when you didn't care, but when it starts to affect you then all of a sudden you don't believe it. I think this pretty much sums it up.

I wish I could believe only what is convenient.

No, it's one thing when they ask us to believe empirical and anecdotal evidence that's extrapolated into a story, and quite another when we are asked to change our way of life for it. There are so many compelling reasons to save the environment, so why is it thought necessary to create doomsday scenarios to get action? Other than because carbon credits= big business and big money?

1100011CS · 05-15-2008, 03:02 PM

Regardless of whether you believe global warming (or climate change) is a result of our misuse of the earth's natural resources or a natural phenomenon, doesn't it just make sense to treat the environment better? And if $5 a gallon gas reduces our dependency on foreign oil, I am willing to adjust my lifestyle accordingly.

CloneAggie · 05-15-2008, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by Cyclonepride

No, it's one thing when they ask us to believe empirical and anecdotal evidence that's extrapolated into a story, and quite another when we are asked to change our way of life for it. There are so many compelling reasons to save the environment, so why is it thought necessary to create doomsday scenarios to get action? Other than because carbon credits= big business and big money?

I'm confused ... isn't this exactly what the global warming/climate change proponents/scientists are doing?

Cyclonepride · 05-15-2008, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by CloneAggie

I'm confused ... isn't this exactly what the global warming/climate change proponents/scientists are doing?

Yes, in both cases. In one, they are asking us to believe a story for mostly entertainment value, in the other they are asking us to believe it and spend trillions.

herbicide · 05-15-2008, 03:21 PM

The hard reality of this is no one really knows the true cause and effect of mankind's activities in relation to the climate.

Simply put, there are valid arguments and data for, just as there are valid arguments and data against.

Pro warmers often ignore the effect of sunspots, etc, and the anti global warming side often ignores the fact that CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and the amounts in the air are very high. IMO the single biggest problem with all of this is the cause and effect issue-> Does CO2 cause increased warming, or does warming cause increased CO2? (The answer is yes to both questions)

I have "followed" this topic for years, and I personally am undecided on the topic. Too many unknowns and conflicting information.

With all that said, IMO we should do what we reasonably can to reduce these emissions.

joefrog · 05-15-2008, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by herbicide

The hard reality of this is no one really knows the true cause and effect of mankind's activities in relation to the climate.

Simply put, there are valid arguments and data for, just as there are valid arguments and data against.

Pro warmers often ignore the effect of sunspots, etc, and the anti global warming side often ignores the fact that CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and the amounts in the air are very high. IMO the single biggest problem with all of this is the cause and effect issue-> Does CO2 cause increased warming, or does warming cause increased CO2? (The answer is yes to both questions)

I have "followed" this topic for years, and I personally am undecided on the topic. Too many unknowns and conflicting information.

With all that said, IMO we should do what we reasonably can to reduce these emissions.

Finally a pretty reasonable person. My only question is who decides what is reasonable? Bureaucrats? Scientists? Al Gore, who is deeply involved in "carbon offset" companies. I am old enough to know I scam when I see one. One of the oldest tricks is to get a sympathetic subject that everybody can agree on, and then use it to make people feel bad. Guilt gets reaction. Of course we all want the cleanest environment possible. I also am not going to feel bad for my lifestyle, not one bit. Sorry.

Why does everybody forget the Earth has been much hotter and colder then now on its own? Can everybody at least agree on that? Who has the authority to determine what exactly is the best temperature for the planet? Maybe the heating and cooling of the planet over time is a good and natural thing? Seems to have worked pretty good so far.