Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

For the longest time I've been wondering if we can transport polar bears to Antarctica, since their current habitat is literally melting under their feet >

Blasphemy to liberals only, Foxfyre. By the way, perhaps the Junk Science list should also list the polar bear scare? Is there any credible proof anywhere that the polar bear population is in danger? I doubt it.

Remember former interior secretary Gale Norton? She soon will be general counsel for a Royal Dutch Shell division in Denver that's focusing on oil shale exploration in the Rockies. House Democrats plan to investigate Norton's former agency, especially for its cozy relationship with the oil and gas industry.

Enviros naturally criticized Norton's hiring, with one even saying the move would "undermine" Shell's efforts to project an "image as a good environmental steward." Predictably, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said Shell's move was just another example of the "hand-in-glove relationship between Big Oil and the Bush administration's top Interior officials."

Well, maybe Greenpeace wasn't hiring.

High Seas wrote:

For the longest time I've been wondering if we can transport polar bears to Antarctica, since their current habitat is literally melting under their feet >

Don't swallow the polar bear scare, High Seas.

High Seas wrote:

For the longest time I've been wondering if we can transport polar bears to Antarctica, since their current habitat is literally melting under their feet >

Don't swallow the polar bear scare, High Seas.

High Seas, thats all fine. However, there is conflicting information, probably depending on where you are talking about. Polar bears are adaptable, and may move to areas that evolve to be more suitable. So far, I haven't seen any proof the species is suffering great declines. My impression is that it is more a fear than a reality so far. If you have a good link that shows definite proof to the contrary, I would be glad to see it and retract what I said.

My observation of the Fish & Wildlife Service does not cause me to believe everything they do is entirely justified.

So far, I haven't seen any proof the species is suffering great declines. My impression is that it is more a fear than a reality so far.

For the 2001-06 period, the best fitting capture-recapture model provided estimates of total apparent survival of 0.43 for cubs of the year (COYs), and 0.92 for all polar bears older than COYs. Because the survival rates for older polar bears included multiple sex and age strata, they could not be compared to previous estimates. Survival rates for COYs, however, were significantly lower than estimates derived in earlier studies (P = 0.03). The lower survival of COYs was corroborated by a comparison of the number of COYs per adult female for periods before (1967-89) and after (1990-2006) the winter of 1989-90, when warming temperatures and altered atmospheric circulation caused an abrupt change in sea ice conditions in the Arctic basin. In the latter period, there were significantly more COYs per adult female in the spring (P = 0.02), and significantly fewer COYs per adult female in the autumn (P < 0.001). Apparently, cub production was higher in the latter period, but fewer cubs survived beyond the first 6 months of life. Parallel with declining survival, skull measurements suggested that COYs captured from 1990 to 2006 were smaller than those captured before 1990. Similarly, both skull measurements and body weights suggested that adult males captured from 1990 to 2006 were smaller than those captured before 1990. The smaller stature of males was especially notable because it corresponded with a higher mean age of adult males. Male polar bears continue to grow into their teens, and if adequately nourished, the older males captured in the latter period should have been larger than those captured earlier. In western Hudson Bay, Canada, a significant decline in population size was preceded by observed declines in cub survival and physical stature. The evidence of declining recruitment and body size reported here, therefore, suggests vigilance regarding the future of polar bears in the SBS region.

as far as the polar bears are concerned , perhaps we could kill and stuff some of them for a museum exhibit .
as someone posted , it's too early to worry about their demise - it's a lot cheaper to talk about conservation once they have disappeared .

and while i'm at it , why worry about the human population . since the human population has been growing quite vigorously for a very long time , i suggest a lot of money could be saved discontinuing preventative health measures , such as inocculation against communicable diseases .
the human population increased even in the dark and middle ages when such preventative measures were not available .
perhaps it would allow population growth to slow down and would therefor prevent an early exhaustion of natural resources .
the surviving humans would likely also be much stronger in fighting of diseases since they might develop natural resistance to some diseases .

anyone buying into that ?

hbg

So you consider the U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY to be fake, junkscience or just a fear, okie (and High Seas)?

Walter Hinteler wrote:

So you consider the U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY to be fake, junkscience or just a fear, okie (and High Seas)?

You said it, not me, Walter. What does the USGS have to do with polar bears? Just wondering. Maybe they do, but I am not aware that polar bears are their field of responsibility.

What does the USGS have to do with polar bears? Just wondering. Maybe they do, but I am not aware that polar bears are their field of responsibility.

Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain Terrestrial Wildlife Research Summaries

Section 8: Polar Bears

Subsections:
Movements and Population Dynamics of Polar Bears
Reproductive Significance of Maternity Denning on Land
References

By: Steven C. Amstrup

okie wrote :
"You said it, not me, Walter. What does the USGS have to do with polar bears? Just wondering. Maybe they do, but I am not aware that polar bears are their field of responsibility. "

i might agree that the USGS does not have responsibility for polar bears ,
but i do think that the human race has FULL responsibility for the survival and well-being of the polar bears .
hbg

WASHINGTON (AP)

Group: ExxonMobil Paid to Mislead Public

-- ExxonMobil Corp. gave $16 million to 43 ideological groups between 1998 and 2005 in a coordinated effort to mislead the public by discrediting the science behind global warming, the Union of Concerned Scientists asserted Wednesday.

The report by the science-based nonprofit advocacy group mirrors similar claims by Britain's leading scientific academy. Last September, The Royal Society wrote the oil company asking it to halt support for groups that ''misrepresented the science of climate change.''