Science and Society

Listing the polar bears as threatened was indeed a good move for our government - however, ignoring the real reasons WHY they are in danger has not been prevented, or even properly researched. Labelling the polar bear as threatened is one thing, but alleviating the thing that is threatening them is the key. Why am I not at all surprised this idiocy is happening on Bush's watch? Only in America can this sort of nonsense happen! Sad country we live in !

As for the polar bears. Well, I'm on a fencepost. I don't think they're loss of habitat should be used for political gain. However, if it is discussed, and protections put in place, that could help us shy away from crapping on the planet like we've been doing, I'm all for it.

None of this will matter when the Ice Age begins. The Global Warming police will be reviled for not letting us warm the planet even more. When Green becomes White we will be drilling anywhere and everywhere to find energy for survival. That's what I read on the all-powerful, all-knowing Internet. ;-)

Even if man-made global warming were real, we could do everything the alarmists want and the change would be negligible if at all. In many instances adopting more 'green' policies end up doing more harm than good. I can't wait for 10 or 20 years down the road when the whole global warming scare will be seen for the joke that it is. The agenda-driven media, the scientific community and the politicians will lose all credibility.

squeenter squillo -

I'll take that bet.

Mrs. Tiggywinkle, you can't blame America this time.

We truly ARE doing something about the crisis of the poor polar bears. We DID blame ourselves whether we are at fault or not and Congress voted to convert much of the world's food crop to ethanol... NOT to relieve us from the gas shortage but to combat global warming and save the poor polar bears.

As a result, not a single polar bear was saved, and we now have a major food crisis right now.

jock59801, why don't you face facts. People are NOT united on this issue. MANY doubt your conclusions. Even the scientists themselves are badly divided.

A lot of what squeenter squillo predicted is already coming true.

ivan234-

The scientists are not "badly divided." While you can always find scientists on either side of ANY issue, a ratio of something like 100 to 1 is hardly a sign of "division."

I know the facts fairly well, thank you.

Todd,

First, the ice returns in the winter, as Ive told you, you need to measure after the summer heat has a chance to melt it and then compare from year to year. You can't say measure half-way through a cycle and quit while you are ahead. heh.

Secondly, your Newsweek story has no quotes supporting the premise. Not one making a direct prediction of imminent cooling. Also, in a NYT article from the same year the NAS makes clear they dont have the data to say one way or the other and that global warming from CO2 is also possible. Today, after years of data collection, the NAS believes global warming is happening.

I still don't understand why you claim to believe the evidence for global warming and yet continually spam anti-warming material. It totally baffles me.

I'm sure there must be some reasoned arguments against man made global warming but you arent making them.

bubba....you never did explain why the Antarctic sea ice coverage is a third larger in extent than is normal?

A harsh winter? Global warming doesnt rule out cycles within cycles. You need to check long term patterns. And the summer melt will need to be examined as well. It all takes time and analysis, not tabloid spin.

Did you manage to find a way to get glaciers all over the world to melt with psychic energy from kilimanjaro yet? Or are you going to misrepresent your support for global warming again?

<<<

Does that mean what I think it does? That as a conservative you won't accept a report on what the National Academy of Sciences says if the NYT reported it back in 75? But don't conservatives dislike Newsweek as well?

Do you have to vet the scientists you listen to by political affiliation as well? Or do you just assume that anyone who disagrees with you is an evil lib?

It's sort of like Kremlin politics I suppose. Who is in, who is out, that sort of thing.

>>>The NYT.....!!!! Bahhahhaaahhaa! (belly laugh)>>

That being quote referenced.

s

bubba....and the answer about why Antarctic ice is so much larger in extent than is normal is?

The debate is not over polar bears, the north pole, the ice caps, global warming. The debate is over if we are a people, as a nation, as a world, are willing to take steps to leave this planet in a better condition then the day we were born. Everyone from both sides agrees that the planet is precious and we want it to protect and keep it beautiful. So you need to ask yourself is putting all the CO2 in the Atmsph good? No. Everyone knows it isnt good, just like everyone knows smoking is not good for you.. It "could lead to global warming" and "may cause the ice caps to melt" It may or may not happen, but if we could do something to prevent it then why wouldnt we?

Some people want every american to takethe little steps to protect the planet (dont drive the SUVs, turn the lights off, dont run your ac, There are some people that think we should de-evolve and not have any cars, factories, anything.

I personally want to drive a big SUV, and turn my lights on, run the ac all day long. does that make me a bad person? No. not anymore then the tree huggers. But I do want to protect the planet.

So why dont we make a change as a people? The technology for zero emission cars is right around the corner. It will be here in the next 10 - 15 years. (Hydrogen and electric). But we need to quit choking off business and allow nuclear, solar, and wind plants to be built. Loosen the regulations, lower the tax burden, offer incentives, encourage mankind to build, ZERO Emmissions. We could save the polar bears, save the ice, save the devastating heat wave, or cold wave from coming. All of these may be true, or none of them, but either way we are leaving the plant cleaner then when we started. But all we do it fight about polar bears. WE are missing the big picture!!!

Hydrogen = zero emission cars (Tech is coming soon). Hydrogen = lots to electricity to produce. Build a nuclear plant, solar plant, wind plant next to a hydrogen plant. no emissions from cars, no emissions from power plants, no depending on foreign oil

Thanks; I just get so frustrated with the main stream media and the arguing about frivoulous points. How can we get to zero emissions and still live in the life style everyone is used to? Innovate. encourage the young engineers in this country. Set goals of reduced emissions, set a plan to get to zero emissions, Build a hydrogen station on every corner, design new technology, make hydrogen cars more powerful, dependable.

Forget the bio-diesels, forget the ethonal, they still give off emissions.

brian.....hydrogen requires electrical power to separate the h2 from water. Nuclear would be a great way to go about that. If you use current coal technology to generate power you get more greenhouse gas vs. the gasoline you would otherwise have burned driving your car. In the near term, gas/electric hybrids are the best choice I imagine.

Jock

The cooling reported comes from an article in Nature that is subject to interpretation. One interpretation is cooling to 2020, another is stability for that period.

Over at Skeptical Science the current blog: "April update on global cooling 2008" is addressing this issue. What I found more telling was the blog on the PDO and where that led to.

There was also a good blog on animal adaptation and a discussion on the polar bear issue in it's comments.

brian

A goal of zero emissions is simply unrealistic IF you consider CO2 as one of those emissions (do you plan to have every living thing stop breathing?) but the actual "bad" emissions are being tackled by new techs already. Unfortunately the universe has not been cooperating with the planet very well lately.

Throughout SSC22 and 23 the sun became increasingly hotter and broke all records for flare activity. Alignments of 1975-76 and two subsequent partial alignments have created greater than normal tidal flows in the sun and increased volcanic activity on the earth (not erupting volcanos but more activity below the crust, causing melting in Greenland/Artic and extreme El Ninos. None of this was even thought of back in 1991 with the first IPCC report. Thank the skeptics for their research.

Quietman,

The cooling cut and paste earlier in this thread was from the 1970s, not the proposed cycle within a cycle of today. It's a red herring that tries to link speculation in the popular media of the 70s with the widespread scientific support for global warming today. Asfaik most skeptics today agree its happening, they are arguing over causes.