The AFP is reporting that "US officials defended plans for oil drilling in the Chukchi Sea off northwestern Alaska, telling lawmakers that it would not harm polar bears, already threatened by global warming."
Of course, they aren’t the only ones spreading lies. Almost any publication you pick up today will tell you that polar bear populations are declining because of global warming. It all started with Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.” Let me start by saying that anytime someone has to use the word “truth” in the title of their story, it is usually a lie. Al Gore states in his movie that "a new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find ice." However, my smart readers already know that that is a lie.
I mean, you guys didn’t forget the judge who already discredited Al Gore when he learned that really only four polar bears drowned, and their deaths were the result of a storm. I mean really? Do you buy this? For a species that can swim dozens of miles to find a decent seal dinner, a few hundred yards to shore is a leisurely doggie paddle to safety. Yet still, all the enviro-wackos try to convince you that the non-existent polar bear decline is proof that global warming is real.
But if the polar bear is the fourteen hundred-pound canary in the climate change coal mine, why are its numbers INCREASING? The latest government survey of polar bears roaming the vast Arctic expanses show the population of polar bears has been climbing since the mid-1980s.
Inuit (A polar bear counting organization) has always insisted the bears' demise was greatly exaggerated by scientists doing projections based on fly-over counts, but their input was usually dismissed as the ramblings of self-interested hunters.
As biologist Mitch Taylor observed in a front-page story in the Nunatsiaq News, "Inuit was right. There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears."
Great. Now I'm going to have to go get a bear trap.
CLICK HERE TO SEE HOW PEOPLE REALLY ARE KILLING POLAR BEARS!
[citation needed]
Just exactly WHERE did you get your info about polar bear population? Wikipedia would lead me to believe that the population is difficult to ascertain, but almost certainly at risk due to diminishing sea ice. Even if the population is up short-term, that doesn't mean that polar bears aren't in trouble.
Global Warming is a Lie just as War on Terrorism is a Lie
Both concepts are based on political popaganda using lies to justify their pet projects.
You Republicans and Democrats are each pathetic and are led by your ignorance of facts vs political propaganda.
Any country that wants to control the world is fascist.
The New Amerika is a fascist America full of propaganda and lies.
polar bears growing, sea ice growing, eco-extremism growing
"Wikipedia would lead me to believe that the population is difficult to ascertain, but almost certainly at risk due to diminishing sea ice."
Wikipedia will make you believe a lot of cr*p. They have liberal 'watchdogs' who have ruined almost all the political related entries and inserted biased garbage that is NOT true.
WSJ:
"
Although the global population of polar bears has grown from a low of about 12,000 in the late 1960s to approximately 25,000 today, Mr. Kempthorne said government scientists had advised him that computer modeling projects "a significant population decline" by the year 2050."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121078668964492405.html?mod=sphere_ts&mo...
The polar bear was not listed based on FACTS, it was listed based on MODELS that supposedly show fewer polar bears in 40 years(!!!)
Those models have ALREADY been proven WRONG. We know this because those models have predicted warming for the last 8 years that has not happened.
This is a terrible and awful decision. A non-threatened species is listed a threatened on the basis of bogus models that are wrong.
[bite my citation]
I don't claim to be "the Internet's largest free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". So, I don't have a responsibility to cite my sources. Even Wikipedia warns people that its "content may not be accurate and all content needs to be checked for accuracy before being used". But, in the interest of proving that you are a victim of the lies you believe, I'll take a few moments to explain the Wikipedia article.
I suppose that you are commenting on wiki's entry that reads:
"Recent declines in polar bear numbers can be linked to the retreat of sea ice and its formation later in the year. Ice is also breaking up earlier in the year, forcing bears ashore before they have time to build up sufficient fat stores, or forcing them to swim long distances, which may exhaust them, leading to drowning".
This entry is cited by an article written by Charles Monnett and Jeffrey Gleason, which states that "..four polar bear carcasses were seen floating in open water and had, presumably, drowned." That's it. Four bears. Their article does not state that the survey took place after a particularly bad storm, or that a judge has ruled that this information is actually an error.
Meanwhile, other studies have found that certain poplar bear populations have actually increased.
There is no proof that polar bears are in trouble. There is proof that polar bears have survived greater climate changes than this one.
Good deal
more rugs
I am always amazed...
I am always amazed at which blog entries generate the most hits. I wonder what all these people are looking for?