Im afraid to say you folks need to start thinking for yourself. Climate change is NOT man made...to believe so is the height of arrogance. 99.5% of ALL greenhouse gasses are not even RELATED to substances man spews into the atmosphere. For christ's sake 95% is WATER VAPOR...how ya gonna control that.
But you believe FAT AL, who's entire ecological background was the famous spotted owl farce in the Pacific NW of the USA. Virtually shut down the logging industry, moved the entire freaking industry to Canada...thank you very much...and put TEN'S of THOUSANDS of families out of work. I know...I lived in Oregon during the entire debacle. And after all that...last year they come out and say...OOOPS the spotted owls wasn't really affected by logging, but rather by natural predators. MORONS...you go ahead and believe him...i KNOW BETTER.
And by the way...polar bears ARE FLOURISHING...enjoying the largest population GAINS in over two decades ... but you keep showing them sitting on floating chunks of ice...since they've only been doing exactly that forever. Why don't you people actually take some time and listen to the REAL scientists and climate experts that are finally showing some backbone and standing up the the JUNK science the "movement" likes to spout.
READ...
Research done by the U.S. Department of the Interior to determine if global warming threatens the polar bear population is so flawed that it cannot be used to justify listing the polar bear as an endangered species, according to a study being published later this year in Interfaces, a journal of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences.
See also:
On April 30, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ordered the Interior Department to decide by May 15 whether polar bears should be listed under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. (Note regarding decision: On May 15, 2008 the polar bear was listed as a 'threatened species' under the Endangered Species Act.)
Professor J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School says, To list a species that is currently in good health as an endangered species requires valid forecasts that its population would decline to levels that threaten its viability. In fact, the polar bear populations have been increasing rapidly in recent decades due to hunting restrictions. Assuming these restrictions remain, the most appropriate forecast is to assume that the upward trend would continue for a few years, then level off.
These studies are meant to inform the US Fish and Wildlife Service about listing the polar bear as endangered. After careful examination, my co-authors and I were unable to find any references to works providing evidence that the forecasting methods used in the reports had been previously validated. In essence, they give no scientific basis for deciding one way or the other about the polar bear.
Prof. Armstrong and colleagues originally undertook their audit at the request of the State of Alaska. The subsequent study, Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public Policy Forecasting Audit, is by Prof. Armstrong, Kesten G. Green of Monash University in Australia, and Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. It is scheduled to appear in the September/October issue of the INFORMS journal Interfaces.
Professor Armstrong is author of Long-Range Forecasting, the most frequently cited book on forecasting methods, and Principles of Forecasting. He is a co-founder of the Journal of Forecasting, the International Journal of Forecasting, the International Symposium on Forecasting, and forecastingprinciples.com.
The authors examined nine U.S. Geological Survey Administrative Reports. The studies include Forecasting the Wide-Range Status of Polar Bears at Selected Times in the 21st Century by Steven C. Amstrup et. al. and Polar Bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea II: Demography and Population Growth in Relation to Sea Ice Conditions by Christine M. Hunter et al.
Prof. Armstrong and his colleagues concluded that the most relevant study, Amstrup et al. properly applied only 15% of relevant forecasting principles and that the second study, Hunter et al. only 10%, while 46% were clearly contravened and 23% were apparently contravened.
Further, they write, the Geologic Survey reports do not adequately substantiate the authors assumptions about changes to sea ice and polar bears ability to adapt that are key to the recommendations.
Therefore, the authors write, a key feature of the U.S. Geological Survey reports is not scientifically supported.
The consequence, they maintain, is significant: The Interior Department cannot use the series of reports as a sound scientific basis for a decision about listing the polar bear as an endangered species.
Prof. Armstrong testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works on January 30, 2008 in a hearing, Examining Threats and Protections for the Polar Bear. A portion of the testimony can be viewed on a website partly supported by Prof. Armstrong and questioning climate change
are you not an adult who can think for yourself? i swear on my plants a lightning bolt will not come down and get you
and thats a powerful swear. they are not dying unaturally, the earth has natural climate changes!!!
