The U.S. government just put polar bears on the threatened species list because climate change is shrinking the Arctic ice where they live. Never mind that polar bears are in fact thriving — their numbers have quadrupled in the last 50 years. Never mind that full implementation of the Kyoto protocols on greenhouse gases would save exactly one polar bear, according to Danish social scientist Bjorn Lomborg, author of the book “Cool It!” Yet 300 to 500 polar bears could be saved every year, Lomborg says, if there were a ban on hunting them. What’s cheaper — trillions to trim carbon emissions, or a push for a ban on polar bear hunting?
The country is being forced to subscribe to a modern version of transubstantiation, whereby corn is miraculously transformed into sinless energy even as it does worse damage than oil.
Plastic grocery bags are being banned, even though they require less energy to make and recycle than paper ones.
But the polar bears make for such cute, cuddly pictures. I am married to someone who has seen the aftereffects of these little cuties tearing off people’s arms and legs however, so I’m not quite so sure its a good thing to have them on the endangered list.
James Lewis has a great article on the difference between science and the fraud that is the bovine bleatings of Algore:
In normal science the burden of proof is on the proposer. Albert Einstein had to prove in his historic 1905 paper that there was a fundamental flaw in classical physics. The distinctive predictions of Relativity Theory had to be verified for decades afterwards. Some are stillbeing tested today. His predecessor Max Planck remarked that he encountered so much skepticism that he had to wait for the older generation of physicists to die off before his work was accepted.
This is why you can always tell when the hysterical cries of “denier” start being spewn about – you aren’t dealing with science, you are dealing with faith and religion. It is not the responsibility of the man-made global warming skeptic to present their facts to disprove this religion; it is the responsibility of the tax grubbing puke putting forward this swill to prove their case. But that might just be a little difficult since:
There are no facts robust enough, consistent enough, and verified enough to support the mass hysteria. The climate system is hypercomplex, nonlinear and poorly understood. The media spinners are immensely ignorant about real science, and just care about the next scare headline. There’s a lot of wild speculation and a mob of self-serving politicians, bureaucrats and media types who stand to gain a ton of power and money by suckering millions of taxpayers. Al Gore just started a 300 million dollar PR campaign to convince everybody. When was the last time you saw 300 million bucks being spent to promote a scientific hypothesis that was already proven? We’re not spending millions to prove the existence of gravity. The uproar and money involved in this fraud is in direct proportion to the lack of solid facts.
I’d also like to actually have the Great and Powerful Gore actually prove he has 300 million of anything besides air molecules inside his skull where his brain ought to be, but that’s another case. The real truth is:
The last ten years have seen global cooling, not warming.
Temperatures over the last hundred years look like the stock market: ups and downs, a very slow rise of a fraction of a degree until the late 1990s, then a drop for the last ten years, with so much cooling in the last year as to cancel out a century of warming. Why? Nobody really knows, but Mr. Sun is the logical suspect.
Look it up. But don’t get caught in the trap of proving the negative. In normal, healthy science, the skeptics ask questions. It is the proponents who carry the burden of proof.
When the polar bear population increases by 500% it hardly qualifies as being endangered. In fact, ask the people who have their arms torn off by these cuddly little fellows whether they are as nice as they are pictured by the eco-nazis.
How did the polar bear, one of nature’s most vicious beasts, become the doe-eyed poster boy for the green lobby?
Environmentalist groups stick pictures of pitiable bears in their leaflets and on their posters. They feature heavily in Al Gore’s Hitchcockian documentary An Inconvenient Truth. Even adverts for low-energy lightbulbs and renewable energy show polar bears adrift in a sea of mangled, melting ice. The message seems clear: “Go green, or the bear gets it.”
The global polar bear population has increased from around 5,000 in the 1960s to 25,000 today.
The myth of the desolate bear reveals two things about the politics of environmentalism: first, that it’s underpinned by a simplistic, anthropomorphic view of good vs evil, which most of us grew out of before we hit our teens; second, that it frequently bends the facts to fit the fable.