Say Anything Blog

This is foolish; good thing I know how to make money from such foolishness! LOL!

No Free Lunch

Pilgrim,

This isn’t about protecting polar bears at all. It’s about someone on the “progressive” Left recognizing that the recent Senate vote on drilling for crude oil in Alaska isn’t going to be the last word as demand and prices continue to climb.  This is merely a ruse… a strawman to keep Exon/Mobil and the rest out of ANWAR.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

It’s not about the bears, this is the first shot across the bow in the war between the drillers and the non-drillers for arctic oil.

None Of The Above ‘08

This article caused me to laydown on my polar bear rug and give it a hug.

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money…..
Margaret Thatcher

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe .
Thomas Jefferson

This is a big day for environmentalist because they have been given the ultimate weapon. Starting today it doesn’t matter if global warming is real or a hoax, that argument is completely irrelevant now because extreme environmentalists will move forward boldly in the courts and will only be limited by their own imaginations. The Sierra Club can now hold aloft a huge banner saying “Mission Accomplished” Because the Bush administration has granted them absolute power.

Time to kill off all polar bears, and all other species listed on either list.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Hotel:

Like I said before…..now that they’re actually threatened we’d better hurry and get one now before they’re all gone. We wouldn’t want to miss out.

Heh.

The future ain’t what it used to be…..

(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Just like coyotes and terrorists, open season, no bag limit.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Hotel -

Are you talking about lawyers or polar bears?

The future ain’t what it used to be…..

(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Because those of us that studied geology like to jack with biologist, the fossil record shows that 99.997 percent of all species that have every lived on the earth go extinct. In fact, extinction is the “rule” not the “exception.” Therefore, attempting to save the manatee, horned owl or polar bears is a relatively futile effort. Thier niche is too small, thier biota too limited and they aren’t adapting fast enough. Soryy, but from a scientific stadpoint: Advantage goes to the humans. we adapt faster, live wide and use our adaptation to enviroment (thinking and technology) better than they do. It’s not personal, baby, it’s just darwinism. Only a creationist would think we have the “moral duty” to protect the species that can’t adapt.

Besides, if you want to be a winner, work to save sharks and bacteria because they have a pretty good historical track record and everyone likes being a winner.

There is one bit of stupidity that I would like to point out from this opinion article:

WE have nothing to do with the fact that their very existence is, and always has been, precarious at best.

Your point is that they have always been endangered because of the very cold environment that they live in.  But in reality it’s quite the opposite; they thrive in that environment and have been for millions of years; their bodies are perfectly adapted for it through evolution.  They cannot survive naturally in anything warmer without major adjustments through evolution.

To put it another way, they’re not a threatened species because of the cold, harsh artic environment, but rather because of the disappearance of it.  Or do you actually think we’re doing the polar bears a service by making the place warmer?

extinction is the “rule” not the “exception.”

I don’t think anybody is arguing that extinction isn’t the rule.  The argument is that the rate of extinction has increased significanly, which is consistent with effects of global warming.

Chris,

What rate of extinction of you referring to?  I mean simply looking at the numbers of polar bears in general how can you even come up with an extinction rate when the population goes from 5-10,000 to 20-25,000?

You also just stated that the polar bears have thrived in that environment for millions of years, so are you stating that is has never been warmer than it is now in those millions of years?  Because if it has been warmer how did the polar bears survive through that crisis?

Let’s be clear, there is no justification for placing the polar bear on a threatened species list.  It is total bunk given the numbers.

Chris,

I think your reading comprehension is a bit off. Pilgrim’s point is that they live in a harsh environment that can’t sustain high populations of polar bears (after all, there are limited food sources in the arctic). He never said that making it warmer would be beneficial to the bears.

Also:

Or do you actually think we’re doing the polar bears a service by making the place warmer?

You assume in this statement that Pilgrim is a believer of man-made global warming. I’m pretty sure he is not.

What rate of extinction of you referring to?

I was referring to the rising rate of extinction globally, but I guess you were just talking about the extinction of polar bears.  In any case, it sounds like you’re saying that, even though they’re becoming endangered of extinction, we shouldn’t protect them because we would be interferring with the “rule” of extinction.  Is that right?  They’ve been around for millions of years, but why is their population dwindling now?  Or do you not believe that either?

Pilgrim’s point is that they live in a harsh environment that can’t sustain high populations of polar bears (after all, there are limited food sources in the arctic).

Nobody is arguing that either.  As far as I know, every species in their natural habatat has a population that’s considered as “normal” or “too much” or “not enough”. I’m sure that the normal population for most bugs are in the 100s of billions, and polar bears are naturally few in numbers.  So it’s inaccurate say that they’re always “endangered”.  They’re put in the endangered list becuse their population is on a down trend.

This argument can be summarized in a few questions: do you believe that polar bears are decreasing in numbers to the point of extinction, and if so, is it because of global warming? If it’s not caused by global warming, then what’s the cause?

You guys have to deny that polar bears are really dieing off, because that would indicate climate change, and in particular, global warming.

Chris:

There is one bit of stupidity that I would like to point out from this opinion article:

Let me point out a bit of stupidity of your own.

The Arctic has been warmer in the past - FAR warmer than it is right now. They survived that. And they don’t “Thrive”. Their population stays at minumum levels because of limited food sources.

The biggest impact we have had on those bears was hunting - and that was restricted some time ago. Thus the increases in population you’re seeing now.

Putting the on the threatened list was a pointless ecercise in political correctness.

The future ain’t what it used to be…..

(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

was referring to the rising rate of extinction globally, but I guess you were just talking about the extinction of polar bears.

Well, this post and thread is about polar bears, so go figure.  But more importantly I was looking for some reference to that figure besides your heartfelt, yet ignorant, notion that it’s true.  And even more importantly that somehow global warming is the cause of it.

They’ve been around for millions of years, but why is their population dwindling now?  Or do you not believe that either?

First let’s look at the numbers.

According to this site sypathetic to polar bears, they state there are 19 subpopulations of the polar bear, 5 of them are decreasing, 5 are stable, 2 are increasing, and 7 have insufficient data.  Of course they don’t state how they arrived at those numbers or any percentages either.  So we don’t know how quickly or slowly the population is moving in either direction.  So forgive me if I don’t fall in line with the notion that the population is dwindling.

And now for your millions of year statement.  You must have missed the second part to my first post where I asked you these simple questions:

so are you stating that is has never been warmer than it is now in those millions of years?  Because if it has been warmer how did the polar bears survive through that crisis?

So to turn the tables on you.  We know it has been warmer in the past millions of years then it is now, so what was the cause of the polar bears survival and how come they can’t do that again?

I’m not sure where you looked, but if you want some figures of mass extinction, here are some:

http://www.well.com/~davidu/extinction.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4797-earth-faces-sixth-mass-extinction.html

http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/ees123/mass_extinctions.htm

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html

In fact,they (scientists, not liberals) say that we’ve entered the 6th mass extinction.

In your link, it said; “No adequate census exists on which to base a worldwide population estimate”, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have numbers on local bear populations, which was what the article focused on.  In partuclar, the bears at Canada’s Western Hudson Bay and Southern Beaufort Sea are decreasing, and it’s a trend that they’re seeing more and more in other parts.  This downward trend is consistent with the fact that the ice and therefore the habitat is disapearing.

Of course they don’t state how they arrived at those numbers or any percentages either.

If you read, they say Population viability analysis (PVA) simulations, which seems to be the standard way to study animal populations.

To answer your last question, I just found out that the polar bear has only branched from the brown bear 250,000 years ago, so we have to see if there was a period warmer during that time, and if so how gradual that tempuature change was for them to adapt.  According to the article below,  “Polar bears, the world’s largest bears, evolved from brown bears about 250,000 years ago to become specialist carnivores. But experts say climate change is happening too fast for the bears to adapt.”

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/global-warming-threatens-polar-bears/2005/07/08/1120704551713.html

Nice vent, Pilgrim!

chris? You actually want us to take those links seriously? Really?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

chris? You actually want us to take those links seriously? Really?

2Hotel9 on May 15, 2008 at 06:06 pm

Give us a good reason as to why he should not.

So, you base your opinion on outdated articles from The Age, and hypotheses about events whose actual cause can not be proven. While reality is there are more polar bears now than at any time since we started tracking their numbers.

As for accelerated rates of species extinction, funny, I see articles in Science, NatGeo, BBC, etc etc proclaiming discovery of new, never before seen species on a regular basis. Perhaps you would enjoy explaining all that away?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

The second link was written in 2004 by The New Scientist.  The third link is class material for a course in Wesleyan University.  The fourth link was written in 2005 by Dr. Niles Eldredge, a Paleontologist, and the article was published in American Institute of Biological Sciences.  Doesn’t sound too old or bogus to me!

A new book written by Eric Chivian and Aaron Bernstein, both high officials in the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School, has written a book called: Sustaining Life: How Human Health Depends on Biodiversity.  It talks about how the increase in species extinction is threatening progress in the development of new medicines:

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/LifeSciences/Ecology/?view=usa&ci=9780195175097

The US Fish and Wildlife Service says that the world’s species are dying out at a rate not seen since the age of the dinosaurs (May 2008):

http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/200820/1000/Close-to-a-third-of-world-s-species-extinct-since-1970-report

The one below is from January 2008 by International Biogeography Society Blog:

http://biogeography.blogspot.com/2008/01/fossil-record-supports-evidence-of.html

I can go on, but I’ll let you guys do your own research.

Bottom line, there are more polar bears now than at any time since we began tracking their numbers. Period. Full stop. Link all the agitaprop and lies you want, none of it changes the facts as they exist on the ground in the Arctic.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Hotel:

Here you go again, dealing with facts. That the population is at the highest ever known doesn’t matter. They’re threatened. The left says so.

The future ain’t what it used to be…..

(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Pilgrim:

They live a tenuous existence on floating patches of ice, depending on a food source that occasionally sticks its head through holes in that ice, holes that appear every few miles. WE have nothing to do with the fact that their very existence is, and always has been, precarious at best. Nature will decide when, and if, they die off, not us. In the meantime the ice isn’t going away. Neither are the polar bears.

Very astute observation, moron.

watashawa,

Being called a moron by a person of your questionable intellect is a forgettable experience at best.

The future ain’t what it used to be…..

(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

“Very astute observation, moron.”

“Coming from you, Boy, that means less than nothing.”

‘Nuff said.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem