Polar bears face extinction in less than 70 years because of global warming, scientists have warned.The truth:
Melting ice is causing their numbers to drop dramatically, they warn.
Others also at risk include ivory gulls, Pacific walruses, ringed and hooded seals and narwhals, small whales with long, spiral tusks.
One of the problems is that other animals are moving north, encroaching on their territory, spurred by increasing temperatures, pushing out native species.
The animals are also struggling with the loss of sea ice.
"The Arctic as we know it may soon be a thing of the past," said Eric Post, associate professor of biology at Penn State University, who led the latest study, publied in the journal Science.
"Recent projections suggest polar bears could be extinct within 70 years.
- January 3, 2007, Wall Street Journal:
source: WSJ
[T]here are in fact more polar bears in the world now than there were 40 years ago, as the nearby chart shows. The main threat to polar bears in recent decades has been from hunting, with estimates as low as 5,000 to 10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. But thanks to conservation efforts, and some cross-border cooperation among the U.S., Canada and Russia, the best estimate today is that the polar bear population is 20,000 to 25,000. - March 6, 2007, National Post:: "The latest government survey of polar bears roaming the vast Arctic expanses of northern Quebec, Labrador and southern Baffin Island show the population of polar bears has jumped to 2,100 animals from around 800 in the mid-1980s."
- May 3, 2007, Christian Science Monitor: "Despite global warming, an ongoing study says polar bear populations are rising in the country's eastern Arctic region."
(via Watts Up With That?)
4 comments:
I don't think I have ever been unreceptive to legitimate environmental worries. Fresh water remains a problem in many parts of the world. Fish populations are slowly recovering, but remain a worry. Also, I am not trained in any of the scientific disciplines pertinent to discussions about extinction, climate change, sea ice, etc.
But what I am capable of is understanding reasonable arguments. Environmental skeptics have been providing counter-information for years, but these outrageous claims persist. If someone wants to try and convince me that the polar bears are in danger anyway, despite their recent increase, and can show that he understands both the increase and future danger, I'm willing to listen. But contrary information seems to be merely unacknowledged and discounted with a wave of the hand. "Oh piffle" isn't an argument.
It's all about this:
The Polar Bear Tractor Beam: How the Endangered Species Act Could Accomplish What Al Gore Couldn't
http://townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2008/04/10/the_polar_bear_tractor_beam_how_the_endangered_species_act_could_accomplish_what_al_gore_couldnt
...the listing of the bear is just the first step in an elaborate dance that will result in the imposition of extraordinarily expensive and delay-inducing permitting requirements on any industrial or commercial activity that (1) requires a federal permit of any sort and (2) emits greenhouse gases.
But don't believe me. Believe the proponents of the listing. In a candid and detailed statement of the objectives behind the listing push, the Executive Director of Wildlife Conservation and Global Warming at the National Wildlife Federation, John Kostyack, and Professor Dan Rohlf of the Lewis & Clark Law School have laid out the potential far-reaching impacts of a listing. Their article, "Conserving Species in an Era of Global Warming," appeared in the most recent issue of the Environmental Law Reporter. It should be read by anyone who relies on a federal permit to go about their business, whether that business is oil exploration, gasoline refining, road construction, farming, grazing, mining or home building. Kostyack and Rohlf first review what they see to be the climate change perils confronting many species, including the polar bear, and then chart how the Federal Endangered Species Act ("FESA") could be brought to bear upon the issue of global warming via the section of the FESA that compels "consultations" between any part of the federal government proposing to issue a permit that could impact a threatened or endangered species and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
> U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
And for those of you who want to learn all about the history of the incredibly effective efforts of the skillful and talented people in our Federal Government at managing the environment, look no further than to examine Michael Crichton's speech, "Complexity Theory And Environmental Management".
After that, you should, like all Polar Bear Friends, feel all warm... and fuzzy...
Me, I seriously question the ability of these people to manage standing behind the counter at a Qwiki-Mart and making change consistently, but hey, that's just me being a pessimist...
.
Marc and OBH are right. But the logic is simple: Polar bears are cute. Therefore, polar bears are endangered.
Post a Comment