Denial is an indefensible tactic when dealing with a situation, not to mention stupid. If you truly believe that there is no such thing as climate change, why not discuss the recent increase of reports of endangered or mysteriously dead animals? Ignoring the issue is a very big indicator that the administration doesn’t have a clue how to handle it. They need to refute it based on the evidence, plan for its effects, or take steps to minimize it. Frankly, I think we’re already pooched as far as the weather goes, but we can still save the environment. (The bees aren’t missing because it’s too hot.)
Internal memorandums circulated in the Alaskan division of the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service appear to require government biologists or other employees traveling in countries around the Arctic not to discuss climate change, polar bears or sea ice if they are not designated to do so.
In December, the Bush administration, facing a deadline under a suit by environmental groups, proposed listing polar bears throughout their range as threatened under the Endangered Species Act because the warming climate is causing a summertime retreat of sea ice that the bears use for seal hunting.
Environmentalists are trying to use such a listing to force the United States to restrict heat-trapping gases that scientists have linked to global warming as a way of limiting risks to the 22,000 or so bears in the far north.
If we didn’t pollute half the sea and land to death we wouldn’t have to worry about CO2, IMIYSUO (in my inexpert yet still unhumble opinion).
Just proves that the pollution lobby has a strong grip on this administration.
1,
When I was a kid in the 70’s I remember environmentalists warning us about the buildup of mercury in fish. Your attitude is frightening.
#2
My attitude is frightening just because I my opinion is that the pollution lobby (big corps) has a strong grip on the Bush administration? Isn’t this obvious? Get real Smartalix.
Does this purported grip make their point less relevant? Get real yourself.
I’m having trouble understanding your arguments 1&2.
Is one of you not an environmentalist? Does one of you not believe that we are experiencing severe global climate disruption? Does one of you think that it’s OK for the Bush administration to squash all honest discourse on either polar bears or climate change?
#2, are you saying you don’t thing mercury in fish is real? If so, though I can’t really tell from your comment, just keep eating tuna, when your mind can’t tell the difference anymore, you will no longer disbelieve that mercury accumulates in fish.
For my part, I’ll say it very clearly, this squashing of scientific information by the Bush administration is absolutely unacceptible. The government should use science to help determine policy, not use policy to determine what is valid science. The government should certainly not squash valid science for the purpose of continuing to put huge quantities of cash into a few pockets while causing our species to go extinct.
There is a very real possibility that this policies will cause global civilizational collapse. If so, our own survival of a species is very much in doubt. This is not a long term problem. This is something that may come to a head within the lifetimes of today’s adults, certainly within the timeframe of today’s children.
5,
Nope, I’m saying that just as that prediction came true, if we continue to destroy our environment that won’t be the only repurcussion.
Once Bush is out of office, will the restriction still apply?
#8, Na, I’d look for things to change after the impeachment.
Hmmmm
I guess I missed Smartalix’s post about the French scientist who has changed his position on the global warming thing. Seems to think the evidecne does not support the hype.
Wow, BillM. Such insight. Deep understanding of scientific method and peer review.
That’s right up there with the 2 guys in AZ who think the Cardinals won the Super Bowl.
Well this is fine with me, if you have all these agency oifficals trying to make policy by fiat. Theyh should be restricted to their job, and not engage in political advocacy, which is exactly what the global warming debate is about.
8. Fusion- the Globalists dont give a fuck about who is in power. They will bribe, blackmail either party, it doesnt matter. Wake up.
you guys should shameful for supporting the commie, polar bear lobby.
Remember, and pass this down: “THE WORLD IS NOT SOMETHING WE INHERIT FROM OUR ANCESTORS, BUT SOMETHING WE BORROW FROM OUR CHILDREN”
Do you have grand-children or children? You want their lives to be as bad as yours? OR, WORSE YET, they have a horrible outlook because of our in-action or actions?
Wow, all of you are pretty much failed human beings. 99.99% of the population does not take these simple facts into their perceptions and solutions. 🙁
I have no children. Everything works in my world, I just pity yours. Blame yourself. :-p
?
Wasn’t this the same blog that mentioned that both Earth and Mar are heating up? Would this lend credance towards the idea that the increased warmth is coming from the Sun/Solar energy, after this is what warms the planet in the first place.
If you’re a Leftist/Commie type then you probably believe in Darwin’s Theories to begin with, so what exactly is the problem. Polar bears will die out and something else will move into their spot. Who cares? I don’t, not any more.
They told to stop having children because we were going to overpopulate the world. When we stopped have kids what did they do, the opened the borders to all the third world trash that wants to come here and live on welfare. And yes, it’s mostly trash that comes accross the border criminally, it’s trash that’s taking up 33% of the jail space in the US and it’s trash that want’s to use illegal aliens as slave labor and undercut the cost of labor.
Could someone explain to me why the ocean outside my window has not moved an inch in the fourteen years I have been living here? Could it have something to do with the 8% increase in Antartic ice since 1979?
There seems to be a consensus that global warming is happening. Does it really matter if the warm up is due to man’s waste or natural cause? No because the effects will be the same. As areas of Earth get warmer, the people living there will want to cool off, probably by an AC unit. Some places might actually experience more cold which the people there will want to warm up, probably by heaters. All these devices use energy. As energy resources become scarce, there will be wars to control what is left. A nation that can buffer itself by not using as much energy resources will probably have a more positive future than than those countries that continue to use large amounts of energy.
Even if global warming is not happening, using less energy resources can be very beneficial for a country’s future.
9,
If you read my comments in the post you will see I don’t really think global warming is as important as pollution itself. We will eventually be able to compensate for the weather, either by moving, getting more or less dressed, and moving to the land that becomes nicer than ours. But if you can’t eat fish anymore for the mercury you’re f*cked. Now do you understand my position?
As for the post topic, I am pissed that the government is restricting debate, not wehat their position is. Let them defend it in public, show their evidence, and have a debate. BUT IGNORING AN ISSUE BY STIFLING DEBATE IS STUPID. If you want to convince people, you have to discuss the facts with them. You can’t get compliance by fiat on any issue unless you restrict freedom of speech. I condemn such Orwellian measures by any political group, left or right. Do you?
The sole reason they don’t give a damn about polar bears and bees it’s because there’s not enough of them to turn into oil.
#18 I don’t really think global warming is as important as pollution itself. We will eventually be able to compensate for the weather, either by moving, getting more or less dressed, and moving to the land that becomes nicer than ours. But if you can’t eat fish anymore for the mercury you’re f*cked.
You can perhaps compensate for the raising temperatures and harsher weather, but it’s different with animals… you might not have any fish to eat… with or without mercury. Pollution and global warming must both be addressed.
20,
At least there’s no debate among intelligent people over pollution, so lets start there. Right now we’re doing next to dick to protect the environment.
The US doesn’t use that much energy. Most of its supply comes from overseas, so in the long run, the domestic supply is just fine.
I don’t see this as the administration restricting debate, as they couldn’t do that if they wanted to. This is about making sure various employees don’t play politics with science.
15 – Wasn’t this the same blog that mentioned that both Earth and Mar are heating up? Would this lend credance towards the idea that the increased warmth is coming from the Sun/Solar energy
It certainly suggests that a solar increase is a component. But since the greenhouse mechanism (incident UV goes to IR which greenhouse gasses retain)… and since the increase in CO2 since the industrial revolution is very well documented… – doesn’t that suggest human activity makes it worse? A recent report found that hurricanes have been getting more frequent and severe due to ocean current warming – but only in the Atlantic, which temperatures sit at the cusp for forming those systems. When stability rests on a cusp, every little push has amplified effect (read: more severe). That’s just common sense.
If you want grounds for legitimate discussion, find a citation for something I read to the effect that ice cap melting on Mars seems to exceed what the increased incident solar radiation can account for. I didn’t find it just now in a quick search, but if that is well supported then there is a lot of room for discussion.
But humans adding to the effects of an increase in incident solar radiation – that just makes it worse, not better. Think about it.
typical. if animals are dying it must be the fault of humans. It’s interesting PETA recently sent a letter to Al Gore to persuade him to become a vegan because livestock are the largest contributors of carbon emissions in the world.
So are we doing it? or are cows? Pollution and climate change are two different topics. climate and atmospheric changes have always existed since the dawn of time. The earth was filled with CO2, then plant life formed and filled the world with O2. Animals then left the oceans for the land to breathe the CO2. Similarly the earth was much warmer around the age of the dinosaurs and then we had an ice age, and then it warmed again. In the 1980s environmentalists were concerned about the impending new ice age…which is it?!
consensus is not science. Its only science if the scientific method can be used to prove it.
The polar bears will adapt – or the seal hunting will become a lot more competitive.