Skip to comments.Polar Bear Scare (Awsome Photo)
Posted on 04/19/2011 2:54:39 PM PDT by OneVike
When I saw the photo above, I was reminded of the scare tactics used by the flat earth global warming crowd in a which they use photos of Polar bears in their natural habitat and claim the bear is stranded on an ice berg floating in the sea sea with the blurb like, "Stranded Polar Bears on Ice Bergs, that can't make it back to land, that end up dieing". These kinds of brainwashing ads get printed in newspapers, magazines, they use them in commercials on TV, the internet, and theaters even began using them in commercials before movies in the theaters across America.
Truth is, the bears are simply looking suspiciously at the humans nearby who are taking pictures. The stories are all nonsensical brainwashing tripe created by earth worshiping wackos who will never shed a tear over a child being sucked from a woman's womb in an abortion clinic. Before schools stopped teaching facts and began indoctrinating their students, they would inform the children about the capabilities of animals. I learned in school years ago that a polar bear can swim for more than a 100 miles in the open sea just for the fun of it. Also, unlike the wayward young adults today that have been indoctrinated that cannot read the high school diplomas they receive, the polar bears know where they are going and that they will be just fine on those ice bergs.
One of the photos used in a campaign back in December 2006 by the flat earth GW crowd was taken from a story that wasn't even about a polar bear being trapped on the ice floe. It was actually just a photo used for effect about Chicago being trapped in the ice of a major winter blizzard. More than 400 flights were cancelled at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, and 2.4 million people were without power. Ice was everywhere. Trees were collapsing under the ice load and taking down power lines. Schools were closed. So if you believe the story about polar bears being trapped on a melting ice floe, you have been brainwashed by those who have no qualms about telling lies to advance their agenda.
Well, I decided to use their tactic and post this photo from The Telegraph that has nothing to do with global warming, or climate change, so that I can share with you these 10 reasons to doubt global warming is Man-Made or as I personally believe, it doesn't even exist. What follows, came from the All American Blogger.
The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming â" the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.
For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. Itâs not a viewpoint or a skeptic's inaccuracy. Itâs an observational fact. Clearly the world of the past 30 years is warmer than the previous decades and there is abundant evidence (in the northern hemisphere at least) that the world is responding to those elevated temperatures. But the evidence shows that global warming as such has ceased.
If CO2 drives climate change, and CO2 continues to increase, why is the temperature not increasing as well?
"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."
The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.
Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."
There is more evidence of solar influence on the global temperature.
The sun and the stars could explain most if not all of the warming this century, and he has laboratory results to demonstrate it. Dr. Svensmark's study had its origins in 1996, when he and a colleague presented findings at a scientific conference indicating that changes in the sun's magnetic field -- quite apart from greenhouse gases -- could be related to the recent rise in global temperatures.
It has even resulted in climate change on Mars:
Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake.
Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.
Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.
"Could be natural phenomena?" What else would it be? There isn't anything else on Mars to change the climate. Triton and Pluto are warming too, along with Neptune and Jupiter. From the article:
Habibullah Abdussamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a host of the rest of the world's leading solar scientists are all convinced that the warming of recent years is not unusual and that nearly all the warming in the past 150 years can be attributed to the sun.
Solar scientists from Iowa to Siberia have overlaid the last several warm periods on our planet with known variations in our sun's activity and found, according to Mr. Solanki, "a near-perfect match."
For example, the Union of Concerned Scientists, an organization with a history of left wing positions, accepted over $2 million between 2000 and 2004 to study the effects of climate change and promote renewable energy. Would they continue to get money if they announced that global warming was not man-made? Or are they also influenced by where their bread is buttered?
In 2004, the United States spent nearly $2 billion (Warning: PDF) to support climate change research. Private foundations spend between $35-50 million a year on climate change and related projects. Are we to believe that only scientists who study against anthropogenic global warming are motivated by greed, or is it possible that proponents of AGW have a dog in the money hunt as well?
As Warren Meyer of CoyoteBlog notes in his book "A Skeptics Guide to Anthropogenic Global Warming":
If AGW theory is proven correct, the likely political response might cut Shellâs revenues by 20-30%, at most. If AGW theory is proven incorrect, then university climate research funding might be cut by 100%. Directionally, all the incentives in academia are to inflate global warming projections. No one is going to make the news, or even continue to get funding, if they argue that warming will only be a degree or two in the next century. The guys that get the fame and the grants are those pushing the numbers higher and higher.
Margot Wallstroem says Kyoto "is not a simple environmental issue, where you can say scientists are not unanimous. This is about international relations, this is about the economy, about trying to create a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world. You have to understand what is at stake and that is why it is serious,"
Then French President and liberal darling Jaques Chirac added the Kyoto Protocol is "the first component of authentic global governance."
Aside from that, the Kyoto Protocol is an utter failure. From the L.A. Times:
Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol's status as the flagship of the fight against climate change, it has been a failure in the hard, expensive work of actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Its restrictions have been so gerrymandered that only 36 countries are required to limit their pollution. Just over a third of those -- members of the former Eastern bloc -- can pollute at will because their limits were set so far above their actual emissions.
China and India, whose fast-rising emissions easily cancel out any cuts elsewhere, are allowed to keep polluting.
And the biggest polluter of all, the United States, has simply refused to join the treaty.
That leaves Western Europe, Canada, Japan and New Zealand to do the work of the world. Their emissions are rising despite their commitment, starting next year, to reduce them by an average of roughly 8% from 1990 levels.
It has been a success in one area. Fines.
The rich countries who joined the Kyoto Protocol are paying billions of dollars in fines for their failure to meet their commitments. "Japan, Italy and Spain face fines of as much as $33 billion combined for failing to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions as promised under the Kyoto treaty." According to the article by Bloomberg, the reason for the increase in emission was because "they underestimated economic growth and future emissions from factories and utilities."
Ireland is facing huge fines as well.
"TAXPAYERS face having to fork out more than â¬270m so that Ireland can "buy its way" into meeting the Kyoto agreement on greenhouse gas emissions."
So, if the rich, aka capitalist, country's economy grows, it results in fines. Or, the rich countries buy carbon credits from the poor countries, who have their commitments so high they can pollute at will. Sounds like an attempt leveling of the playing field to me.
A year ago, British meteorologists made headlines predicting that the buildup of greenhouse gases would help make 2007 the hottest year on record. At yearâs end, even though the British scientists reported the global temperature average was not a new record â" it was actually lower than any year since 2001 â" the BBC confidently proclaimed, â2007 Data Confirms Warming Trend.â
When the Arctic sea ice last year hit the lowest level ever recorded by satellites, it was big news and heralded as a sign that the whole planet was warming. When the Antarctic sea ice last year reached the highest level ever recorded by satellites, it was pretty much ignored. A large part of Antarctica has been cooling recently, but most coverage of that continent has focused on one small part that has warmed.
When Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans in 2005, it was supposed to be a harbinger of the stormier world predicted by some climate modelers. When the next two hurricane seasons were fairly calm â" by some measures, last season in the Northern Hemisphere was the calmest in three decades â" the availability entrepreneurs changed the subject. Droughts in California and Australia became the new harbingers of climate change (never mind that a warmer planet is projected to have more, not less, precipitation over all).
If things were going like they predicted, they would just report how they were right. But since they can't do that, we get spin and a switch of the focus. Makes me wonder.
This global cooling talk went through the 70s and the first Earth Day. Three months prior on January 11, the Washington Post published: âColder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age.â The post counseled its readers to âget a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters â the worst may be yet to come,â Thirty years after Fortune wrote about the coming Ice Age, it won a âScience Writing Awardâ from the American Institute of Physics. This was for its analysis of the coming global freeze. In 1974 Fortune wrote:
âIt is the root cause of a lot of that unpleasant weather around the world and they warn that it carries the potential for human disasters of unprecedented magnitude,â
By the 1980s, the world was once again threatened by global warming. The New York Times announced everyone’s doom again by quoting seven government atmospheric scientists who saw the end of civilization. They predicted global warming of âalmost unprecedented magnitude.â
Newspapers and magazines wrote that farms would not be able to produce enough food because of the cold and because of fewer days in the growing season. Then, they told us we would not have enough food because it was warming up and the cattle were a dying off and the crops were withering. Whether they told us it was getting colder or warmer, either way they were certain we were doomed.
Just looking at the way the media has covered this subject in the past isn’t a reason to doubt global warming today, is it? Yes it is.
Certainly, their record speaks for itself. Four separate and distinct climate theories targeted at a public taught to believe the news. Only all four versions of the truth canât possibly be accurate.
For ordinary Americans to judge the mediaâs version of current events about global warming, it is necessary to admit that journalists have misrepresented the story three other times.
One more thing to remember. These journalists didn’t just make these stories up out of thin air. Each one was backed up with science. Or so they thought.
- Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is “unknown” and accused the âprophets of doom of global warmingâ of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!”
- Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel’s top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. “”Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,”
- Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,”
- Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.”
- Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster…”However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun.”
That is just five. The list is long and growing every day. Another report was published last month listing over four hundred scientists. More and more people who once preached the gospel are now turning away from the Church of Global Warming.
In 1991, two caribou hunters stumbled over a log on a snowy Greenland riverbank, an unusual event because Greenland is above the tree line. Closer investigation uncovered rock-hard sheep droppings. The hunters had stumbled on a 500-year-old Viking farm that lay hidden beneath the sand, gift-wrapped and preserved by nature for future archaeologists.
GÃ¥rden under Sandet or GUS, Danish for ‘the farm under the sand,’ would become the first major Viking find in Greenland since the 1920s.
All the Viking farms were buried under the sand. So, where did all the sand come from?
Sheets of ice sliding down the mountain toward GUS may have pushed sand over the eastern coast of Greenland, burying the Viking settlements. The sand slide was probably a major catastrophic event, comparable to an earthquake.
So, let’s recap. Erik the Red hops in a boat and lands on Greenland. He likes what he sees and decides to stay and build some farms. Everything is going good, then an incoming ice sheet sends a sandslide to cover the farms. After a while, the area turns to permafrost, sealing the smells of the farm in for five centuries. Now, the ice sheets are retreating and it is all man’s fault.
Another thing about Greenland that is fascinating. Some scientists decided to drill through an ice sheet there, to see what they could find. They drilled all the way through and made a very interesting discovery. Southern Greenland used to be a lush forest, and was probably warmer than they thought. They discover that there used to be a diverse environment there, filled with conifers and insects. And it made some do a double take on their belief system:
“If our data is correct, then this means that the southern Greenland ice cap is more stable than previously thought,” said Professor Willerslev. “This may have implications for how the ice sheets respond to global warming.”
It also causes bananas to be destroyed, but also allows them to grow. Global warming causes blizzards (I especially like who paid for that research), cold spells, and frostbite.
There are a few other things global warming is responsible for. It is causing hurricanes, or it might be stopping them. It causes a decrease in snow, and an increase in snow. Plankton population will rise, or or plankton population will decline…or both. Whatever.
Global warming causes mountains to shrink and grow. It causes ice sheets to grow and to melt. And it causes forests to decline and forests to grow.
If that isn’t enough, global warming causes nuclear war, crocodile sex and the end of the American Dream.
And Darfur. Can’t forget that.
It’s craziness like this that makes me shake my head and wonder what else is global warming going to be blamed for. It’s just silly, and it makes me think global warming is being crammed down our throats any which way it can be. Or it is just the new Boogeyman, being used to scare people into submission. And since when does science need a Boogeyman?
The alarmists demand that we have to change the way we live. We have to trade in our SUVs for hybrids. We have to use more expensive green energy. They tax energy so much that air conditioners can’t be used by the poor, resulting in the deaths of thousands. Meanwhile, those same people who are putting together the next Kyoto in Bali, Indonesia added 4.07 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. That is the equivalent of more than 20,000 cars for a year. Have these people never heard of GotoMeeting.com? I mean, if this is such an Earth-shattering problem, why are they not being more conservative with their carbon output?
I know, there is nothing scientific about this one, but it is very telling about the motivations of the enviro-mafia. Why do they make excuses for the way Al Gore lives instead of demanding he live more like Ed Begley.
Would you listen to a really fat guy tell you to lose weight when he justifies his McDonald’s diet with “pound offsets?” No, but you are expected to accept that Al Gore thinks that you should reduce your carbon footprint, but he can live how he wants due to carbon offsets. We are expected to believe he really thinks the oceans are going to rise and flood major parts of the United States, but he still uses that much power. And let’s not talk about how much he uses green energy. He’s still using more energy than he wants you to, and he could get by in a smaller house. He’s not living by example. He’s talking the talk, but not walking the walk. Instead, he’s trying to legislate you into walking the walk, and paying someone else to walk for him.
It makes it hard to believe that he really, truly believes the stuff he has sold to the environmental movement
Polar bears are soo cool, and so dangerous..............
Nice pics, but where is the Post Polar Bear???
Interesting, it has a blue tongue like a chow.
Photographic polar bears in their natural environment without a firearm: Crazy
I'll be darned if I would be cowering in the back seat, planning on using my tripod to fight off a polar bear. Jeez. That window glass ain't squat if the bear discovers he can break it.
Then he can promptly eat him.
That’s because it’s been eating purple popsicles! My tongue turns the exact same color. LOL!
Hey, I recognize that commercial...LOL
“Before schools stopped teaching facts and began indoctrinating their students,”
My GF’s 13 year old kid was indoctrinated into the polar bears are going extinct mentality by his school teacher.
He and I spent a couple of hours going over the ecology of the north slope and polar bear population increases since 1950, looked at pictures of caribou herds clustered on gravel oil platforms to get out of the marsh and get heat from the pipeline.
He brought it all up to his teacher who didn’t have a rebuttal.
I would have wanted something a little more powerful than a camera tripod to defend myself. A 12 ga with slugs comes to mind.
Post Polar Bear...
Gotcha... Told I am slow today.
The CO2/global-warming cause & effect has been falsified by science. Oceans absorb more CO2 when they are cold and hold less CO2 when warm. If CO2 were the cause of global-warming, this would set up a positive-feedback loop. The earth would have moved to one extreme or the other and would already be either an ice-cube or a hothouse.
The fact that climate has not moved to either extreme given this ocean temp/CO2 feedback loop means that CO2 is not responsible for global-warming and pushing CO2-reduction as a means of preventing global-warming is pure stupidity.
I've seen videos of bears peeling the whole door off a compact car to get at an ice-chest stored in the back seat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.