Posted on 02/12/2006 5:09:44 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
February 12, 2006
The British newspaper calls itself "The Independent," but an article in today's edition indicates it's hardly independent of the kind of environmentalist scare-mongering common in the US press.
How's this for an over-the-top headline?: "Starving Polar Bears Shame Bush to Act"
The gist is that global warming is causing the Arctic ice cap to melt, which in turn reduces areas in which polar bears can hunt for seals, the staple of their diet.
Author Geoffrey Lean [special sympathy for the hungry?] brands Bush's stance on climate change "obdurate," which last I looked means "hardened in wrongdoing or wickedness; stubbornly impenitent." No media bias there!
The article offers only the scantest anectdotal evidence in support of its claims: one person killed by bears in the Russian arctic, evidence of bears eating their own. Have bears never killed humans before, or have jealous males not killed and perhaps eaten cubs, as is common in some species?
The article closes by expressing the possibility/hope that polar bears will be listed under the US Endangered Species Act, which would force regulatory agencies to take into account how their decisions would affect it. "This could lead to tougher measures to control the spread of pollution that causes global warming, and stricter fuel-economy standards for vehicles."
Is this good science, or a SUV-as-bear-killer critique of all things American and by extension of the free market?
Wow!! This Bush Man really gets around, from blowing up the the levees in New Orleans, to starving the bears in Alaska,to the fires on the west coast, and on and on.
I'm confused .. aren't we suppose to be saving the seals?
(8^D)
Don't eat the liver.
He's Omnipresentally Evil.
LOL - doesn't everything?
I read an article about the day every spring in Barrow when the sun crests for the first time after the winter dark and how it's a celebration. It sounded so interesting (even though I detest the cold.)
Did you get to participate in anything like that?
"Is this good science, or a SUV-as-bear-killer critique of all things American and by extension of the free market?"
Total fabrication. As has been reported on FR, the polar ice is not 'melting'. The claim that it has is based on very spotty measurements of artic ice made by infrequent submarine visits during the cold war. Yes, there is less ice at these specific points, but that only because the ice has been moved to other points. If the same measurements were taken a few miles away, the ice thickness would be unchanged.
Ding! Ding! Ding! LOL o' the Day!
The baby seals taste pretty good. I like them with a little garlic and butter sauce.
Yep! (Hard to get decent mileage when you haven't invented the wheel yet....)
Why can't the bears eat Hollywood liberals?
http://www.thewildones.org/SFC/Seana/ryan.html
"....All five counties that have Polar Bears now give these giants of the north special protection. In 1973, the U.S.S.R, Norway, Greenland, Canada and the United States signed the Oslo Agreement. The agreement tried to do three main things: it hoped to preserve the rights of Eskimos to hunt Polar Bears; it proposed rules to protect cubs and females with cubs and it sought to outlaw the killing of Polar Bears form airplanes and large boats.
The five countries have since passed laws based on the agreement. Except for a few non-native permits issued in Canada, only Eskimos can now hunt Polar Bears. All countries have outlawed the use of airplanes and large boats from hunting the bears. Cubs and females with cubs are protected in all countries except the United States. Eskimos kill about one thousand Polar Bears each year. This is less that in years past."
You can read the original story that cites the UN "science" here.
Fishy!
lol. Would ya stop letting facts get in the way of a good smear? Sheesh.
|
|
|
And the bears, of course, continue to hunt and kill anyone or anything they want.
But, but, but... what about this? I'm so confused!
Dramatic changes in the earth's surface temperatures are an ordinary phenomenon, not an anomaly, he said, and result from variations in the sun's energy output and ultraviolet radiation.
Coming Next: Scientist predicts 'mini Ice Age'
George W. Bush -- responsible for solar activity? Who does he think he is, Chuck Norris?
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.
