Environmental Irony Alert!

You just can’t make this stuff up!

Polar bears are at risk, we’ve been told repeatedly, because man-made global warming is causing sea ice to disappear. But too much ice is also a problem, as some Alaskan polar bears might soon find out.

Polar bears, those cute and cuddly poster creatures for the climate change alarmists — recall the fraud behind the famous photograph of that unfortunate polar bear floating on an ice floe? — need sea ice. They use it to hunt for meals and to breed. In short, polar bears spend much of their lives on sea ice.

That life-giving bond, though, is allegedly in jeopardy. Since 2008, polar bears have been listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, a decision that was based — of course! — on the specious assumption that man-made global warming is reducing sea ice.

Given that polar bears depend on sea ice, it would seem that more of it in a world without global warming would be better.

But apparently not.

An evolutionary biologist who has studied polar bears during her 35-year career says that thicker ice in the Southern Beaufort Sea along Alaska’s Arctic coast is a threat to the big carnivores.

The additional ice can force the seals that polar bears feed on to move elsewhere because it’s too deep for them to burrow breathing holes through.

“When those bears come out of their dens in the spring, they need to find seals right away because they will have gone six months without eating,” biologist Susan J. Crockford told CNS News.

“If there are no seals, they have to go further out, where there’s thinner ice.”

Similar thick sea ice in 2004 and 2006 thinned the polar bear population in those years and resulted in low bear counts, said Crockford. It turns out that this thick spring ice condition that’s so in conflict with global warming was “one of the pieces of evidence used to have the bears listed as ‘threatened’ in the U.S.”

Truth has been the first casualty in the war to save the planet and the environmentalists’ tale of polar bear woe has become a featured, though fallacious, argument.

But the myth was drilled so deeply into Americans’ minds that the actual facts — which the media simply refuse to cover — get little traction.

Meanwhile, some observers are arguing that polar bear populations are thriving, not declining. That’s debatable, but no more so than the entire global warming/climate change claim.

This comes fast on the heels of Professor Les Woodcock, a distinguished former NASA scientist who eviscerated the whole notion:

“The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences.

“The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causes ‘global warming’ – in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent.

“There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years.”

Just for good measure, he added:
“Even the term ‘global warming’ does not mean anything unless you give it a time scale. The temperature of the earth has been going up and down for millions of years, if there are extremes, it’s nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it’s not permanent and it’s not caused by us. Global warming is nonsense.”
And:
 “Events can happen with frequencies on all time scales in the physics of a chaotic system such as the weather. Any point on lowland can flood up to a certain level on all time scales from one month to millions of years and it’s completely unpredictable beyond around five days.”
And:

“The reason records seem to be being frequently broken is simply because we only started keeping them about 100 years ago. There will always be some record broken somewhere when we have another natural fluctuation in weather.

“It’s absolutely stupid to blame floods on climate change, as I read the Prime Minister did recently. I don’t blame the politicians in this case, however, I blame his so-called scientific advisors.”

And:

“This is not the way science works. If you tell me that you have a theory there is a teapot in orbit between the earth and the moon, it’s not up to me to prove it does not exist, it’s up to you to provide the reproducible scientific evidence for your theory.

“Such evidence for the man-made climate change theory has not been forthcoming.”

Oh, and one more thing:

“…the damage to our economy the climate change lobby is now costing us is infinitely more destructive to the livelihoods of our grand-children. Indeed, we grand-parents are finding it increasingly expensive just to keep warm as a consequence of the idiotic decisions our politicians have taken in recent years about the green production of electricity.”

Woodcock’s revelations come shortly after Patrick Moore, ecologist and founder of Greenpeace, offered these thoughts:

There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists. [Moore’s emphasis]

And:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. “Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95–100% probability.” But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment,” as determined by the IPCC contributors. [Moore’s emphasis]

For such damage to be done in the name of such a fallacious non-existent “problem” is truly unconscionable, especially when you consider no one outside of the wacko green movement itself cares:

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a new report this week warning of the existing and potentially severe adverse future impact of climate change, yet most Americans continue to express low levels of concern about the phenomenon. A little more than a third say they worry “a great deal” about climate change or about global warming, putting these concerns at the bottom of a list of eight environmental issues.

George Will pegged it when he said that global warming was simply back door Socialism.  But we’ll have much more on the radical environmentalist movement as time goes on…

There’s my two cents.

 

 

 

Advertisements
About

I'm a gun-owning, Bible-thumping, bitter clinger conservative in the heartland. You can disagree with me if you want (you do, after all, have a right to be wrong)...just don't be rude or stupid and we'll get along just fine! :)

Tagged with: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Environment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow me on Twitter

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 95 other followers

%d bloggers like this: