This was a VERY interesting occasion - the listing came with a huge loophole - the Bush administratioh has vowed to do absolutely nothing about climate change.

The administration declared that the ruling would NOT stop the sea ice from melting and they would absolutely, unequivocally not change oil or gas policies.

And you'd damned well beleive that they won't lift a finger to help the vegetarian or vegan causes, either.

Jack, I'm happy that PETA is discussing issues concerning the conservation of wildlife, and I hope that we can use it as a platform for the bigger picture, not just as a promotion for veganism.

There are many animal's lives at stake here, from factory farms PLUS many other issues concerning the destruction of habitat.

;)

Posted by: Maya, CVT | May 15, 2008 11:33 AM

Somehow I feel a congrats is in order for our Buddies South of the border for this one!! It took another Country to make this final decision for us and I personally Thank-you!! Yes number one their habitat is threatened but we don't have to make matters worse for the species by allowing the Inuit peoples from those regions to make 50,000 plus pr bear tax free bringing up American hunters to murder these wonderful, highly intelligent animals. They were the ones responsible for holding this up! Now to kill them for sport IS illegal!!

Posted by: Carla | May 15, 2008 11:49 AM

Thankfully the Bush Administration's time in office is almost up. Whoever wins the Presidential election, whether it's Hilary, Obama or McCain, all three of them are much better environmentalists than Bush could ever be but I am still a bit wary about McCain if he wins. Hopefully whoever is president next will do something about global warming and help the polar bear and all other wildlife no matter where they live. My choice for Secretary of the Interior if a Democrat wins would be The House of Representative's George Miller of California who scored 100+ in pro animal issues on the Humane Society Legislative Fund scorecard. If Clinton or Obama wins I hope they choose this fine man to be Secretary of the Interior which handles many animal issues. That brain dead former Sec. of the Interior, Gail Norton and now the ex-governor of Idaho, Dirk Kempthorne who is the current Secretary of the Interior didn't do squat for animals!

Posted by: Rex's Mom | May 15, 2008 01:37 PM

The Bush/Cheney regime has been horrible for endangered species and imperiled wildlife. They are allied with drillers, loggers, miners, hunters, trappers, ranchers and commercial fisheries. These are all adversaries of wildlife conservationists and nature stewards.

Posted by: Brien Comerford | May 15, 2008 01:39 PM

I think that adorable polar bear at the top of this file is sticking his tongue out at Bush and his oily cronies!

Posted by: Rex's Mom | May 15, 2008 01:40 PM

It wont be long till we are out of the Bushs, Thank God!
Its been a long treacherous walk through these thick thorn reddened Bush years.

It is true, if everyone goes Vegan, it would help greatly.
Our world as we know it and every living creature large and small is in great danger.
Go Vegan...

Posted by: Holly | May 15, 2008 08:42 PM

Thank you for saying that Carla. That's what I was thinking when I heard the news this morning on the radio.

Posted by: lynda downie | May 16, 2008 12:59 AM

And Jack, thank you. Encouraging vegetarianism is never out of season. And it's particularly appropriate in this context where it's global warming that's threatening these animals.

Posted by: lynda downie | May 16, 2008 01:03 AM

Has any of you even for one second entertained the thought that maybe global warming as it is being portrayed in the media may not be as drastic as they say? Or even that polar bear populations are really not at risk? That they are stable- decreasing in some areas, but increasing in others? That they are 10 times what they were back in the 60's? That polar bears, like all mammals, including and especially humans, are extremely good at adapting to changes in their environments? I find too many people are too quick to let their emotions guide their responses to issues. Yes, polar bears are very adorable and cute; I guess that's all we need to know.

Posted by: Frank | May 16, 2008 08:55 AM

This is why I think the Canadian governments' heads are still stuck in glaciers. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is listing the polar bear population as a threatened species whereas the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife here in Canada is still advising the Canadian government to keep the polar bear designation here only as "special concern" one step below threatened and two below endangered. Still as of now polar bear products will be banned in the U.S. But please help keep the pressure cause the debut is not over yet and in the meantime, time is running out for these beautiful animals!!

Posted by: Carla | May 16, 2008 09:56 AM

Frank,

"The world's polar bear population is estimated to be between 20,000 to 25,000 (spread throughout Canada, Alaska, Greenland, Norway and Russia), Scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey predict two thirds of the world's polar bears will disappear in the next 50 years because of a decline in Arctic sea ice."

So back in the 60's there were only 2,500 polar bears?

Polar bears have a very specific diet, habitat, and way of life. I don't think this particular mammal would make a very good adapter.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | May 17, 2008 02:16 PM

I supose we should be pleased but it really is too little too late, but there again better late than never!

Posted by: Maureen | May 17, 2008 02:56 PM

Frank,
I believe the number was closer 5,000 in the 70's. But you are right, the population has quadrupled over the past 30 years.
I don't think the bears are in much danger!

Posted by: Kurt K | May 19, 2008 01:09 PM

One reason polar bears were in lower numbers in the 60's and early 70's was due to excessive aircraft hunting, which was outlawed by the "International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears" in 1973.

Estimates for the years 1965-1967 by IUCN and Schuhmacher put the population at about 10,000. The bears have been in a recovery phase, but due to climate change, the most recent IUCN Red List status is "Vulnerable."

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | May 19, 2008 02:44 PM

I did make a mistake in stating that the polar bear population is "10 times" what it was in the 60's and would like to take that statement back. But this is beside the point. The point is that polar bears have been doing very well and that their population has INCREASED since the 60's. Whether it's 2 times, 4 times, or 10 times, makes little difference. Their population has INCREASED in spite of all the global warming to date. You can speculate that the ban on seal hunting has helped. There are millions of ring and bearded seals, the bears' main food, in the arctic for bears to feed on: on land, on ice, anywhere they need to. To "predict" that two thirds of their population will disappear in the next 50 years is fine; to base this prediction on the assumption that global warming, especially man-made global warming, and the disappearance of arctic sea ice will be responsible for it is a stretch. Unlike the models of global warming operating in a vacuum, wihtout any acknowledgement for various strong influencing factors (negative feedback such as water vapor, clouds coverage, etc) polar bears operate in real life. They are very intelligent animals and have adapted for generations and generations and will continue to do so. Like all wild animals, they take the path of least resistance to find food and survive: just ask the residents of Churchill, Manitoba, having to watch out for these massive beasts digging through their garbage to find an easy and quick meal. So much for a very specific diet, Mike Q. I promise to apologize if I'm wrong; will Al Gore? I think you are not giving the polar bears enough credit. Our lack of humility before nature is mind boggling. We are passing laws that influence our lives now, based on a prediction; think about that. Furthermore, the global warming crowd is not giving the earth enough respect: it has been around for billions or years and will be likely for a few billion more. To think that we can "save" it is pure arrogance. We should be more concerned about saving ourselves. The Earth will take care of itself even if that means getting rid of us.

Posted by: Frank | May 20, 2008 01:06 PM

Frank,

I agree the Earth can take care of itself. If we make it uninhabitable for ourselves, and homo sapiens becomes extinct because of that, our disappearance makes no difference to it. 99.9% of the species that have ever lived on Earth are extinct.

If polar bears are doing so well, and more importantly are anticipated to continue to do well in the future, then the obvious question is why would the government list them as an endangered species? Do they know something you're unaware of, or are they invoking the precautionary principle?

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | May 20, 2008 03:44 PM

http://www.wri.org/stories/2006/10/greenhouse-gases-and-where-they-come#

factory farming no.1?

Posted by: rojo | May 20, 2008 07:25 PM

Mike,

None of the above. The spineless administration is caving in to the pressure of environmentalist groups and the perceived most popular position. Democrat or republican, the people in power are involved in a popularity contest designed to keep the winner in office. But hey, this is a government by the people and for the people. If this is what people want, then it should be what people get. Unfortunately, many people are misinformed, or at least not informed enough to make a clear judgement and take an objective position. Protecting the bears has implications that go far beyond the bears and their habitat themselves: for one thing, it puts very strong restrictions on our ability to drill for oil in ANWR, even if that would involve our presence in a few hundred of 19 million acres. Next time you hear someone complain about the high price of gasoline, remind them that we have brought that upon ourselves with our very own misguided environmental protection decisions. Lastly, it drives me crazy when people say we must protect the polar bears because they are so cute or adorable. It's like voting for Hillary because she is a woman, or for Obama because it's in fashion, or heaven forbids, simply because he's black (or half black.) Evidently, these people have never seen a polar bear covered with blood after devouring a poor, defenceless, cute little seal pup. Then maybe they would see these bears for the true wild beasts that they are. I have nothing against them, I'm just saying they are wild, ten foot tall carnivorous beasts who will no hesitate for one second to kill a man, woman, or child to feed themselves. Since this is PETA, maybe we should make a deal with the bears: we'll protect you and your habitat if you turn vegan. Just getting silly here.

Posted by: Frank | May 21, 2008 09:02 AM

Frank,

I didn't realize environmental groups wielded that much power with the corporate-centric Bush administration. It's just posturing by the government anyway, since they in no way plan to restrict or oppose development.

No such luck on vegan polar bears. Unlike other omnivorous bears, they are obligate carnivores.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | May 21, 2008 10:07 AM

Mike,

Environmental groups wield a lot of power when it comes to their ability to make politicians look like they don't care much about the environment and blacken their image. They are fast becoming the most dangerous groups to our way of life because they have NO OPPOSITION. People buy whatever they sell in the name of the environment. I hope you are right about the government having no plans to restrict or oppose development. Keep in mind such laws have already passed to restrict individuals freedoms. An example is the restrictions on development of areas labelled "wetlands" which must remain untouched by human hands. That might even inlcude the puddle in your backyard that you might have wanted to fill and turn into a nice lawn area.

And whereas polar bears are mainly carnivores by obligation as you point out, they will also feed on eggs, fish, and seaweed. If berries and other fruits grew in the tundra, they would eat those too. Polar bears at the San Diego Zoo get a ground-meat diet made for carnivores, dog kibble, trout and other fish, as well as root vegetables and lettuce. And they eat every last bite.

Posted by: Frank | May 21, 2008 12:52 PM

Right on Frank,
I agree with what you are saying. If you think that environmental groups don't wield any power in this country think again! How else would Gore's movie, something about truth, get an Oscar and how else would Gore himself recieve the freaking Nobel Peace Prize?
His movie was filled gross over assumptions and radical theories based on computer models that have since been changed due to their lake of consideration for many, many other factors.
Im all for cutting back on oil consumption in the future and making this country as green as possible. It makes sense to. But, I will not support policies that are going to bankrupt our country, starve our people and deny them of their God given and constitutional rights! We cannot just stop producing oil! To many people depend on it for survival and right now we need to find and drill every drop in our reserves as we can.
Gore and his buddies have to many in this country scared shitless and not thinking straight. Everytime there is a scientist that opposes the "collective" view on global warming, he gets smeared by liberal blogs and protestors who care less about discusion and more about their agendas!
Global warming is like believing in UFOs. Millions say they see something, yet they can never come up with hard, factual evidence!

Posted by: Kurt K | May 21, 2008 04:03 PM

Hi all.

I'm in my second year of graduate school for biology. I'm currently vacationing on Kiawah Island, so I don't have access to the online research papers.

But when I get back next week, I will personally provide you with PROOF.

There is no use wasting your breath. There have been studies, which follow the standard scientific methods, and are peer reviewed, that will give a yes or no to global warming and polar bear declines.

I'll save you the suspense: denying either is like denying the law of gravity. Both have been proven. Period.

Sorry for the delay, but I shall provide you with the solid proof when I return, then you can be the judge.

Posted by: Maya, CVT | May 21, 2008 06:18 PM

Maya,

Don't bother, I believe you. I have also already read the studies that follow the standard scientific methods, and are peer reviewed, that prove beyond any doubt that ethanol is a wonderful fuel...

Fact: There are more polar bears now than in the past 30 years. Proof: we counted them.

You sound like Al Gore: the debate is over, there is a concensus, etc, etc. The duty of science is never to settle for a concensus, to always question, always to look for evidence that will contradict what we think is true and definite. When you close the debate like you did, ("Both have been proven. Period") then you lose your objectivity. You allow your feelings and emotions to cloud your judgment and your reason. And you lose all your credibility.

Posted by: Frank | May 22, 2008 01:44 PM

Hi Frank!

Sorry to doubt your impassioned response, but where's your proof? Did you forget to cite the scientific literature?

Luckily for both of us, this is not some emotional debate. Your claims are total bull without proof.

So try to pay attention this time: I'm on vacation. I don't have access to my saved articles. But when I get back on MAY 28TH, I will cite the articles.

That way proof and fact will prevail, not childlish back and forth.

Posted by: Maya, CVT | May 22, 2008 03:34 PM

Maya,

Let's see, where do I start...

The Great Global Warming Swindle
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6818529054330982445&q=%22the+great+global+warming+swindle%22&total=121&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

Judge: Al Gore's nine incovenient truths
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/climatewatch/article.html?in_article_id=69679&in_page_id=59

Environmentalists Blamed for Lake Tahoe Fires
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-clearance26jun26,0,2914697.story?coll=la-home-center

Researchers Question Validity Of A 'Global Temperature'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm

Gore gets a cold shoulder
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html

How can you predict global warming if you can't predict rain?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1018/p14s01-wogi.html

Mars also experiencing global warming
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleId=BD885055-E7F2-99DF-3670CE9DF27632FE&chanId=sa013&modsrc=most_popular

Hurricanes and Global Warming: Interview with Meteorologist Dr. William Gray
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4403

Don't Believe the Hype
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

Thermal expansion of sea water associated with global warming
http://sedac.ciesin.org/mva/WR1987/WR1987.html

Study: Ethanol May Add to Global Warming
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gG6RDP96uZ_A1auof7LysRqbgDxAD8ULPD0G0

Storm guru: Oceans, not CO2, cause warming
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18397549/

Questions and Answers on Global Warming
http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoQuestionsAnswers.html

35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/monckton-response-to-gore-errors.pdf

Discoveries in Global Dimming
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/dimming.html

Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence?
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=551bfe58-882f-4889-ab76-5ce1e02dced7&p=2

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc=

Want more?

Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”
http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_102512.asp

British Scientist Warns of 'Moral Danger Behind Global Warming Hysteria'
http://newsbusters.org/node/11357

Global warming skeptics score a few points
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/2007/06/24/4286753-sun.html

Beck on An Inconvenient Truth: "It's like Hitler"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200606080005

The Real Story: Global Warming
http://www.glennbeck.com/realstory/09-21-06.shtml

Schools must warn of Gore climate film bias
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=485336&in_page_id=1811

Parts of S. Florida under freeze watch; cold weather expected into next week
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-0215weather,0,7081742.story?coll=sfla-news-sfla

Economist Bjorn Lomborg: Global warming is not a priority
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs

A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth
http://www.cei.org/pages/ait_response-book.cfm

Chill out over global warming
http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

I have plenty more, about polar bears as well:

The Great Polar Bear Population Puzzle
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/TerenceJeffrey/2008/05/21/the_great_polar_bear_population_puzzle

Polar bears 'thriving as the Arctic warms up'
"There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears," said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1545036/Polar-bears-'thriving-as-the-Arctic-warms-up'.html

You're Canadian like me, right? Why not check this documentary full of scientists, from the CBC:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295&q=%22the+great+global+warming+swindle%22&ei=Tkg2SLH0Iaem4QLTr8zhAw

And maybe you should take the global warming test just to be sure you've got sound basic knowledge of what's going on here:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/A3b.html

Granted, many of the references above are opinion pieces, but many if not all reference legitimate research results that can be looked up.

But just to make sure, check this one out from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medecine:

"Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge."

See the peer reviewed research paper here:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Note: The Petition Project has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special financial interests in the "global warming" debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from private non-tax deductible donations by interested individuals.

This group is heading a movement to move back from absolute truth about global warming and consider that maybe what we have been told by Al Gore may not be absolutely true. Their petition has been signed by more than 31,000 scientists from prominant institutions around the world. See their names here:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

What surprises me most is that you are taking biology in graduate school and as such, as a scientist, you are so eager to believe that global warming is some sort of metaphysical certitude and you're not willing to even consider the fact that it may not be exactly as Al Gore describes it. In the meantime, he's laughing all the way to the bank.

I'm looking forward to your "proof." I hope it does not involve anything from the highly politically driven joke called the IPCC...

Posted by: Frank | May 23, 2008 12:14 AM

Maya, as always its a pleasure!
I think what Frank and I are trying to say is that if we spent our time looking we could find hundreds if not thousands of scientific articles and studies, peer reviewed and all that, to contradict global warming!
I mean I read a study the other day in which the scientist was claiming the planet would cool in the next decade, to the point of serious danger. I took that with a grain of salt, but it was published!
Why is it that a scientist that can "prove" global warming is praised, but one the "proves" it to be false is always condemned?
Even the UN is starting back down from its original claims because all these predictions are based on computer models. There are too many factors that drive climate other than CO2, that can cause tempuratures to go up or down. The early computer models didn't take all of them in to account!
Even the sun can cause periods of temporary warming, but it can also cause periods of temporary cooling!
This is why I am not going to just swallow what TV feeds me every night as truth! The truth is, there is not a consensus among scientists and the jury is far from being in!
Having said that Maya! I do agree that it is necessary to take the necessary steps now, to get humanity ready and prepared to ween ourselves off of oil! But, for more reasons than just "global warming!" One being getting us out of the Middle East!
Its a funny thing, that God would put the largest oil reserves in places where people don't like us!

Posted by: Kurt K | May 23, 2008 07:49 AM

Kurt,

I agree with just about everything you said there except the part about the oil and the Middle East. We don't need these guys, we have more oil than we know what to do with right here in Alaska (ANWR), the Bakken fields (North Dakota, Montana, Saskatchewan, Alberta), and off the shores of Florida and California. We could literally flood the oil world market and created a supply that would drive the price down all the way back to $15 or $20 a barrel and about $.80 at the pump. Why aren't we getting to it? We are now in the Bakken fields, thank God, with new drilling techniques that make it possible. But thank Arnold in Ca, Charlie Crist in Fl, and the Sierra Club everywhere for holding America hostage. Oil is cheap, efficient, and cleaner than ever- why not continue to use it until alternate fuels are really ready for primetime and we no longer need to subsidize them to make them viable in our market economy? I'm all for getting off oil as our primary energy source, but we need a little more time to make it really work while not being taxed to death.

Posted by: Frank | May 23, 2008 10:47 AM

Frank,
Sorry about the statement about the middle east holding all the worlds oil! I didn't know you knew about the Bakken oil fields. I remember reading about that the first time, I about went off the deep end knowing that we have been sitting on this seemingly endless resivour of oil and doing nothing about it while our prices are going up and OPEC sits around laughing and doing nothing to help!
The "Dems" in the senate and the house are claiming that we only hold 2% of the worlds oil supply! They say this in such away that everybody buys it, then nobody hears the truth that we sit on 2% of the KNOWN supply! Conservative estimates say we sit on perhaps trillions of barrels!

Posted by: Kurt k | May 27, 2008 02:24 PM

Hi Frank -

Thank you for your patience in my response. Here are the articles I was talking about.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/311/5768/1698

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5615/2005?siteid=sci&ijkey=jh62GDjNdFr7o&keytype=ref

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1034/j.1600-0870.1999.t01-1-00008.x

http://www.lavoisier.fr/notice/fr403530.html

I did read the articles you posted. I'm sorry to sound harsh, but your references were a joke.

Glenn Beck is not a scientist. Nor were most of the people who wrote much of what you posted.

Just so you know, providing hundreds of links to news articles does not qualify as proof in the scientific community.

None of the articles you posted had been peer reviewed, none were written by people with a degree in the subject which we're discussing.

Next time, post articles by climatologists, meteoroligists, etc with some kind of degree in the subject matter. Otherwise it's just sad.

What I have posted for you are abstracts of peer-reviewed articles, published in scientific journals, which are peer-reveiwed and written by people with a master's or PhD in the subject. It doesn't get any better than that.

These articles are published in real journals and have to be purchased, just as I had to purchase them. If you don't want to buy them you can find them at a library.

Please don't use the excuse that you don't have the time to go to a library or that the articles are too difficult to understand. We began this discussion and it should be based on scientific evidence, not Fox News.

Thank you.

Posted by: Maya, CVT | May 28, 2008 09:33 AM

Hi Kurt, my dear!

Thank you for waiting. I love South Carolina for vacationing! ;)

I have a really cool article for you. Unlike most of the articles I read, we don't have to subscribe to a scientific journal to get it. We got lucky.

It's written by Dr. William Ruddiman, Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia. He has a PhD in paleoclimatology.

Unlike Frank's dozens of links, this article is written by a real scientist with a real degree in a real subject relating to atmospheric sciences. So you can believe what you read here.

Let me know what you think.

ps Always a pleasure with you as well, my friend. ;)

Here's the link:

http://www.scribd.com/word/download_preview/326028?secret_password=b9bbbydanpfzn

Posted by: Maya, CVT | May 28, 2008 09:44 AM

Maya,

I was looking forward to your proof, but frankly, I'm disappointed. Seems you might have had to do a research project in your current biology program, picked climate change, and found a few articles or a book you could reference. You are right: in order to access your proof, one needs to buy a subscription or a book (which is 5 years old, by the way.) The abstracts will suffice.

What's more disappointing is that you evidently did not read my entire comment and I really doubt that you read every article I referenced. If you had read my comment, you would have seen that I acknowledged the fact that "many of the references above are opinion pieces, but many if not all reference legitimate research results that can be looked up." Seems you took a quick look, saw "Glenn Beck" and made a genneralization about all the references I had.

Richard A. Kerr, the author of your first article, is not a scientist, he is a journalist. That being said, it does not take away his credibility nor his ability to research and reference scientific papers.

Regardless, the initial argument here is that whereas you are absolutely convinced that global warming/climate change is caused by human activity and that we are doomed but have the power to change things, I'm saying that I'm not so certain. Read your own references again and notice that they are not even convinced themselves. They use words like "conceivable," they talk about "probability," and speak very carefully in terms of what could be ("ecological impacts could be large and potentially serious") At least, they ackowledge the fact that theirs is a science of speculation and that "some uncertainty will always be associated with projections."

You, on the other hand, are convinced beyond any reasonnable doubt.

Look at a few of my references again:

Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. is astrophysicist and senior scientist at the George C. Marshall Institute, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in the Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division, and formerly deputy director of the Mount Wilson Institute. Her awards include the Newton Lacey Pierce Prize by the American Astronomical Society, the Petr Beckman Award for Scientific Freedom and the Bok Prize from Harvard University. She received her M.A. and Ph.D. in astrophysics from Harvard University. Check out her work here:
http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=38

Roy Spencer, Ph.D. is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. In the past, he has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. Spencer is the recipient of NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meteorological Society’s Special Award for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work. He is the author of numerous scientific articles that have appeared in peer-reviewed journals. Check out his work here:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

Finally, Oregon Institute oF Science and Medecine. They head a group of scientists- climatologists, meteorologists- whom are not convinced that global warming is a big deal, nor that it is caused by humans. Here is the peer reviewed research on CO2 by a couple of their associates:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Here is their PowerPoint presentation on the same subject
http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation.ppt

If you refuse to acknowledge that these people are real scientists, publishing real peer reviewed reasearch and that they have a legitimate point of contention contradictory to what you firmly have accepted as metaphysical certitude about global warming, then THAT is sad.

Posted by: Frank | May 28, 2008 01:45 PM

Hi Frank -

Thank you for taking the time to look at my comments. I absolutely agree with you that the articles express some doubt - that's what good scientists do if there is any!!!!

You must keep in mind that global warming is still being studied by scientists. What I object to, Frank, is those who say it's not real or is some kind of conspiracy.

Let's think about common sense. CO2 is a form of pollution in large quantities. There's another word for it: POLLUTION.

Why do we think we can pump excessive amounts into the atmosphere without changing the planet? It's like third grade science here: pollution is dangerous.

And let's take a step back here: even before global warming, we knew that pollution can cause lung cancer and that oil spills have hurt native peoples, the oceans and killed tens of thousands of marine animals.

We needed alternative fuels 20 years ago. No matter what you and I bicker about, it's a simple fact that our planet is being polluted and our children are going to suffer and hate our guts for the world we have left them.

Thank you for reading my comments, I promise to read your references soon. (Summer semester, you know. Vacation's over now. LOL)

;) Peace!

Posted by: Maya, CVT | May 28, 2008 03:04 PM

Maya,

Once again I must disagree. Whereas we have experienced a slight increase in global average temperatures since the late 70's, there is evidence suggesting that global average temperatures have plateau-ed since 1998 and that a reverse trend (decrease in global average temperatures) is upon us.

Let's think about common sense: it would require astronomical quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere for it to ever become a legitimate pollutant. Beside, the more CO2, the more vegetation thrives (see the Carboniferous Period.) Furthermore, consider these facts:
-Carbon dioxide is really a tiny constituent of our atmosphere-- comprising less than 4/100 of 1% of all gases present (380 ppm).
-Approximately 186 billion tons of carbon dioxide are emitted into the atmosphere each year. Of this total over 96% is from natural sources:

1) 90 billion tons are emitted by the oceans

2) another 90 billion tons are emitted by sources such as volcanoes and decaying plants

3) only 6 billion tons are the result of human activity

-Most carbon dioxide is eventually locked up in ocean sediments as phytoplankton die and the carbon in their bodies falls to the ocean floor.
-Carbon dioxide from all coal burning worldwide comprises only 0.013 % of the greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere.
-The world's natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.

As you know, CO2 is part of the Carbon cycle which is an essential part of LIFE on this planet. It's like third grade science here: we need CO2 to survive!

I'm affraid it is NOT a simple fact that our planet is being polluted and that our children are going to suffer and hate our guts for the world we have left them. It IS a fact, however, that our planet is cleaner than it's been in the past 30+ years. We have cars that run more cleanly than ever, air quality in the U.S. is improving dramatically and air pollution is no longer a threat to public health in spite of what you may hear in the media (look it up on the EPA website.) We have clean coal technology power plants that emit next to zero pollutants and prodive us with cheap, efficient electricity. Lake Erie, which was essentialy written off as a hopeless disgusting pool of gunk in the late 70's, has been cleaned up (see Clean Water Act of 1972) and has seen its walleye population make a strong comeback.

Finally, I don't really care if you read my articles or not. But if you read only one, you should read this peer reviewed, scientific research paper by Robinson, Robinson and Soon (all Ph.D's, professors and researchers) called "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide." It is available for free right here:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf.

From it, a conclusion about our legacy to our children:
"Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas
from below ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an in creasingly lush environment
of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life [yes, polar bears too] than that with which we now are blessed."

Posted by: Frank | May 29, 2008 12:12 AM

Hi Frank -

Actually the Earth is awfully warm considering the fact that we should be in an ice age by now.

And CO2 is just like any other substance: too much can kill. We are warm blooded. Does that mean that the higher temperature, the better? Of course not.

And wetlands' CO2 is absorbed by vegetation. But veg can only absorb so much before it becomes toxic: a pollutant.

Ever notice that some people commit suicide by sitting in a car inside their garage? That's right, because the fumes are toxic, period.

Posted by: Maya, CVT | May 29, 2008 05:56 PM

Maya,

You are confusing CO2 (harmless, found in your Diet Coke) and CO (toxic, coming out of car exhaust.)

I think that's all we need to know.

Posted by: Frank | May 30, 2008 09:07 AM

Frank,
I'm glad you posted all that info here! I really had no idea about most of that stuff! Keep it up!

Maya,
As far a cleaning up the planet goes I am all for it! Nothing pisses me off more that when I see people throw crap out of their car window, on hiking trails, etc. Liter is gross and unsightly!
As far as oil spills go, I agree that it would be great it that never happen in the past and definitly in the future!
However, believe it or not oil spills are actually a natural part of the world. In the 70's mariners kept noticing oil slicks in the water of the Gulf of Mexico, however they could never find any wreckage or debrit! Eventually they found that there was so much oil in the area that it was leaking up from the ocean floor! I'm not saying it is great for the local animal life, but it does happen naturally as well. When it does, mother earth deals with it on her own! We need to give this ole girl more credit, she is pretty resilient!

Posted by: Kurt K | May 30, 2008 12:22 PM

Hi Kurt!

Sorry to say this, but you have the same mixup going as Frank. Natural substances can be withstood by nature; but oil spills are extremely toxic.

Frank is also confused because he does not understand that we exhale CO2 which is absorbed by plants, but car exhaust is toxic.

Anyway, Kurt just so you know I'll be gone for about a week in grad school (12 hour days banding birds and learning radio telemetry, yikes!!) so I won't be around.

Please don't abandon me as a friend, I love our discussions!!!

See you soon!
Maya ;)

Posted by: Maya, CVT | May 30, 2008 06:05 PM

Maya,

You are confused and here is why: yes we exhale CO2 and yes, car exhaust is toxic. But car exhaust is toxic not because of the CO2. What kills people when they use car exhaust to commit suicide is the CO (Carbon Monoxide) not CO2 (Carbon Dioxide.) The CO molecules attach themselves IRREVERSIBLY to hemoglobin in the blood, displacing oxygen molecules and progressively lowering the body's oxygenation, eventually resulting in death. Nothing to do with CO2-remember: CO2 is HARMLESS.

Let me ask you this: if we exhale CO2 and it is such a pollutant as you claim, then why is it that when lifeguards or paramedics give mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, it does not kill the victim? Simple, the air we inhale contains roughly 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.96% argon and 0.04% carbon dioxide, helium, water, and other gases. The air we exhale contains roughly 78% nitrogen, 15% to 18% oxygen, 4% to 5% carbon dioxide and 0.96% argon. That's plenty of oxygen exhaled to meet the needs of another human being. The 5% carbon dioxide, is HARMLESS.

Finally, if you ever should consider suicide by means of breathing in your car exhaust, then make sure to use an older model, prefferably something built before 1975. Newer cars come equipped with a catalytic converter which can eliminate over 99% of the carbon monoxide produced.

Posted by: Frank | June 3, 2008 02:13 PM