Polar Bears Hate Al Gore

It would seem that polar bears can be added to the lists of groups that consider Al Gore irrelevant.  You will recall that including polar bears on endangered species lists has been an topic of much debate.  I believe they currently are listed as an endangered species because of the immanent threat of global warming climate change.  If only the polar bears were listening.  (Hat tip: Althouse.)

The number of bears along the western shore of Hudson Bay, believed to be among the most threatened bear subpopulations, stands at 1,013 and could be even higher, according to the results of an aerial survey released Wednesday by the Government of Nunavut. That’s 66 per cent higher than estimates by other researchers who forecasted the numbers would fall to as low as 610 because of warming temperatures that melt ice faster and ruin bears’ ability to hunt. The Hudson Bay region, which straddles Nunavut and Manitoba, is critical because it’s considered a bellwether for how polar bears are doing elsewhere in the Arctic.

The study shows that “the bear population is not in crisis as people believed,” said Drikus Gissing, Nunavut’s director of wildlife management. “There is no doom and gloom.”

The point here is not that this somehow proves that climate change is a hoax but rather that systems with a global scale are complex.  There are whole series of questions that need to be asked in a scientific manner.  Are temperatures increasing?  How much are they increasing?  Are these increases part of a natural cycle or have they been influenced by human behavior?  What percentage of the changes is the result of human behavior?  If human behavior is changed, what would the resultant effect be on temperature change?  What if only part of the population–say China continues it’s current industrial explosion–changes behavior?  What are the effects on the environment if the climate “changes” as it is currently changing?

This polar data point relates to that last question.  Either the polar ice fields aren’t disappearing as predicted and/or polar bears are able to adapt to changing conditions better than “scientists” suggested.

The lesson is of course that you shouldn’t add a species to the endangered species on a gut feeling, or to push a political agenda, or because you believe they have to be in danger because these horrible things have to be happening.  The world is a complex place.  It’s easy to draw a box with a couple of arrows and say if A goes up, then B goes down.  But such simple relationships rarely hold in the real world.

An Update On The EPA’s Den Of Thieves
Eric Holder's 3-page Reply
  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/04/polar-bear-numbers-increasing-in-canada.html  Yes I believe it is true, polar bears hate Al Gore.  But perhaps he can wander the arctic until he can becomes a happy meal to a hungry polar bear family.  

  • Yeah just like the gray wolf was on the endangered species list. The only reason they are is because no eco-terrorist saw any of them from the roads that they traveled on. Just like the spotted owl is endangered. /sarc off

  • jim_m

     The whole polar bear thing was a hoax from the start.  Polar bear populations have been increasing not decreasing.  You can google “Polar bear population increase and get many citations of articles on how their number have been increasing and their numbers becoming an increasing problem.

    It may not disprove global warming but it is substantial proof of the incompetence of the researchers or their willingness to commit fraud.

  • Marc Levy

    Al Gore is a socio-political con-man. He would benefit personally from the carbon-tax thing. This poser “Green” environmentalism is just a scam for big oil companies to change their image and monopolize energy even after oil. Gore set it up with Enron in the 90’s under Clinton. Should we take care of the environment? Of course, but putting control into the hands of the very same multinational corporations responsible for Fukishima, the Gulf spill and Exxon Valdez is not the way to go…. Al Gore is a fraud. And a spooky creepy one at that. I’m glad we gave him a nobel prize, right along side war criminal Obama…. Ridiculous.

    • What do you mean ‘would benefit’?  The SOB was one of the original investors in a “carbon credit’ exchange company.  He made his money off us, you can be sure.
      BTW, there were no multinational corps responsible for Fukishima, the Gulf spill, or the Exxon Valdez.  Unless there’s one out there which is managing earthquakes and tsunamis for fun & profit, inducing test engineers to run bad tests on cementing procedures, and causing 3rd mates to drive tankers onto reefs.

  • herddog505

    Dan KaripidesThe point here is not that this somehow proves that climate change is a hoax but rather that systems with a global scale are complex. 

    Not to lefties.  Things are VERY simple for them: “CO2 causes global warming —> we generate CO2 —> the earth is warming —> this kills polar bears”.  QED.

    O’ course, none of these statements can be proved empirically to be true, but, again, it’s all QUITE clear to lefties.

    • jim_m

       It’s quite clear to me.  Polar bears are dangerous and kill people.  Global warming kills polar bears.  Global warming is good.

      Heck, that formulation should work even for the misanthropic lefties.

    •  Actually, CO2 has two orders of magnitude (99%) less “green house effect” per atmospheric percentage as the leading (as in most effective at trapping infra-red radiation) “green house” gas: Water Vapor.

  • PBunyan

    The seals were damn upset when they found out Al was full of shit.

    • The polar bears even more so.

      “Dude, didn’t anyone teach you you’ve got to clean these things before serving them?”

  • PBunyan

    “The lesson is of course that you shouldn’t add a species to the endangered species on a gut feeling, or to push a political agenda,”

    True that.  I mean what the hell?  Do they think the Endangered Species List is the Noble Prize?

    • And the Delta Smelt.  Really?  A half inch fish?  Really?  For that you cut off water to California’s Central Valley?

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Read the following, especially the lead paragraph, from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, in the context of the above study demonstrating that the polar bear population is not decreasing because of CAGW [now “climate change”] melting the Arctic sea ice.  The article describes what appears to be really good news, both for the polar bears specifically and for the environment generally.  But it’s described as “one possible bright spot.”  Whoever wrote this press release seems afraid to be happy about what should be good news.  Talk about a glass half empty – it’s almost as if they are disappointed  that polar bears are not going extinct:
    It’s never been easy to be a polar bear. They may have to go months
    without eating. Their preferred food, seal, requires enormous luck and
    patience to catch. Add to that the melting of Arctic sea ice due to
    climate change, and the poisoning of the Arctic by toxic chemicals, and
    it’s easy to see why polar bears worldwide are in trouble.

    Among all the bad news, however, comes one possible bright spot. In a
    study of PCBs in polar bear cubs in Svalbard, researchers from the
    Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) have found that
    blood levels of PCBs and related contaminants in polar bear cubs appear
    to have dropped by as much as 59 per cent between 1998 and 2008. At the
    same time, levels of these contaminants in their mothers were as much as
    55 per cent lower over the same period.

    Public release date: 29-Mar-2012

    • If they aren’t endangered, that makes ’em wonder what other things they’re not thinking clearly on.

  • iwogisdead

    Again, I take credit for saving the Polar Bears. I put one of those cork screw bulbs in my porch light a little while ago, and it looks like that fixed the whole Polar Bear problem.

    Am I great, or what?

    • You are great, sir – and I applaud your sacrifice for the apex predators of the Arctic.

      One will be along shortly to give you a big hug, and then snack on your liver.

  • LiberalNightmare

    Let me see if I have this right…

    Global warming kills polar bears.
    We should stop global warming, so that we will have more polar bears.

    More polar bears? Thats a good thing?

    • jim_m

       Yes.  As long as they are in close proximity to unarmed leftists.

  • EricSteel

    Barack promised that he would slow down the rising oceans and heal the planet, and he did it.  You must genuflect in his general direction 5 times a day.

    • Nope.  And he can stick that nobel peace prize where the sun don’t shine.

  • This happened in California after the greeniacs hornswoggled voters to adopt a draconian mountain-lion protection law, claiming the state wildlife experts were overestimating the population of the elusive puddy tat.

    No sooner was the proposition certified enacted than the catamounts began showing up in valley cities and towns, including Sacramento — center of a million-human metropolitan area at the time — and attacking hikers on mountain trails. Turns out the experts knew what they were talking about better than the greeniacs did. But the law is still on the books.

    • Gmacr1

      And I’m hoping that the greenies taste good to those cats too.

      • When our cats at home eat greens it ususally means they’re having a stomach upset.

        Oh wait, you said “greenies.” Never mind.

  • Neo

    Polar Bears also hate the WWF (not the wassling kind) for using their non-existence plight to raise money under false pretenses.