Posted on 12/18/2005 9:46:23 AM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK
SCIENTISTS have for the first time found evidence that polar bears are drowning because climate change is melting the Arctic ice shelf.
The researchers were startled to find bears having to swim up to 60 miles across open sea to find food. They are being forced into the long voyages because the ice floes from which they feed are melting, becoming smaller and drifting farther apart.
Although polar bears are strong swimmers, they are adapted for swimming close to the shore. Their sea journeys leave them them vulnerable to exhaustion, hypothermia or being swamped by waves
*Snip*
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
if bears are drowning, are seals drying out?
Where is PETA and the environazis when you need them.
Those cute little bears should have been plucked right out of that ocean and returned to land pronto.
LOL! Fishing for salmon that native-born polar bears won't fish for.
Okay, I'm ready to join you to stop global warming. What's your plan? Can we be done in a year? How much are we going to warm up the earth? RSVP
The climate of the earth has been changing for billions of years on its own, but that does not mean people cannot have affected it in recent times. Just doesn't logically follow.
The issue of whether or not man is at fault for any alleged global warming is the fulcrum of the entire debate.
If man is not at fault, what do you propose can possibly be done to reverse a natural tide?
Those who assert man is at fault, have a long list of behavioral changes to "solve" the problem. The nature of that list is predominantly Marxist. Odd that in nearly every country where Marx's theories have been and are being put to the test, man's behavior that allegedly contributes to global warming is at its worst.
Yes, I had heard that, too. The hollow fibers act as light guides to direct the warmth down to the bear's skin.
http://www.jayp.net/trivia/animal01.htm
About two thirds of the way down. It just says that the bear's fur is clear. Other interesting tidbits, though.
Sounds like it's one of those "Circle of Life" kind of things.
Tupperware, walrus. Tight seals.
It is called Greenland for a reason. From NASA observations over the years, Mars is warming as rapidly or more so than Earth. How are we effecting another planet? Haliburton?
Van Halen fan?
Polar bears depend on a frozen platform from which to hunt seals, the mainstay of their diet. Without ice, the bears are unable to reach their prey. In fact, for the western Hudson Bay population of polar bears (the population near Churchill in the Province of Manitoba, Canada), researchers have correlated earlier melting of spring ice with lower fitness in the bears and lower reproduction success. If the reduced ice coverage results in more open water, cubs and young bears may also not be able to swim the distances required to reach solid ice.Further north, in areas where the ice conditions have not changed as much, seal populations have grown (either through migration or more successful reproduction) and polar bear populations are expanding
Nothing to do but let the world's political hacks enact all sorts of agenda-driven laws and regulations controlling human activity on every square inch of the planet.
Probably won't do anything to impact global warming, but will certainly make us all feel good. (Well, those who are part of the ruling elite, anyway. It'll suck for the rest of us though.)
Any person (or group) given the authority to stop global warming could tell people where to live, what they could do with their land and regulate their housing. Such power could tell people how much water they could have in their toilets, and how much heat, air conditioning and electricity they could use.
If you had the powers arising from such authority, you could control the amount of television people watch by rationing of electrical power. You could tell them what they were allowed to drive, and how much gas they could use. You could force them out of their cars and into public transportation (See Earth in the Balance, by Al Gore). You could impose manufacturing production quotas and regulate the world’s industries to the point where you would essentially own them. You could even tell people how many children they are allowed to have.
You would, in fact, rule the world and all the people in it.
Wanting to rule the world is nothing new. People have been trying to do that since the first humans pressed beyond their own local habitat and realized that there were other people living in the next valley.
In the 20th century, the drive to rule the world achieved its greatest expression with rise of socialism and the Communist empire. Back then, the social engineers believed that they could achieve ultimate Power Over Others by commanding every aspect of the economy. But of course, that didn’t work. Draconian government control of the economy proved unsustainable, to borrow the environmentalists’ favorite word. Thus Communism collapsed, leaving over 100 million murder victims in its wake, and with it went the dreams of millions of social engineers around the world who looked to it as a model for humanity and their ticket to power.
So now that communism has no credibility left, here come the environmentalists to protect us right out of our lives.
No thanks.
The Environmental movement needs to abandon the so-called "Precautionary Principle" and instead adopt the first rule of the Hippocratic Oath: "First DO NO HARM."
A significant number of scientists say that climate change has not been proven. You cannot take a couple of hundred years of data and say it proves something about the climate of a five billion year old planet.
The energy deposited on the earth by the sun dwarfs the miniscule waste energy humans produce. And the energy rediated by the Earth is also orders of magnitude larger. The gases emitted by the oceans, animals, volcanoes and other natural sources als far exceeds man's emissions. Yes, a butterfly beating its wings affects everything in the world to some degree, but is it significant and relevant? I think not.
How can we deal with something that we are not responsible for? To date there has been NO SCIENTIFIC proof that any global warming is caused by mankind. Interestingly, Mars also has a similar trend in global warming. Are we to blame for that too.
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.