The Polar Bear Pic They Won't Show You

h/t Instapundit - Ann Althouse calls attention to an image of Polar Bears making the rounds, again - it was allegedly taken by Dan Crosbie in 2004 and is currently number one on Yahoo's photo list. The image I have up at right also involves Dan Crosbie from the same period in 2004 during a scientific trip during which they carried rifles to run off polar bears while planting equipment in the ice - ice that was much thicker than they expected it to be. (pertinent excerpted text at bottom)

But what's this? Scroll down and you'll see the same picture was first published with a credit to another person on the trip and the caption made it clear what was really going on.

Mother polar bear and cub on interesting ice sculpture carved by waves. photo © Amanda Byrd.

Wow! I didn't know Global Warming caused .... waves, too! Update: Apparently Amanda is also something of a poet.

The image has been used in a variety of environmental campaigns over the years, sans the original caption, of course. Here it was used to solicit public comments to Save da' Bears! They've now been, or soon will be listed as an endangered species. It seems the picture makes some people cry. Update2: Here it is in an Ezine. But the Global Warming folks know that, based on this report. Read the bragging over the media manipulation:

One of the credos of journalism is to seek balance in a story, to cover "both sides." But reporters' dogged tendency to do so on the issue of a human role in global warming has had a detrimental impact on the public's understanding of the subject, say many scientists who criticize media coverage of climate change.

In just the last year White said he has noticed a significant shift in media coverage of the subject.

"The reporting is better because I don't see the 'other side' anymore."

And the polar bears make good ammunition - when the caption is inaccurate, of course:

White isn't averse to using elements that people can grasp and relate to, like vanishing sea ice and what that means for polar bear habitat and survival.

"Scientists miss that, " White said. "Many of my colleagues complain that it's all about polar bears -- it is all about polar bears, it's all about seals. You use the ammunition you have."

And they basically admit to exploiting Hurricane Katrina, too.

White also said Hurricane Katrina has been a major influence on the press's new focus. While it's impossible to say conclusively that global warming is to blame for Katrina's strength, White said, the storm was nonetheless a huge catalyst for a growing press interest in warming and rising seas and their effects.

"I've come to appreciate the power of these seminal events," White said. "These are galvanizing events that focus people's attention on the problems."

The text below is from first link above to a trip journal in which the picture originally appeared. Only the ice was so thick they almost gave up and the ammunition they were concerned with was reserved for polar bears, not saving them. The infamous polar bear pic has a home here with three others at Environment Canada.

The ice ends up being almost too good. It is a hard old floe, and takes us a long time to drill with the 2" diameter hand auger. After drilling 4 m, we think that we are almost to the end, but don't have enough extensions. Not willing to give up on this floe, another site is selected, and there we penetrate the ice cover after only about 3.75 m. So the decision is made to go ahead with the deployment there. However, since it is late in the evening by the time we return, the deployment begins on the following day.

Up the next morning at 5:30, on the helicopter deck by 6 AM, and on the ice by 6:15 to deploy the ITP and IMB buoys. Although it was pretty foggy in the morning and visibility was limited, 8 of us were transferred to the ice in three flights (plus gear) for the operations. There were also two slingloads of cargo.

Cutting the 11" diameter hole in the ice was the hardest part of the ITP deployment. Cutting through the 4 m of old hard ice progressed reasonably well until we got past the halfway point. Then water turned the ice shavings into slush, and the auger flutes couldn't remove the material. So the going got very difficult. We tried using four people (instead of the normal two) on the auger, but that still didn't produce results. It helped considerably to set up the tripod and hang the auger from a chainfall, so that we could drill at a controlled rate. When the hole was cut, the anchor weight and wire were smoothly deployed, then the ITP profiler was attached to the wire.

Comments

[lolo]

wow...i am doing a report on these intresting animals and there is alot on them...this site is helpful, but sad. the pic. r sad and i love these animals to death!
SAVE THE POLAR BEARS!

[terry mechan]

Here's a new song called "Save the ice bears"

You can hear it and download it from
http://www.morgle.com/savetheicebears.htm

[Shanice Clark]

The land ice is melting faster than it ever was and the polar bears have no chance to survive because there will no land ice left and they can't swim very well

[freecarbonoffsets]

Free Carbon Offsets: http://www/freecarbonoffsets.com

[fuk_a_lib]

Agreed, consensus doesn't mean jack..............?

GW cannot be proven using the scientific method. Specific pieces can be proven, but those pieces don't add up to GW, lol lol lol lol!

you see facts are these little things that there is no consensus on like: greenland was settled because of its agricultural potential, OR that of the 3 stages of matter, pertaining to water, ice (solid) takes up more space than liquid ( and dont even start..NO! antartica is not mostly land, its ice) OR when you smash a CFL lite they smell funny, i think theres mercury in them OR finally a hybrid car LOL LOL LOL LOL cannot pass the state emissions test. LOL LOL LOL

Cannot wait to meet a real Social Liberial...... on the field of Battle..... its comming....... you know it i'll be waiting.

[Smiff]

I guess global warming would ultimately result in the reduction of humans which would suit the environmental crowd.

So, what's the problem?

[Victor Amoroso]

AGW is a complete hoax. There actually is no science behind it, only computer modeling. Computer modeling is not science. The best computer models contain six to seven variables for climate determination, when there are more than thirty total. Sceince cannot predict the weather for two weeks in advance. They cannot predict climate any better.
Weather is nore chaotic, but fewer factors effect it than climate. AGW has become a religion for some on the left, one that any disagreement cannot be tolerated on. There are many books that outline in specific terms the many holes in the AGW hypothesis (which cannot be tested in a laboratory, and thus is not true science). Some of these are Bjorn's Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist, Robert Balling Jr.'s The Satanic Gases, Patrick J. Michaels's Shattered Consensus, and S. Fred Singer's Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years. I would also watch the Great Global Warming Hoax that appeared on the BBC about a month ago. This movie can be found on YouTube. Finally, the human hurricane forcasting computer Professor William Gray of Colorado State has written several articles that destroy the link between more hurricanes and global warming.
Don't watch Al Gore's movie thinking that it is definitive or even correct on anything. It is a piece of slick propaganda. Make sure that you view it skeptically. Consensus in science DOES NOT MATTER. Fact does, and often the majority of scientists don't have it. A short history of science will demonstrate that. Good night and good luck.

[Greg]

Oh, by the way, the debate IS over - the warming period has peaked along with the increasing solar output that was the primary cause of it. The current active hurricane cycle will continue as it regularly does, until it NATURALLY returns to the quiet phase some time in the future. We are still overdue an ice age. Polar bears are NOT dying off, in fact they're doing quite well, as are the harbor seals on the west coast despite the fact loony lefty environmentalists are trying to convince everyone they're threatened. The "hockey stick" Gore made such a big deal about in his movie? DEBUNKED. Though there was some reduction in ice at the north pole, a natural process, the temperature at the south pole is DROPPING and the ice and snow are ACCUMULATING. On all of these matters, yes, the facts are in, the debate is over. The left is LYING. The sky is NOT falling. And last, for the record, I hope sea levels DO rise about 100 feet or so as that will turn my home into beachfront property and the value will SKYROCKET!

[Greg]

It never ceases to amaze me how the loony leftys don't check their "facts" before regurgitating them. One supposed result of global warming is, according to Al Gore et. al., the DESERTIFICATION of the planet. Desertification occurs when there is LESS moisture, such as during ICE AGES when more and more water is locked up in ice and snow. As the planet warms the result will be MORE EVAPORATION and, if anything, LESS DESERTIFICATION. It's simple logic. Something the loony left cannot grasp, even with both hands.

Yes, we should work on cleaner technologies that allow us to once and for all kick the foreign oil habit - let Chavez and the Arabs/Persians drown in their oil. Yes, we should do what we can to reduce our impact on earth, but when you think about it, the only way to do that is to reduce population. Any volunteers? I'm serious - the only way to achieve zero carbon output is to STOP BREATHING. You loony leftys go first and let the rest of us know how it works out for you in a month or so.

Here's the one word that best describes climate change - INEVITABLE. If those whining about anthropogenic warming had any ability to research a topic they'd know that the alarm has switched from global cooling to global warming four times in the last 100 years or so. I bet most of them don't even know what the most potent greenhouse gas is (I'll tell you later), or that ozone is a greenhouse gas so saving the ozone layer leads to global warming. I bet they don't know that without greenhouse gasses the earth would actually be a cold, dry lump of ice, essentially, much like Ganymede. Why is the earth just right for life? WATER VAPOR, the most potent of the greenhouse gasses. But there's a feedback system - the more water vapor, the more clouds, the more energy gets reflected back to space.

So why is it Gore et. al. want us to fall for their anthropogenic warming myth? Well it keeps the "scientists" (and believe me I use that term VERY loosely) that are preaching the anthropogenic warming gospel in high-dollar grants. Imagine what would happen to their government grants if they admitted the topic they've dedicated their life to is a fraud? And Gore and his ilk? Why, they want to be the ones controlling the trillions of dollars that are to change hands as "carbon trading" and "carbon offsets". You know what those are, don't you? Person A pays big bucks because he's polluted so much to country B, which as a developing country has inefficient processes which they use the money to make more of so their pollution increases too. Meanwhile Gore and his cronies take a big chunk and laugh all the way to the bank as we pay good money because of a hoax that their system does NOTHING to fix, in fact it only makes things WORSE!

Oh yeah, one last point - if man is causing global warming on earth, who is causing CORRESPONDING GLOBAL WARMING ON MARS? Martians?

[wardmd]

Exactly...

I'm reminded of the high schoolers (I think) who circulated a petition to BAN the "dangerous chemical" (dihydro-monoxide). This "dangerous chemical" is found in thousands of food (and other) products, AND is the second leading cause of DEATH in children under the age of 19.

Needless to say, they we easily able to get a gullible and uninformed public to sign the petition to ban WATER (er, dihydro-monoxide). Hell, there are on-line petitions all over the internet.

Sounds very similar to the gullibility and lack of (factual) information with respect to "Global Warming", doesn’t it?

Odd, but I don't see the Chicken-Littles of the "Global Warming" crusade supporting any REAL alternatives. Sure, there’s Ethanol (hey, let the poor Mexicans suffer with skyrocketing tortilla prices, now that corn has become more valuable for Ethanol than for food). Then, of course, there’s their old standard, "conservation". Now THAT’S the way to grow the economy and ensure technological progress – take giant steps BACKWARD…

Hey, I know, how about a "comprehensive immigration policy" that REQUIRES sufficient resources (Gas, Water, Electricity, Roads, Schools, Prisons, etc.) to accommodate the immigrants (and those of us already here) BEFORE they are allowed to stay (oh, and for the record… My wife is from Mexico, so you can forget that "you’re a racist and a bigot" attack before you even begin typing).

Heaven forbid we should expect the Government to conduct an Environmental Impact study before inviting tens of thousands MORE illegal aliens to come here (by granting those who ARE here amnesty).

[willie]

While I am not a computer scientist, I am a trained meteorologist currently working in the environmental field. I understand the capabilities of weather/climate computer models. If meteorologists can't tell us what is happening next week, how can anyone tell us what will happen in 30 years?

I see the politics of emissions everyday. Political entities are steadily pushing green house gas reductions on industrial facilities with each passing negotiation. There are many fringe markets hoping to make money from these changes. These same political entities are not concerned with controlling the largest source of CO2, mobile emission sources, cars and trucks. By heaping additional, unnecessary regulatory hurdles before industrial manufacturers, governmental agencies are doing what governments do, create more tax revenue and dollars to be redistributed without accepting the blame. Groups blame the industrial facilities for increasing the cost of fuels, but the connection between increased fuel costs and increased operating costs for fuel manufacturers caused by increased regulation is never pointed out in our even handed media.

We need to remember that CO2 comprises less than 0.05% of our atmosphere. There have not been any discussions to control the release of the most pervasive green house gas, dihydrogen oxide. This gas is many time more capable of capturing BTU's from the atmosphere and radiating them to surrounding molecules. This gas will further our spiral to becoming a dead planet much faster than CO2. I am, of course, discussing water vapor. Lets see Algore begin a crusade to remove this gas from the atmosphere.

[wardmd]

Oh, and how can ANYONE say that "the debate is over"? Hell, AlGore and the United Nations can't even reach a "consensus" as to the "worst case" scenario for the rise in sea levels...

AlGore's movie (and many other Chicken-Little "scientists") assert that sea levels could rise 18 to 20 FEET.

The United Nations (no right-wing group, by any measure) says that sea levels could rise 7 to 23 INCHES (that's 2.9% to 10.6% of AlGore's prediction, or to make AlGore look even worse [if that's possible]... AlGore's predictions are 1043.4% to 3085.7% greater than those of the United Nations...

Where's the "consensus"?

Who are we to believe, and WHY?

[wardmd]

My turn...

FIRST, I am a computer scientist. I KNOW that the Global Warming predictions are based on COMPUTER MODELS (software simulations of what MIGHT occur [not what WILL occur]).

I think I'm safe is saying that there are NO TWO computer models which generate the SAME results (predictions). In other words, there's NO CONSENSUS in the computer models.

This is, primarily, because the models are GUESSES of how our weather/climate systems work. News flash: we don't KNOW how they work - we're just guessing...

Now, as to the many of you who proclaim that we don't have a parallel Earth (without humans, SUVs, cow flatulence, etc.) - so we can't run comparitive studies --- We DO... Well, sort of... We have the other planets in our solar system.

If our computer models do NOT take into account that which is happening to the other planetary bodies in our solar system, then they are falsely skewing the output.

If one does NOT consider what is happening to, say, Mars (and scientific EVIDENCE [not consensus] indicates that IT is getting warmer), then your entire model is flawed.

You are all missing out on one important FACT in this entire Global Warming scare...

The Chicken-Littles amongst us are in a NO LOSE situation. If the Earth's temperature continues to rise - they will say, "See, we told you so.". If, however, the Earth's temperature goes DOWN, then they will say, "It's because of OUR efforts to stop Global Warming that we have succeeded in reducing the Earth's temperature. But the battle's not over. Unless we continue this fight against Global Warming, we'll be worse off than we were before." (or some other such nonsense). They have NOTHING to lose in making their outrageous (factless) assertions.

Oh, and on the subject of automobiles...

First, why did the Government FORCE us to put catalytic converters on our cars?

Catalytic converters convert NON-Green House Gas (Carbon Monoxide [CO]) into Green House Gas (Carbon Dioxide [CO2]). IF Green House Gasses are SO BAD, shouldn't the government repeal the mandate for these catalytic converts? That would eliminate a BUNCH of CO2, wouldn't it?

Second, if hybrids have greatly reduced emissions, WHY do we want THEM in the HOV (aka "Car pool") lanes? Shouldn't we WANT these low emission vehicles in the "regular" lanes (since they pollute so little), and get the big polluting SUVs into the car pool lanes - so they get where they're going as quickly as possible - with the least amount of pollutants released into the air?

That is, of course, if the REAL goal is to reduce auto emissions (as opposed to attempting to control choice through political means [taxation, etc.]).

And, with respect to those "car pool lanes" - if the alleged purpose is to get drivers to "car pool" (that is, to reduce the number of cars on the roads) - then shouldn't "car pools" be defined as TWO OR MORE LICENSED DRIVERS IN A VEHICLE? How, exactly, does a soccer mom, taking little Billy to soccer practice reduce the number of cars on the road?

Is it really your assertion that were it not for the car pool lane, Mom and little Billy would BOTH be driving their cars to soccer practice?

Why should SHE (they) be allowed in the "car pool" lane? Perhaps it's time for an electronic transponder device, which requires TWO driver licenses to be inserted into it to make it emit the "car pool lane authorized" signal (without which, the equivalent of "red light cameras" take pictures of you, your car, and it's license plate, and send you a ticket in the mail [for violating "car pool" regulations])!

Again, that is IF the REAL purpose of "car pool lanes" is to reduce the number of cars on the highways.

[rocketman]

All the things proposed by enviro-weenies contribute to the increase of greenhouse gasses. We are told to walk or ride bikes- this causes you to increase your metabolism and increases the CO2 you put out. How about composting? Decaying organic material releases carbon into the atmosphere. Planting lots of trees? Trees use CO2 during the daytime for photosynthesis, but at night the actually release CO2 (small amount). And all the fallen leaves decomposing release Carbon, not to mention when they die and decompose. Electric cars? These have to be plugged into our existing electric grid, the power plants run on coal and natural gas (primarily). Face it, everything we do puts gas in the atmosphere, the only solution is forced reduction of the human race (slaughter the excess population)- but then the decomposing bodies would release gasses into the air AAARGGHH! What are we to do?
On a side note, I just love the whole carbon offset scam- reminds me of snake oil salesmen. "Just pay me and I'll do the rest, no need to change a thing you are doing!" We can continue to use more and more, but just by the simple expedient of preventing those pesky third world poor people from using any we feel good about it. They aren't really using their share, so we'll use it for them.

[Common Sense]

Why do so many people think that enviromentalism is some liberal made-up issue? It has nothing to do with political position in terms of whether you are conservative or liberal. I know many conservatives that are concerned about the environment and many liberals that are not. Sweeping it under the carpet as a "liberal issue" is just a form of brainwashing.

Anyone who can understand that they wouldn't want an exhaust pipe coming right into their living room because it would be nasty to breathe can understand environmentalism on a small scale. Why is it so hard when you extrapolate it to a larger environment than your living room?

[ethan]

i think polar bears eat carabou, if there is such thing. i think that polar bears when they get sick...they eat each other. i hope this is a good comment although i don't know what this is about. so i'm just going to write this. but now i'm going to say maybe they eat snow or other kinds of plants. maybe they're herbivores or maybe they're not. i can't tell. thankyou for letting me write this letter whoever you are. e

[Aerial]

There is no left or right. There is only right and wrong. As long as some of you cling to your left and right security blankets there can be no logical discussion.

[Cynical]

So I researched the population numbers of polar bears and I discovered that their numbers are increasing despite global warming. Go figure.

[Jerry Mount]

Dr. Bogert, you must also be a part of the Liberal Mis-Information machine. You say that "human population growth is increasing EXPONENTIALLY." You even capitalize EXPONENTIALLY!!!!!

According to the US Census Bureau, the world population growth rate hit a peak of 2 percent growth rate back in the early 60's and has been decreasing ever sense to where it is now, below 1.5% growth annually. I'm no math major but 1.5% growth is not EXPONENTIAL GROWTH.

[ChaseRock]

This is the natural enviroment for Polar Bears. The pads on the bottom of the Polar Bears feet allow them to walk and even climb on ice. They are either in the water or on the ice.

If earths weather did stopped changing. Then there would be a problem...

[warren giese]

It takes an idiot or a fool to believe the global warming hype. The majority of scientists do not believe in man made global warming and I am a bit tired of people saying that 90% of them do. The debate about it ended when the so called "facts" started to be debunked. Now the man made global warming propagandists refuse to debate any more and have declared them selves the victors, typical leftist bilge. They say the subject is closed because it has been proven by a consensus. This is proof that the whole thing is politics and not science. Consensus is strictly a political term. Science puts forth a theory and welcomes all attempts at disproving the theory in order to insure that the original research leading to the theory is in fact correct. The whole tactic being used is in itself proof that there is no science involved in this political movement.

[memnoch]

Has anybody considered that regardless of why or if global warming is happining, the earth or "Mother Nature" will adapt just like it has every other time. And as for species going extint, so what, only the strong survive anyway, if man is not strong enough to survive and adapt then so be it

[Carlton]

Chuck, you the Man! I can only work and wait patiently. There is no way G. Warming can stop me now. I want what you have,but only after EARNING IT> God Bless The United States of America.

[chuck]

Since it is common knowledge that the rest of the world hates us I suggest we keep doing what we are doing and have a good life style and enjoy ourselves. Besides my house is at over 500 feet in elevation and will never be flooded by the ocean. Too bad if you bought that expensive beach front property and you loose a couple of feet of shoreline.

If we can grow our economy to 24 trillon (double from today) we can really have a good time and use more of the worlds energy. I hope we can get about 50 nuke plants up and running so I can turn my thermostat down to about 72 degrees on a 105 degree day in Texas. My electric bill might even then be half of what Al Gore's bill is each month.

Sorry to run off and not comment more but my private jet (G5) is ready on the ramp and I need to run off to another Global Warming conference with my girlfriend. We will be staying at a very upscale hotel in Geneva, Switzerland. Boy do they have a nice sauna there.

Those Polar Bears are cute on that iceburg.

[mickey]

good info

[Dr. Donn Bogert]

It seems that just about everyone is more interested in character assassination to prove their point than in listing any proven facts THAT RELATE to the real issue. What HAS occured in the HISTORY OF OUR PLANET, climate wise, does not, NECESSARILY, mean that the SAME CHANGES brought about by nature, will occur again at all, or at what RATE OF SPEED. What IS known now, and is VERY DIFFERENT from past history, is that human population growth is increasing EXPONENTIALLY. This means that the effect of MAN MADE POLLUTION on global warming is increasing by GEOMETRIC PROGRESSION, year after year. This is a DRAMATIC CHANGE over what has been the history of our planet's climatic history. To ignore this, or claim that it is some kind of conspiracy created by liberal dingbats, is simply sticking our heads in the sand. Yes, the press has often misrepresented the facts and blown things all out of proportion. But, if we are at all concerned about our children and grandchildren's future, it is something that must be addressed NOW. If the small nation of Iceland can convert their energy fuel usage to hydrogen, eliminating dependence upon petroleum, and they are doing just that NOW, than we must also. This is true for a variety of reasons, not only to address global warming. We dangerously depend upon volatile middle eastern nations, full of radical terrorists, for our oil. This must all end, NOW! We CAN do it, if our government and industry REALLY gets behind the effort, and there's not just a lot of empty words from politicians and industry leaders trying to hoodwink us. Remember General Marshall and President Truman's "Manhattan Project" of the '40's? Just like that project, it will take a great deal of effort and lots of money, but it's doable, NOW. Dr. Donn C. Bogert

[Long-time Meteorologist]

Man made global warming is a myth. It is all about money and power.

[John]

All that over a picture of two polar bears standing on a wave-carved (little doubt there if you know what waves do to ice) ice flow. Its a beautiful picture no more, no less and it says nothing about climate or weather since we have no other data. If that picture was taken in January (it wasn't unless the potographer was using a hell of big flash) then one could say wow, its warm for January. It looks more like the pic was taken in summer. Arctic warming is called summer.

John

[Chuck]

Interesting story on the polar bear picture!
Love you
Robin

[Dave]

"James...Cycles don't happen by themselves."

Yet again, factually wrong. One of the most fascinating facets of chaotic systems is their fractal nature. A chaotic system tends to look the same no matter what scale you're observing it at. For instance, the trend of the Earth's average temperature over hundreds of millions of years looks remarkably like the trend of local temperatures over a couple of days. This in fact would look quite a lot like the temperature trend of a single point in a clear field on a windy day, if we had a temperature detector with a fast enough response time. Its not hard to describe: the temperature moves up and down, but is fairly well bounded within a certain range. As the cycles get slower and your averaging area gets larger, this range contracts. The global warming advocates argue that the warming trend we can see now is caused by man because it is too fast for the million-year cycles and too slow for random climate changes. However, these trends are simply another scale in the fractal nature of global temperatures.

Another beef I have with the whole argument is that we seem to be worried about a 0.7 deg C rise over the past hundred years. The temperatures we measure to get these averages are all over the map, and span more than two orders of magnitude larger than the change in the average. Ask any instrumentation or communications engineer if their equipment will work when the noise is over 100 times the signal strength and they'll laugh at you. Extrapolating a trend from data like this is junk science, and the scientists doing it should be ashamed of themselves. They're either incompetent or simply ignoring the inadequacy of the data.

[cuz]

Bravo muere!!

Isn't it ironic that liberals will use the UN when it assist them in making their argument? What about the UN sanctions against a certain country? I don't hear them siding with the UN on that! BTW I think the UN ought to go set up shop in say... Lebanon with out our yearly financial contribution and then they can bash the US all they want... Has anybody else determined what a useless "body" that the UN is?

[muerte]

if the un told you the world was flat would you believe them too and the 1000 scientists they paid off. you wake up and stop blindly following

[Simon]

Just read the new UN report on Global Warming that clearly state that global warming is a global and VERY dangerous threat to mankind. Thousands of scientist don't have wrong. You are wrong. Stop living in a lie.

[Christopher Taylor]

Actually Kyoto is utterly worthless and without any use or value in the slightest degree for reducing any carbon emissions or any presumed global warming in any place. Totally without value, even its proponents admit this when being candid. It's just an international money redistribution scheme that deliberately left China and India out of the loop of requirements.

The truth is, we need to be responsible, intelligent, and moral stewards of the world we have. That means pollute less, handle your resources better, and take care of what we own. I love the idea of voluntary recycling, various alternate energy sources being exploited, and people carpooling or bicycling to work. I also love the idea of us using the oil we can get to, drilling where we can, and building homes and businesses. I understand that truckers can't drive tiny electric cars to work, I understand that when I need to build a fence I can't stack the materials on my bike.

What we need is people on both sides of this issue to step back, take a deep breath, and start over with some intelligence, discernment, and real concern over the issues instead of shreiking hysteria based on ludicrously bad science and a dubious political agenda on one side and a reactionary rejection of anything that remotely has a whiff of patchoulli on the other.

[templar knight]

diana,

I'm sorry you were offended, but my intent was not to disparage anyone, but to prove that the people who are claiming that the Earth is about to end are full of crap. If they truly believed the World was about to end, they would be willing to do whatever is necessary to prevent the destruction of the World, including what I said, which was not at all a proposal from me, but a foile used to prove these people are not really that concerned about global warming.

I'm not that concerned about global warming, and I do not advocate such a program, but used it as a foile. If you hate me for that, so be it.

[LUCIUS SEVERUS PERTINAX]

I'm going to wiegh in here and, Behold! I will niether point fingers or call names!

First, it it is a a fact we are presently in an interglacial period. (I know I am belaboring the obvious here but bear with me) It so happens that as interglacial periods go, ours is a quite mild one.
The last inter-glacial, that occurred some 130-110 thousand years ago, was much more of the standard type. The Earth then was CONSIDERABLY warmer than it is now. Sediment core samples and fossil tree rings, among other physical evidence very strong indicate the level of the sea was 6-8 meters higher than it is now. Let us split the difference and call it 7 meters; that's 24 feet. The Arctic Ocean was, at that time navigable (had there been any ships)at least most of the year. how then, did the polar bears live? Simple; there were no polar bears, there were brown bears that lived on dry land in a cool climate. When the climate cooled the bears were naturally selected for lighter colored pelts and better fat retention; they, in other words, adapted, as species will under changing conditions.
Human beings, it that time, produced greenhouse gasses only in the form of farts and campfires.

Attempting to prove how much human activity has to do with the present(undeniable) warming trend is highly problematic for the simple reason that there is NO BASIS OF COMPARISION!!!
We are unable to set up an "alternate Earth" in a belljar that is identical to our own except it is innocent of human beings..... then compare the results.

Second, The Kyoto or similar Protocals, in order to be anything like effective, must be followed assiduously for centuries. Is there anyone, anyone at all, that truly believes that all the nations of the world, are actually going to do this? For hundreds of years? And nobody is going to cheat? Human beings being what they are? Is there anyone, able to tie thier own shoelaces, niaive and idealistic enough to buy that?

The bottom line is simple and clear, the level of the seas will rise.. How far, how fast, I know not, but rise they will. The Human race will do what every other species does in the face of a changing enviroment: adapt or die.

[Muerte]

Yes the sun...its already been established solar flares contribute greatly to the climate flux. Not to mention vents both in the ocean and earths crust (volcanos etc) which have been documanted to put out 3 to 5 times what every vehicle on EARTH puts out in a year (a year). and last but not least, the huge amount of natural methane from natural sources (animal farts, ever been near a cattle farm? stinky...)
To say that the evil SUV is the root of all the global warming theorys is ludicrous. why did the earth warm up after the last ice age 60000 years ago? why are there sea shells in lakebeds in colorado? montana? nebraska? where were the suvs when that warming cycle occured?? concensus is not science...to prove a scientific FACT it must pass a three step process...so far global warming due to human and only human reasons has only been to step one...then shot down...

[Jason C]

"Scroll down and you'll see the same picture was first published with a credit to another person on the trip"

It's not the same picture. They are two different photos of the same thing.

[Barry]

Michael, you ignore the elephant in the room. You ask someone (James) to describe what we do not know. What you do not know and will not answer. What caused global warming and cooling in the past?

Also, while your explaining this... Have you ever asked how we know the "average" temperature of the earth? It is reasonable to determine this from historical data for a period of years. Hard to say what it really is today.

[brian]

How about the sun? That's a pretty significant external input.

[michael]

James...Cycles don't happen by themselves. They happen because something is causing them; therefore, you have to look at forcings (external boundary conditions or inputs to a climate model.)

What would you say are the current forcings contributing the current warming of the earth?

[Kevin]

All the liberals should just stop breathing. Nail two birds with one stone.

[Kite]

Thank you James.

I was wondering when a "STFU n00bs!!" was going to pop up. You have literally made my afternoon by saying that. I'll leave the office with a smile now.

[larry]

OMG most of you people are retards..
give me a break,..
I remember in the 1970s we knew it all and 90% of the worlds leading scientist said the earth was headed for a DEEEEEPPPP FREEZE OMG NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
they even had a whole USA today or news week mag set to it.. no commercials no other stories just how humans and co2 gas would freeze the earth and keep people from growing corn/wheat or feeding cows...
we are all going to starve...

or what about when they said OMG!!!!! we are all going to starve to death when we hit 6 BILLION people.. what we at now... somethign like 12 billio? or more... cant remember OOOOOO WAIT!!!! what about the time they said if we set off 1 atom bomb we would destroy the earth.. i think we have set off nearly 200 around the world so far... in underground testing and in the south pacific.. heck france just set one off like 3 or 4 years ago..
OOOOO WAIT!!! BUT WE KNOW SO MUCH MORE NOW....HAHAHAHA
look back in just US history.. heck one time the US gov. back in the 1800 closed the US patent office why? because we had invented everything that could ever be invented..... HAHAHa
this is just more stupid crap to follow.. here is something for you tard wackos... no matter what we do in the US... chine doesnt have to do it.. in fact ... it is said that in less than 5 years.. China will have more cars in china than we have PEOPLE in the US... think about that for a sec..... even if we got rid of all the cars in the free world... china will replace them and more in LESS than 5 years....
again... this could all be part of a cycle... i personally think God was a heck of alot smarter than we are... and knew what the heck he was going.. it is funny when you think that humans think they are so powerful they can do anything... yet we cant even cure cancer.. BUT we can destroy earth.. OMG my sides hurt from LOL

[James]

This is fake....global warming is so fake. It is just a cycle that comes and goes every 200 years you people. It is the way our climate works. We just have dumber people nowadays that want to make these claims. STFU n00bs

[Ashley]

Well it certainly sounds to me that Global Warming as they say is caused by C02 emissions, right? Well I have a WONDERFUL idea to help stop Global Warming, and if you really do care about the environment, you will not hesitate to help out immediately! When humans exhale, we give off carbon dioxide, which is what causes global warming in the first place. If you think about it, you are always breathing, several times each minute. Then just think about how many people there are! If we could just get every environmentalist, liberal, and every other fringe kook out there to just all stop breathing - permanantly... Just think of how much less C02 there will be! (Not to mention that there will be that many fewer liberals!) We can save the world!

-ashley

[Barry]

"My point was that you cannot look outside today (or any one day for that matter) and draw a conclusion on climate change. The analysis needs to occur over a period of time."

Michael

The period of time you refer to, what is it? It is much longer than your lifetime. To detect a trend that will be with us for centuries will require centuries of reliable and understandable data. You remember, garbage in = garbage out. No matter how many links you provide to however many scientists (many on the GW gravy train) or to companies (it is a PC world inside these companies), the most important fact remains. We do not know why earths temperature goes up and down. We do not know what part CO2 plays in it. We can not predict the temperature of the earth in the future with any more accuracy than we can predict tomorrows temperature. You can study every single word written in support of and opposed to your position, and anyone that asserts the earth is warming or cooling or staying the same is lieing to you. No one knows. The consensus of liars does not change this. There are many many who know this and are afraid to speak out. There are many more who have no concern for the truth, only for their pocketbooks.

As to your "mythbusting" regarding the global cooling predictions in the 70's, you are just plain wrong. I was an undergraduate student studying climatology and geology at that time. It was the prevailing thought about climate. It was not the "religion" global warming has been turned into. But it was used to frighten people and, you guessed it, turn fear into $$$.

Until, and unless, you can explain global warming and cooling in the past, you can not possibly explain what the current trend is or what is causing it.

Is earth warming and is it a long term trend? I have no idea. Neither do you or any "scientist" you care to link to. The most important thing a scientist, or any other person, should know is what they don't know.

[muerte]

no prob mike, i read your link..... pretty interesting

[michael]

Muerte, thank you for the link; I will read it this afternoon.

[muerte]

cuz, well theres fossilized sea shell in sweetwater lake near glenwood springs here in colorado...so i think your chances ar good!