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

[Old Dad]

Jonathan:

The insurance industry has a great advantage. They insure dopes against nonexistent risks--for cash.

For example, you might have insured against y2k. Bet you did. Have you paid your meteor premium?

Do you think they over or undersestimate the risk?

[The Raging Patriot]

Artie, why will you not answer a simple question? Sure, I may be pathetic, but at least I'm willing to carry on an intelligent conversation. You can't even answer a simple question.

Again, what caused the earth to warm up in the past?

Why is that you "stay the course" with personal attacks rather than answer the question? I'm thinking that it's because personal attacks is all you have.

Until you engage in simple intellectual debate, you lack credibility and relevance.

[templar knight]

We seem to be pretty good at kicking your ass in a debate, Artie, and proving you to be nothing more than hot air. If you were truly concerned about global warming, you would take the obvious steps, the easy steps, the ones that quickly make the greatest difference.

[LOL]

lol gotta love the triumphalism of the right

so stupid they don't even realize it

[templar knight]

Yeah, then answer the quesiton, LOL. If you refuse to answer the question, then what are we to think? What would an uninterested observer think? You know the answer, LOL, you're posturing and looking like the fool you are.

[Bart]

yyy said, with sarcasm dripping from every syllable: "We all know that scientists and scientific organizations have a long history of making outragious predictions and going off on political tangets."

Well, let's see. DDT, alar, silicon implants, global cooling, Y2K, population explosion...no, no history at all. Idiot.

yyy then averred: "So, when industry resists global warming because it's going to 'hurt the economy' and 'hurt American competitiveness" I am skeptical. I've heard it before and found that it usually is a bit polyanish shall we say."

The word is "pollyannaish", and it means the exact opposite of what you want it to mean. Moron. Forgive me if the "skepticism" of such a retard as yourself fails to ease my mind as to the effects of shackling American industry over the latest fad chicken little hysteria of the day.

[spacmonkey]

"(Bush) has done diddly squat to address it other than calling for more studies and whining"

At least he hasn't been touring the country in his private jet telling everyone to quit using private jets, like Al Gore has been doing.

[scarshapedstar]

"It has now been proven that the Lefties really don't care about the Earth at all. It's all about politics to them."

Totally. When I went hiking through Joyce Kilmer National Park this summer, I wasn't really awed by the sheer primordial size of the trees that have outlasted empires, or regretful that earlier Americans were so shortsighted. I was just plotting to end capitalism.

You caught me. Damn...

[templar knight]

Then why won't you and the rest of the liberals on this thread answer the question, scar? The absolute easiest way to immediately cut carbon emissions in the US, and in the World at large, would be for the US and the rest of the First World to deport all illegal aliens, and then refuse to take any immigration from the Third World to the First World for the next 20 years. Carbon emissions would start to drop immediately, as these people would not use even half the carbon in their native countries that they do in the US and the West.

If you are convinced that the World is truly in the danger you say, you would do this, because it will quickly reduce carbon emissions, and buy us time to make progress on other issues. The World is at stake, you say, so surely you are willing to do this one thing that all of us can get behind.

[Barry]

I’m willing to bet my education in climatology, meteorology, and geology is equal to or greater than all the "global warming" crowd commenting here. I state this only because you seem to always call those who disagree with you “uneducated”. You ignore reality. The picture, as it is currently being used, pretends to show the poor Polar Bears trapped on a melted ice flow because of global warming. Polar bears can, of course, swim great distances and are not trapped at all.

The earth has warmed and cooled from the time it formed. It has been much hotter and much cooler than we currently find it. There have been much hotter periods, hotter even than the current projections, all without any influence from man since he was not yet an inhabitant. If the data regarding recent temperature increases is reliable (an uncertainty itself), to extrapolate this to century long predictions is simply not possible given the capability we currently have. In terms of geologic time, it is much like predicting severe flooding and a world underwater because it has been raining three straight days. Those of us with a rational view understand that it just might quit raining soon enough. Does man have an impact on the global temperature? Of course, just as worms, birds, bears, volcanoes, meteors, comets, and the SUN do. As an undergrad, back in the 70’s, the same groups were predicting global cooling, I.E., the next ice age. I have no more faith in these silly predictions now than I did then. There not based on science, they simply use the science that can be melded to fit their view. This view is politically motivated and designed to produce political power and money for the promoters.

If you wish to reduce mans contribution to co2 (what little part it is) then support nuclear power production rather than trying to force me to comply with whatever your desires are.

[Toddk]

Just to toss another fact into the fire....
China will exceed the US in CO2 emissions by 2009.

[The Economist]

"Why should I doubt the scientific community that has been studying this in earnest for two decades"

Because they get paid to study it. If there is no global warming the grants to study it disappear. People respond to incentives.

[Uncle Mikey]

You'd think the liberal morons who hang around here would actually make a point sometimes. Maybe advance a piece of contrary evidence, or debunk something Dan's written. No joy there, of course. Just snarky, self-congratulatory bullshit, as usual, not unlike their larger worldview.

[M. Simon]

Global warming on Earth is real.

So is global warming on Mars.

I wonder what the connection might be?

A Geologist Looks At Global Warming

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2006/12/geologist-looks-at-global-warming.html

[M. Simon]

What is the proper temperature for the Earth?

The proper amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Who decides?

[John Hawkins]

Dan

Rush just mentioned this post.

[Jebster]

Are we saying libs lie and mislead?

Say it ain't true?!?

[Dan Riehl]

Rush just mentioned this post.

Cool - thanks, John.

[Ed Martin]

I live here in Tennessee about 20 miles from Al GOres place. I bet he is rightly pissed about having to shovel the driveway today during this DEADLY COLD WINTER!!! Tell those in Colorado, the midwest, upstate new york, and New Egland about GLOBAL WARMING right now, and you might get lynched

[Mike Goober]

At some point Global Warming fright will Jump the Shark. Posts like this delay that. Okay, so the iceberg melts due to warm WATER instead of warm AIR? So what.

[TWarrior]

I cant believe the arrogance of people who think they can change the climate.
We have the data that shows the earth warms then cools, I'TS ROUND!

"Folks, the global warming movement, if you’ll open yours eyes, allows you to see virtually every means, theory, and desire liberalism has for humanity. Just open your eyes and look at it and forget science. It’s not about that." Rush Quote

[tucsontom]

If either side is interested in a review of both sides of this debate in a respected, peer reviewed journal, I refer you to the above link. As the abstract states: "A review of the present status of the global warming science is presented in this paper."

Just the facts. No hype. Judge for yourself.

[yyy]

The right wing hates science and facts for the simple reason that most times science and facts are not on their side. Most of what they believe and want is either contradicted by the facts or cannot be proven but must be taken on belief.

They're convinced global warming is a made up "fact" to secure liberal world domination so of course they don't want to hear what a bunch of scientists say or surveys or research data show or any "facts" at all.

Take it on faith, baby.

[TucsonTom]

Looks like the link was to my user ID. Anyway, here's the link to the refereed paper on climate change research: http://www.springerlink.com/content/g87327815xg2u1h2

[JC]

I don't see how most of this page has anything to do with the post. Nice how you couldn't keep yourselves from attacking each other or Dan and using phrases like 'flat-earth redneck'. Whether 'global-warming' exists or not, or whether it can be proven or not, the point was that its come to the point of mis-quoting and stealing just to get an opinion across. Thats all it is, an opinion. It doesn't matter how many people share it, that doesn't make it true. You can take that from either side of your opinions. I wont say which side I belong to.

[P Burton]

I am still waiting for the Ice Age predicted by all of the "experts" in the 1970s. Probably these "experts" solved this problem so that we missed the Ice Age entirely and have headed into global warming. Maybe we shouldn't listen to experts and just try common sense. After I am shown clear evidence that the giant heating lamp in the sky (the sun) is not responsible for warming and cooling trends then I am prepared to listen to other theories. From what I have read the little research done on this shows that warming trends coorelate to sun spot activity. Duh.

[Kite]

I will state this once and only once.

"Many scientists agree that global warming is happening and changing out climate."

THAT STATEMENT HOLDS NO SCIENTIFIC GROUND. none. nadda. zilch. Because? consensus does not exist in science. The global warming theory (yes, theory) cannot be tested and does not complete the scientific method. You can't just "agree" that it's happening without any real concrete evidence. also, computer models aren't evidence. The models are built upon equations that are, in every sense of the word, useless. The different values in each equation are MADE UP because they don't have any real numerical tested value to base them on.

NO CONSENSUS IN SCIENCE, it's either tested and verfied or it's nothing but a bunch of harmless hot air (pun intended.)

[clarice feldman]

As usual, it's brilliant, Dan. I noticed this the other day when Newsbusters linked to it and was too tied up on the Libby case to comment then.More great investigative journalism and more kudos to you.

[yyy]

That's funny, I thought the scientific consensus was that women should get yearly mamograms after age 50, that tobacco use has a causal relationship to lung cancer and that a glass of red wine a day is good for your health.

I am glad to know now that nothing that doesn't include 100% of all scientists on the planet in 100% agreement counts as a consensus and that any kind of 'theory' or 'computer modeling' is pure voodoo.

I wonder how we managed to make it to the moon on those wacky computer simulation models and so forth. Oh wait, I forgot, there is no scientific consensus that we did land on the moon, there are several scientists who dispute that it happened, therefore, it may not have happened. Got it.

You flat earthers get dumber every day. But let me be clear, not all rednecks are flat earthers, in fact it may be possible that some of the twenty eight percenters are not flat eathers, but on that there is no consensus.

[Raging_Dave]

The same people who are screaming that the earth is warming and we're all gonna die were the same people who, back in the 70's, were screaming that the earth is COOLING OFF and we were all gonna die.

As other people pointed out - the earth heats up. The earth cools off. This planet has at times been hotter than it is now, or colder than it is now. We have had Ice Ages that covered most of North America in glaciers, and warm periods that allowed people to farm in Greenland, a landmass currently covered in snow.

Point all of this out, and the Leftists disappear. Hmmmm. Amazing. Pull out a few facts, and the Left scatters like cockroaches from light. But they still come back to scream "BELIEVE! REPENT, OR YOU WILL DIE!" Environmentalism has become the new religion of the Left, and in their world, all non-believers shall be punished!

[yyy]

Your point is irrelevant. What does the fact that the Earth has cooled or warmed in the past have to do with what is causing this warming?

I understand you want to say that since the earth has warmed and cooled in the past indepedent of man's activities or even existance that means global warming is natural and not manmade at this point in time.

Except the science doesn't back you up, the scientific evidence supports the idea that this warming period is being caused in large part by man's activities.

Straw man, straw man....nothing new.

I love the idea that sun spots are causing global warming though....too funny.

[michael]

For those that use the "Scientists predicted global cooling, and they were wrong, so why should we believe global warming is real" approach to debunking climate change, please review the following article about the validity of that false argument:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/

[Kite]

Allow me to elaborate. Obviously some didn't get the gist the first time around.

Allow me to use an example : The Drake Equation - N=Nxfp ne fl fi fc fL The drake equation was built upon an old old group that sent a signal out in to space to see if there was life on other planets. A signal came back (which actually turned out to be a fake.) and the scientific community was astounded. Then...the drake equation was born.

The equation works like this: N = numer of stars in milky way, fp is the fraction with planets, ne is the number of planets within the range of a star that could possibly support life, fl, fi, fc, and fl are all relative to the planets in which life evolves, becomes intelligent, or if that intelligent civilization communicates.

So, they used this equation to try and come to the answer of "are we alone?" well, guess what. The values in the equation can't be known. They can't EVER be known because it involves something that cant be estimated or gathered. Therefore....the values are just guesses. When putting that in to computer model you get an answer that either comes to trillions or nothing.

The same goes with the computer models with global warming. They have a similar equation and despite that the scientists cannot truely come to any concrete value on what to input they just "guess" what could happen and put that in to a computer model. It's all just speculation...a big political magic trick that has duped alot of people.

If you can't believe the weather man who tries to predict the weather 5 days in advance (and most times than not, gets it wrong) then how can you believe people who are predicting 100, 200, or even 500 years in to the future? Truth is...you shouldn't.

[BG]

I can assure you that global warming will eventually happen… when our sun starts to run out of fuel and turns into a red giant burning our little planet to a crisp

[The Raging Patriot]

Again, I'll ask the question that "humans cause global warming" pimps refuses to answer.

What caused the several global warming events throughout earth's history?

As far as the silly question; "What does the fact that the Earth has cooled or warmed in the past have to do with what is causing this warming?"

It's bad science to take several decades of data and attempt to use it to trump data that goes back tens of thousands of years.

Again, will someone please answer the above question?

[Cody]

still consensus has nothing to do with science. even if 100% agreed, it would not make it true unless it was tested and verified.

[Kite]

Also, turning your back on the idea of "sun causes global warming" will only make you (the scrutinous) look REALLY REALLY stupid in the end.

Why? because the sun is the source of our heat. THE SOURCE OF IT. It grows and shrinks depending on the amount of hydrogen it is burning...and yes...that amount actually fluctuates. I mean....how can you say the SUN isnt involved in the warming of our planet when it is responsible for....WARMING OUR PLANET.

Sometimes the easiest answer is the right one.

[Raging_Dave]

Thanks for proving my point, numbskull. The people currently screeching about global warming cannot explain why the Atlantic Ocean has hot/cool cycles of 30-50 years. You can't explain to me why El Niño shows up. You can't even explain what caused the Ice Age to end, nor what caused the "Little Ice Age" or what ended it. You have no explination for the cyclic events in this planets heating or cooling cycles, and what's more, YOU DON'T WANT ANY. Because actual scientific evaluation would be the ruin of your Church of the all-might Global Warming Theory. The fact that you actually do not accept the earth's hot/cool cycles into the global warming debate tells me that you're just another worthless kool-aid guzzing eco-freak, to whom facts are as uselss as real debate.

People here on this thread, much more educated in these things than you or I, have given you more than enough information to prove that the people blaming mankind in it's entirety for global warming are full of crap. And yet you persist in your eco-religious frenzy to demonize anyone who disagrees with you. "Scientific evidence", hand cherry-picked by people like you, doesn't prove anything but that the earth is warming. Yes, fine, nobody disputes that. What we dispute is your religious insistance that mankind is to blame for everything, and we're all gonna die unless we change our ways. I say bullshit. More to the point, people like you KNOW it's bullshit, because you haven't taken a single real step to do anything about it other than castigate those of us who know you're full of crap.

It's all well and good for algore to talk about global warming when he's riding around in a private jet that puts out more greenhouse gasses in one flight than my truck does in a year, because he's leading the religious revolution, followed by preachy nutjobs like you. Maybe when you crackpots actually do what you keep telling everyone else to do, we'll begin to take you seriously. Stop flying. Stop using air conditioning, which sucks up more electricity than almost any other appliance in the house. For that matter, stop using electricity, most of which is created by coal or oil. Stop driving. Practice what you preach, or shut the hell up, because it's hard for the grown-ups to deal with reality when children like you are screaming so damn loud all the time.

[Raging_Dave]

For those who are wondering, my comment was meant for yyy, not for anyone who responded after him.

[yyy]

What I want to know is how we were able to infiltrate every relevant scientific body on the planet with our 'global warming religion' to the point of getting all of these hundreds of thousands of scientists brainwashsed and writing papers and making statements on behalf of their members, doing research, and we can't even keep a flat earther war monger out of the White House??

We liberal moonbats are soo smart we brainwashed all the scientists around the world but we can't control a bunch of red state idiots in our own country?

Well yeah, that sounds about right, just like it is about par for the course that the reaction to anyone who agrees with what the science says should be told to give up electricity.

You probably worry about the unborn too, doncha?

[Kite]

Actually, i'll answer this one. Listen up YYY

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

That determines ALOT of outcomes in ALOT of scientific studies. Many of these scientists gain their grants from the UN, the Socialist leftist movement, the enviromental movement, and other "international interest groups" that may send a nice fat check their way. It's not a conspiracy theory to think money doesnt turn some opinions...it's fact.

You find me a scientists that actually did these tests and came to certain findings with REAL evidence and did so without a biased benefactor....THEN i'll believe you. Problem is...the scientists that actually DO go out to break the consensus come to the conclusion that man is NOT responsible.

As for the unborn? That depends....the non-existent? no...not to worried about them, but those lives just beginning in the womb? Yeah.

[Raging_Dave]

Look moron, when the founder of Greenpeace disavows his own organization because it's filled with religious eco-freaks like you, you know you have a problem.

The evidence to dispute your pet theory is out there, you just choose not to accept it, much like you choose not to believe that the earth heats and cools on it's own cycles. There have been plenty of URL's given on this thread that you haven't even bothered to deal with, as well as the questions of other people that you haven't bothered to answer. The reason for this is simple - global warming is your religion. Any science that disputes your religion is heresy, and thus ignored. Your mind is made up, and you won't change it. Fine, that's your choice, but don't be surprised when we point at you and laugh. Seriously, you disregard the millenia of evidence regarding heating and cooling cycles because it disputes what you believe. Why should we listen to you on anything else?

Have fun peddling your pet theory, idiot. I'm done with you. You're like a wild-haired lunatic on a street corner screeching that the End is Near, and Jesus is coming back soon. You're fun to poke at for a little while, but in the end, you're just a boring, deluded twit.

[The Raging Patriot]

ApplePie and yyy

I see you don't want to answer the question: What caused the several global warming events throughout earth's history?

Until you answer that question, you're pointless and irrelevant.

I'll make a bold prediction; you won't answer the question. Instead, you will continue your attempts at diversion and personal attacks.

[Raging_Dave]

Oh, and I'll just toss this out to everyone because I'm a "flat-earther dumb redneck hick redstater blah blah blah yada yada"

Let's see, if the ocean rises a couple of hundred feet, that means we don't have to worry anymore about Berkeley, LA, San Francisco, New York, or any of the other Liberal meccas. They'll be underwater. So I'm supposed to care?

Lemme fire up my coal stove and rev up my truck! HEAT UP, BABY! HEAT UP!

[Kite]

Now even though I dedicate my time to debunking global warming and it's obvious logical fallicy. I am not anti-enviroment. The best thing a person could do is replant trees.

Driving electric cars, using corn as gas, stop making SUV's, converting urine in to electricity (I made up that last one :P) isn't going to help the enviroment like some will preach. Not only is it non-impacting...it's economically absurd. That is equivical to screaming "Screw your jobs or your livelyhood! We're saving the planet!....even though we don't have any evidence that says what were doing actually IMPACTS ANYTHING!"

Do we need to stop driving SUV's to help the enviroment? no...thats not practical. However, replanting trees and trying to implement a "paper farm" system IS economically acceptable and enviromentally friendly. Also, whatever happened to freakin recycling?

[Joe]

Fifteen years from now they'll be back on their "Global Cooling" lies again and telling us that we'll all have to move to the equator to escape the ice and snow.

http://www.cafenetamerica.com

[Dave]

"I wonder how we managed to make it to the moon on those wacky computer simulation models and so forth."

Way to play the false analogy. The "computer simulations" used to get us to the moon were very simple calculations using deterministic physics. The simulations that are used for global warming are much like the simulations used for weather forecasting. They simulate a chaotic system with thousands of input variables. Many of these inputs have no data and are just "best guesses" while many more factors that affect the system are simply not included. Beyond this, we have very little understanding of the actual interactions between these variables. If someone sets out to create a model to prove man-made global warming, they begin with the premise that CO2 and other man-made greenhouse gasses have a significant effect on global temperatures and program that effect into their model. The trouble with these (or any other) models of global climate is that they do not accurately simulate historical data. We can essentially test the simulation by starting it with data from fifty years ago and seeing if it ends up at today's conditions. All of the models we have been able to come up with rapidly diverge from actual data when this is done.

There are three steps to any scientific discovery: form a hypothesis, gather data that supports the hypothesis, then prove your hypothesis. The global warming crowd stopped at step two, and for good reason: their hypothesis that man-made greenhouse gasses are causing global warming is not easily testable. There is plenty of data that supports the hypothesis. We can point to increasing global temperatures and increasing CO2 levels that correlate to each other. Of course, for a short period of time, I can also correlate my increasing height to increasing global temperatures. This doesn't mean I'm going to chop my legs off at the knee to stop global warming.

[The Sage]

Are these GW idiots ignoring the POINT OF THE STORY - which, as I saw it, was how far the global warming fear mongerers will go? To use someone else's photo, manipulate the setting, tell people it's a crumbling glacier. In other words, they have no quelms about lying to convince people they're right.

To answer the Raging Patriot's question -it's the SUN. Yes, the sun. You know, that big star that makes life on earth possible. More concrete research based on actual historical data (rather than speculation) points to increases in solar activity correlating with warming of our planet. Makes sense, eh? Since the cave men weren't driving SUVs or anything to bring us out of that first ice age...

[Jim]

I am kind of worried. If conservatives are a dying breed, and global warming is sure to cause 50 - 90 % extinction, won't that mean that conservatives will regain some of their population hold again, since 50- 90 % extinction is going to drastically affect the environmentally aware majority?

I kind of like that idea... I'm gonna go get my lighter.

[Mike Goober]

Sure, ice on the polar caps and Greenland is melting. What that shows is it is warmer NOW than when the ICE WAS CREATED, during the Ice Age. Okay, so it's warmer now than during the Ice Age. We know that. It takes many many years for the polar caps to catch up to a new average global temperature. How much ice disappeared between the Ice Age and 1800, and how long did that take?

Imagine how glaciers are created. Each year more snow falls than melts, causing the glacier to grow slowly. During a warm period, more melts than falls, and the glacier shrinks slowly over many years, not instantly.

I don't dispute global warming. The hype, exaggeration, and claims of environmental armageddon are way over the top. Global warming is used for political reasons to get liberals elected everywhere, to implement all their other (non environment) crazy socialist schemes.