Should we believe in global warming when the same people are trying to put a thriving polar bear on a list?

Question

Doesn't really make sense - I think they want worldwide issues to help take control of the world. i.e government, currency, religion, etc. I know that's reading into it a lot but what other reasons could there be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT6DnjtuZ...

http://www.earthsendangered.com/list.asp

Answer 1

First of all polar bears are listed as threatened not endangered.  Warming constitutes a future threat to polar bears for obvious reasons.

Second of all, who are these "they" people?  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is certainly not "the same people" as the IPCC.

Answer 2

Before asking this question you need to find out why polar bear populations have rebounded from the 1970s to present.  The answer is that there was a ton of polar bear hunting before the 1970s which has now been regulated.  The increasing polar bear population has been due to decreased human intervention - not because the climate is improving for them.

Secondly, the listing of polar bears as a threatened species was a no-brainer.  Not only are their populations already starting to show signs of danger (see link below), but we know they depend on Arctic sea ice for hunting, and we know Arctic sea ice extent and thickness have been rapidly decreasing due to global warming.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/detect...

Really it's a very obvious conclusion.

Answer 3

Because us environmentalists have SOOOOO much to gain by putting polar bears on the T&E list, of course.  {insert sarcasam here}

Answer 4

Good question. Or when the same people keep showing us temp graphs starting at 1880 when we're naturally coming out of the little ice age, or 1000 year graphs, where the medieval warming period has been mathematically level out, or when they collect temperature data from urban heat islands, or show ice melting in certain areas and fail to mention ice buildup in others, or craft extraneous reasons for warming on other planets, or trash other scientists who don't go along with their ideas, or fail to explain why such a minute amount of a given substance, in this case co2 could have so large an impact, like change the weather. I'm not sure if we should go with them or not.

Answer 5

The polar bear IS at risk due to the melting of arctic sea ice. Polar bears are already showing stress due to this, and it will only continue to get worse.

Answer 6

The reason for the recovery of the polar bear population from 5,000 (almost extinct) to the higher levels was due to an International hunting quota system.  It had nothing to do with global warming.

The new threat to polar bears is clearly the shrinking Arctic Ice area (there's no dispute that is happening, as we can see images of it from satellite monitoring).

So the truth of the matter is that there have been 2 serious threats to polar bears.  The first was over-hunting and that was resolved in the 70's (or there about).  The second is the shrinkage of the primary hunting domain.

Answer 7

The abuse of legislation is the rule rather than the exception.  Leftist ambulance chasing lawyers have sought (and succeeding in) subverting the original intention of the endangered species act.  Now some leftist judge can put you in jail (if it keeps going the way it is) for turning up your thermostat or driving too fast, or you name it, in the name of the Polar Bear as you correctly pointed out isn't endangered at all except in the minds of the hysterical leftist.