Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Is the polar bear predicament a sign of things to come?
dailygalaxy.com — Scientists believe that at least two-thirds of the world's polar bears will be gone within 40 years. But some say adding them to the endangered species list is just lip service and ignores the real issues.
WriterSD- 590 diggs
- digg it
- Orion1004, on 05/17/2008, -7/+16According to EO Wilson the world's leading authority on biodiversity, mass species extermination this century is a greater threat than global warming. Recent studies show that polar bear survived (barely) past cycles of warming.
- monoa, on 05/17/2008, -9/+5The mass species extinction ('The Sixth Great Extinction') is largely *because* of human-induced global warming - along with habitat destruction.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldre ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction_e ...
That's depressing enough, but then you read posts like 'jamesbrownlord', below. Someone give me a Barrett M82 and a perch in the local clock tower.... - jbenson2, on 05/18/2008, -1/+2Some past cases:
"Are you telling me I can't build my Burger King because a Delhi Sands flower-loving fly that has never been seen and is above ground only a few days a year might be near-by?" YES
"I can't build a connector road because the noise from construction might damage the hearing of the Stephens' kangaroo rat thus impairing its reproduction?" YES
"All construction in San Diego involving impacts to road ruts which might contain Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp is enjoined? All construction?" YES
The Polar Bear listing is worse than any of these examples, because it will affect all businesses that require Federal licensing or approval.
Test cases should be brought by industry that argue that various federal permits --import/export permits, private jet landing permits, conservation banking permits-- all have greenhouse gas impacts, no matter how small, and thus that they must be subject to Section 7 review.
I would love to see industry go after the Hollywood PRIVATE JET INDUSTRY. Oh, how the effete liberal snobs would react. It would be positively wonderful!
- monoa, on 05/17/2008, -9/+5The mass species extinction ('The Sixth Great Extinction') is largely *because* of human-induced global warming - along with habitat destruction.
- jeddjohnson, on 05/17/2008, -9/+14Just the tip of the iceberg...
- spasticjedi, on 05/17/2008, -4/+2I see what you did there.
- ozid, on 05/17/2008, -3/+5i see what you didn't do there.
hint: it involves not being a sheep.- paranoiabacon, on 05/17/2008, -2/+2Buried for "sheep"
- Thefascist, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1well, that's like ridiculous right there
- ozid, on 05/17/2008, -3/+5i see what you didn't do there.
- spasticjedi, on 05/17/2008, -4/+2I see what you did there.
- viciouspictures, on 05/17/2008, -2/+13while i understand the obvious concept of "ice = habitat" and, logically, "loss of habitat = loss of life (polar bears)". But ice is a pretty hardcore habitat. I don't think the polar bear will go totally extinct from ice loss alone- but it'll be a matter of whether it can adapt to more of a Grizzly-type environment or not. They just discovered a Grizzly/Polar hybrid bear, so who knows? Maybe their great migration south is already happening. I have hope!
- TyrannousDotNet, on 05/17/2008, -2/+3do you think forcing evolution on a species is healthy?
- chopsky, on 05/17/2008, -4/+3healthy to who? to them? maybe not.
but assuming you believe industry causes global warming...well...we need industry to survive (at least beyond 30/40). just look at pre-industrial era man.
I take Man over polar bear any day. - psion01, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3Only when nature does it ... then it's natural.
- afruff23, on 05/17/2008, -1/+5Why does it matter if nature does the selection or it is man-made?
- LegalizeGanja, on 05/17/2008, -2/+3That's an interesting question, actually. Since we too are a product of nature, if we kill polar bears out of our negligence, then that's really just another resultant of our own adaptation. We adapt, and to survive our own resulting self we're required to dominate the world's resources and thus drive the polar bear into extinction.
You could say that by choosing to ignore the polar bear problem we're allowing nature's course to take it's path, and not the other way around. That's interesting because it makes our moral dilemma more troubling.
Which is morally correct, to save the polar bears and go against nature, or to consciously decide to save them. However you could say, that as the latter would probably help us not go extinct ourselves, that by deciding our fate consciously we're in fact manifesting our own evolution.
Perhaps the next step of evolution is not possible without the development and perpetuation of man's cooperation and foresight on a global and species-wide level. Thus, perhaps we are bound to the effects of nature as if they were fate itself. If we neglect to choose it's because we didn't evolve enough, and if we do choose it's still a result of nature. Either way we didn't do it ourselves.
Or maybe I didn't get enough sleep. - aptanalogy, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1The problem is that, by inducing global climate change, we're forcing them to adapt in a specific way, jeopardizing them by pushing them nearer to extinction. NATURAL selection takes place over eons (although it's true that we see many examples of microbial life, diatoms and bacteria, adapting more quickly: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/310/5756/187 ... You don't see anything wrong humanity creating a situation in which a species must quickly adapt in radical ways to survive, faster than evolution can correct the deficit, increasingly pushing it toward extinction?
- afruff23, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2@aptanalogy
Then I guess whatever made dinosaurs go extinct have something to answer for. Anyways, genetic fitness is not a measure of morality. Even if the animals don't adapt, that doesn't mean whatever whoever did to bring that about is immoral. - aptanalogy, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1@afruff23
You're mistakenly equating two different types selection here. A meteor striking the earth, now that's obviously a natural phenomenon. Human actions, which can be consciously changed, produce at least partially avoidable negative results for the wildlife on our planet. I never said genetic fitness was a measure of morality. If I have reason to believe my actions are producing a given outcome, i.e. the species in question, such as the polar bear, cannot adapt to changing conditions fast enough, thus pushing it toward extinction, I cannot discount the casualties of my deleterious behavior as having been "inferior specimens" that couldn't keep up with what I was forcing upon it.
If not, hey, dig in ANWAR. Set off nukes on tropical islands. If the species there don't survive, then hell, it's not our fault. And if we drive African elephants into extinction by poaching, it's too bad they didn't have bullet-proof skin. I guess there's no fault in any of those cases on our part...-_- - chopsky, on 05/18/2008, -1/+0"Why does it matter if nature does the selection or it is man-made?"
Last I checked, us humans were part of the natural world too.
So it doesn't matter.
- LegalizeGanja, on 05/17/2008, -2/+3That's an interesting question, actually. Since we too are a product of nature, if we kill polar bears out of our negligence, then that's really just another resultant of our own adaptation. We adapt, and to survive our own resulting self we're required to dominate the world's resources and thus drive the polar bear into extinction.
- chopsky, on 05/17/2008, -4/+3healthy to who? to them? maybe not.
- threemagic, on 05/17/2008, -0/+5Ice is what polar bears use to get food. They find weak spots in ice, make holes, and wait for creatures below to come and get air. I'm sure as it gets warm more land based creatures will come and make food for the bear but at the rate of disappearance, it might be too late.
- Handcannons, on 05/18/2008, -0/+0They also totally ignore the fact that polar bear populations are at record HIGHS. Extinction through overpopulation?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDQ3NzcyYTdkY ...
- TyrannousDotNet, on 05/17/2008, -2/+3do you think forcing evolution on a species is healthy?
- manzplan, on 05/17/2008, -12/+6ya pretty sad... for sure a warning that only a few people take seriously...
- scamerica, on 05/17/2008, -0/+7http://digg.com/environment/The_Real_Nature_Of_Pol ...
- IconoclastStill, on 05/17/2008, -11/+34According to Canadian wild life studies, polar bear populations have been increasing steadily during this period of alleged warming. The recent designation of these bears, then, as "threatened," is at best fallacious - and almost certainly politically motivated to add further emotional appeal to the junk science of the cult of gorebull scamming.
- EtherGnat, on 05/17/2008, -1/+10There are only 20,000-25,000 polar bears worldwide. Of the 19 recognized polar bear subpopulations, 5 are declining, 5 are stable, 2 are increasing, and 7 have insufficient data. Overall the number of polar bears are relatively stable in recent years. It's true polar bear numbers have gone up since the 70s, when an international treaty went into effect protecting them from wholesale slaughter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear
- Handcannons, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1Good thing Wikipedia is a completely trustworthy and accurate source of information...oh wait...
- Herostratos, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2"Only" 20-25 000? It was 5000 50 years ago, and the ice bear is a huge animal which requires large territories. 20-25000 is a healthy population.
- darylyounge, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1well said.
- EtherGnat, on 05/17/2008, -1/+10There are only 20,000-25,000 polar bears worldwide. Of the 19 recognized polar bear subpopulations, 5 are declining, 5 are stable, 2 are increasing, and 7 have insufficient data. Overall the number of polar bears are relatively stable in recent years. It's true polar bear numbers have gone up since the 70s, when an international treaty went into effect protecting them from wholesale slaughter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear
- bensone1, on 05/17/2008, -14/+2***** THING SUCKS!!!
- mrinsanity, on 05/17/2008, -3/+29Buried as inaccurate. Polar Bears obviously can thrive in tropical island environments.
Namaste- dkapuchino, on 05/17/2008, -2/+5On the other hand, they die in the sahara.
- mrinsanity, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Yes, but WHY?
- IconoclastStill, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1I dunno . . . you lost me on that one.
- trumpcard, on 05/17/2008, -7/+7Hey where is Al Gore its his favourite topic.
/Sarcasm.- positron, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1He's out hunting down the manpolarbearpig before it dies out. I'm serial you guys!
- mCanada, on 05/17/2008, -12/+7This can't be happening according to most diggers since "global warming doesn't exist". It's either A) a tax grab from the "global elite" B) propaganda from Al Gore C) leftist brainwashing techniques. Those wacky scientists!
- IconoclastStill, on 05/17/2008, -2/+9I would lean toward (D) All of the above.
- mCanada, on 05/18/2008, -3/+1I'm sure Alex Jones his Illuminati DVD's would agree.
- IconoclastStill, on 05/18/2008, -1/+3Ah . . . a fan of Mr. Jones, are you? No wonder you are so eager to buy into the junk "science" of gorebull scamming. Were your parents siblings or merely first cousins? HANDDA
- mCanada, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1It's called /s
- mCanada, on 05/18/2008, -3/+1I'm sure Alex Jones his Illuminati DVD's would agree.
- IconoclastStill, on 05/17/2008, -2/+9I would lean toward (D) All of the above.
- Whadabala, on 05/17/2008, -4/+2O hai bare
- positron, on 05/18/2008, -1/+2its baer u moran
lern2speel
- positron, on 05/18/2008, -1/+2its baer u moran
- Thundercracker, on 05/17/2008, -8/+2that's what happens when you are a godless killing machine...
- sexydarin, on 05/17/2008, -4/+37more *****.
Polar bear numbers rising, Inuit elders tell wildlife boardhttp://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2007/04/25/ar ...
Are Polar Bears Dying?
A new study by Dr. David Legates, Delaware's State Climatologist and director of the University of Delaware's Center for Climatic Research, throws cold water on the claim that global warming threatens to cause the extinction of polar bears.
Scare Unwarranted
http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/are-polar-bears ...- EtherGnat, on 05/17/2008, -6/+4"Polar bear numbers rising, Inuit elders tell wildlife board"
So you're unwilling to believe scientific estimates of the number of polar bears, but you're willing to believe anecdotal evidence in a small area from a group that has an economic benefit from hunting the animals? Even assuming it's true in that area, increased animal sightings can be attributed by the fact that hungry animals can be attracted to populated areas.
"Are Polar Bears Dying?"
People's ability to agree with one scientist who happens to agree with them while simultaneously dismissing any science which disagrees with them boggles my mind. - monoa, on 05/17/2008, -4/+3I'm going to bet there were a bunch of uninformed people saying in 1980 - 1990 that cod stocks in the Atlantic were doing just fine because they'd seen a recent upward trend:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/fishwatch/images/atl_cod_ ...
Just like a bunch of sailors said that the dodo would restock the island soon enough. Just like the hunters said that passenger pigeons would breed quick enough to keep up with human predation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Pigeon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinct_birds
Humans are raping the planet and wiping out species that took millions of years to evolve. Deny it or do something. Your choice. - whitey9, on 05/17/2008, -2/+3A conservative think tank and hearsay that contradicts most scientific evidence, killer research.
- EtherGnat, on 05/17/2008, -6/+4"Polar bear numbers rising, Inuit elders tell wildlife board"
- taradisiac, on 05/17/2008, -6/+26No it isn't. Every generation thinks they're living in doomsday times and they're always wrong.
- EtherGnat, on 05/17/2008, -2/+4There is some truth to what you say, but that doesn't mean we're invulnerable and don't need to plan wisely for the future.
- maddskillz, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3so far...
- PosedMagnet, on 05/17/2008, -7/+0What, it took the polar bears to finally as if it's a predicament? :P
What about everything else? - Fartbandit, on 05/17/2008, -5/+5Should we really be bothered about a single species when more than 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct?? What we should be concentrating on instead of the loss of a single species of animal is the biodiversity crash which the planet seems to be going through currently.
- hempydave, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2only cute and fuzzy animals count
- ratexla, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1cute and fuzzy, yes.
But hopefully the cute ones can act as so called "flagship species" - people want to save THEM, and if they try, many other species will be saved too.
That is the idea, anyway.
- thespi007, on 05/17/2008, -3/+2ya its is , now there will be more penguins ...
- lazerus9, on 05/17/2008, -3/+15I predict that in 100 years 100% of the scientists alive today will be dead!
- Fartbandit, on 05/17/2008, -2/+3Its possible that science may siolve the issue of the ageing process to ensure that your average lifespan may stretch beyond 150 years... Dont be so sure of that bet :p
- Zipp425, on 05/17/2008, -1/+4I predict otherwise... What about the ones inventing life prolonging drugs? haha
- eminiguy, on 05/17/2008, -3/+8Like polar bears would give a damn if humans were about to go extinct. Let them take care of that themselves. They are bigger than us, anyway.
- Snokage, on 05/17/2008, -3/+5suvivial of the fittest. polar bears need to learn to handle the heat.
- ratexla, on 05/18/2008, -0/+0Maybe they would if we weren't heating them up so RAPIDLY.
- Vector713, on 05/17/2008, -1/+6No.
- eleete, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1So the law protected them ?
They sure can defend themsleves from humans.
eleete - FearNoEvil, on 05/17/2008, -2/+5Lies!
- amightywind, on 05/17/2008, -5/+15The US Polar Bear range is limited to the Alaska Arctic Ocean shoreline. If the numbers are declining it is primarily Canada, Denmark, and Russia's concern. But they are not declining. With the radical decline of fur seal trade, Polar Bear number have increased in the past 30 years. This declaration is the eco-liberal's attempt to make law against the will of the electorate, and to force the hoax of global warming down our throats. Make no mistake, the eco-liberals despise modernity itself and would have us all be dazed actors in their weird post industrial utopia. Fight them! To arms!
- Enron, on 05/18/2008, -2/+1We should just summon Captain Planet and see what he thinks. GO PLANET!
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/18/2008, -2/+2The Polar Bear population is dwindling.
Global warming a hoax? Climate change not real?
It doesn't take a genius to see that the ocean level is rising across the world. There are a number of small island states that are going to be gone in the next 50 years.
Also there is a field of floating trash in the Pacific the size of Texas.- amightywind, on 05/18/2008, -1/+2It doesn't take a genius to see that seal level has been rising for 15,000 years in the post glacial period, and continues to do so. The coral surrounding pacific atolls have responded by growing upward like they always have. The floating trash has nothing to do with trash, and everything to do with mindlessly careless Chinese cargo vessels. The Pacific trash problem should be laid entirely at the feet of export nations, and they should be forced to clean it up.
- forgeflow, on 05/17/2008, -3/+25Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada , 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.
http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2007/09/truth ...
But global warming is not killing the polar bears of Canada's eastern Arctic, according to one ongoing study. Scheduled for release next year, it says the number of polar bears in the Davis Strait area of Canada's eastern Arctic – one of 19 polar bear populations worldwide – has grown to 2,100, up from 850 in the mid-1980s.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0503/p13s01-wogi.htm ...
"Our scientists in the field as well as Inuit elders have observed an overall increase in the polar bear population," Mr. Okalik said in a statement. "The truth is that polar bear populations are at near record levels."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.2 ...
For the month of April, Arctic sea ice extent stood at 14.49 million square kilometers (5.59 million square miles), which is 0.61 million square kilometers (0.24 million square miles) greater than April 2007, but is still 0.51 million square kilometers (0.20 million square miles) less than the 1979 to 2000 average for April.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html
Interactive map showing where bears actually live, independent of ice:
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/arctic-map/
Enjoy your fake environmental alarmist news. Buried.- monoa, on 05/17/2008, -3/+3http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/fishwatch/images/atl_cod_ ...
Also factor in to that the *vast* increase in number of boats / efficiency of catching over the last 30 years.
Here's the conclusion - just because you see a short term increase in recorded population does not mean a species is not in imminent danger.
Regardless, polar bears are just *one* indication that human activity is destroying the ecosystem. Do your own research.
- monoa, on 05/17/2008, -3/+3http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/fishwatch/images/atl_cod_ ...
- blurplevtx, on 05/17/2008, -2/+10The sun is what affects the earth, normal cycles in the earth's orbit is what causes global warming and cooling. To think that we as humans change this is arrogant.
- damnyooneek, on 05/17/2008, -5/+1huh?
- hempydave, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2The three main drivers of our global temperature are
1 Distance from the sun.
2 Angle of polar tilt.
3 Suns out put cycles.
- hempydave, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2The three main drivers of our global temperature are
- monoa, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2"To think that we as humans change this is *ignorant*."
There, fixed it for you.- Memnochxx, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1It's a little of both. Arrogance has to do with a feeling of unwarranted importance. To think that we are so powerful as to affect the entire planet is indeed arrogant (if that's what you think). Ignorance has to do with not having knowledge. Not knowing how everything works here would also be ignorant.
- damnyooneek, on 05/17/2008, -5/+1huh?
- Piontek, on 05/17/2008, -5/+4don't we have like.. ourselves to worry about? seems like we're wasting too many resources trying to keep all of the other 100000000000 species alive, while we're dying of aids, obesity and (soon, allegedly) global warming
- damnyooneek, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1you don't get the real point. all of the things dying will eventually have an effect on us.
- gryphon50, on 05/17/2008, -1/+0hey einstein, do you think it might eventually affect us too? It's the canary in the coalmine.
- funkrusher, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3Yummmm...polar bear!
- gquaglia, on 05/17/2008, -2/+7In the history of the Earth, thousands of species have come and gone long before man came to be.
- Uranium118, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3You mean millions and billions. Each day, 100-150 species go extinct. Most of them are insects so we don't care but it is a natural process that we must accept.
- ratexla, on 05/18/2008, -1/+0We must not. Today's extinction rates are approx. 1000 times higher than "usual".
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1Extinction hasn't occurred at levels as high as today's since the last Ice Age.
- gquaglia, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1And that must make it man's fault, right?
- Uranium118, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3You mean millions and billions. Each day, 100-150 species go extinct. Most of them are insects so we don't care but it is a natural process that we must accept.
- nought, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1lol. what 'polar bear predicament'? Polar Bears will just move in on Brown Bear territory like they're already doing, and make nifty new hybrid bears (like they've already done).
evoluuuuution - hempydave, on 05/17/2008, -1/+4Scientists and Inuit Elders who live in the north are no way near as smart or as tall as Al Gore.
do I really need to add the /sarcasm tag? - Thefascist, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1I thought we established this already, it's gonna turn into a ***** Grolar. This thing sucks, I can't read it, I don't know what that means. ***** it, will do it live, WILL DO IT LIVE!
- kreatre2007, on 05/17/2008, -1/+10"Scientists believe"???? This is ***** pathetic. This is all junk science. If the ice were melting, our coastal cities would be under water right now. Everyone who believes the global warming hoax needs to wake up and allow the harsh light of logic to shine in. Carbon dioxide accounts for .038% of the atmosphere. Every life form that consumes oxygen through cellular respiration releases carbon dioxide back into the air and water. There is NOTHING that mankind can do to reduce carbon dioxide in the air. NOTHING!!! I'm all for clean air, hybrid cars, alternative sources of energy but, I'm not going to believe this pro-government, socialist horse ***** junk science. Mankind cannot have this kind of effect on the earth. Several other scientists have illustrated through observation that the Sun has been going through a 10-11 year cycle of increased activity. This whole load of crap would collapse in an instant if it were proven that the Sun is responsible for the higher average temperatures. The reason why the media and global warming alarmists won't explore this idea is because it can't be blamed on mankind. Until we explore ALL possible causes of global warming, this whole thing is just a hoax.
- whitey9, on 05/17/2008, -2/+2I think you mean "If all of the ice had already melted", not "If the ice were melting".
I'm all for more research, but to say that mankind cannot have an effect this large is maybe a stretch. We created CFC's, which are around ten thousand times more effective at exacerbating greenhouse effects than all natural CO2.- kreatre2007, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Thanks for correcting my grammar :) Actually, the CFC thing was overblown too. The alarmists kept mentioning the ozone hole over Antarctica. That hole has always existed. Ultraviolet light creates ozone when it reacts with the atmosphere. An area such as Antarctica which gets a lot less solar radiation will always have a large ozone "hole". Ozone, like all other gases in the atmosphere, fluctuates over any given area.
- whitey9, on 05/17/2008, -2/+2I think you mean "If all of the ice had already melted", not "If the ice were melting".
- vuoto, on 05/17/2008, -6/+1Yes, the plight of the polar bear is very similar to what's going to happen to Republicans in the US government this year.
buh-bye!- RationalXubrnce, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1 They're going to be replaced by slightly different bears that do the exact same things?
- lead2thehead, on 05/17/2008, -1/+5Non story. This guy is trying to predict the future based on assumptions he pulled out of his ass.
- discofreak, on 05/17/2008, -3/+1BUT HOW DOES THE POLAR BEAR KNOW WHAT APPLES IS?!?!?!?!?!?!
- Nubli, on 05/17/2008, -4/+1Duh.
- RationalXubrnce, on 05/17/2008, -0/+4 The earth has been warmer than this many times through history and Polar bears are still here.
- JointVenture, on 05/17/2008, -0/+5The polar bears are like "wtf, you promissed us an ice age in 1975,
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/180/432841209_88747 ... (newsweek)
and now you're promissing us we wont have to ***** freeze our nuts off every winter. Wish you would make up your minds" - pigducksheep, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1i dont want animals to die
- jbenson2, on 05/18/2008, -0/+4Some past cases:
"Are you telling me I can't build my Burger King because a Delhi Sands flower-loving fly that has never been seen and is above ground only a few days a year might be near-by?" YES
"I can't build a connector road because the noise from construction might damage the hearing of the Stephens' kangaroo rat thus impairing its reproduction?" YES
"All construction in San Diego involving impacts to road ruts which might contain Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp is enjoined? All construction?" YES
The Polar Bear listing is worse than any of these examples, because it will affect all businesses that require Federal licensing or approval.
Test cases should be brought by industry that argue that various federal permits --import/export permits, private jet landing permits, conservation banking permits-- all have greenhouse gas impacts, no matter how small, and thus that they must be subject to Section 7 review.
I would love to see industry go after the Hollywood PRIVATE JET INDUSTRY. Oh, how the effete liberal snobs would react. It would be positively wonderful! - FuckXboxx, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2"The real issue" is the fact that people will give in to HATING THEIR FELLOW MAN. Period.
Global Warming is an operation to desensitize you to the deaths of your brothers and sisters. It is a campaign to make you compliant with the deaths of billions.
Human beings work together to achieve a greater good. Making people hate each other will allow for the deaths of billions to be carried out by governments in the name of "protecting the Earth."
I do everything I can to protect God's almighty creation, but I will never do anything to harm another person to protect my own selfish desires.- MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1LOL "God's almighty creation".
I suspect from that statement you have a very closed mind about all of this, and probably, it wouldn't matter what was discovered you wouldn't believe it anyway.
And since when does believing pollution affects climate change have anything to do with killing other people?
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1LOL "God's almighty creation".
- mrzack, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3*****. It's not man's fault that the earth is warming up. The sun is warming up. or WAS. Now the sun's activities have dwindled and we are about to embark on a mini ice age. The ice will reform, reconstitute in the Arctics. I live in Chicago, and last winter was one of the Worst winters ever. It's almost June and I still have to wear a jacket. Global warming my ASS.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1Where did you hear that? Do you have any sources?
- mrogi, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1Despite mankind's best efforts the koala bear faces extinction. It would be goddam stupid to force every Australian to grow eucalyptus trees. Some species just cant hang with the big boys.
- kurtu5, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1Yes its a sign of things to come.
Here are the facts jack;
The climate changes, white bears become brown.
The climate changes, brown bears become white. The climate changes, white bears become brown, the climate changes and brown become white, then we show up and change the climate. - ievanssc, on 05/18/2008, -3/+1"Is the polar bear predicament a sign of things to come?"
NO *****. - darylyounge, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1 Bah - Bah
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
