will be good for Alaska.  Not unsurprisingly, the people in the state government behind this pseudo-conference are very short-sighted.

...If the Interior Dept. (or rather, the goons pullin' the Dept.'s strings) haven't found enough skeptics with all of their delays in the process, then I doubt they'll find one by May 15.

Then again, their idea of "scientist" could lead to some interestin' results...

Does anyone have any evidence for that?:

a) That they are threatened by a risk of reduction in the amount of ice and snow in their environment.
b) That they are incapable of adaption to a new environment.

Evidence and reasoning please!

Here in Australia, the Eastern Grey Kangaroo, and several other species to a lesser degree are in plague proportions in some areas.  The reason for this is that humans have vastly expanded their preferred habitat by providing open grazing together with drinking water, in what was previously forest and/or barren country.

They hop across highways even in broad daylight, and I have recently witnessed the aftermath of several serious car accidents near where I live in North-East Melbourne.  (like windshields/windscreens stoved-in like a bathtub).  At night out-of-town is when the most carnage occurs.  With alertness, one can see their eyes reflecting by the side of the road, and can slow down, because what they do is, wait carefully till you are almost upon them, and at the precise moment of perfection, hop out across in front of you. Even being aware of this, I have hit one kangaroo at night, some years ago.
In outback country, the yokels fit big bull-bars, so it is not so much a problem in the financial sense.

I have also had some close-shaves with black wallabies, around dusk or dawn, and I guess they would weigh-in at about 60Kg.  

Don't get me wrong, I love kangaroos, and if I see a fresh one dead by the side of the road, I check to see if it's a she with a joey in the pouch.....same with wombats.

However, what really gives me the shits are these goodie goodie greenies, mostly Americani, whom rile against our treatment of kangaroos.

The greenies need to be reigned-in and given some teaching in reality!

Can we put the polar bears in Canada?, - so they can eat the seals.
then the fishermen do not have to brutally kill the seals.
the fishermen can allow the pollar bears to eat the seals ands leave fish for the people?

I am not advocating to eating animals, I am just trying to find solutions.

Thanks  
The vegan with a solution.

Can we put the polar bears in Canada?, - so they can eat the seals.

The type of seals that polar bears eat are usually ringed and bearded seals, which are not the type hunted in Canada (usually fur seals) the seals have different habits and behaviors that may make 'em incompatible with polar bears.

Plus it's not known how the subtle differences in the seals' physical characteristics (both internal and external) would effect the polar bears if they were consumed.

Tasermons Partner,
You entirely miss my point about Eastern Grey Kangaroos in Australia.

They have benefited from human disturbance of the landscape as a consequence, of increased grazing and water availability, and are at plague proportions in some areas, necessitating culling.   Yet, we get theses goodie goodie greenie alarmists protesting and talking endangered species!

When it comes to your comments about lack of adaptability of polar bears to a hypothesised change in environment which might be warmer than the MWP or the earlier Roman Warm Period, when they survived, this amounts to the same sort of goodie goodie nonsense.  

Bears are amongst the most curious and intelligent of predators.  Furthermore, IF and when their favourite diet can no longer hide under the snow, the seals will be forced to birth on rocks just as with today's UK grey seals.  (who's cubs still have signature white coats from the ice age)   The bears may then gorge on easier to obtain prey until a new balance is reached, possibly interfered with by a new generation of goodie goodies

Polar bears may have a favourite diet of arctic seals, but did you know that they eat other stuff, including fledgling birds in some areas?   I also doubt that they have their preferred diet in warm-climate zoos, where they seem to cope OK

Meanwhile goodie goodies; what about the MILLIONS of HUMAN BEINGS dying horribly in Africa etc

(Phoca groenlandicus) are the seals who are notoriously slaughtered for their fur, while they are still very young.  This takes place in late winter and early spring, toward the southern end of their range, in the iced-up waters of the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and around Newfoundland.

They are true seals, i.e. of the family Phocidae.  Though they are killed for their fur, are NOT fur seals, who are relatives of sea lions in the family Otariidae.

It is not at all impossible that in the northern part of their range, off Canada's northeast Arctic coast and Greenland's west coast, polar bears do indeed feed on them.  They belong to the same genus as the seals who are probably the bears' favorite prey, the ringed seals (P. hispida), and presumably would be similar food items for the bears.  The other seal species which TasPar mentions, the bearded seal, is also a true seal, but belonging to a different genus: Erignathus barbatus.

It is possible that the harp seals go to the Gulf of Saint Lawrence to have their babies precisely because those waters are relatively free of predators (except for the human kind).  In that case, it would seem like a blow at sustainability to import some polar bears from Alaska in order to feed on them.

Moreover, there is probably a good ecological reason why polar bears do not live thereabouts at present.

Also, the seals are not responsible for the problems with North Atlantic fisheries; people are.

It's easy to see where your priorities are:  "Proponents of the conference are concerned that a polar-bear listing would adversely affect Alaska's economy."

You might as well stop pretending to care about the natural environment or other species, because it's quite clear you don't.

You are totally wrong in your assessment.  For instance:

 "Proponents of the conference are concerned that a polar-bear listing would adversely affect Alaska's economy."

I was unaware, (and am uninterested) of the matters in your quote above.

The topic was polar bears, and even if all the ice disappeared, they are highly inquisitive and intelligent predators.  Don't they also eat kelp and a few other things than seals?

We could always do food drops if necssary..... Bugger the millions of human beings dying from other problems

I am against alarmism and loss of priorities in the goodie goodie greenie movement

...Blck Wallaby, if the sea ice disappears, and the seals are forced to birth on rocks, the population of seals naturally plummets.  For one, the seals themselves are naturally adapted to ice.  The slide across it, the blend into it, and most importantly, seal distribution across ice is equal in such a way so that the current population can be supported by the distance a typical seal can travel to gather food (fish).

To confine 'em to rocky shorelines would slow 'em down and increase competition dramatically, since seals only have a limited range.  Seals can't survive for indefinitie periods in open waters with no ice, so they'd be forced to stick closer to shore, which would limit their distribution, and the amount of food available.

As the population faces a massive die-off, then within 1 or 2 generations, the polar bear population will follow suit.

Polar bears are usually extremely territorial animals.  Male bears will kill the cubs of females if they get the chance.  As sea ice becomes more limited, their confined to a smaller range, there's more bear conflicts, competition increases, and only limited resources are available.

The populations would decline.

Tasermans Partner wrote in part, (My emphasis rentstated):

"IF the sea ice disappears, and the seals are forced to birth on rocks, the population of seals naturally plummets.  For one, the seals themselves are naturally adapted to ice."

NONSENSE:

The natural balance of nature will adjust to the new circumstances
Compare the protected UK grey seal which comprise ~40% of the world population.  The pups have lovely white coats, which are a signature of when the UK was in the grip of an ice age.  They adapted to change.  Canadians, (some) think there are too many.
If polar bear predation became too great in Alaska, then I'm sure the US authorities would set-up sanctuaries, after culling the bears if necessary.
Polar bears are smart and omnivorous.  They like seals but they eat other stuff too.
Are they not said to be on the increase in Canada. (P. bears)

How about fixing the suffering of humans in Africa?   Did you hear about that?

...going to be held?

Fiji...no doubt.

Why don't you trolls start your own blogs?  Hehey.

Tasermons Partner wrote: Nature only adapts when change takes place [...] very slowly.
[...]
Nature may not adapt when change is sudden

You are contradicting yourself.

Tasermons Partner wrote: We want to stop the population [of polar bears] from declining.

If sea ice is permanently disappearing, why would one want the population of polar bears not to decline?

Tasermons Partner,

You are wrong and confused about many things with polar bears.  Here are a couple, just as a quickie:

1)  You wrote:  "Polar bears are usually extremely territorial animals."
Untrue according to your Wikipedia link.

2)   You misunderstood this exchange:

ME: If polar bear predation became too great in Alaska, then I'm sure the US authorities would set-up sanctuaries, after culling the bears if necessary.

YOU: That's the whole point of listin' polar bears as endangered.  Endangered species get those sanctuaries.  They wouldn't get culled though.

Silly boy; The reason for culling the bears if necessary was that they might proliferate be eating too many seal pups which would become more exposed to predation by the bears.

3)  In another exchange:

ME: How about fixing the suffering of humans in Africa?

YOU: Poor countries, particularly those in Africa, are expected to be the worst hit by climate change.  To help out those people, we need to limit it.

You don't seem to be aware of what is happening NOW to many millions of humans, and the DO-ABLE things that are not being done.  When I have more time I may enlighten you

Are there no other ways to help those people?

Sure.  But why not help by also making sure the situation doesn't get any worse to begin with.

If sea ice is permanently disappearing, why would one want the population of polar bears not to decline?

Apparently, you've missed the controvesry behind the polar bear listing.  Part of the reason the listing is so controversial is because it can effects outside the polar bear's natural habitat.

If they determine that the polar bears should be listed as endangered due to to shrinking sea ice, and that shrinking ice is due to human-induced climate change, then, under the Endangered aSpecies Act, they can take action against that force, in any way they see necessary.

In other words, they can order power plants and emissions limits across the whole of the United States (the jurisdiction covered by the Endagered
Species Act) in order to curb GHGs and try to stave off the shrinking ice as much as possible.

The point is to stave off the polar bear decline by trying to stave off the decline in sea ice as much as possible, not the other way around.

"Polar bears are usually extremely territorial animals."
Untrue according to your Wikipedia link.

Ah, should've been much more specific, I see.  Territorial durin' mating and birthing season.  As I said, it's not uncommon for adult males to try and attack cubs, 'specially if mom isn't around.

Silly boy; The reason for culling the bears if necessary was that they might proliferate be eating too many seal pups which would become more exposed to predation by the bears.

Silly idiot.  If the sea ice disappears, then the number of seal pups would decline, not increase, even with more exposure on th beaches, there'd be less of 'em to go around.  The seals rely on the ice almost as much as the polar bears.

You don't seem to be aware of what is happening NOW to many millions of humans, and the DO-ABLE things that are not being done.  When I have more time I may enlighten you

My final thesis was over the design and construction of refugee camps in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo.  I'm pretty damn sure 300+ pages of written report on the subject have made me at least a little bit of an expert on the subject.

And if you really were enlightened on the subject, then you'd realize that as horrendously nightmarish as things are now, that abrupt global climate change could make things a hundred times worse.

There's no point in helping out now, if you're just going to ignore threats to the future that may well lead us back where we started.  It has to be a dual approach.  help out with we can now, while at the same time tryin' to avoid threats to the future.

Any humanitarian knows this to be true.  Otherwise, the end result will be cyclic, and ultimately little will be accomplished.

"Bugger the millions of human beings dying from other problems ... I am against alarmism and loss of priorities in the goodie goodie greenie movement"

Black Wallaby, if you'd notice my moniker, you'd maybe get the point that my priority is NOT grossly overpopulated humans, but instead the rest of the planet which humans are quickly destroying.

And BTW, considering your highly anthropocentric attitude, your moniker is a great insult to the animal from whom you've taken it.

BlackWallaby just does not get it: Our concern for Arctic and sub-Arctic ecosystems, and the animals which inhabit them, by no means distracts from our concern for people in Africa and elsewhere who are underprivileged and sorely need our help.

Securing the well-being of people is by no means to be distinguished from securing the well-being of animals.  What is good for one species is good for all species.

And there is no insinuation more evil, than the one that suggests that we who work for the welfare of animals must hate human beings, and look on their sufferings with very cold hearts.

I find BlackWallaby's insinuation to that effect extraordinarily offensive.

We are into the second day of Bear Awareness Week, by the way: best wishes to one and all for a sweet celebration!

Black Wallaby wrote: We could always do food drops if necssary.

Sea ice can also be generated artificially via nuclear power. The habitat need not ever change, regardless of the average global temperature.

We could spend millions or billions of $ supporting a micro eco-system in antlantic waters.....how many species up there compared with warmer climes?....or we could spend it on relieving the SUFFERING of millions of humans.

That's if something untoward happens up there of course.   You, know, whilst meanwhile it gets colder in the Antarctic

Sounds pretty crazy.  But the main thing in setting large ice formation is putting seawater in contact with arctic or antarctic extremely cold air.

So if wind/wave machines could be used to produce a frigid seawater aerosol that would crystalize as snow, that floating slush would provide a base for ice extension.  And it would build up the thickness of the ice.

The larger the ice mass that forms in winter, the longer it will last into summer, reflecting solar, helping to curb warming.

A wind/wave power ship that serves as a giant snowmaking machine in winter could generate power in a stationary anchorage the rest of the year.  What a crazy project.

Greenpeace?  Environmental studies could also be conducted from the ship.  Strategic extension of ice specifically to save remaining polar bears might be feasible?  And it would be a test of the possibility of more ships actually helping to fight GHG climate change.

A few more percent of arctic or antaractic ice might just make a big difference.  What about ships that switch poles depending upon the season?  Remote control in dangerous conditions might be possible also, to protect the crew during really bad winter storm weather.  Let the crew take a break onshore.

Nuclear powered, hehey?  I don't think so buddy.

Well, Black Wallaby, at least we agree on where our differences lie.  Here's the reason human suffering should not be prioritized:

The human race is grossly overpopulated and fits the medical definition of being a cancerous tumor on the planet.

Every form of life has an equal right to live, though the vast majority of modern humans refuse to recognize or honor that right, or to recognize that everything in the natural world is alive.

Humans have polluted every inch of the Earth, caused major harm to every ecosystem, and are now causing the sixth great species extinction, the last of which took place 65 million years ago.  This is the first major extinction caused by a species.

Scientifically, if that's what you respect, there is no evidence that humans are any better or more important than any other species.  In fact, considering the facts listed above, it seems that humans rank well below other species in importance of ecological benefits.

The ones really suffering on this planet are everything NOT human.  Humans are thriving, despite the individuals who are suffering.  Other forms of life are suffering greatly as a whole.

Nice idea, Amazing.

Plus, a nice idea for the setting of a murder mystery, or a horror story: a remote, isolated, sea-water-aerosol-producing ship, at "stationary anchorage" off Antarctica ...

(Hmmm: all the Adelie penguins who flee the onslaught of a sea-leopard leap onto a piece of floating ice -- which is strangely glowing -- ; and they are afterwards never the same ... )

Wolverine (ha!, cute X-Men segue!),
thanks again for attacking anthropocentrism, especially in its vile and offensive BlackWallaby form.

Practically, I agree with everything you wrote.  I.e., I do not think any immediate action that you might propose on the basis of your five observations would be objectionable.

More conscientiously, though, as a student of ethics, I think it is acceptable in some regards for us to give priority to those who are most closely related to us: in decreasing degrees, to relatives, friends (who may indeed tie for first with relatives, and may often precede them), neighbors, fellow religionists (?), fellow employees, fellow travelers on a commuter train, etc.

But that does not by any means justify injustice toward sentient beings who are more distantly related to us.

Your second point is at issue:

<<
Every form of life has an equal right to live, though the vast majority of modern humans refuse to recognize or honor that right, or to recognize that everything in the natural world is alive.
>>

I agree with everything in that sentence, except for "equal right."

Many ethicists and political philosophers have a hard time explaining the concept of "right," which is especially embarrassing seeing that that concept is a foundation of our post-Enlightenment civilization.

It seems difficult to pontificate that the right of one kind of living creature is always equivalent to the right of another, with whom it is competing for life.  In principle that may be possible; but in actuality, it is almost always necessary to choose.

Anyway, animal-rights ethicists are having a hard enough time getting the interests of plainly sentient animals recognized -- e.g., all the vertebrates, plus certain invertebrates, such as some arthropods (crustaceans) and the cephalopod mollusks.  In time, our ethical evolution may very well give attention to the less plainly sentient animals in time, as well as to fungi (which are more closely related to animals than to plants), plants, and the rest.  But for now, so long as we do not burn any bridges, we have our task at hand.

And it should disturb us all, that while sensitivity to the interests of sentient animals is growing in the US (or so I understand), the appetite for meat is growing elsewhere, along with the affluence required to procure it.

Anyway ...

Bear-Week thought of the day: In C.S. Lewis's "Prince Caspian," in which animals are anthropocentristically admired only inasmuch as they can think and speak like human beings, an unprovoked non-speaking bear attacks Peter, Susan, Edmund, Lucy, and the Dwarf Trumpkin, as they are making their way through a thick forest.  Trumpkin kills it with a single arrow, then pronounces, "There is good eating on that bear"; the carcass is minorly butchered, the flesh is wrapped in leaves and stuffed in pockets, and later, everyone dines on strips of bear wrapped around apple slices, toasted on an open fire.

My reaction, of course was: But What Would Aslan Do?

Your love of animals instructs us all.  Coraggio sempre!

Totally bizarre by contrast is questioning what might be the "purpose" of a species, with the implicit diabolic suggestion that nothing is worth anything unless you can prove it is worth something.

se non e` vero, e` ben trovato.

...as were the links in two other posts in this article.

Since ya obviously haven't been payin' attention the links, (otherwise you'd have known how important polar bears were to the ecosystem, and wouldn't have asked the question) I decided to be more upfront and post the information directly.

I see that it worked, and that you've have read the article!  ;)

Hopefully now you'll realize just how important polar bears are, and why this listing for the Endangered Species Act means so much.

Ain't it funny how that works out? ;)

Those energy ships would be mysterious, cruising along on remote control.  I think Lake Superior would make a good test bed.  And maybe a thousand of them could anchor out offshore and power the northern midwest someday?

I thought about this on the trail and realized that a far simpler device would do this arctic snowmaking much better though.  Just wind/wave powered buoys that pump seawater up into the wind.

If these were mass produced and controlled to move in front of the edge of the forming ice, maybe enough extra coverage could be attained to really help reflect enough sunlight to signifigantly effect GHG climate change?

Likewise maybe these kind of buoys in the tropics could increase moisture in the air, forming reflective clouds and increasing rainfall in arid regions.  High pressure pumps powered by wind/wave/solar could shoot water way up into the air from the top of the wind tower.

They could be extremely powerful given wind/wave energy resources.  Greening whole arid desert regions near coastlines.  Clouds in tropical regions are very effective at reflecting solar heat.

This maybe another mechanized solution that could do some crucial geo-engineering.  Spraying water into the air doesn't seem that radical either, not like injecting compounds into the upper atmosphere or dumping iron in the ocean on a massive scale to grow more algae.

So, while you were critiquing the post, did any of the content sink in?

Every living species has a purpose. We depend on all living species for our own survival, because we are a part of the same environment. For instance, polar bears control seal populations, which control fish population, which control  photo and zooplankton populations, which control the nutrient flow in the oceans . . . and so on and so forth.

I think your problem may be in the way you think of humanity's basic relationship to our environment. OUR environment, not THE environment. Maybe it doesn't exist to serve us, but we exist as a part of the whole, and have a responsibility to protect the whole?

Robco1 wrote: Every living species has a purpose.

Does a species adapted to living on sea ice have a purpose if there is no sea ice?

This is probably a waste of time, but I'll try again.  If there is no sea ice at the poles, the entire ecosystem collapses. We depend on that ecosystem for our survival as much as polar bears, or seals, or  zooplankton for that matter.

The bears are a "canary in a coal mine" (no pun intended. Okay, maybe just a little). If they go, we may very well follow.

Might I suggest a little remedial reading? Any junior high school ecology textbook will do the trick . . .

This little exchange is a perfect illustration of the fundamental difference in world view between environmentalists and anti-environmentalists.  Or how about a more forgiving term: "conventional thinkers." Conventional thinking sees mankind as the purpose of evolution, and that all living things and substances of any kind exist solely to be used by mankind.  Environmentalists recognize this attitude as the childish conceit a three year old. Children that age and younger can not yet recognize that the things around them exist when they are out of that three year old's sight.

Does a species adapted to living on sea ice have a purpose if there is no sea ice?

Does a species adapted to living on Earth have a purpose if it destroys the Earth?

"I think it is acceptable in some regards for us to give priority to those who are most closely related to us ..."

It's fine to prioritize one's friends, family, etc. in making personal decisions.  It's not OK for society as a whole to prioritize humans over other species, especially when humans are thriving and the rest of the planet is dying because of them.

"I agree with everything in that sentence, except for 'equal right.'"

The practical meaning of "all species have an equal right to live" is that it's not OK to kill anything except to eat it.  Respecting this right would radically change human society for the better in the way that it interacts with the rest of the planet.  Just think, the air, water, and land are alive, so no amount of artificial pollution would be allowed.  Can't kill trees, we don't eat them.  Etc.  Of course this can't be taken to a microscopic extreme, because we probably kill things just by walking or breathing, and there would certainly be exceptions for killing things like biting mosquitoes.  But anyone with any sense gets the idea.

Well, I'm not in the prediction business, but don't you think that loosing the reflectivity of all that bright white ice will have an, um, effect on global systems? What do you think will happen to foodstocks if the oxygen levels in cold water regions decrease because they are no longer cold? What will happen to the methane hydrates under the permafrost on the warming land near all that warming ocean?

Again, I urge you: remedial ecology 101.

Pick up a copy of Seed Magazine, and read the article about research into the mass extinction prior to the dinosaurs (about 150 million years ago if I remember correctly). That one was caused by the massive release of CO2 and methane by volcanic activity, which spurred radical warming, which in turn spurred the growth of hydrogen-cycle bacteria, which produced massive quantities of hydrogen sulfide, which killed off 98% of life on the planet. Ironically, the hydrogen sulfide may be a trigger for cryogenic suspension in our warm-blooded reptilian ancestors, allowing them to survive this period.  This may change the way we treat heart-attack victims, as researchers suspect the human body may produce hydrogen sulfide when in shock as a protection mechanism.

What you need to take away from all of this, though, is the circumstances of that mass-extinction. Messing with natural systems produces snowballing counter-effects. That is in no way a certain outcome, any more than it is certain that smoking WILL cause cancer in a given number of years. But only an idiot thinks they can consume a witches brew of cancer-causing chemicals without increasing their risk of bad things happening to them. We can't afford to be that reckless and stupid.

Robco1 wrote:

"This is probably a waste of time, but I'll try again.  If there is no sea ice at the poles, the entire ecosystem collapses. We depend on that ecosystem for our survival as much as polar bears, or seals, or  zooplankton for that matter."

It has also been observed by sane biologists that wherever there is a potential niche for life, even the bizarre, that life will indeed occupy it, no matter how weird it may seem.

IF, repeat, IF the relatively small eco-system dependent on sea ice were to collapse, then there would be a new balance in nature.  Generally, the warmer it is, the greater is the scope for complex eco systems.  Better still if there is increased feedstock CO2 for photosynthesis

Robco1 wrote in part:

"...don't you think that loosing the reflectivity of all that bright white ice will have an, um, effect on global systems?..."

Did you know that most of the heat in high latitudes actually comes from the tropics?

Did you know that the albedo of ice up there is not hugely different to that of water, when the sun is low in the sky?  (take a look at the sun over water near sunset)

Did you know......oh that will do

TP, are you aware how wiki is constructed, and how, especially on emotive issues, it can be agenda driven?

It can be a useful starting point but great care must be taken to check the wider realm of information especially when emotional issues are involved.

Robco1,
courage, my child; do not be dismayed by the brick walls and the underbiters from down below.  Your heart is in the right place, and I admire your zeal.

It goes without saying that life on Earth will survive, even if the worst scenarios for the current global warming crisis and biodiversity crisis play out.  But we human beings now alive most certainly have powerful ethical interests in maintaining the community of living creatures as we know it; and the warming of Arctic and Antarctic ecosystems is surely disturbing that community.  Sensible people obviously understand your words about "collapse" to refer to the imminent destruction of the community into which we have all been born, and NOT to the perishing of all organisms.

The Seed article, by the way, is cute and fun, but not altogether convincing.  I like very much the writer's assertion that all of us tetrapods (and probably also non-tetrapod marine vertebrates as well, including bony fishes and elasmobranchs) bear some scar from the terrible Permian-Triassic mass extinction event.  But I doubt that homeothermy (present in Mammals, Birds, and some extinct Reptiles) is one of them.  The lineages of synapsid "mammal-like reptiles," shading invisibly into true mammals, toward the middle to late Triassic, as well as a few of the diapsid archosaur lineages, especially dinosaurs and pterosaurs, seem to have convergently evolved homeothermy.  But that development came ten or twenty million years after the P-Tr extinction event.  Meanwhile, lots of reptiles who were poecilothermic flourished, and continue to flourish: the turtles, those tough survivors, neither synapsid nor diapsid, ever mysterious; the diapsid non-archosaur lizards and snakes; and the diapsid archosaur crocodilians.

There is a touch of reason in what you say immediately above.

Do you have anything to say about Wolverine's comments which I paste below?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, Black Wallaby, at least we agree on where our differences lie.  Here's the reason human suffering should not be prioritized:

The human race is grossly overpopulated and fits the medical definition of being a cancerous tumor on the planet.

Every form of life has an equal right to live, though the vast majority of modern humans refuse to recognize or honor that right, or to recognize that everything in the natural world is alive.

Humans have polluted every inch of the Earth, caused major harm to every ecosystem, and are now causing the sixth great species extinction, the last of which took place 65 million years ago.  This is the first major extinction caused by a species.

Scientifically, if that's what you respect, there is no evidence that humans are any better or more important than any other species.  In fact, considering the facts listed above, it seems that humans rank well below other species in importance of ecological benefits.

The ones really suffering on this planet are everything NOT human.  Humans are thriving, despite the individuals who are suffering.  Other forms of life are suffering greatly as a whole.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I couldn't figure if it was intended to be satire or provocation or what, so decided to let it pass.

However, I now see that you have a certain measure of wisdom, and wonder what you make of it.

I should have said penultimately above

There have been multiple approaches to Tasermons Partner about his strange Pidgin English, and at one point he said something like it reflects his character or personality.....something like that.

Well, I suppose everyone is different, but there are some extreme cases with divergent (WEIRD)thinking.

I like Tasermons Partner a great deal, and generally agree with everything he (?) has to say.

But I do regret the affectation of dialectal speech in his writing, which slows down his readers -- rarely a nice thing to do -- , and which presumably does not save him any time as he writes either.

On the other hand, the facetious comparison of TasPar's style to verbal "rape" is outrageous.

Both dogs and fungi (which compose a great Kingdom, more closely allied to us Animals than to Plants, though that is not widely recognized) are honorable taxa; and there is nothing dishonorable in being associated with either of them.

However, any unpleasantnesses that we may popularly ascribe to either of them, are as nothing, in comparison with the linguistic ignorance, and, much worse, the delight in insult and mockery, exhibited by Black Wallaby, all of which stinks most grossly.

Given this evil context of insult and patronization in which Black Wallaby mounted his request for a further comment, how can he possibly expect me to want to respond?

Be honest,
You do not know how to comment sensibly on Wolverine's stuff.

BTW I like dogs, I have a female Jack Russel....long leg or Parson or American variety

I also like the various blue cheeses, especially Stilton.....ecstacy with adrop of red!

It can be a useful starting point but great care must be taken to check the wider realm of information especially when emotional issues are involved.

Yes, and a good starting point is obviously what Nucbuddy needs if he doesn't know basic definitions like ecosystem and biosphere but wishes to participate in an environmental forum.

I do realize the downsides to Wikipedia and how the site is edited and formatted.  If Nucbuddy wishes for more "solid" or extensive background on certain subjects, all that is required is to type a few keywords into your standard search engine.

I'm surprised no correction made to my Italian grammar

"Once again you show why IF, repeat, IF the relatively small eco-system dependent on sea ice were to collapse, then there would be a new balance in nature."

Once again you show that you don't understand the first thing about the world in which you live, Bob. This "small ecosystem" is linked into most of the ocean ecosystems on the planet. And while you are right that there would be a new balance in nature, there is no guarantee that we will like the result, and very strong evidence that we wouldn't.

The irony of all your trolling is that you are raving against making changes in our policies that will prove tremendously beneficial to our economy. The only people who would possibly loose out from converting to a clean renewable energy economy would be those working for the fossil fuel industry... Oh.

Thanks for your response. I'm not concerned about all life being extinguished; if anything the record of previous mass-extinctions proves that life finds a new balance. It also shows that natural systems are unforgiving, and no one species has any guarantees when those systems go through balance shifts.

I am also a little skeptical about some of the conclusions drawn in the Seed article, though I chalked it up to having to explain a theory in layman's terms in 1,000 or so words. But I thought it was an intriguing hypothesis; it will be interesting to see what comes of it.

Nice try, Bob. Not even close. Heck, this was even demonstrated on a Discovery Channel TV show with an infared monitor in the arctic circle. 23 hours of summer sunlight more than make up for the angle. Ice and snow reflect up to 70% of sunlight, but darker water only about 10%. Maybe BHP can send you to NZ's South Island in a month, and you can test it for yourself on a glacier? ;-)

A biosphere is a part, or an area, of a world. Because it is not a system, a biosphere cannot collapse in the way that an ecosystem can collapse -- e.g. ecologically. A global ecosystem, on the other hand, can collapse ecologically

Notice how I put emphasis on a part, which differs from the definition you posted which says the part?

Part of the world where life can exist refers to the oceans, air, surface and immediate subsurface.

It ignores the rest of the world, because the rest of the world is unhabitable...why is it uninhabitable?  Because it's rock and magma that lies miles underground.

That's what they mean when they say the parta the world that supports life.

That's why it says the part of the world in which life can exist and not a part of the world.  Notice how the subtle word change will help denote the aspect of singular from plural.

And also, please actually read the full content of those links, if ya wish to gain valid information.  Most of the ones for world ecosystem refer to world's ecosystem services, which is different concept.  And many of those other links are just the words in the same article, but without an absolute definition.

I'll stop "raping" ya (as ya put it), just as soon as ya realize that it's a good idea to actually research basic environmental concepts before deciding to engage in discussion on an environmental forum.

and intelligent.

If they are intelligent, wouldn't that only further the cause for their protection?

Or are ya against protection of intelligent creatures because ya believe that they can get themselves outta messes?

If so, why do ya advocate help for people in Africa?  They're intelligent, aren't they?  Shouldn't they be able to adapt to disasters like drought, genocide, famine, disease, climate change, etc.?

All on their own, without us?  So why intervene?

See the hypocrisy here?

Does it bother you guys that they can also hybridize with the Grizzly

Hybridization with polar bears and grizzly bears is a fairly rare phenonmenon, in proportion to their overall populations.  So long as climate change wouldn't force massive hybridization upon their populations, why would that be of concern to us?

Also, ever hear of the concept of genetic diversity?

I have a seal skin coat; very warm, (and waterproof). Clubbed the little devils myself....(after a few trys). Next I'd like to get a polar bear skin for a winter coat, although I understand they are heavy.
Seals and Bears are useless animals really...I mean, think about how much space they use and all of the carbon they emit. Beside that, if the Arctic ice cap melts it will make a shorter distance for ships to travel which will result in less global warming and less expensive goods. There is also tons of oil in the Northland which can be made available as the ice melts with easier access and warmer working conditions for the oil rig operators.

Seals and Bears are useless animals really

And the purpose of humans is...?  What are we useful for?

And the purpose of humans is...?  What are we useful for?

Building sky scrapers, conquering, autocross, procreating (and just plain sex), exploring, hunting, gambling, drinking, fishing, scuba diving, football, offshore powerboat racing, acquiring wealth........

Wow, if you haven't figured that out yet you really need to find something productive to occupy your time. Have you tried skeet shooting or golf perhaps?

Here's a thought....I just bought an All Terrain Vehicle that really tears up the woods.....loads of fun; you should try it....Very relaxing. The key is to just enjoy yourself!

Here's a thought....I just bought an All Terrain Vehicle that really tears up the woods.....loads of fun; you should try it....Very relaxing. The key is to just enjoy yourself!

Also enjoyin' those high gas prices every time ya haveta fuel that ATV up? ;)

Typical greenie fundie!

How do you know Brute doesn't have one of those plug-in electric jobs!

...Ha!  That would be somethin' to see, wouldn't it! ;)

Just FOOD(seals) for thought,

Fossils show us that seals existed during the Miocene era, about 20 million years ago.

Polar bears have existed for at least 130,000 years.

Now err I believe there has been warmer periods over the 130,000 year existence of the Polar bear, and that warmer period obviously did not cause the extinction of the afore mentioned bear or its food, the seals. Scientists estimate that there are between 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears and counting.

My understanding is that three bears were recently drowned in a storm, a couple had a fight and the sea ice in the Arctic was less dense in the 1930-40`s than now. These greenies don`t like to go back too far, only to the late 1970`s.

I think the logic of these Greenies is somewhat flawed, what about the grizzly.

"Typical greenie fundie!"

"I think the logic of these Greenies..."

These kind of unique spellings and phrases will tend to repeat,as a troll switches nicknames.  

Bob and wall, same troll.

Brute uses "little devils".  Another dead giveaway, it's an aussie phrase.  Plus the moronic baiting theme.

Trolls eventually die off, their graves unmarked, their nasty nonsense forgotten.  I bet his neighbors are praying for relief, imagine how much worse the suffering of experiencing this individual in real life, rather than virtual.  Yikes.

If you were less interested in playing semantic games in more interested in an intelligent discussion, you would have gotten the point. Whether "collapse" is the perfect descriptor is not the point. That disrupting that ecosystem has wide-ranging and really bad consequences for all existing populations on the planet, including ours, is the salient point.

I'd actually like to engage in a rational discussion of the differences in underlying attitudes and world views between environmentalists and conventional thinkers, but so far all I see is debate-club rhetoric coming from the other side here. Sad to see minds so narrow and closed to reason.

Robco1,

Wherefore art thou?
Your dream may come true!

Carpe Diem!

Clearly no intelligent life in the right wing. Buh-bye.

Black Wallaby,

Typical Alarmist, can't face facts and quits the debate.

-Brute

I asked for a rational discussion of world views and you posted a popularity contest. "Eat sh**, a million flys can't be wrong." This passes for "intelligent discussion" on the right?

Try this: what is humankind's relationship to the world in which we live?

And: what is humanity's responsibility to future generations?

...in case ya didn't hear, the polar bear was listed as threatened due to climate change.

So, if ya think ya know more 'bout what will happen than a small army of biologists, wildlife experts, and climatologists, then ya can file a petition and take it up with the United States government...

...until then, it's quite obvious that the bears are threatened (thus their listing) and that they aren't adapting at this time (otherwise they wouldn't be decreasin' in overall number).

Victory of Ignorance
Well, I guess we all expected it, but it is no less galling to see polar bears listed by the US Government as a threatened species.  This despite rising polar bear populations and no evidence that a smaller Arctic ice cap will have a negative effect on the bears.   This is, even by admission of its supporters, mainly intended as an open license to sue any one or group over anything that has any element of economic growth.  Freeway projects in Arizona, power plants in Florida, desperately needed new refineries in Texas, oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and even a new shopping mall in California can now be held up in court as a danger to polar bears.

Here are a few reactions.  From my Princeton classmate Henry Payne:

Once again, my profession -- journalism -- failed its fundamental duty to report the facts Wednesday as the Interior Department bowed to political pressure from green groups to declare polar bears an threatened species due to global warming. This, despite the fact that bear populations have increased from 5,000-10,000 in the early 1970s to between 20,000 and 25,000 today (during the very period their habitat was allegedly shrinking). This is in part due to concentrated efforts to impose harvesting controls that have allowed this once-overhunted species to recover.

Indeed, Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a bear biologist with the Canadian government, wrote in 2006: "There is no need to panic. Of 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."

This data is readily available in the public record, and yet a review of reports from America's two leading print sources found nary a mention. The Associated Press completely ignored the bear population data and any critics of the decision. As for The New York Times, reporter Felicity Barringer also ignored the data, but at least alluded to it by quoting M. Reed Hopper of the Pacific Legal Foundation (which is suing the Department of the Interior over the decision) at the very end of her article as saying: "Never before has a thriving species been listed nor should it be."

From the Wall Street Journal:
Polar bears are not the fragile, vulnerable creatures of liberal iconography. They have thrived in the Arctic for thousands of years, both through periods when their sea-ice habitat was smaller, and larger, than it is now. They will continue to adapt - and the Endangered Species Act can't make the slightest difference.

Such realities haven't prevented green showboaters from claiming victory after the Bush Administration designated the polar bear as a "threatened" species yesterday. And it is a kind of victory, though the ruling itself is mostly symbolic - at least for now. However, this is really the triumph of bad legislation over the democratic process.

From the SPPI via Q&O:
Although two polar bear subpopulations (Western Hudson Bay and Southern Beaufort Sea) no longer appear to be viable due to reduction in sea ice habitat, polar bears as a species do not appear to be threatened by extinction in the foreseeable future from either a demographic or an ecological perspective.

Current and historical polar bear subpopulation performance demonstrates that viable polar bear subpopulations have persisted and generally increased throughout the current period of climate warming ...

The popular notion that polar bears are declining or already expatriated worldwide has been initiated and perpetuated by environmental organizations and individuals who apparently believe that current subpopulation numbers and trends are an insufficient basis for an appropriate status determination. ... Anecdotal information, although useful and interesting, is not equivalent to scientific information based on valid statistical analysis of sample data.

From TJIC:
Let's just all ignore the Canadian government study that showed that polar bear population is up over the last two decades.
Let's also ignore the fact that arctic sea ice grew faster in 2008 than ever before : 58,000 square miles of sea ice per day, for 10 days straight.

"Because polar bears are vulnerable to this loss of habitat, they are, in my judgment, likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future - in this case 45 years," Kempthorne said at a news conference in Washington.

So if short term, potentially random variations are taken as a trend, and if we extend that trend out half a century, then polar bears are "likely" to become endangered ... and therefore they are declared endangered now

From Marc Sheppard:
Now consider this -- taken but a miniscule regulatory step further, a family motoring about in an SUV in Texas could be cited not only for polluting under the Clean Air Act, but as their "pollution" has been regulated as a global warming contributor, they could be further fined under the Endangered Species Act for harming the protected polar bear.

Did I mention that penalties for such ESA transgressions can be a maximum fine of up to $50,000 or imprisonment for one year, or both -- per violation?

"Try this: what is humankind's relationship to the world in which we live?"

How existential...... Maybe I'll smoke some dope, climb into a sensory deprivation tank and ponder that all afternoon.

The maturity level of a 12 year old. I guess right-wing PR firms are not attracting the best and brightest these days. Buh-bye, sock puppet.

Look son, take some advice;

Come down off of whatever hallucinogens you've been ingesting, shave off the beard and get a haircut....... Get rid of the peace signs and the Che Guevara paraphernalia. Next, get a JOB and move out of your parent's basement and make something of yourself.

Once you start taking care of yourself, paying taxes and being a responsible adult, you'll understand that life isn't about hanging around the coffee house with Beatniks and whining about how "unfair" the world is......Grow up for heaven's sake.

Warnings about the future of the polar bear are often contrasted with the fact that worldwide population estimates have increased over the past 50 years and are relatively stable today.

Ya are aware that the population increase was in response to a ban/restictions on hunting in many northern countries?  And that even with the population increase in the past 50 years as a whole, populations still haven't recovered to their original numbers before they were hunted for reasons other than native sustinance?

So you're admittng that increased CO2 has had no effect on polar bear mortality..............

So you're admittng that increased CO2 has had no effect on polar bear mortality..............

I said polar bear populations increased over a 50 year timespan overall due to a ban in non-sustinance hunting.

Did you even read the report the DOI made for their listing?

More recently, polar bear populations have declined due to melting ice.

And they weren't back to their original numbers before sport hunting to begin with, even after a 50 year ban.

And, their recent decline has been much quicker and at much greater percentage than their initial recovery was.

In other words, it took 50 years, and they still weren't back at their original levels, and now that 50 years worth of work has almost been entirely undone just by the ice melt of the past few years.

In lame speak: big dive, very fast!

Let's review...........

Year         Number of Polar Bears
1950         5,000
2008         25,000

That would be a FIVE FOLD increase in polar bear population despite hunting and 50 years of GloBull Warming.

Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son............

Concerning the numbers, elucidated by Brute, and the contrary views of Canadians concerning the USA's strange legislation........

The question is...........?

(Goodie goodie greenie fundies, please offer your valued wisdom)

For zero reflection, read almost zero reflection

Mr Wallaby,

I don't think that you have it quite right about the surface tension and optical properties of water. A tiny drop of detergent added to a litre of water will destroy the surface tension. You can check this for yourself. Beforehand, you'll be able 'float' a pin on the water. Afterwards it will sink, but the optical properties will remain essentially unchanged. So, the optical properties of water aren't determined by surface tension.

What you say about the high reflectivity of water, when light hits it with low grazing angle, is correct, but only if it is very flat and smooth. Even a moderate wind on the ocean will cause waves which will effectivly catch the light, reducing the albedo. Also it should be borne in mind that the sun , even in polar regions, can reach relatively high angles in the sky in summer, and lower reflectivity figures need to be used.

You don't define what you mean by old and new snow. From my limited experience on ski slopes I can't say that I have noticed much difference.  All clean snow is highly reflective, and sunvisors are always recommended to guard against the glare from the snow. You don't get the same glare from water. Of course, old snow can often be contaminated with soot particulates and this would certainly reduce its reflectivity, which is argument enough for strict pollution controls on all 'smokestacks'.