Save the Polar Bears!!!!!
by Ted Slater on 05/15/2008 at 10:43 AM
The thing is, if polar bears need to be saved from anything, they need to be saved from overpopulation.
"The Interior Department ruled Wednesday that the polar bear will be protected as a threatened species. Why special treatment for an animal whose population has more than doubled over the last 50 years?"
So begins an article explaining that, though the number of polar bears has dramatically increased over the past few decades, they are now considered -- despite facts to the contrary -- as an endangered species.
Why? Because of unfounded fears that the ice caps are melting, thus threatening the bears' habitat.
Let me challenge you to examine the raw facts. Let me challenge you to take a look at the actual data, rather than rely on a reporter's or bureaucrat's or pseudo-scientific huckster's misinformed spin. Check out the charts and satellite images for the north and south poles here. You may be surprised to see that, while ice does melt during summer (run for the hills!), for the past three decades the average global sea ice area has remained constant, at just over 22 million square km during the winter. Southern hemisphere sea ice area has actually increased over the past 30 years.
So why, despite the fact that polar bear populations have skyrocketed and global ice has remained pretty constant (taking into account seasonal fluctuations, of course), are these animals considered endangered? Simple: The politics of global warming alarmists have trumped scientific fact.
Thank God that we have access to the facts. Otherwise, these politicians and entrepreneurial alarmists might persuade us too to succumb to fear, rather than to trust in God and find our rest in Him.
1. John D. said the following at 11:02 AM on May 15:
Is declaring polar bears to be an endangered species a pretext for keeping Alaskan oil from being exploited?
Always, always ask who benefits financially.
2. Eliza said the following at 11:06 AM on May 15:
I can't help but sense a tone of fear and anxiety towards the global warming conspiratorialists gripping the world. Isn't the passion with which you (Ted) rail against the "alarmists" alarming in and of itself?
I'm always alarmed, anyway.
3. JessicaF said the following at 11:23 AM on May 15:
re: John D., comment #1: I attended the 2000 Presidential Inauguration (my college roomie lived nearby and as a history major I figured it was a time to employ the motto,'carpe diem'). One memory I have is of protesters dressed up, shouting 'Don't plunder the Tundra, Save the Artic Refuge!' It was a humorous sight. :) Unfortunately, that rhyme has not left my head.
4. Zach said the following at 11:36 AM on May 15:
That was the pretext, but the Bush administration left that door open (see the NYTimes).
5. robert said the following at 11:42 AM on May 15:
I am a recent college graduate who was raised in the church. I no longer consider myself an evangelical, but feel close enough to the evangelical community that I remain a fairly regular Boundless reader.
If I ever return to the evangelical fold, it will be despite, not because of, people with ideas like this. The overwhelming evidence of climate science points to a world that is getting much warmer -- and doing so because of our greenhouse gas emissions. It would be hard to overstate the depth of the scientific consensus on this matter. I'll just point you to the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body made up of hundreds of the world's most respected climate scientists. It's available at www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm. Read it -- and read some of the papers it references -- and you'll realize that arguing against the reality of climate change makes about as much sense as arguing against the existence of radio waves or gravity.
Where in the Bible is it written that those who love God must a) willfully ignore the findings of science or b) not care about the health of the world God created -- and the people who inhabit it?
6. Ted Slater said the following at 11:51 AM on May 15:
Eliza -- nah, I'm not alarmed. I'm amused. :-)
7. Louise said the following at 11:56 AM on May 15:
If this planet is under a global warming threat why is it always so bleep bleep cold here in Chicagoland?
8. Ted Slater said the following at 12:31 PM on May 15:
Robert -- I appreciate your joining the conversation.
We've already gone over on The Line how those who question the validity of anthropomorphic global warming are in fact *not* callous earth-rapers. We've also pointed out that hundreds of legitimate climate scientists question the findings of the IPCC, and that only a few dozen scientists contributed to the IPCC report (along with a whole lot of international bureaucrats).
Those who want to shut down discussion resort to saying that there's "scientific consensus," when in fact there isn't. There's no consensus about whether or not the sun and water vapor are in fact primarily responsible for cycles of climate change. Indeed, there's no consensus about whether or not it's even happening.
Why do I continue to bring up "climate change"? Because I care about truth and faith, and want to encourage our readers not to fall for the fear-inducing message promoted by hypocritical global warming profiteers, but to continue their humble conservation of resources, to value Truth, and to trust in the Lord.
9. Matt S said the following at 1:11 PM on May 15:
I think it's worth pointing out that if average global sea ice is remaining constant and is increasing in the southern hemisphere, then it must be decreasing at the same rate in the northern. So as I see it, there might actually be some measure of truth to what the "global warming alarmists" are saying about polar bears being threatened by less sea ice.
10. J said the following at 1:11 PM on May 15:
To put global warming in a bit of context, record weather only accounts for the past 150 years - at the very most in some parts of the world. Much of it is for a lot less. In the 1650's, there was a mini-Ice Age as things got so cold. Places like the North Sea were inaccessible for a large part of the year (look at the Anglo-Dutch wars of the time). And during the 11th century (or so), the Vikings had a large enough settlement on Greenland that the Catholic church at the time gave them a bishop ~ a significant sign of a large population. Looking at the past 50 years of climate patterns and extrapolating too much further does not do much good except monger fear...=P
11. robert said the following at 1:30 PM on May 15:
Ted -- thanks for your response to my earlier comment.
The Senate report you cite was actually produced by the office of a single senator: James Inhofe, one of the most hard-line global warming denialists currently in elected office. Many of the 400 scientists the report refers to aren't actually climate scientists, but inventors, physicists, etc. Do you really think they have the knowledge to speak on how we're affecting our climate?
I recently spent four months in Antarctica, working in the sheet metal shop at the main U.S. research station. All of the climate scientists I met there agreed that we are making the world warmer -- and that this warming could have disastrous consequences. But the climate is a complex system, and there are legitimate scientific debates about how fast the world is warming and what the exact effects will be. Unscrupulous politicians have used this lack of certainty about the magnitude and effects of human-caused global warming to try to cast doubt on its existence.
My biggest concern, though, is with the attitude evidenced by your easy assertion that global warming just isn't a big problem. "Am I my brothers' keeper?" you seem to be asking. The answer, when it comes to climate, is yes: almost every decision we make, from what we eat to where we live to what kind of car we drive, has an impact on our fellow human beings. I don't think Jesus would be telling us to casually disregard this impact. I think he would be telling us to treat all the other current and future inhabitants of this planet as we would like to be treated ourselves.
12. k. said the following at 1:59 PM on May 15:
Aaaand Ted's rearguard action continues!
13. Ted Slater said the following at 2:00 PM on May 15:
Robert, I'm sorry that you've already made up your mind. Perhaps in time, as you continue to study the facts, you'll see global warming for what it is: a way for profiteers to make an easy buck and a way for politicians to exert control over their constituents. Follow the money, as they say.
Your dismissal of the 400 scientists I referenced above is a classic tactic of those who've closed their minds to this discussion. I'm surprised that you didn't say that they are all funded by Big Oil and in back pocket of the Republican party. They are not, as you say, merely inventors and so on. They are scientists in the fields of Dynamical Meteorology, Physical Oceanography, Oceanology, Physical Geography, Meteorology, Climatology, Geochemistry, Paleoclimatology, Advanced Physics, Earth and Environmental Sciences, and so on. They are more qualified to speak on this issue than the wealthy large-carbon-footprinted Al Gore or the bureaucrats who published the IPCC report.
Maybe before replying, read some of the other blog posts I've written on this topic. I link to some of them here.
Yes, I'm passionate about truth.
14. Julia H said the following at 2:35 PM on May 15:
All I can say is that I am so glad I don't live in Churchill, Manitoba. The polar bear population there has literally exploded in the last few years and they regularly terrorize the residents of this northern Canadian town. I would like to point out that polar bears are one of the few species that "actively hunt" humans for food.
If we list polar bears as "endangered," thus banning the killing of these bears, we are most certainly endangering the children who must live in that town and other northern towns like it.
15. Eliza said the following at 2:43 PM on May 15:
Ted, your passion about global warming isn't "truth". It's just your opinion based on the research of other scientists, many of whom reasonably and intelligently disagree. How do you (not a scientist, I presume) have a corner on the Truth market? Nobody, even yourself, is immune from bias and subjectivity in their research and decision-making.
16. Jo said the following at 3:09 PM on May 15:
They've obviously forgotten the polar bears on the 'Lost' island, anyway.
17. David R said the following at 4:28 PM on May 15:
re: post #14
All I can say is that I am so glad I don't live in Churchill, Manitoba.
...
If we list polar bears as "endangered," thus banning the killing of these bears, we are most certainly endangering the children who must live in that town and other northern towns like it.
1) ummm... Canada is outside the jurisdiction of US law...
2) "The children! Won't somebody think of the children!?"
18. (Canadian) Andrew R. said the following at 4:39 PM on May 15:
Ted- what about the thousands of scientists who say that human-caused global warming is real? And all the scientific organizations who are putting their prestigious reputations on the line by saying that it's real and we have to stop it?
P.S. I love how you paint us as "close-minded", having "made up (our) minds." Mmm, the ironing (irony) is delicious.
19. xeres said the following at 5:02 PM on May 15:
Not this again. It is true that global warming is happening and there is a great correlation between human activity and the emissions of CO2. However, weather recordings of climate changes is about only 250 + years old so we don't have all the info. BTW, why the assumption that global warming is completely and exclusively caused by humans, regardless of other causes, as the humans are really that powerful. It is a combination of both natural causes and some level of human activity, NOT either/or. Plus, there is a level of Western imperialism that is behind the global warming push as well, from both sides of the spectrum. Global warming isn't going to affect every nation equally and some third world nations can't afford solar power, and wind power technology because of dicatorships and local realties that will be worsen by these 'enviromental' solutions even though they are good under First World context.
20. Ted Slater said the following at 5:19 PM on May 15:
I maintain that fears about traumatic anthropogenic global warming are based on junk science. We Christians shouldn't be falling for it, in my opinion.
21. robert said the following at 6:28 PM on May 15:
Just to clarify a factual point here: it's possible to determine what the Earth's climate was like a good bit more than 250 years into the past. Ice core samples can take us back several hundred thousand years, and sedimentary records go back can go back tens or even hundreds of millions of years. Of course, accuracy decreases the further back you go. Google "paleoclimatology" if you're interested in learning more.
22. (Canadian) Andrew R. said the following at 6:31 PM on May 15:
That's a heckuva lot of scientists who've fallen for this "Junk Science." Remember, these people knew of GW far before Al Gore thought of making a slideshow about it.
23. k. said the following at 9:13 PM on May 15:
Julia H - Where did you get your facts from? While I respect your concern for the citizens of Churchill, it is spectacularly misinformed.
Specifically, why would a town with an economy fueled by "polar bear tourism" suddenly be terrorized by its bread and butter? On the contrary, Churchill takes pride in its reputation as "Polar Bear Capital of the World." While certainly bears can turn into pests (which is why Churchill closed their town dump), it's a far cry from being a pest, to being a terror.
Additionally, you are completely incorrect that polar bears "'actively hunt' humans for food." To use your example of Churchill -- since it was founded in 1717, two of its citizens have been killed by polar bears. Two! Any large, opportunistic predator can be a danger to humans, especially when provoked or hungry. But the animals who have most to fear from polar bears are seals, not humans.
Finally, as David R pointed out, the US is unable to ban Canada from killing polar bears.
Now, I'm off to donate money to a wildlife conservation organization. Hopefully I can earmark it for educational purposes.
24. Sheridan said the following at 9:18 PM on May 15:
I don't understand why any Christians are that concerned about global warming. As Bible beliving people...which I surely hope we all are...the Bible clearly tells us what will happen in the end times...and that what does happen is all part of God's plan. God is not going to allow anything that interferes with His ultimate plan (or His written Word) and if global warming is real (which I DOUBT) then obviously God knows all about it...and is using it for His purposes.
Now I'm not saying we are in the end times...if we arent...then rest assured the world is not going to fall apart until it is the end, as proclaimed by GOD. Not GLOBAL WARMING.
Its ridiculous for Christians to worry about something that God is in complete control over!!
25. CG said the following at 9:45 PM on May 15:
Here is a fascinating article stating that scientists are now back-tracking and saying that we are beginning a natural cooling cycle.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/30/eaclimate130.xml
This is what I have maintained for years: the earth goes through natural periods of warming and cooling (usually close to 20 years in length). We don't need to freak out!
26. Max C said the following at 10:15 PM on May 15:
There are a lot of sincere Christians who, in seeking the truth, have come to believe that global warming is a real and present threat. Here are some evangelical leaders who fall into this category: http://www.christiansandclimate.org/signatories.
I wouldn't say that you can dismiss them as having "succumbed to fear".
27. Melissa S. said the following at 11:13 PM on May 15:
Brought to mind by comment #22:
This reminds me of a university class I had where we watched Al Gore's "documentary" as a way to learn about global warming. The whole thing was pseudo-intellectual. In between disbelief that we were actually turning to a politician for scientific information in a upper-division college class, and resignation to yet another totally biased college lecture purporting to be the absolute truth that all sane, thinking people believe, I was simply trying to hide my amusement and be polite about it.
Until the polar bear animation, I did really well. It was just too funny and I laughed before I realized it. Gore is going on about how we're going to lose the polar bears and then there is this really cheesy, graphically poor animation of a polar bear walking across ice which shrinks rapidly and leaves the bear weakly flailing at a flimsy piece of ice. Okay, so I like polar bears. It's just that the animation was ridiculous. Gore should have come up with a better quality animation at. The sheer poor quality just screamed melodramatic propaganda.
This was the same class where the prof dismissed mutation as a viable means of micro-evolution since mutations generally lead to death and disease and then the next week told us that mutation was the great cause of macro-evolution. I don't think he even realized what was coming out of his mouth. It was too bad, because he seemed intelligent about other stuff, but had no idea that he was blatantly inconsistent about evolution.
28. Leah said the following at 2:12 AM on May 16:
Ok, I'm all for shouting down the GW- proponents, but I think claiming that polar bears aren't endangered is going too far.
Yeah, their numbers have increased. So what? They are still relatively low compared to most other (non-endangered) species. I don't really care what the "reason" for their "endangered" categorisation is, whether its their habitat supposedly melting away (which I'll agree, is a complete myth), but the point is, polar bear numbers are still very low compared to unendangered species.
You can't claim the polar bear is not endangered simply because you don't like the reason for their categorisation.
(Canadian) Andrew R- of course global warming is happening, and is linked to human causes. We contribute a whole, like, 1%. The prestigious organisations aren't putting their reputations on the line, because they're "backed up" by people like Al Gore who nobody is game to criticise. Not to mention, I'm sure they're financially benefiting from it. Seriously, of course global warming is happening. Mars is heating up too, and so is Jupiter. I suppose that's humans' fault too? The sun is also heating up. (Ooooh, I think I see the common denominator here!)
robert- and once upon a time, it was impossible to overstate the depth of scientific consensus regarding the earth being flat, or the solar system revolving around the earth.
29. Nick said the following at 8:57 AM on May 16:
First, just because "thousands of scientists say it's true" does not mean it accurate!
e.g. Going way out on a limb here, but I'm assuming you all have heard about how "thousands of scientists" believe the Big Bang to be true?
Second, I got confused by comment #11. I don't see how you think Ted is purporting an ambivalent attitude towards the earth. Have you read the other posts that he linked to in his first reply? I think that Ted would agree with what you said about the need to be responsible in our use of resources and our stewardship of the earth. The reply in comment 11 makes me wonder how thoroughly the author checks on other facts.
30. Jim H said the following at 9:05 AM on May 16:
Robert #21.
Here is an interesting paper on regarding errors with ice core-based CO2 measurements from a professor who has studied glaciers for 40 years and has been on 11 glacier expeditions. He has not only analyzed CO2 concentrations, but also heavy metals and radionuclides.
The notion that there is consensus on this issue patently false.
www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/IceCoreSprg97.pdf
31. Kit said the following at 11:01 AM on May 16:
If global warming is such a problem, why did I need a sweater in Miami last week?!
32. Jim H said the following at 11:49 AM on May 16:
Robert #21,
This paper on ice core errors that I mentioned on my previous post (#30) is a great read for the scientifically inclined. Here are some key gleanings from this paper. You will see reference numbers throughout the quotes and you can go to the paper itself if you are interested in seeing them.
1. Huge variability in CO2 ppm concentrations from pre-1900 ice cores and selecting the "correct" data to match the theory rather than letting the data lead you to the proper theory. To quote directly from the paper:
"Until 1985, the published CO2 readings from air bubbles in
pre-industrial ice ranged from 160 to about 700 ppmv, and occasionally even up to 2,450 ppmv. After 1985, high readings disappeared from the publications! To fit such a wide range of results to the anthropogenic climatic warming theory, which was based on low pre-industrial CO2 levels, three methods were used: (1) rejection of high readings from sets of preindustrial samples, based on the credo: “The lowest CO2 values best represent the CO2 concentrations in the originally trapped ice”;23 (2) rejection of low readings from sets of 20th century samples; and (3) interpretation of the high readings from pre-industrial samples as representing thec ontemporary atmosphere rather than the pre-industrial one.
2. False assumptions. Again, I will quote directly from the paper.
For climatic interpretation of the ice core data the following
assumptions are used:
(1) The entrapment of air in the ice is essentially a mechanical process, which occurs with no fractionation of the gas components; the original composition of trapped air is believed to be permanently preserved in the polar ice sheets and in the collected ice cores. This means that the ice, with its included air bubbles, should remain a closed system during tens or hundreds of thousands of years in the ice sheets, and that this system is not disturbed during the core drilling or its transportation to the laboratory and its storage.
(2) No liquid phase occurs in firn and ice at average annual air temperatures of 24°C or less.35
(3) The gas inclusions are 80 to 2,800 years younger than the
age of the ice in which they are entrapped. (See, for example,
Reference 36.) This assumption is needed to accommodate the
data from the shallow ice cores, which show that air entrapped
in 19th century ice, or earlier, exhibits levels of CO2, CH4, and
N2O similar to present atmospheric concentrations. It has been pointed out that these assumptions are incorrect, and thus that the conclusions on low pre-industrial levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases are wrong. (See, for example,
References 12, 22, 24-28.) However, this criticism was largely ignored by greenhouse gases glaciologists, who offered no convincing arguments to refute this criticism in the one and
only paper that it provoked.
(4) An ad hoc, speculative assumption that the air in bubbles in ice is 90 to 200 years younger than the ice in which the bubbles are entrapped, was posed at a time when the oncentrations
of greenhouse gases in air bubbles from ice deposited in the 18th and 19th century were found to be similar to those of the present atmosphere.46, 47 No experimental evidence was offered in support of this assumption.
33. lexee said the following at 12:10 PM on May 16:
http://www.citizenlink.org/stoplight/A000007320.cfm
good video on global warming and the most recent winter season
34. obewan said the following at 1:34 PM on May 16:
Not to sound political, but there is not a lot we can do to push back in the coming election. It seems like every viable candidate is either for "carbon caps" or "carbon tax credits". At least before the primaries, I had two candidates in favor of liquid coal production - in a world where the ethanol production ripple effect food shortages are putting millions at risk.
35. (Canadian) Andrew R. said the following at 9:30 PM on May 16:
Didn't the Southern Baptist Convention recently denounce their anti-GW beliefs and take up a "it's-real-and-we-gotta-do-something-ASAP" stance?
36. Ted Slater said the following at 10:51 AM on May 17:
Andrew -- no, on a couple of levels:
1) The Southern Baptist Convention isn't "anti-GW" -- they have urged "Southern Baptists to proceed cautiously in the human-induced global warming debate in light of conflicting scientific research." That is wise and balanced, considering the evidence, and not "anti-" anything.
2) Some Southern Baptist leaders *did* recently state that Baptists have a moral responsibility to combat climate change.
I'm confident the SBC will continue to place Christ first, and also continue encouraging wise stewardship of the earth's resources. They'll also resist the temptation to jump on the GW hysteria bandwagon.
I look forward to the coming years, when Al Gore and his disciples will be shown for the opportunistic fools that they are, frankly. Do you not remember the hysteria about the "population bomb," or about "global cooling"? This is the same thing, with the same goal: control and profit.
37. Paul said the following at 4:05 PM on May 17:
#34 makes an interesting point. Even if we believe that climate change is being caused by humans (and as it happens I do), then the attitude that "we can't burn fossil fuels, so let's burn food" is not great. If greenhouse gas production has a disproportionately negative effect on people in developing countries, then consuming greater volumes of farmed crops is not going to make their lot that much better. An endless cycle that solves one problem by creating another is not helpful.
As Christians we have a great opportunity to trust God and not fear, and in doing so to take a step backward, calmly asses the bigger picture, and hold it up against a higher moral standard. If we look more closely at the situation, the problem is not greenhouse gases, or food shortages. Those are only symptoms of the problem. The problem is the old-fashioned sins of greed, acedia (apathy/sloth), and pride. If we can free ourselves of the notion that we have an exclusive western right to over-consume, then the symptoms should start to dissipate.
An alternative position would be to ignore the problem, and to argue about which of the symptoms are real, and whether they are as serious as people think. In doing so we would miss opportunities to share our enjoyment of life in all it's fullness, both practically and through the fulfillment of the great commission.
In short, we should not fear either acceptance or rejection of climate change. We should listen to the science and rumors of climate change, and wonder about the condition of our own hearts.
38. Ariana said the following at 9:28 PM on May 17:
Ted said: "I look forward to the coming years, when Al Gore and his disciples will be shown for the opportunistic fools that they are, frankly."
Ted, it seems that you are basically making the judgment that the politicians and scientists backing global warming are simply in it for selfish motives, just duping the public for their own gain. It's one thing to say that someone is wrong, its another thing to begin assessing motives. What about the scientists Robert mentioned in Antartica? Were they "opportunistic fools" as well?
You may be confident in your discernment here, but given that none of us has a clear window into the heart of either Al Gore or his "disciples" (refering to whom? anyone who buys into "An Inconvenient Truth"?), why not leave out those kinds of judgments and just stick to the facts?
Most of us are believers here. Why risk offending some with that language over something that, in the end, isn't even an issue of sin?
Matthew 5:22
39. Leah said the following at 7:34 AM on May 18:
Max C- yes, global warming is a threat. But for the most part, it isn't caused by humans. Over 90% of greenhouse gases is WATER VAPOUR. ie- coming straight from the ocean. Not to mention the sun is heating up, which is having a heating effect on Mars, Jupiter and possibly other planets- including Earth?? Also, do you know the end result of global warming? A plunge into an ice age. And of course we know that the Earth has gone through multiple ice ages and warming phases before... I see no difference with this one. It's all one big cycle, and humans are playing a minute role in it.
40. Jonathan said the following at 3:47 PM on May 19:
All you have to do is go back to the late 1970s, when Magazines like Time were screaming that we were headed into an Ice Age. Scientists at the time claimed our CO2 emmission were causing the atmosphere to be overly clouded and cooling the Earth too rapidly. They claimed by 2000 that much of the Earth would be covered in ice.
Now, look at all the work of the IPCC. According to many report I've read, the IPCC has selectively eliminated weather station numbers that don't jive with their politics. They have rejected space based measurement devices that don't match what they want us to believe.
AND, their numbers always end with "since 1982" or "since 197X". Convenient, huh? That they use the coldest decade to compare against?
Why are they doing this? Are they just concerned scientists? No, look at the line of "green" and alternative energy companies, including the ones Al Gore is heavily invested in, lining up a the government trough for subsidies.
Yes, all the science does say the earth has been getting warmer, but none of it proves that we will continue in that direction. None of it establishes humans as the cause. Most scientists that are at least concerned about global warming say that humans contribute about 4% of the cause.
Volcanic activity in the oceans has been at its highest over the last 20 years than on record (albeit another short history), causing the temperature of the oceans to rise.
But the simple fact is, that back in the 70s taxes, emission rules, subsidies and all kinds of other government programs to take OUR money and give it to lobbying companies were created to prevent CO2 from putting us into the ice age. Now, CO2 is responsible for our future death in a burned out world? Which is it?
Do we need to be good stewards? Absolutely: Recycle, use less heat/AC, carpool, etc. But don't let "scientists" tell you the world is ending. We all know God is in control of that and I certainly don't want 200 Trillion in new taxes going to developing alternative fuels that won't be ready before the next "imminent ice age".
41. Jonathan said the following at 3:59 PM on May 19:
Ariana - A wise man once said that "scientific" assertions were often based on the bias of the scientist. If those scientists in Antartica were taught about global warming, and in their short shifts there saw warming, they could very easily buy into global warming.
There is a forest of petrified trees in Yosemite that has a sign that once said the trees had got there and gained their appearance over "millions of years". Those three words that were put there came from the perspective of people with a belief in a very old earth.
After Mount St Helens blew up 28 years ago, the trees in Toulee Lake did the exact same thing and ended up looking exactly like the trees in Yosemite, so the government gave scientists that believe in a young earth permission to cut into the trees in the "ancient" Yosemite forest. They found that all the trees in that forest lived and died at the exact same time (by number of rings and which years had the similar gaps in ring spacing, indicating water levels). The sign now does not say "millions of years," because it does not match reality.
This year was the coldest winter on record since, guess when, the 1970s. I sat keeping score at a baseball game on the 45th parallel in Salem, OR as big snowflakes fell on the players and it snowed much of the day. The date: April 19th. First time ever recorded that late in the year.
The earth goes in cycles, like fish populations, and we're just peaking. To presume that humans can impact God's handiwork that effectively does not jive with the facts.
42. Viridine said the following at 9:40 AM on May 20:
two things.
I have a severe problem with the climatologists. I learned in school that you had to use the same instrument of measurement in order to consider your results valid. (unless my teachers were lying to me?) Therefore I have a new initiative regarding temperature measurements for any data to be considered in this matter. Tree rings, and only tree rings. I mean, seriously. :P
Have a look at this, too.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H3876&dbname=2008_record
43. John said the following at 7:08 PM on Jun 1:
For my boy Ted:
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/05/31/environmentalists_pick_up_where_communists_left_off
44. Brian from NY said the following at 6:52 PM on Jun 7:
I am neither a religous person nor am I a Global Warming alarmist. What I find fascinating is it appears 2 "camps" have formed:
A)Bible / Republican / Nay to GW
B)Earth / Democrat / Save the Planet
Christians arguing with modern day hippies (for lack of a better word), over whose Diety is more powerfull. Biblical GOD or Mother Earth.
Logic & Reason tossed aside due to pre-conceived notions and unwavering viewpoints. The battle of Global Warming should be more cause for concern than the battle being waged in IRAQ.
Are Polar bears in danger of becomming extinct due to climate change? With so many conflicting facts and theorys, how can we possibly use the word "consensus"? For every article claiming Climate Change will dramatically reduce the Polar Bear population, I find 2 that claim the opposite. Is there any group out there that can look at both sides of the debate and act accordingly? Or are we as a society doomed by whose Agenda is more successfull?
45. Eliana said the following at 12:39 PM on Jun 8:
I love Polar Bears alot!!!They are my fave animal. Us kids and adults 2 should help the Polar Bears. Scientist predict that in 2040-2050 is Bye Bye Polar Bears and thats REEEEALLY SAD. We need 2 make a difference in the world and help these cute Polar Bears to exsist 4ever!!!!!! Polar Bears=Happiness!!
46. Richard said the following at 10:19 PM on Jul 16:
I can't believe Christians who actually believe that global warming is not a real threat.
Even if actual ice area has remained the same, that is completely irrevelant because that is doesn't mean that ice is not melting and destroying the environment of polar bears and countless other animals we are COMMANDED to take care of in the Book of Genesis.
47. Ted Slater said the following at 9:36 AM on Jul 17:
Richard, I can't believe Christians who actually believe that global warming is a real threat.
Take a look at my comment #8 and click on the links I've provided. That'll give you some background on why I'm so passionate about truth, and so passionate about countering global warming hysteria and the fear that the profiteers want to spread for their own benefit and for our detriment.