So conservatives, through their proxy Matt Drudge, have decided because a few residents and one polar bear naturalist disagree in Churchill, Manitoba, and because the above picture was taken out of context, that the wealth of scientific data on the rapid decline of the polar bear's natural habitat is so wrong it deserves a headline declaring the species "not at threat."
This is typical conservative behavior. Perhaps the rise of this political movement can be directly
correlated to a lack of classical logic education in high school.
Let's set the record straight- from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources 2006 "Red List" (pdf link);
Polar bears rely almost entirely on the marine sea ice environment for their survival so that large-scale changes in their habitat will impact the population. Global climate change poses a substantial threat to the habitat of polar bears. Recent modelling of the trends for sea ice extent, thickness and timing of coverage predicts dramatic reductions in sea ice coverage over the next 50-100 years. Sea ice has declined considerably over the past half century and additional declines of roughly 10-50% of annual sea ice are predicted by 2100. The summer sea ice is projected to decrease by 50-100% during the same period. In addition the quality of the remaining ice will decline. This change may also have a negative effect on polar bear population size. The long-term trends clearly reveal substantial global reductions of the extent of ice coverage in the Arctic and the annual time frames when ice is present. While all bear species have shown adaptability in coping with their surroundings and environment, polar bears are highly specialized for life in the Arctic marine environment. They exhibit low reproductive rates with long generational spans and these factors make facultative adaptation by polar bears to significantly reduced ice coverage scenarios unlikely. Polar bears did adapt to warmer climate periods of the past. Due to their long generation time and the current greater speed of global warming, it seems unlikely that polar bear will be able to adapt to the current warming trend in the Arctic.Got that, you crazy right-wingers? Stop carrying water for your corporate overlords; after all, unless you hold substantial stock in an oil company, global warming is a net negative for most average people. Here's just one example of how warming can affect the average American, right from the headlines and the poor folks affected by the recent spate of California firestorms;
-The 1999-2002 national drought was one of the three most extensive droughts in the last 40 years -Warming may have lead to the increased drought frequency that the West has experienced over the last 30 years. -The 2006 wildland fire season set new records in both the number of reported fires as well as acres burned. Close to 100,000 fires were reported and nearly 10 million acres burned, 125 percent above the 10-year average. -If warming continues to exacerbate wildfire seasons, it could be costly. Fire-fighting expenditures have consistently totaled upwards of $1 billion per year.There are many more consequences of climate change, and most are far worse. The sooner conservatives get on board and start trying to make a difference, the sooner America can lead the world and try to mitigate the coming disaster we have brought upon ourselves.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
