This story was posted on Facebook by an aquaintance(they gotta change the name of that site to friend s of friends I don’t like book”
The person who posted it said “This is sad”
I decided to add my two cents.
What people don’t realize is that the polar bear population is at it’s highest point since we started keeping records. Mainly due to restrictions on hunting, but also there is the possibility of the polar bears being more succesful when it is warmer. If it is indeed all that warmer.
As for cannibalism and infanticide, it is quite common in the animal kingdom – and that includes humans. Of course we find it distasteful, but it is counterproductive to apply your morals to the amoral world of nature.
As for the picture, we just happen to have more cameras around than at any time in history, so it is inevitable that we will capture more and more examples of what nature is truly like. All in all it is a good thing if we don’t have a distorted picture of the world.
Polar bears have evolved to become, like all predators, incredibly good killing machines. This is their nature. And being a top predator, all other living things are fair game. Including it’s own kind.
Someone, noting my post, added this
Mr. Steve Nash
“polar bears have always cannibalized…that’s why the cubs stay with their moms. One problem with global warming is that it’s melting the ice and so the cubs are more exposed to the males than they were before. Its definitely getting warmer up there…there’s been a chunk of ice half the size of BC that’s disappeared roughly in the last 30 years. I saw this satellite image of it on a video that Steve Nash was narrating and that was pretty sad. ”
I decided to reply, but in the mean time another guy decided to follow up.
“Polar bears do better in warmer climates? In that case, let’s continue to pollute, pollute, pollute! Forget this green garbage! Cmon people, think of the Polar Bears!
But wait…it might not be warmer…BUT if it WAS, and it was OUR fault, they’re better off…but it can’t be our fault cause there’s just no way…
Obviously having to defend my honor, I immediately fired back:
Nice one Mr Ad Hom,
I didn’t say it was because the Artic is warmer that there are four times as many polar bears in the arctic as there was 30 years ago, I just suggested it as a possibility – but thanks for trying to attribute it to me. That was a well executed straw man argument + a sweet ad-hom at the end. You must be reading Monbiot or desmogblog.
Co2 is not a pollutant, whatever Al Gore would have you believe, it is an essential trace gas that makes up .035% of the earths atmosphere. It is also plant food. In fact plants evolved during a time when the earths atmosphere had a much higher co2 concentration. One could argue that at 380 ppm plants are currently starved for co2.
Historically co2 has never been a driver of the earths temperature, and it is highly unlikey that it is today. What Al Gore neglected to mention in his movie when he showed the graph of co2 and temperature, I believe he said “now the relationship is complicated”, was that the co2 rise lagged temperature rise by 800-1000 years, not the other way around.
Don’t take my word for it, you can look all this up yourself, it is part of the “peer-reviewed” literature.
While you are at it you may want to look into why top scientists involved with the IPCC are now calling for the head of it to resign, and calling for the process to be revamped so it can regain it’s credibility.
The future of co2 production is now firmly out of the wests hands, it is in the hands of BRIC – Brazil, Russia, India and China. They have only just begun their long road to modernization, and their co2 production will skyrocket in the future. They also aren’t interested in signing any binding treaties restricting their growth.
That fact coupled with the fact of the utter failure of Copenhagen and the failure of the US to pass cap and trade legislation means that you had better hope the catastrophic AGW crew is wrong, as the earths co2 concentration isn’t going down any time soon.
Lucky for us it they most likely are.
Anyways I am composing a reply to to the previous comment about Steve Nash, I should have it ready later tonight so stay tuned.
And then I followed up with my retort to Mr.Steve Nash
Hi Mr Steve Nash, nice to make your acquaintance
Unfortunately the statement “it’s definitely getting warmer up there” proves nothing. The statement may be true, but it does not prove that AGW or increased co2 has anything to do with it. Correlation is not causation. It is true you didn’t say that it was AGW, so I am assuming that that is what you meant. As well claiming that global warming is a “problem”, that Steve Nash has a very convincing voice and ice melting is “sad” is similar to Mike saying that the polar bear cannibalization was “sad”, namely you are applying a moral value to a completely amoral process, that of the changing amount of sea ice in the Arctic. On a side note, I wonder what Mr. Nashes carbon footprint is? I would guess it is pretty big.
That was the genius of changing “Global Warming” to “climate change”, apart from the fact that the globe has cooled since 1998, means that any change in the global climate from a base point – let’s say 1980, is unnatural and caused by human activity. I can think of a completely natural process that again is amoral, but most likely would seriously disrupt life on this planet, and that humans would classify as bad – an ice age. I wonder, if at some future date, it were to be conclusively proven that the globe was warming, and that it was completely natural, do you think that environmentalists would try and stop any attempt at man intervening in the climate to stop the warming? Especially if it was “catastrophic”? Or if a new ice age was upon us, would they try to thwart any attempt to keep the planet warm? It makes you wonder what their true motives are, and in whose interest they are acting.
It is true that in 2007 there was a 30 year minimum in Arctic sea ice, but what you probably didn’t know that at the same time there was a 30 year maximum in Antarctic sea ice. All combined the total amount of global sea ice had not changed much in 30 years. By this winter the arctic sea ice had returned to it’s previous levels. Furthermore note that I said 30 year low. That is because we have only been measuring the sea ice by satellite since 1979. Knowledge of sea ice extent prior to that date is very poor and anecdotal. For instance, did you know that in the 1930s scientists were worried about the arctic sea ice disappearing? It is interesting because this coincides with the warmest year in the 20th century, 1934 according to NASA-GISS. I wonder what the polar bears were doing then.
I covered my points on co2 replying to Alan, so I’ll just leave it at that.
As for what animals and plants will do in the face of the “problem” of global warming, my guess is that will do what they have always done – adapt. Much like humans. In fact humans are very succesful at adaptation. We are so successuful that we have extended our presence into every conceivable part of this earth and into the cold darkness of outer space.
Let’s say that the inanimate and chaotic features of our earth such as warming, cooling, tectonic plates shifting, volcanoes, etc is the problem, then life itself is the solution to the problem. Life has been confronted with the problem of surviving every since it appeared on this earth. Life solves this problem through adapting via evolution. Humans are the product of this evolution, and so by extension everything we do is natural, and part of life. You might say that humans are the pinnacle of this evolution for we are the rational animal. We have the capacity for rational thought, and can weigh our options and make decisions. We place value on life. No other animal does this. Given that the problem is survival, humans therefore are the best chance that life has to survive in this universe. As far as we know, this planet holds the only life in the universe, and it could be snuffed out in an instant by something such as a planet killing asteroid. Humans are the only animal that would be capable of defending life from oblivion.
For that reason we should be very careful of the motives of those who want us to stop, who want us to have zero growth and zero impact. They want fewer humans, and less wealth, less life. They see humans as a disease, a danger to life. They tell the third world that they can’t have what the first world has, and tell the first we should want less.
In order to meet the challenges of the future we will need to adapt, and the richest nations are the ones who can easily adapt, the poorest nations are the dirtiest, and have the hardest time adapting to change. So I call for more of everything, more wealth, more humans, more life.
Anyways if you are interested in pursuing any of the issues I have brought up or doing some research yourself, I would be more than happy to direct you to the appropriate resources.
Any of Bjorn Lomborgs books would be a good place to start.