Polar ice caps - (Not so) endangered Polar Bears and political environmentalists

Section One 

1. The Ice Caps - are they melting? 
2. Al Gore predicts in 2009 the Polar Ice Caps will be gone by 2013
3. The Ocean temperatures are a natural cycle and the part played by El Nino in the temperature rise in 2012/3
4. Global Cooling?

Section Two

1. The Polar Bears - Are They going Extinct? 
2. Contrary to predictions the numbers are up.
3. The propaganda campaign - power of the media 

Section three 

1. The Worship of nature - the (not so) new, religion
2. Who benefits? 
3. Whats the real agenda? 

1. The Ice Caps - are they melting? 

Can you imagine what would happen to the world as we know it should these vast areas of ice melt? 

Climate Alarmists have been telling us  that the earth's atmosphere has been heating up because of an increase in Greenhouse gases. This increase is due to mankind's use of fossil fuels and because we are pouring CO2 into the atmosphere this has caused an unprecedented rise in the earth's temperature. 

1. This week we look at the predictions alarmists make about the melting ice caps and consequent flooding of our coastal cities. 
2. Also because the melting glaciers and ice sheets are the natural homeland of the Polar Bear we are going to have a look at the predictions made about this creature's  population dying out because Global warming has destroyed their natural homeland. 

2. Al Gore predicts in 2009 the Polar Ice Caps will be gone by 2013

December 7 - 18, 2009 

Former Vice President Al Gore references computer modeling to suggest that the north polar ice cap may lose virtually all of its ice within the next seven years. "Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years," says Gore.

More from this conference:

COP15: CLIMATE SUMMIT IN COPENHAGEN

Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry

Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average.

The updated data contradicts one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

Official NASA video claiming the arctic sea ice will all be gone by 2012 !

Arctic Has Gained Hundreds Of Miles Of Ice The Last Three Years Posted on September 9, 2015 Heres another good read on all the ice melt predictions that have not come true

Earth Observatory Nasa

Antarctic ice floes extended further than ever recorded this southern winter, confounding the world’s most-trusted climate models.

“It’s not expected,” says Professor John Turner, a climate expert at the British Antarctic Survey. “The world’s best 50 models were run and 95% of them have Antarctic sea ice decreasing over the past 30 years.”

The winter ice around the southern continent has been growing relatively constantly since records began in 1979. The US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC), which monitors sea ice using satellite data, said this week that the year’s maximum was 1.54m sq km (595,000 sq miles) above the 1981-2010 average. The past three winters have all produced record levels of ice.
The Guardian

The Melting of the ice caps at the end of the 1970's 

The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend.

As was pointed out in my previous post, this cooling trend can be related to . . .

Ocean Temperature Cycles
The global temperature trends have followed not rising CO2 trends but the ocean temperature cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water. That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle.

A cooling trend had begun in the mid 1940's and the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post -1979 polar ice extent. The cooling trend ended during the 1970's just in time for Alarmists to show 'evidence' of extensive melting in the polar regions.

But this trend began to ease round about 2000 and now updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements assisted by the presence of the El Niño  . (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)

What exactly is "El Niño"?

3. The Ocean temperatures are a natural cycle and the part played by El Nino in the temperature rise in 2012/3

National Ocean Service

El Niño and La Niña

El Niño, warmer than average waters in the Eastern equatorial Pacific (shown in orange on the map), affects weather around the world.

The warming trend was increased in 2005 by a regular patter of sea rise temperature in the Pacific ocean called El Niño. It is not hard to figure out that a global rise in sea temperature coupled with the El Niño would raise the climate temperature and polar caps would naturally melt to some extent during this time.

El Niño is an irregularly periodical climate change caused by variations in sea surface temperatures over the tropical eastern Pacific Ocean, affecting much of the tropics and subtropics. The warming phase is known as El Niño and the cooling phase as La Niña.

The two variations are coupled: El Niño is accompanied with high, and La Niña with low air surface pressure in the tropical western Pacific.The two periods last several years each (typically three to four) and their effects vary in intensity.

In Spanish, the capitalized term "El Niño" refers to the Christ child, so named because the pool of warm water in the Pacific near South America is often at its warmest around Christmas.

 "La Niña", chosen as the 'opposite' of El Niño, literally translates to "the girl child".

The point is that El Niño is a perfectly normal cyclical event and just as was demonstrated with the rise and fall of ocean temperatures together they can create a warmer climate, for a period of time, which then ends and the climate becomes cooler again, this is demonstrably a cyclical phenomenon and explains why the earth is now going through a cooler phase at present. 



We see this being reported in recent headlines: 

4. And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year

There are now 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012!

BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013
Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month
A chilly Arctic summer has left 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 29 per cent.

The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.
 Dailymail.co.uk

Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html#ixzz2eHTdAqgy

Section Two

1. The Polar Bears - Are they going Extinct ? . . . 

Here's the Official point of view. . . from where else but National Geographic
Most Polar Bears Gone by 2050, Studies say 

The Polar Bears are going extinct because of me and you . . . we have killed them!

This is really the bottom line to the Climate Alarmists who have allied themselves with the Environmentalist movement who together have taken upon themselves the task of saving the planet from . . . us.

If you or I say anything to the contrary then what does that make us?

Cruel callous denialists who would stand idly by and watch the Polar Bears go extinct whilst selfishly pumping our carbon emissions into the atmosphere. The whole issue is so fraught with emotion that an open and honest discussion is impossible without tempers flaring.

Interestingly enough when one does a search for the 'official' viewpoint on the plight of the endangered Polar Bear one gets very conflicting answers . . .

2. Contrary to Predictions, the numbers are up.

for example at this site Polar Bear Science 

This article discusses the investigation by a journalist  Christina Wu into whether Polar Bears are endangered or not.

It's a Pretty Straightforward Question:

Directed to the experts from ICUN Polar Bear Specialist group (PBSG) biologists.
She included in her question a report that Polar Bear numbers must have overall been increasing since 1970.

If this is so then what is the big problem?

The conclusion at the end of the article was this:

So, are polar bears really threatened with extinction? All the evidence says they are not in any trouble right now: the classification of polar bears as ‘threatened with extinction’ is based completely on predictions made by computer models about what might happen by 2050. However, the results of recent polar bear research have disproved, or called into question, many of the assumptions used to make those models work. That leads me to conclude that polar bears are not endangered.

Or what about this article from The Canadian Geographic Magazine 

It is a simple question lets repeat it
Are Polar Bears really an endangered species?

In an article called 'The Truth About Polar Bears' by Zac Unger
He starts by stating . . .
"Depending on whom you ask, the North’s sentinel species is either on the edge of extinction or an environmental success story. An in-depth look at the complicated, contradictory and controversial science behind the sound bites."

Well what the heck. . . it's not a difficult question, are they dying out or not?

The article Talks about a place in Canada On the western shore of Hudson Bay, and it states

"it’s sometimes hard to remember that polar bears are supposed to be going extinct. Every fall, hundreds of bears gather near Churchill, Man., waiting for the bay to freeze so that they can head out onto the ice to hunt for seals."

Ok so what now? is the ice melting? are the Bears unable to go and hunt? and . . .  are they starving?

The article continues. . . "The population numbers have been startling. Research from 1984 to 2004 showed that the western Hudson Bay population, which includes the Churchill bears, had declined from 1,194 to 935. The trendlines from that study suggested that by 2011, the population would fall to as low as 676.

Fast-forward to today and a new study, which reveals that the current polar bear population of western Hudson Bay is 1,013 animals.

Wait … what? More bears than there were 10 years ago? Nearly double the prediction? “Polar bears are one of the biggest conservation success stories in the world,” says Drikus Gissing, wildlife director for the Government of Nunavut. “There are more bears here now than there were in the recent past.”
“That’s false,” says Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity, the international advocacy organization that, in 2008, successfully pushed to have polar bears listed as “threatened” in the United States. “Polar bear populations are in decline. That means individual bears are starving and drowning.”

Well thats two "polarised" viewpoints
The increase in Polar Bear Population is a fact, so how do the Alarmists get around this obstacle?
The article continues :  "a deep dive into the current science behind polar bear population dynamics produces results that are complicated, contradictory and often quite controversial. For the segment of the media that traffics in sound bites, it’s easy to declare that polar bears are on the verge of extinction … or that this is just another example of the climate-change myth. The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in between."

The article then describes the difficulty of tracking Polar Bears and keeping accurate counts, it then goes on to describe the possible dangers for the Polar bears. . . in the future. . .

Just keep in mind that previous forecasts of doom just haven't materialised so how much faith can we have in the doomsday predictions for the future?
I must quote my favourite writer (usually discussing art) Robert Hughes who says in "The Shock of the New" . . ."Nothing dates faster than our expectations of the future."

This is certainly proving true with regard to Climate Alarmists predictions about global warming. So I guess the Polar Bear might go extinct by 2050 but the truth is that this is all just speculation and is certainly not backed up by current Science.

Keep also in mind that Polar Bears do die and have done so throughout history, which is a pretty obvious thing to say but you see nowadays if a Polar bear dies in the Arctic it would appear that this is due to Global warming, no other explanation is even considered!

Never mind the life cycle of Polar bears who live and die like any other animals and sometimes they get sick and old and are too weak to hunt, or they get injured or killed in Arctic storms. No! the reason is given the poor fellow starving because the ice is melting and his natural food source of seals have gone because he can't reach them any more without the ice to walk on. . . and so on
Here's a typical example. . .

Dead Polar Bears -  don't jump to conclusions

According to a recent report by Human Events, special investigators from the US government's Interior Department (ID) have found that a scientific paper published in a 2006 issue of the journal Polar Biology is filled with baseless assumptions about four specific polar bear deaths -- and this eventually became the foundational argument for the fight against global warming. But in reality, the deaths may have had nothing to do with melting ice caps, and everything to do with a simple windstorm. 

In the light of poor predictions and contradictory reports the Alarmists have to fall back on propaganda 

But look at how the Polar Bear is used as an emotional hook to solicit a sympathetic response. . .

3. The Propaganda Campaign - power of the media

It brings to mind the "planet Stupid" advert

Plane Stupid's campaign, developed by the ad agency "Mother", aims to show the impact that global warming is having on polar ice caps.

The group is aiming to point out that even short flights to the continent have a major impact on carbon emissions. Planet Stupid says that the ad was inspired by the fact that an average European flight produces 400kg of carbon, which it claims is the same weight as an average female polar bear.

"We wanted to confront people with the impact that short-haul flights have on the climate," said Robert Saville, a director at Mother. "We used polar bears because they are a well understood symbol of the effect that climate change is having on the natural world."
theguardian.com

The name of the Ad Agency is "Mother"

I'm not sure why they call themselves this except that it does remind of Mother Earth and the Greek name 'Gaia', very politically correct name for an Ad Agency. Ad agencies are all about promotion and getting attention for their clients and for their business. What a brilliant piece of promotion! Who ever heard of "mother" before this emotional advert was made?

The plight of the Polar bear is good business. . .

'Earth Goddess' plant sculpture at Atlanta Botanical Garden

Section Three 

1. The Worship of nature - An Unlikely Alliance

Environmentalists are fully invested in the political side of the"Climate Change", band wagon. The connection to politics is relatively recent, environmentalists has been around since before the 60's. The Political involvement may have started with "earth day" in the 70's but only really began to gain traction in the 90's. The Al Gore movie, "An inconvenient Truth" ensured it reached a far greater audience and since then has grown to its present monstrous proportions.

Environmentalism, with its political nod, is today a well intrenched world view with its own orthodoxy and practitioners and high priests and a growing number of adherents.

The fact that Politicians have usurped the Environmentalists agenda certainly wouldn't be a problem to them as it simply adds to their credibility. They know political support means access to money, that is . . .tax money lets just remind ourselves. . . yours and my money, that now funds costly publicity campaigns run through a compliant media.

General awareness among the tax payers, thats us, is constantly managed with emotional reports of starving Polar bears just like the one from "mother". People are told they can actually help by swinging to 'green', the whole edifice is now a huge prosperous industry, Green products are generally more expensive, but remember we are saving the planet so we can all just pay a little more and become the principle financial benefactors of the Environmentalist movement and line the pockets of the Politicians who promote their cause.

How is this so? We will take a look at who owns what products that are making a fortune out of this whole scam and guess where the money trail leads back to . . . OH yeh Al Gore

In 2001, before leaving office as vice president, Gore was worth less than $2 million. Since then, he has grown his wealth to $100 million . . . almost entirely by investing in a handful of “green-tech” companies . . . 14 of which received more than $2.5 billion in loans, grants, tax breaks, and more from the Obama administration.

2. Who Benefits? 

Al Gore has thrived as green-tech investor

Obama also benefitted

The Failed Solyndra green energy initiative.
It is alleged that Obama, used taxpayer money to finance his re-election campaign . . . by funneling it through Solyndra.

President Obama, accompanied by Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet, looks at a solar panel during a May 26, 2010, tour of Solyndra Inc., a solar panel manufacturing facility, in Fremont, Calif. (Associated Press) Photo by: Alex Brandon www.washingtontimes.com

Read more: The Cold Truth Initiative 

Solyndra received a $536 million U.S. Energy Department loan guarantee, the first recipient of a loan guarantee under President Barack Obama's economic stimulus program, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.  Additionally, Solyndra received a $25.1 million tax break from California's Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority.

Between 2009 and mid-2011 the price of polysilicon, the key ingredient for most competing technologies, dropped by about 89%. This precipitous drop in the cost of raw materials for Solyndra's competitors rendered CIGS technology incapable of competing.

Following the bankruptcy, the government was expected to recoup $27 million under the Solyndra restructuring plan, but no money was ever recovered.

Environmentalism - a Unifying element and a Global religion

It is now politically correct to be part of the environmentalist movement as opposed to the 60's and 70's when most people in society, agreeing with some or even all of the environmental concerns were not overly disposed to being part of the campaign and it remained somewhat marginalised as an offshoot of the hippy movement.

Being a somewhat sceptical observer of the motives and concerns of Politicians, I can see how this connection to the Green revolution provides a convenient spin off to political agenda's by having a whole 'ready-made' support group of people that are growing quickly  in numbers and provides a unified front that other political factions are now unable to ignore. The unlikely alliance between big politics and environmentalism would have been unheard of in previous decades, now provides a vital link between political factions and the general public.

But this is a good thing right? because now we can address some real issues that have real consequences for future generations of Polar Bears and . . . oh yes and a few people as well.

3. Whats the real Agenda?

Just get rid of (most of) the people and everything will be fine again. . .

Why the hesitancy with regard to people? Well here's the problem with environmentalists.

The issue with carbon emissions is this: If it were not for people the earth would be fine, in perfect harmony and in Balance with nature (Gaia, mother), but then people were sort of OK until there were too many of them. Now because we are just too many people burning up all those fossil fuels, the very future of the Planet is in danger.

To the environmentalists, Gaia/mother could be dying and we her faithful servants must save her, this is the core of environmentalism, the worship of mother earth. It is disguised with an anthropomorphic idea of a scientific proposition but at the end of the day it is the new religion.

Since most people/unbelievers are not in tune with the environment and are selfish and greedy and concerned with building up their own security and comfort at the cost of the environment they are not interested in getting on board with alternative lifestyles and reduction of carbon emissions and CFC's and whatever agendas the politicians would put upon them in the name of Environmentalism.

Wouldn't it just be better to get rid of a few billion of them and let the earth return to its original pristine state? That would make the earth much easier to rule and control. . .

Now we get to the real Political Agenda. . .

Under Construction - more to follow