1. False Hopes and Natural Disasters
By Andrew Baird
26 December 2006
SINCE the Indian Ocean tsunami two years ago today that killed more than 200,000 people, governments, donors and experts have embraced the idea that healthy mangrove forests and coral reefs could reduce the death toll from a giant wave. Former President Bill Clinton, in his role as the United Nations special envoy for tsunami recovery, recently endorsed a program that will allocate $62 million to preserve such natural barriers in 12 Asian and African countries.
But the $62 million question is, will these barriers work?
Research suggests that the level of protection offered by greenbelts has been exaggerated. And by diverting resources from more effective measures like education campaigns and evacuation plans to well-meaning but misguided reforestation, we may even contribute to a greater loss of life in future tsunamis.
Read the complete article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/26/opinion/26baird.html?_r=2&ref=science&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
2. Middle Stance Emerges in Debate Over Climate
By Andrew Revkin
1 January 2007
Amid the shouting lately about whether global warming is a human-caused catastrophe or a hoax, some usually staid climate scientists in the usually invisible middle are speaking up.
The discourse over the issue has been feverish since Hurricane Katrina. Seizing the moment, many environmental campaigners, former Vice President Al Gore and some scientists have portrayed the growing human influence on the climate as an unfolding disaster that is already measurably strengthening hurricanes, spreading diseases and amplifying recent droughts and deluges.
Conservative politicians and a few scientists, many with ties to energy companies, have variously countered that human-driven warming is inconsequential, unproved or a manufactured crisis.
A third stance is now emerging, espoused by many experts who challenge both poles of the debate.
Read the full article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/01/science/01climate.html?ex=1168318800&en=c2ac6f9ea7718095&ei=5070&emc=eta1
3. Eco hysteria over polar bears unjustified:
By Lorne Gunter
31 December 2006
"No evidence exists that suggests that both [polar] bears and the conservation systems that regulate them will not adapt and respond to the new conditions. Polar bears have persisted through many similar climate cycles."
There's a lot in that two-sentence statement from Dr. Mitch Taylor, polar bear biologist for the government of Nunavut, and one of the leading experts in the world on Ursus maritimus.
First, it shows that polar bears are currently not threatened.
Not only that, there is every reason to believe they are going to stay that way.
Read the full article here: http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/opinion/story.html?id=8ddd3c0c-32ec-4aa5-995c-ccd82d9c7d4c
Oh why not just deliver the death blow directly?
"Why couldn’t polar bears adapt to these changes in their habitat?
Genetic research indicates the polar bears evolved from an isolated population of the grizzly or brown bears 250,000 years ago. They are usually considered marine mammals since they are highly adapted to life on sea ice. Their fur, short snout, and small ears are adaptations to the cold; their teeth are specialized for a completely carnivorous diet (primarily of arctic seals); their feet have tiny papilae and “suction cups” for increased traction on ice; and their claws are shorter and more curved than grizzly bears. Their body structure and locomotion is adapted to walking on ice and swimming between ice flows, and they are not as efficient in walking or running on land as grizzly bears. If polar bears had to adapt to spending more of their lives on land, they would have to compete with grizzlies and other predators for prey items for which they are not as well adapted. Some polar bears spend portions of their on land waiting for the ice to return – for example, the Western Hudson Bay population – but during these periods when they do not have access to their regular food supply, they typically do not eat and instead live off their stored fat reserves. All of these factors would mean that it could be difficult for polar bears to adapt to living without ice."
All of this speciation fallacious discussion is the last refuge of denialists. Polar bears are specially adapted to life on the ice. [see above link]They have a harder time operating on land by evolution and thus compete badly with the much smaller and more combative grizzlies. Whether freak matings have occurred is irrelevant unless one has no counter argument to begin with, which is the case here. All winger sceptics speak from the same page. They have to since all facts go against them.
And now even Exxon has abandoned them.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/
The jig is up.