US lists polar bear as threatened species

More abjectly silly posturing.

Bear populations have doubled snce 1960, but we're declaring them endangered because some computer model has been tweaked to _project_ population declines? Because scientific illiterates in the media, the Congress, and the entertainment/infotainment industry give the idea fasionable plaudits? Without a single shred of data showing any real population decline is in fact occurring?

What an embarassingly ridiculous policy decision.

Hope you like $6 per gallon gas. Because that's what this non-science decision is going to cost the consumer.

$4 gas and $5 heating oil vs. junk science. Good Grief.

Declining supplies of accessible oil, increasing demand, and a falling dollar all guarantee that you'll see $6 per gallon gas soon enough, whether or not we protect the polar bear.

Polar Bears are a threatening species !

They're probably right. You never see polar bears around here anymore.
Oh yeah, they get together during the winter to go swimming once or twice, but generally they are few and far between on Long Island.

Great news... so next winter while I sit around freezing my assets off, I'll feel good knowing that although I can't afford the oil to heat my house the polar bear population will be protected. Of course, this all based on some scientific projection brought to me by the same guys who can't accurately predict the weather in NY tomorrow let alone a century from know.

Ned wrote:

They're probably right. You never see polar bears around here anymore.
Oh yeah, they get together during the winter to go swimming once or twice, but generally they are few and far between on Long Island.

The polar bear population of Singapore is now almost totally extinct!

Betchya the global warming freaks are partying over this one. Unfortunately, they fail to tell anyone that the Shelf Ice is at it's second biggest since recorded.

Personnaly....drill through the big dopey thing's heads to get oil.

Teddy R wrote:

More abjectly silly posturing.
Bear populations have doubled snce 1960, but we're declaring them endangered because some computer model has been tweaked to _project_ population declines? Because scientific illiterates in the media, the Congress, and the entertainment/infotainment industry give the idea fasionable plaudits? Without a single shred of data showing any real population decline is in fact occurring?
What an embarassingly ridiculous policy decision.

Is Al Gore responsible for this dibble?

Well, there goes any chance of getting more oil out of Alaska. Despite the polar bear population increasing since the 1960's, they're now "endangered" due to the myth of global warming. Meantime our dependence on foreign oil remains high, which means the Arabs, Big Oil and speculators continue getting rich while the rest of us get poorer. But the polar bears are protected so let's all rejoice.

Teddy R wrote:

More abjectly silly posturing.
Bear populations have doubled snce 1960, but we're declaring them endangered because some computer model has been tweaked to _project_ population declines? Because scientific illiterates in the media, the Congress, and the entertainment/infotainment industry give the idea fasionable plaudits? Without a single shred of data showing any real population decline is in fact occurring?
What an embarassingly ridiculous policy decision.

Yeah, why think ahead? We could wait till the numbers actually decline and then declare 'Oh well! It's too late anyways!'. It is much easier that way.

Oh yeah... then they go and bite a human?
Then are they so great???