You have to be the” right” sort of native if Global Warming Hysterics will care about you and your habitat!

Som en uppföljning till mitt tidigare inlägg om isbjörnar (The Bush administration caved in – Polar Bear Is Declared a Threatened Species! och Kanada nedgraderar ”hotet” mot isbjörnarna! Or More Polar Bear Baloney) kommer här några intressanta presskomentarer om det hela.

Till att börja med några kommentarer fån lokalbefolkningen som lever med isbjörnarna in på knuten dagligdags. Och som INTE är beroende av några klimat/dator modeller för sitt kunnande.

Så här sa deras representanter i februari i år:

The Nunavut and Northwest Territories governments have lobbied U.S. officials against the proposal.

”We ‘ll continue to work with our national government in trying to make sure that we impress upon the U.S government that, ‘Look, we’re trying to tackle climate change but this is a misguided effort to manage our environment,'” Nunavut Premier Paul Okalik said.

Nunavut is home to over half of the Earth’s polar bear population, Okalik said. Of the 11 polar bear populations in the territory, all but one have healthy numbers, he added.” (Finns här:

Och så här sa deras representant efter USA: s beslut:

”Nunavut Premier Paul Okalik lashed out at the closing of the U.S. market, saying it won’t affect the number of hunting permits issued each year, but will cause economic hardship in Inuit communities. He contended that bears aren’t really at risk because their numbers are rising. Wildlife biologists believe the population is double the 1960s levels because of reduced hunting pressure.

”Our scientists in the field as well as Inuit elders have observed an overall increase in the polar bear population,” Mr. Okalik said in a statement. ”The truth is that polar bear populations are at near record levels.”

(Finns här:


Är det också inte intressant hur Global Warming Hysterikerna som i vanligt fall brukar prata sig varma över hur man skall lyssna och ta hänsyn till lokalbefolkningen efter som de besitter en unik kännedom över dessa djur etc. Men INTE tydligen i det här fallet utan här går man helt på klimat/dator modeller som naturligtvis vet oändligt mycket bättre om isbjörnarnas förhållanden.

Dvs. Att när det passar de egna politiska syftena så ”lyssnar” man och tar hänsyn till ursprungsbefolkningens synpunkter. När det INTE passar den egna politiska agendan så struntar man fullständigt i lokalbefolkningens åsikter.

Så enkelt är det.

Som jag sa i mitt inlägg Kanada nedgraderar ”hotet” mot isbjörnarna! Or More Polar Bear Baloney:

”Vad det handlar om är att genomdriva en politisk agenda. För om man lyckas driva igenom att de förklaras som en ” threatened species” så får det mycket långtgående juridiska och ekonomiska konsekvenser. (Se mitt inlägg: The Hijacking of the Endangered Species Act – Dessa isbjörnar igen!)

Därför att i USA så betyder en lag någonting och staten/delstaten blir ansvarig och skadeståndsskyldig för alla överträdelser. Det är inte som i Sverige där regeringen kan strunta i lagar och paragrafer UTAN någon som helst egentlig påföljd eller konsekvenser.

Det är därför det får sådana konsekvenser OM det blir en lag och det är därför man till varje pris vill driva igenom detta förslag från Global Warming Hysterikerna. Då det skulle bli ett prejudicerande fall.”

Och nu har det tyvärr blivit ett sådant fall.

Men det är ju ett tveeggat svärd då det kan användas i båda riktningarna s.a.s. Dvs. man kan nu stämma hycklaren Al Gore för hans CO2 och energislösande leverne som ju NU enligt denna logik ”hotar” isbjörnarna. Liksom hans kändiskompisar som har samma luxuösa levnadsstil medans de predikar omedelbar sparsamhet för vanligt folk.

Se mina inlägg: The master hypocrite Al Gore doesn’t want to criticise his Hollywood buddies! Al Gore’s Enormous Carbon Footprint!Al Gores energislösande hem,  Al Gores energislösande resandeHycklaren Al Gore VÄGRAR att följa sina egna råd

Om de  ekonomiska och energipolitiska konsekvenserna:

Mera artiklar här:

Och här:

Och här:

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>


The polar bears are doing fine

Peter Foster,  Financial Post 

Published: Friday, May 16, 2008

Today is Endangered Species Day in the United States. And what better way to celebrate it than the decision this week by the Department of the Interior to put the polar bear on the ”threatened” list. No doubt this will provide another necessary jolt for eight-year-olds who have already become obsessed with climatic Armageddon after being forced to watch An Inconvenient Truth. But then who could forget Al Gore’s little animated polar bear, paddling around desperately looking for a bit of ice on which to alight. Who could forget the following 2006 exchange between Mr. Gore and Oprah Winfrey, after showing the clip of the doomed creature:

Oprah Is this where the polar bears are drowning, because there’s no …

Gore Yes, yes, and it’s — that — that’s very sad. They live on the ice.

Oprah Yeah.

Gore And now the ice is sometimes 60 miles from the land.

Oprah Yeah.

Gore And the distance between the ice floes is very large. And so for the first time now in significant numbers, they’re finding them dying by drowning.

Oprah By drowning. That’s what I remember the most from An Inconvenient Truth is that graphic of the polar bears. And they’re drowning because the ice is melting and there’s no place for them to really be.

Gore Right.

Oprah Yeah.

Gore Yeah. And they’re losing their habitat. Something similar is happening to the penguins in–near the South Pole.

Yeah. Right. Except that it turns out that Mr. Gore’s assertions weren’t exactly true. A British court ruled that there was no evidence of ”significant numbers,” or indeed any, deaths of the kind that Mr. Gore claimed. Still, who could fault Mr. Gore for wanting to be on the side of the angels. And given the acknowledged retreat in recent decades of Arctic sea ice, wasn’t Mr. Gore’s case at least plausible, even if he did have to use similar graphics to Coca-Cola?

The question is whether what Mr. Gore has to sell is as innocent as a soft drink. It certainly isn’t. But this week the U. S. government appeared to buy a whole load of it.

The declaration of the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), while ostensibly about the preservation of a magnificent animal, is more significantly about environmentalists’ attempted use of the courts to retard economic development in the name of countering alleged man-made climate change. If this designation is used as a precedent for legal challenges to the fossil fuel society, as environmentalists hope it will be, it could have a severe cost in terms of human welfare. But it will do little or nothing for polar bears.

Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne clearly flagged the dangers of the ”threatened” designation, which was forced upon him by an environmentalist lawsuit and the rigidity of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). He noted that he would issue guidelines ”to protect the polar bear while limiting the unintended harm to the society and economy of the United States. ? That is why I am taking administrative and regulatory action to make certain the ESA isn’t abused to make global warming policies.”

One might quibble with the word ”unintended.” Environmentalists see the new listing as — at the danger of mixing species metaphors –a Trojan Horse through which to further their fight against industrial society. Or, when it comes to Al Gore, as an excuse to engage in more profitable self-puffery.

There has certainly been a decline in Arctic sea ice in recent decades. However, this decline has gone with an increase in the polar bear population, which is estimated to have doubled since 1960. More important, however, are the claims that the sea ice decline is attributable to man-made climate change, and that grand global policies can, and should, be constructed to deliberately alter the climate. This equates to an ultra-bizarro version of burning down the house to cook the chicken.

As Bjorn Lomborg — the bane of environmental alarmists and bad policymakers — has pointed out, the global temperature modification projected from Kyoto (which in fact proved far too contentious to implement) would have resulted in the salvation of exactly one polar bear. If we really want to save these creatures, Mr. Lomborg asks, why not just ban hunting them? Which brings us to the pressure that the Department of the Interior’s move may put on Canada, where two-thirds of the world’s 25,000 polar bears are estimated to live, and where sport hunting represents an important source of income for some northern communities. The fact that polar bear trophies will no longer be permitted into the United States is sure to have an effect on hunting.

Nunavut Premier Paul Okalik pointed out this week — criticizing the ”threatened” designation — that polar bear populations are at near record levels. Meanwhile, scientific studies have shown that Arctic sea ice has been at lower levels in the past, most recently in the 1920s and 1930s, and at various other points in the past several thousand years, all of which circumstances polar bears have survived.

This week’s designation may be a victory for environmentalists, but it will do little for polar bears, and presents a positive threat to humanity, and to sensitive children in particular.

Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

Will Canada deem the polar bear ‘threatened’?

Colby Cosh,  National Post 

Published: Friday, May 16, 2008

U. S. Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne held a press conference yesterday to announce that our southern neighbour is adding the polar bear to its official list of threatened species because global warming poses a potential future menace to its habitat. The U. S. is surely entitled to its own independent judgment on such a matter, and I have no particular insight into the process by which the Americans prioritize actions taken to preserve wildlife. What interests me is the widespread suggestion that Canada is now under some obligation to follow suit, so as to harmonize our treatment of the polar bear with theirs. We do not currently list the polar bear as an ”at risk” species; it is on a separate list of animals that are of ”special concern,” and hunting of a few dozen animals per year is permitted, with the Inuit and the Cree generally having first claim on the licences.

I am writing these words about 12 hours after Kempthorne’s announcement, and in that time representatives of the David Suzuki Foundation, the World Wildlife Fund and the International Fund for Animal Welfare have already called upon the Canadian government to follow the Americans. It’s interesting in itself that the Bush administration should, without irony, be cited by these groups as an environmental beacon unto the world. No one ever suggested that the polar bear’s non-threatened status in Canada, the territory in which 60% of the world’s polar bears live, created moral pressure on the United States not to move polar bears upward on the risk ladder. Somehow, though, when the U. S. government changes policy, there is suddenly pressure upon us. Clearly there is an unsavoury suggestion here that the U. S. enjoys a position of moral primacy over us. If they don’t, then why should we give a damn what they do?

It’s also interesting that animal welfare groups are so often ready to claim that aboriginal peoples possess special insight and wildlife-stewardship abilities when it suits them, but that they will defect so readily, and so hypocritically, in a case like this one. The Inuit do not see the need for polar bear hunting to be restricted more than it already is, and they attest that the populations are mostly healthy, and have grown exponentially in the last few decades. Because American sport hunters of the polar bear are generally obliged to hire Inuit guides (doing so is legally mandatory in the Territories), an economic interest that supports their traditional way of life has been directly injured by the Interior Department’s decision.

But what’s most interesting is the self-evident desire to evade Canada’s scientific, expert-driven process for determining which species are threatened. In this country species assessments are handled by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), a heavyweight independent body that ”uses a process based on science and Aboriginal or community knowledge to assess species at risk.” So has there been some radical recent change in the attitude of Liberals and animal welfare advocates toward what they like to call ”settled scientific consensus”? Any claim by an observer of the polar bear issue that future global warming is purely hypothetical and not yet predictable with confidence would be met with shrieks of rage against ”climate deniers.” But these same acolytes of the Holy Temple of Science are now urging John Baird, the Environment Minister, to trash the recommendations of his own scientific committee on endangered wildlife.

COSEWIC has not shut the door on upgrading the bears’ risk status to ”threatened” down the road, but a review of their ”of concern” designation was completed just last month, so the underlying data are virtually up to the minute. Of the 13 Canadian subpopulations of polar bears, seven are described by COSEWIC as ”stable or increasing”; just two are in a confirmed decline that can be ”partly attributed” to meagre sea ice cover. ”For most subpopulations with repeated censuses,” says COSEWIC, ”data suggest a slight [population] increase in the last 10-25 years.” Global warming involves definite danger to polar bear populations, says the committee, because ”The species cannot persist without seasonal sea ice.” But ”Decreasing ice thickness in parts of the High Arctic may provide better habitat for the bears”, and overall ”there is uncertainty over the … impact of climate change on the species’ distribution and numbers.” In conclusion, ”Although the current and projected decline is insufficient to justify a status of Threatened, considerable concern exists over the future of polar bears in Canada.”

If the Minister ignores this advice and falls into lockstep with the U. S., it will be an unusually clear instance of politics trumping science. But what liberal animal lover will have the integrity to complain if this sin is committed on behalf of the photogenic Ursus maritimus?

Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

Endangered energy acts

Terence Corcoran,  Financial Post  

Published: Thursday, May 15, 2008

Fresh assaults on the future of energy supplies land daily. The U. S. government yesterday declared polar bears to be a ”threatened species,” a move that does nothing for polar bears but poses a major risk to future energy development in Alaska and the North. In Canada, a federal court threw a roadblock yesterday in front of Imperial Oil’s $8-billion Kearl oilsands project in a case that has come to focus on carbon emissions.

Neither the polar bear nor the Kearl decision alone has an immediate impact on the supply or price of oil. But both have wide ramifications, giving environmental activists fresh foundations from which to delay, freeze, stall and ultimately permanently halt oil and gas exploration and development projects. They come on top of dozens, even hundreds, of regulatory barricades and government-imposed obstacles to energy production that have been and are routinely erected by governments all over the world. No wonder oil is at US$130 barrel. And why not start thinking of US$200 or US$300?

The Bush administration’s polar bear decision is a pathetic capitulation to activists whose real purpose was not to save the polar bears — which are not endangered or even threatened –but to shut down energy exploration. The Interior Secretary’s press release was a sad display of self-deception. The decision contains a rule that ”will allow continuation of vital energy production in Alaska,” it said, a sentiment nobody else was buying.

Green Web sites were jumping at the news. Andrew Wetzler, director of the Endangered Species Project with the Natural Resources Defense Council, was quoted on GreenTech as saying the ”threatened” designation is as good as an ”endangered” designation. ”No government permits may be issued affecting the polar bear without all concerned government agencies having a say.” Mr. Wetzler said it’s not likely any of the oil industry’s oil and gas exploration projects would be found to be legal by the courts. If the Democrats take the White House, it’s expected that ”no move affecting the polar bears in Alaska will go without a court challenge.”

Much the same conclusion was reached by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a pro-energy development group and opponent of global warming theory. Iain Murray, an energy fellow at the group, said the so-called rule protecting ”vital energy production” has no legs. It ”just delays the day when global warming activists will be able to impose their policy of energy suppression.”

Up in Alberta, activists see the same opportunity emerging out of the Kearl decision. With greenhouse gases now declared the equivalent of pollution, Simon Dyer, the Pembina Institute’s ”director of oilsands,” sees a trend. ”You’re going to see more of these challenges until we get adequate mitigation that does actually result in real and absolute reductions in greenhouse gas pollutants.”

Other energy sources for North America are also behind numerous and mounting barriers to new supplies. Liquid gas terminals are under attack and are being postponed or cancelled. Exploration of other parts of Alaska are stalled for reasons other than polar bears. Mexico’s energy production, under incompetent control of the state, is faltering.

In the United States, moreover, a new energy bill — the Consumer-First Energy Act — is rumbling around Congress. It promises windfall profit taxes on major oil companies, including taxes on the foreign operations of U. S. oil companies. The result of such legislation would be to further curb the development of new energy sources by major U. S. corporations working abroad.

It is absurd to attempt to punish market-owned U. S. energy giants for price increases that they are not responsible for. The companies –Exxon, for example–are among a dwindling group of competent private energy giants that are being driven out of power by governments. Around the world, in fact, more than 80% of the oil industry is in the control of governments and state enterprises whose efficiency and competence is dubious at best. In Russia, state interference has led to the beginning of a decline in production, posing an immediate threat to world supplies.

State control is curbing the supply of oil and gas on a global basis, driving up prices. Exxon said recently that its production out of Africa had fallen 20% as high oil prices and contract stipulations forced it to hand over production to local governments. Many of these states also limit investment in new supplies. That’s one reason Gold-man Sachs recently issued a US$200-a-barrel price warning. ”Key oil-exporting countries for the most part continue to restrict foreign investment, which will likely keep a lid on how fast supply can grow.”

Between environmentalists and state planners and controllers, plus animosity toward the energy industry, keeping a lid on supply is the name of the game in energy these days. Pathetically, the Bush administration’s polar bear release hailed the government’s wind and solar energy strategy as the alternative.

Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.



Etiketter: , , ,

Ett svar to “You have to be the” right” sort of native if Global Warming Hysterics will care about you and your habitat!”

  1. Miljövän Says:

    Keep up the good work Sophia Albertina.

    Hörde den utmärkta intervjun med förre Volvochefen Gyllenhammar i TV 4 i morse. Han visade sig ha en lugn och saklig inställning till miljöfrågorna och att vi måste göra vad vi kan för ren luft, rent vatten och en natiur i balans. Inget miljöhysteri ens över hans satsningar på vindkraften eller hans mycket nyktra inställning till kärnkraften. Inga inköp av utsläppsrätter för hans del när det gällde flyget.

    Programledaren Bengtsson var också sansad i sin miljöinledning av intervjun med Gyllenhammar. Först var folk skeptiska, sedan blev det ”hysteri” (miitt ordval) och nu har det svängt igen till att man inte tror att klimathotet är så överhängande, sa Bengtsson.

    Precis så är det. Det upplysningsarbete som pågår från kritiska vetenskapsmän och från bloggar som denna börjar ge resultat. Mer sans och förnuft börjar prägla mkljödebatten och alla sanslösa turer kring etanol och CO2-frågorna. Det är en utökad debatt som snart kommer och som måste komma för att få ner miljöfrågorna och globala warming-hysterin på jorden!

    Detta med isbjörnarna vore ju skrattretande om det inte vore så allvarligt. Egenintressena från företag och miljöorganisationer av att utnyttja uppskrämda människor och ofta kunder och politiska partier att lura väljare har nått ofantliga nivåer.

    Igår fick vi höra att bensinen i Sverige borde höjas till 27 kronor litern! Och detta för att man enfaldigt fortfarande tror att i förlängningen hindra global warming! Allt detta prisraseri (läs skatteraseri) baseras på att stoppa CO2-utsläppen för att förhindra jordens upp värmning när det egentligen – om man ser sansat på det hela – är av helt andra orsaker som man bör minska beroendet av fossila bränslan. Mindre nedsmutsning av luften. Mindre beroende av diktaturer som Saudiarabien och opålitliga länder som Ryssland.

    The global warming har nu till oh med visat sig kunna bli global cooling! Och det har inte med CO2-utsläppen av människan att göra. Det är solen och alla andra variabler som hav, moln, vulkanutbrott, skogsskövling m.m. som styr jordens klimat. Detta faktum börjar nu sjunka in hos människor som vill ha en vetenskaplig grund för sin uppfattning, formad i en öppen debatt mellan hysteriker, alarmister, djupt troende och vetenskapliga skeptiker samt rena motståndare. En total genomlysning av FN:s klimatpanels slutsatser och Al Gores propaganda måste ske i sådana debatter.

    Alltså fortsätt det goda arbetet Sophia Albertina med att upplysa alla om vad som pågår där ute i världen. Vi är många som är intresserade av att bilda oss en egen så oberoende uppfattning som möjligt i miljöfrågorna.

    Vi står inför en enorm katastrof när det gäller matförsörjningen i världen och ekonomin i världens länder om hysterikerna får fortsätta sina domedagspredikningar och politkerna får fortsätta att brandskatta befolkningarna. Miljöhysterin kring global warming är ett brott mot mänskligheten. Det förstör allt det vi byggt upp de senaste 100 åren när det gäller välfärd och trygghet, frihet ch demokrati.


Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in: Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Google-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Ansluter till %s

%d bloggare gillar detta: