Polar Bears “Endangered” by Global Warming

Posted on  

"Polar Bears “Endangered” by Global Warming"

polar-bear-tongue.jpeg

The polar bear is in danger of going extinct — and it is our fault.

It’s all well and good that the Bush administration has admitted that climate change is real and threatening polar bears with extinction. But the President has not yet acknowledged that this dangerous warming is due to man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Until then, he can continue doing nothing — and that will mean a future of Hell and High Water.

We can only hope that this is a sign of things to come. If the President makes one New Year’s resolution, it should be to admit in his State of the Union address that we are the cause of the world’s warming AND that we need to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Then we can get past mourning the polar bear, and start doing something to save it.

UPDATE: For a recent post on the “stunning” loss of Arctic sea ice, go here.

Here are two posts that answer the question Will polar bears go extinct by 2030? — Part I and Part II.

Keep up-to-date on all things related to climate change here, and think about subscribing to the ClimateProgress RSS feed.

Related Posts:

« »

151 Responses to Polar Bears “Endangered” by Global Warming

  1. CarlD says:

    Global warming is largely man-made. So will you therefore cut your own greenhouse gas emissions by reducing your electricity usage by turning off your PC and your Web server?

    Or are cutbacks only the responsibility of *other* people?

  2. Joe says:

    I’m glad you acknowledge that global warming is largely man-made. As we’ve said many times on Climate Progress, the scale of the global warming problem is so huge that the solution must come at a national and international level. Voluntary cutbacks by individuals will *not* solve the problem — and while we certainly urge people to reduce their own emissions, turning off your PC is not the strategy we support. You can run your PC and Web server on renewable energy and do “zero-emissions” blogging. That is the kind of strategy we embrace.

  3. CarlD says:

    DO YOU run your PC on renewable energy?

  4. Joe says:

    I have a solar PV system.

  5. CarlD says:

    And what about your Web server? Your ISP? Are they also run on renewable energy?

  6. CarlD says:

    (Four days later): I didn’t think you’d have a response. I’d bet you have no idea whether or not your ISP uses renewable power. The chances are that they do not.

    So all that we have here is another liberal telling us that other people should cut back. Of course, it doesn’t apply to him.

    You probably ride on Lauie David’s private jet.

  7. Joe says:

    You need to come up with better criticisms. First off, using renewable power is not “cutting back” — it is using the same amount of power as before but from pollution-free sources. Second, I have never advocated people “cutting back.” The solution is to use energy more intelligently. The key point to remember is that we don’t have to go to zero emissions tomorrow, we need to cut emissions 60% by 2050.

  8. readyforchange says:

    Too bad all you seem to get around here are trolls bent on trying to divert attention from the actual content of your blog.

    The fact that they use such contrived terms as “liberal” should speak volumes.

    So what if his servers are run on renewable energy or not? Do you think global warming is a serious threat to humanity? If so then are you going to fail to do something on your own just because some “liberals” are hypocrites?

    By that logic nobody should preach the teachings of Jesus either.

  9. readyforchange says:

    Further more I’d like to point out that he probably has very little direct influence on the business decisions of his ISP.

    If he’s got a solar PV system its a hell of a lot more than you’re doing I’m sure. The whole idea is to make individual sacrifices… Only government policy can force businesses to change.

    What do you drive, an SUV? I drive a Honda civic… And as soon as I have the money I’m getting a hybrid. Every chance I get I’ll vote for laws that enforce conservation and limit CO2 emissions.

  10. Joseph says:

    Oh my god how weak can you get…
    President Bush is a wonderful person. And furthermore there is no way to say that Global Warming is man made. Did you know that one volcanic eruption can give of as much CO2 as 50 years of human activity! So shut your bias liberal mouths about global warming. This reminds me of Y2K and Global Cooling. I am very disappointed in people today. Global Warming is nothing but a cult. Just like Scientology, Global Warming is nothing but a dumb way for people to raise money, buy the way readyforchange, you are either a Global Warming cultist or someone who was taught by bias media that Global Warming is man-made. I am a republican child. I am only 13 and I am smart enough to know that Global Warming is not man-made. We can’t even tell the ala round tempture of the earth. The sun goes through cycles…

    Just for your info
    Joseph

  11. Kelly says:

    Help the poor innocent POLAERBEARS!♥ :*(

  12. the voice of reason says:

    I suppose the global warming of Mars and Jupier is a result of humans driving cars too huh? Or could it be that we have very little idea on how the sun and the planets affect each other. This seems a far more likely response. Plus there is massive amount of evidence that this is simpley a natural heating cycle of the earth. the problem with the global warming debate is when the earth starts to cool again the enviromentalists out there will declare victory saying they were right when in fact they did nothing.

  13. Claire!! says:

    Bless him/her!!! I want to take it home!! and i know we are to blame but what are we dong about it??……….absolutely nothing.

  14. stephanie says:

    i think this is great because people might do more to help our world and all the animals that help us

  15. kayla says:

    i feel that we are taking our world for granted we need to be more careful with the things we use and how long we use them for because it is affecting all the animals and soon enough in the years to come for our childrens-childrens it will be hard for them 2 survive !

  16. kayla =]] says:

    lolol.
    hes my boyfriend MADISON =]

  17. ya mom says:

    yo mo foooooos

  18. meh says:

    sure, JOSEPH, at 13, i think the chances of you remembering the global cooling period (1940′s to 70′s) is slim, but hey, el intelligento, you’re the self proclaimed boy genius.

  19. Sarah says:

    It’s appalling to see how partisan the arguements of some of these people are. Regardless of your party, it should be very clear that global warming is real, and even though it has happened before, it has never, in measurable history, been this serious.
    Joseph, at thirteen, you probably know as little of politics or of global warming as you ever will; your grammar and spelling illustrate that you know little of the english language as well. You have made the opposing argument weaker by saying anything at all.

  20. jocelyn says:

    SAVE THE POLAR BEARS!!!

    DOnt hurt them!!!!

  21. Joe says:

    How is it that people still keep coming across this post?

  22. Lejla says:

    as in big city, water always quite quite limited. in my house, the water often use twice time: after washed the veg or fruits or took shower, we use the water to closestool.
    our solar water heater already work over 5 years. quite good even in winter.
    as electricity power is uptight especialy during summer. I use the air condition just while it is hot daytime. after the dusk, if it is cooler than daytime, better open windows. yeah, our windows glass are two-double, and I would close them during noon with all curtain down. that’s always work well even without the air condition.
    turn off the ligth when I am out.
    close TV or watering fountain on Power Off button, not just remote device.
    my new car at least must be a hybrid, solar cell is my affectionate dream.

  23. Ashley says:

    I think ppl need to start taking care of our earth, and stop thinking about themselves. They are just being selfish.

  24. Sam says:

    Global warming: truth or propaganda?

    Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, argues in the Financial Times that ambitious environmentalism is the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity.

    Mr Klaus writes that “global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth versus propaganda problem” and the issue “is more about social than natural sciences and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global temperature.”

    Do you agree? Or do small climate changes demand far-reaching restrictive measures?

    Following an overwhelming response from readers, Mr Klaus has answered a selection of questions from the hundreds that were submitted.

    Vaclav Klaus: What is at risk is not the climate, but freedom

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    Does President Klaus really believe that it is a good risk management strategy to ignore the summary report on climate change science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, approved by the Czech Republic and other countries in February, concluding that continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century?
    Bob Ward, London, UK

    Vaclav Klaus: I think it is a very bad risk management strategy to follow the summary report on climate change of the IPCC. To do it would be a giving up of risk management rules and of standard cost-benefit analysis techniques in favour of environmentalists’ “precautionary principle” which totally discredits risk management and comparison of costs and benefits. I suppose that you don’t insure your house (or car) when the danger is small and the insurance is too expensive. That’s all.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    Mr. Klaus, I believe, has asked the wrong question, and in doing so, is in danger of under-cutting his main point, which is the danger to personal freedom of a top-down, single-government approach to managing the problem of global warming. Instead of trying to ask, is global warming a REAL problem?, Mr Klaus should ask – and then provide his answer – the question: Assuming global warming is a REAL, global issue, how can we manage this problem on a global scale while also expanding personal freedom and economic welfare? I would be very interested in hearing his response to this question.
    Robert Bruegel, Denver, Colorado

    Vaclav Klaus: I ask myself several questions. Let’s put them in the proper sequence:

    • Is global warming a reality?

    • If it is a reality, is it man-made?

    • If it is a reality, is it a problem? Will the people in the world, and now I have to say “globally”, better-off or worse-off due to small increases of global temperature?

    • If it is a reality, and if it is a problem, can men prevent it or stop it? Can any reasonable cost-benefit analysis justify anything – within the range of current proposals – to be done just now?

    Surprisingly, we can say yes – with some degree of probability – only to the first question. To the remaining three my answer is no. And I am not alone in saying that. We are, however, still more or less the silent or silenced majority.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    Because of the incredible complexity of variables controlling climate, programs based on empirical data cannot predict weather for a fortnight; so how can programs based on far less finite information accurately predict global warming?
    William Bluhm, Bella Vista, AR

    Vaclav Klaus: This is exactly my argument. It is impossible to seriously predict global weather, not to speak about climate. But my argument is less about eventual variations in global climate. My doubts are mostly about the impact of human activities on global climate. This connection seems to me – after having read hundreds of books, articles and studies – very weak. This weakness is a problem. Because of this weakness, we should not make drastic, far-reaching measures.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    Why do you disbelieve the science when every serious national scientific establishment appears to support it? And why do you suppose it to be a threat to freedom when both EU and UK essentially support market mechanisms as the primary policy instrument to deal with it?
    John Rhys, UK

    Vaclav Klaus: I do not disbelieve the science, but I see a big difference between science and “national scientific establishments”. To believe in scientific establishment is impossible, this is just another powerful rent-seeking group. Seeking rent for themselves, not for the mankind.

    You suggest that both the EU and the UK support market mechanisms as the primary policy instrument to deal with climate change. We probably live on a different planet. I don’t see it happening.

    At a somewhat deeper methodological level, I have to say that market mechanism is nobody’s policy instrument. It reminds me of the old communist days again. The issue was: market or central planning. The central planners, however, wanted to have market – in their hands – as a policy instrument. Do we have to live under communism to understand that?

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    My assumption would be that the costs to implement the initial phases of the 50 per cent reduction idea would be measured in trillions of dollars to just the US. My question to you is what would it cost a country such as the Czech Republic, and what about opportunity costs associated with such reductions? That never seems to be discussed.
    William Danielson, Hayward, Wisconsin US

    Vaclav Klaus: As an economist (Professor of Finance at the Prague School of Economics) and as a former Minister of Finance I have to admit that I don’t know the answer to your question. I am not ashamed of this ignorance of mine. On the contrary, I am ashamed of the confidence of those who claim to know the answer.

    At least two points should be made:

    • the costs will not be only financial ones because the main costs will be the negative impact upon human beings, their lives, their welfare, their freedom, their opportunities, their behaviour;

    • to calculate “the costs” for the next fifty years is ridiculous. We do not know the prices in the year 2050 and we do not know how important one million dollars (or euros) will be in the year 2050. Therefore, any “calculation” is meaningless. The more absurd it is, the easier it is to make such an announcement at the G8 summit.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    All that environmentalists demand is responsibility. Responsibility of those who cause damage to others to pay for that damage, and to do their utmost to stop inflicting it. I had the impression that responsibility was supposed to be a conservative virtue, and a necessary complement to the great freedom we have in our open market economies. But more and more I see the supporters of capitalism demand that they be free to dump their waste on their neighbours lawns without consequence. What happened?
    Nanne Zwagerman

    Vaclav Klaus: Environmentalists do not demand responsibility. Responsibility is not their idea, it is a basic, elementary aspect of human behaviour – on condition government policies do not give wrong incentives. The idea of responsibility for damage done to others is not the environmentalists’ copyright. It is a standard of human behaviour. Environmentalists – especially in the case of global warming – artificially created “a damage” (higher temperature) and made all of us responsible for it. I don’t believe in this “damage” and I am not ready to pay for it. The role of men in slightly higher global temperature (0.6°C in the last century) is only marginal, if any.

    To say that “the supporters of capitalism demand that they are free to dump their waste on their neighbours lawns without consequence” has the beauty of communist propaganda I had a chance to “enjoy” during the first 48 years of my life.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    With the Czech Republic being a mid-sized European country, do you see a threat to your people and land from the climate change decisions and limitations being made by larger world powers? If so, what can the majority of the world do to mitigate harmful policies being forced by these powers?
    William A. Warner, Tacoma, WA, US

    Vaclav Klaus: It is very popular but cheap to blame “large world powers”. I don’t do it. I know many, very small European “powers” which are more environmentalist than most “large world powers”. The problem is that some politicians – of both large and small countries – are victims of environmentalism and use it for their own personal benefits.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    Years ago I heard people talking about how environmentalism would be used as the lever to usher in global (socialistic) government, because the environment affects everyone. Do you think this is what we are now seeing with the climate issue?
    Mark, Lake Charles, US

    Vaclav Klaus: Environmentalism is indeed a vehicle for bringing us socialist government at the global level. Again, my life in communism makes me oversensitive in this respect. The argumentation of various environmentalists is very similar to what we used to know in the past.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    Do you feel that the global warming is being used as a rallying point for the forces of globalisation? It is much like the Avian flu propaganda don’t you agree? Problem, reaction, solution. The trillionaires, that want to rule the world, are going to save us… that’s what I’m getting. What is your view?
    Mark Lemmon

    Vaclav Klaus: I don’t think that the environmentalists are “the trillionaires who want to rule the world”. I am afraid the environmentalists want to rule the world without being capable to earn those trillions because it requires to work very hard. The global warming propaganda is, I agree, similar to the Avian flu propaganda, the Y2K propaganda, the end of resources propaganda, the overpopulation propaganda, etc. Their proposals will not increase the globalisation of human activities, they are in favour of global governance only. This is something very different. I am in favour of the first globalisation, not of the second one.

    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

    President Klaus, I agree with you but how can we stop the argument being seen as one of the “Right” versus the “Left”? It seems to me that this one issue brings more confusion to the debate.
    Anon, London

    Vaclav Klaus: I am not afraid of right-left argument, even if I know that some people innocently hope that the right-left dilemma is over. It is not. Without going into nuances, we can say that the “right” people are in favour of individual freedom, whereas the “left” people believe in collectivist wisdom. Environmentalism, not preservation of nature (and of environment), is a leftist ideology. Some people, who pretend to be on the right, bought into it as well – to my great regret.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    What is the financial and/or economic incentive for those governments and organisations who go along with, and even support environmentalism?
    Justin Kelly

    Vaclav Klaus: There are huge material (very pecuniary) and even bigger psychological incentives for politicians and their bureaucratic fellow-travellers to support environmentalism. It gives them power. This is exactly what they are searching for. It gives them power to organise, regulate, manipulate the rest of us. There is nothing altruistic in their environmentalist stances.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    While I applaud your commitment to freedom, I ask you this: Will we live in freedom if the decisions of a portion of the globe’s population (the government and corporate leaders who refuse to halt the increase of greenhouse gas emissions) condemn the rest of us to face whatever consequences global climate change eventually wreaks?
    Respectfully, Arielle K. Botter

    Vaclav Klaus: I don’t believe that there is a world-wide conspiracy of government and corporate leaders to halt the increase of greenhouse gas emissions. Plus, I am not convinced about the strong connection between greenhouse gas emissions and the global climate. This connection can’t be taken for granted.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    President Klaus, I agree, so how do rational libertarians prevent the destruction of our culture by environmentalists? What’s the answer?
    Nicholas Horvath

    Vaclav Klaus: The “rational libertarians” (I don’t mind being called classical liberal) should stop being just a silent majority. They should speak out, as well as speak up. They should reveal the real dangers connected with environmentalism. As the subtitle of my recent book “What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?” suggests, I believe that it is freedom which is endangered. And freedom is more than eventual, relatively mild climate changes.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    Why are so many people willing to embrace junk science and its dire predictions? What can each of us do to inspire people to think critically, and rationally? Is there a way to assemble multitudes of clear-thinkers, to push back against irrational, over-wrought fear-mongering?
    Larry Jordan, US

    Vaclav Klaus: Some people believe in irrational things and events – some of them in UFOs, some in witches, some in fairy-tales, some in omnipotent governments, some in global warming.

    Some people believe in themselves, not in others. They suppose they know better than the rest of us what is good for us.

    Some people are sufficiently motivated to spread the global warming hysteria. It gives them funding (especially for science connected with this issue), it gives them jobs in well-paid government positions, it gives them government subsidies for producing products which are – supposedly – in favour of global cooling, etc.

    What to do? I take my positions on global warming as normal. It surprises me how many people tell me how courageous I am for taking them. Let’s all of us speak out.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    Why view conservation of energy as an attack on freedom? Do you believe wasting energy strengthens freedom? The US, with only 6 per cent of world population, produces 25 per cent of world CO2 emissions because of government programs encouraging high energy use. Excessive tax subsidies for road building and oil production push energy waste, not the free market. The US political process is dominated by road building and oil interests. I pray that doesn’t happen to the Czech Republic.
    John Norquist, Chicago, US

    Vaclav Klaus: Let’s be fair. Attacking environmentalism and its mythology is not attacking nature, the environment we live in, the conservation of energy. It’s a classical spin to do it.

    To save energy (as anything else) is the only rational behaviour. The more we save, the better. The economy of energy consumption is a must, not to save energy is irrational. The problem is who should make the decision about energy saving or conservation? Free individuals or omnipotent governments? That is the only problem. Free individuals in a free market climate (and only this “climate” is crucial) behave much more rationally than their governments.

    To say that government programs encourage high energy use in the US is ridiculous. To say that “the US political process is dominated by road building and oil interests” is ridiculous as well. High energy use in the US is caused not by the US government but by the enormous wealth of US citizens (together with specific US natural endowments). The other, abundance-approaching countries will do the same. Wealth is – at the beginning – a problem but when it grows, it is a solution. The so-called Environmental Kuznets Curves demonstrate that quite clearly and convincingly.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    The relatively small changes in global temperature in the last forty years have set in motion some deeply worrying trends, such rapid growth in deserts, falls in agricultural productivity in some parts of the world and increased flow rates of Greenland glaciers. Would the president please tell us just how much of a rise in sea level, a fall in agricultural production and a displacement of migrants he thinks we should accept before taking action to reduce GHG emissions? It would be good to see some numbers.
    Chris Goodall, Oxford

    Vaclav Klaus: I can’t go into details, I suggest that you read the book by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery with the title Unstoppable Global Warming, every 1,500 years and the book by J. P. Michaels called Meltdown: the Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians and the Media. Or many others.

    To give one example: the very debatable 2007 IPCC report suggests a rise in sea level between 14–43 centimetres for the whole 21st century. Is it a scary size? Not to me.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    It strikes me as puzzling that you place your weight behind the projection of a long-term positive impact of the economy, compared to your rejection of Stern’s projection of long-term negative impact on the economy. Favouring one truth above another is, as you might say, a prime example of the truth versus propaganda problem. Your bet that positive economic impact will renounce us of any possible climatic change is as singularly unconvincing as the stock-broker who is whistling on his way to Wall Street on the morning of October 29, 1929.
    B. Dankert, Johannesburg

    Vaclav Klaus: My criticism of Stern Report’s conclusions – and I am not alone in it – is based on serious economic arguments, not on aprioristic statements. I will give just one example. When you mention Wall Street in your question, you probably understand the concept of the discount rate. It is one of the crucial variables of any economy and its importance grows the more we go into inter-temporal analysis. Analysing the whole 21st century, as Mr Stern does, suggests that the significance of the proper level of chosen discount rate is fatal. Many economists strongly oppose the very low level of discount rate Mr Stern uses for his modelling simulations.

    The low level of discount rate means that the future is as big as the present or that anything existing now will be as big in the year 2100 as now. This is ridiculous. Will the banknote of 1000 nomination (in your South African rands or in US dollars) be as big, as relevant, as important in the year 2100 as it is now? I am sorry to say that Mr Stern assumes exactly that.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    There is no doubt that modern human society can adversely impact our living environment. This manifests itself from city air quality and industrial spills to deforestation and overfishing. Overwhelming evidence points to that when human beings find the condition too unpleasant to tolerate, the opportunity to stop or reverse the trend requires extreme action. How much evidence for environmental damage do you need to see before you are willing to advocate collective action in order to prevent the need for later extreme action?
    Oddi Aasheim, London

    Vaclav Klaus: You ask how much environmental damage I need to see before I am willing to do anything? My problem is that I do not “see” sufficient and persuasive evidence for environmental damage you have – probably – in mind, and I wonder whether you see it yourself, or whether you just read about it.

    Do you really “see” any damage caused by current warming? I do not. I would prefer more snow for skiing during this winter but we are – in Central Europe – enjoying warm evenings this May and June, which is very pleasant. Do you see meltdown of glaciers and icebergs? You may see some retreating of continental glaciers, but they represent only 0.6 per cent of the planet’s ice. There is no meltdown either in Greenland or the Antarctic just now.

    When I study and analyse environmental indicators concerning my own country and when I compare them with the situation in the communist era, there is an incredible improvement. The improvement is not because of “collective action” you advocate (it existed in the communist era), but because of freedom and of free markets. That’s my main message.

  25. Sam says:

    Canadian Economist Proposes Global Warming Solution Everyone Should Love
    Mark June 12, 2007, on your calendar, for on this day, a Canadian economist named Ross McKitrick proposed a carbon tax plan marvelously designed to make people on both sides of the anthropogenic global warming debate happy.

    Of course, it is quite unlikely that any American media will cover this compromise solution, for it calls the bluff of the climate change alarmists. Fortunately, we at NewsBusters are not so constrained to share facts with our readers.

    With that in mind, as reported by Canada’s National Post (h/t Alar Aksberg, emphasis added throughout):

    Temperatures in the tropical troposphere are measured every day using weather satellites. The data are analyzed by several teams, including one at the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH) and one at Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) in California. According to the UAH team, the mean tropical tropospheric temperature anomaly (its departure from the 1979-98 average) over the past three years is 0.18C. The corresponding ing [sic] RSS estimate is 0.29C.

    Now put those two ideas together. Suppose each country implements something called the T3 tax, whose U.S. dollar rate is set equal to 20 times the three-year moving average of the RSS and UAH estimates of the mean tropical tropospheric temperature anomaly, assessed per tonne of carbon dioxide, updated annually. Based on current data, the tax would be US$4.70 per ton, which is about the median mainstream carbon-dioxide-damage estimate from a major survey published in 2005 by economist Richard Tol. The tax would be implemented on all domestic carbon-dioxide emissions, all the revenues would be recycled into domestic income tax cuts to maintain fiscal neutrality, and there would be no cap on total emissions.

    Stay with this, folks, because it’s brilliant:

    The IPCC predicts a warming rate in the tropical troposphere of about double that at the surface, implying about 0.2C to 1.2C per decade in the tropical troposphere under greenhouse-forcing scenarios. That implies the tax will climb by $4 to $24 per tonne per decade, a much more aggressive schedule of emission fee increases than most current proposals. At the upper end of warming forecasts, the tax could reach $200 per tonne of CO2 by 2100, forcing major carbon-emission reductions and a global shift to non-carbon energy sources.

    Global-warming activists would like this. But so would skeptics, because they believe the models are exaggerating the warming forecasts. After all, the averaged UAH/ RSS tropical troposphere series went up only about 0.08C over the past decade, and has been going down since 2002. Some solar scientists even expect pronounced cooling to begin in a decade. If they are right, the T3 tax will fall below zero within two decades, turning into a subsidy for carbon emissions.

    Everybody following this? To make it simple, if CO2 emissions exceed an agreed upon level, companies will be taxed at an escalating rate. On the other hand, if CO2 emissions fall below said level, the companies receive a tax credit.

    Sounds like a win-win for everyone, right?

    At this point the global-warming alarmists would leap up to slam the proposal. But not so fast, Mr. Gore: The tax would only become a carbon subsidy if all the climate models are wrong, if greenhouse gases are not warming the atmosphere, and if the sun actually controls the climate. Alarmists sneeringly denounce such claims as “denialism,” so they can hardly reject the policy on the belief that they are true.

    Under the T3 tax, the regulator gets to call everyone’s bluff at once, without gambling in advance on who is right. If the tax goes up, it ought to have. If it doesn’t go up, it shouldn’t have. Either way we get a sensible outcome.

    How delicious. But, it gets better:

    But the benefits don’t stop there. The T3 tax will induce forward-looking behaviour. Alarmists worry that conventional policy operates with too long a lag to prevent damaging climate change. Under the T3 tax, investors planning major industrial projects will need to forecast the tax rate many years ahead, thereby taking into account the most likely path of global warming a decade or more in advance.

    And best of all, the T3 tax will encourage private-sector climate forecasting. Firms will need good estimates of future tax rates, which will force them to look deeply, and objectively, into the question of whether existing climate forecasts have an alarmist bias. The financial incentives will lead to independent reassessments of global climate modelling, without regard to what politicians, the IPCC or climatology professors want to hear.

    Impeccably reasonable, wouldn’t you agree? McKitrick concluded:

    In my view, the ideal global-warming policy is a carbon tax, and the optimal rate is zero. I like the T3 tax in part because I think it would result in this outcome over time. Yet those whose fears of rapid warming lead them to demand stronger policy measures, including an emissions cap, should, in principle, be able to support the same mechanism. Especially in light of the long stalemates over carbon-dioxide emissions policy, I doubt any other policy could command equal support from such polarized camps.

    In theory, I agree. However, since global warming alarmism appears to be much more about money and wealth redistribution, I don’t believe for a second that folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and his witting accomplice James Hansen would support such a plan.

    Do you?

    Call their tax
    Why not tie carbon taxes to actual levels of warming? Both skeptics and alarmists should expect their wishes to be answered

    Ross McKitrick
    Financial Post

    Tuesday, June 12, 2007

    After much effort, G8 leaders last week agreed to “stabilize greenhouse-gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” This is the same wording as in Article Two of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, signed in 1992. In other words, after months of negotiations, world leaders agreed on a text they had already ratified 15 years earlier.

    Global-warming policy is stuck in a permanent stalemate for very basic reasons. Important divisions of opinion still exist on the extent of humanity’s influence on climate, whether or not the situation is a crisis, whether and how much greenhouse-gas emissions should be cut, if so how to do it, and what is the most we should be prepared to pay in the process.

    With this stalemate in mind, I would like to propose a thought experiment about a climate policy that could, in principle, get equal support from all sides.

    The approach is based on two points of expert consensus. First, most economists who have written on carbon-dioxide emissions have concluded that an emissions tax is preferable to a cap-and-trade system. The reason is that, while emission-abatement costs vary a lot, based on the target, the social damages from a tonne of carbon-dioxide emissions are roughly constant. The first ton of carbon dioxide imposes the same social cost as the last ton.

    In this case, it is better for policy-makers to guess the right price for emissions rather than the right cap. Most studies that have looked at that the global cost per tonne of carbon dioxide have found it is likely to be rather low, less than US$10 per tonne. We don’t know what the right emissions cap is, but, if we put a low charge on each unit of emissions, the market will find the (roughly) correct emissions cap.

    Second, climate models predict that, if greenhouse gases are driving climate change, there will be a unique fingerprint in the form of a strong warming trend in the tropical troposphere, the region of the atmosphere up to 15 kilometres in altitude, over the tropics, from 20? North to 20? South. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that this will be an early and strong signal of anthropogenic warming. Climate changes due to solar variability or other natural factors will not yield this pattern: only sustained greenhouse warming will do it.

    Temperatures in the tropical troposphere are measured every day using weather satellites. The data are analyzed by several teams, including one at the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH) and one at Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) in California. According to the UAH team, the mean tropical tropospheric temperature anomaly (its departure from the 1979-98 average) over the past three years is 0.18C. The corresponding ing RSS estimate is 0.29C.

    Now put those two ideas together. Suppose each country implements something called the T3 tax, whose U.S. dollar rate is set equal to 20 times the three-year moving average of the RSS and UAH estimates of the mean tropical tropospheric temperature anomaly, assessed per tonne of carbon dioxide, updated annually. Based on current data, the tax would be US$4.70 per ton, which is about the median mainstream carbon-dioxide-damage estimate from a major survey published in 2005 by economist Richard Tol. The tax would be implemented on all domestic carbon-dioxide emissions, all the revenues would be recycled into domestic income tax cuts to maintain fiscal neutrality, and there would be no cap on total emissions.

    This tax rate is low, and would yield very little emissions abatement. Global-warming skeptics and opponents of greenhouse-abatement policy will like that. But would global-warming activists? They should — because according to them, the tax will climb rapidly in the years ahead.

    The IPCC predicts a warming rate in the tropical troposphere of about double that at the surface, implying about 0.2C to 1.2C per decade in the tropical troposphere under greenhouse-forcing scenarios. That implies the tax will climb by $4 to $24 per tonne per decade, a much more aggressive schedule of emission fee increases than most current proposals. At the upper end of warming forecasts, the tax could reach $200 per tonne of CO2 by 2100, forcing major carbon-emission reductions and a global shift to non-carbon energy sources.

    Global-warming activists would like this. But so would skeptics, because they believe the models are exaggerating the warming forecasts. After all, the averaged UAH/ RSS tropical troposphere series went up only about 0.08C over the past decade, and has been going down since 2002. Some solar scientists even expect pronounced cooling to begin in a decade. If they are right, the T3 tax will fall below zero within two decades, turning into a subsidy for carbon emissions.

    At this point the global-warming alarmists would leap up to slam the proposal. But not so fast, Mr. Gore: The tax would only become a carbon subsidy if all the climate models are wrong, if greenhouse gases are not warming the atmosphere, and if the sun actually controls the climate. Alarmists sneeringly denounce such claims as “denialism,” so they can hardly reject the policy on the belief that they are true.

    Under the T3 tax, the regulator gets to call everyone’s bluff at once, without gambling in advance on who is right. If the tax goes up, it ought to have. If it doesn’t go up, it shouldn’t have. Either way we get a sensible outcome.

    But the benefits don’t stop there. The T3 tax will induce forward-looking behaviour. Alarmists worry that conventional policy operates with too long a lag to prevent damaging climate change. Under the T3 tax, investors planning major industrial projects will need to forecast the tax rate many years ahead, thereby taking into account the most likely path of global warming a decade or more in advance.

    And best of all, the T3 tax will encourage private-sector climate forecasting. Firms will need good estimates of future tax rates, which will force them to look deeply, and objectively, into the question of whether existing climate forecasts have an alarmist bias. The financial incentives will lead to independent reassessments of global climate modelling, without regard to what politicians, the IPCC or climatology professors want to hear.

    Policymaking in the real world is messy, and ideas that sound good in theory can come out hopelessly gummed up with extraneous provisions that dilute or contradict the original purpose. But as a thought experiment, I find the T3 tax clarifies a lot of issues.

    In my view, the ideal global-warming policy is a carbon tax, and the optimal rate is zero. I like the T3 tax in part because I think it would result in this outcome over time. Yet those whose fears of rapid warming lead them to demand stronger policy measures, including an emissions cap, should, in principle, be able to support the same mechanism. Especially in light of the long stalemates over carbon-dioxide emissions policy, I doubt any other policy could command equal support from such polarized camps.

    — – Ross McKitrick is an economist at University of Guelph.

    http://www.uschamber.com/NR/rdonlyres/ej727y7che3y3oa5iexdhmqrl4dpgesq5gs5d5sjag4ugiogm6eupkjhsjtp3h2pht6n4x7ipsn2lauzhcozdzrwvjb/top10myths.pdf

  26. yasmin says:

    i think personaly that it is not fair on the polar bears because we are ruining their live and their habitat just coz we need stuff well i think we should stop this.

  27. Tim says:

    Oh, please. If it is our fault, then why is Mars warming up? Greenhouse gases are most likely contributing to, not the primary cause of, global warming. All the planets appear to be increasing in mean temperature and no one is certain why.
    Besides, if the elite really want to save the world, tell them to stop riding in limousines, hummers, and flying everywhere they go. Tell them to take an LP powered bus.

    Right. Just about what I thought. Crap floats and that lesson is nowhere more clearly illustrated than America’s environmentalist elitists who think they know how normal people should live.

  28. elly says:

    wow loads of info looks boring!

  29. Sophie says:

    Mankind are almost completely to blame.Mars may be warming up but that doesn’t mean that we can’t try to save Earth and everything on it. Thousands of animal species are endangered and we are to blame!!!

  30. Astrid says:

    Maybe we are the ones to blame in global waming, maybe not, or, maybe global warming is not real. No matter what, we have a duty to this earth which we live in. We have to protect this earth, and if possible, nurture it. If we did our part in cutting emission, we can help slow global warming down. One person’s effort is much better than no effort at all.

    There is no shame or anything if we all have different point of views. But I believe, we all have to at least agree on one thing: You are responible for your actions. Do not scream when we can no longer enjoy nature as we once did. Do not yell when we can no longer feel the joy that winter gives us. To know that we can do something but didn’t do it, THAT is a shame.

  31. Ashleigh Greenaway says:

    This is our fault. We are to blame for everything that goes on in the world. We should take responsibility for what we have done. Who is if we don’t? Monkeys? Yeah, somehow, I don’t think so! But what about all the forest fires? What about our cara? What about this and what about that. I could go on for days on end saying things of what we have all contributed to. And you cannot say you haven’t. If you’ve ever travelled on a bus, car, motorbike, scooter, plane, ferry. If you have a coal fire. If you waste energy when you don’t have to by leaving the light on. If you don’t recycle, reuse, or TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS! There are one million options more than the ones we chose. Why do we chose those when we know it is harming our planet? We’re lazy. Can’t you spare any time to save our world? This is our home people. What if I was to come in and permantely damage your home. Would you like it? Well, that is just the same. Except, everyone’s actions now, will affect someone in the future. Think about the type of future we are going to be leaving to our children.

  32. sophie says:

    In school i am doing a assembly on global warming and how it crushuly affects animals(wich i love)such as polar bears. it is to show others what it is doing to our planet and if we have warmer summers, polar bears may be exstinct.

  33. Ashley says:

    Something has to change! I absolutly love animals and I would hate to see the Polar Bears exstinct. Ice is melting, seas are warming, we dont want the coral life to die to, do we?

  34. ZoeB says:

    I would like to say that this global warming is definatley man-made, but i would like to tell everyone who thinks that global warming is basically nothing to get up from the couch and start saving the ones that are going to be harmed in all this horrible global warming, and you could do this by switching off lights when not needed or not being used, switch off any compter, games, tv’s etc, anything basically using electricity, switch it off if it isn’t bein used, and i don’t mean put it on sandby, i mean switch it off by the plug, because everytime you don’t, global warming is getting nearer and nearer eachtime. thankyou for listnenig to my speech, i hope you do do wot i have said, it would be gratful for all the animals, people and especially for the environment.

  35. griff says:

    i like eating polar bears!!!!!!!

  36. Tobi says:

    I think the polar bears are so adorable.
    I wish there was another place they could go were they wouldent be affected by global warming.

  37. HANNAH says:

    I LOVE POLAR BEARS. DONT LET THEM DIE.

  38. Iam Sane says:

    Well we could always send food & ice. A bag of dead baby seals perhaps? A couple of bags of Ice from the local 7-Eleven maybe? And to really “make your day” how about if GW “hand” delivers the grub. (wink)

  39. Maffew says:

    no fair polar beers did notin rong in the warld an i rong?

  40. Jamesy says says:

    I love to eat Polar Bears

  41. Declan says says:

    ya mum is a polar bear

  42. Aidan says:

    hi im aidan and i lik polar bears. Are thy is danger? i did knw

  43. gabrielle says:

    I LOVE POLAR BEARS.!!!!! AND I WOD NEVER HERT THIM AT ALL. INSTAD I WOD HELP THIM. AND I AM 7 BUT THAT HASINT STOPED ME. OW BY BY.

  44. Bill says:

    I bought a polar bear from a telemarketer! He lives in my dogs kennel

  45. horny devil says:

    polar bears make me horny

  46. I have traced your posts and the Australian Police have been contacting. Please stop posting these comments.

  47. We are tired of You posting these comments. I have traced your posts down to Australia and we have contacted the Police in Australia. Please stop posted unless it is about Polar bears.

  48. jumana says:

    Polar bears is buteful in school I have H.W abot Polar bear so thank you

  49. meghal says:

    i thing it is impor tant yo save them to save the eco system

  50. Charity says:

    i really didn’t read but comment on the bear cool and true about gobal warning

  51. isabella says:

    they are going to diein the next 10 if wedon’t smarten up

  52. Tarra says:

    the polar bears are not dieing of global warming. In the 70′s there were about 5,000 polar bears in the world there are about 25,000 today. There are 20 polar herds and 1 out of the 20 have decreased in populationa while 2 have increased. to most people surprise the one descresing has actually moved to colder weather while the other two have moved further south. also there has only be 4 polar bear deaths due to drowing last year. all the other were due to being hunted. so lets stop freaking out about poalar bears and use the money they want to pour into this to buy misquito nets for people in africa and save millions of live form milari. i mean honsetly how many people have seen a polar bear in the wild. dont get me wrong i think they are adorable but they are not being harmed. If you wnat more FACTS dont belive what scientists say belive the Climatologist

  53. Ashley says:

    I LOVE your website i think the SAME thing as you do i totally agree with you!!!! i think everyone should do something about your world, most people are just to LAZY to do something or just dont CARE anyway you people are exacaly like me!!!!!

  54. krista says:

    i love polar bears

  55. Katrina says:

    I love Polar bears, I think they are sooooooooooo cute!!!!!!!!!! :0)

  56. nirie,toni says:

    we are working to learn how to save the polar bears . Can you help us save a polar bears and give us some important information for are project?

  57. lovely says:

    im scared

  58. Educated says:

    I wonder if any of you idiots that believe in man made global warming have ever had a class in thermodynamics, solar energy or even tried to write a program to simulate anything. If you had, you would realize the sure absurdity of this non-sense called “global warming.”

    Sad when science is replaced by conjecture and feel good politics.

  59. thessa says:

    hey hey it meeh….

    I AM V ERY DISAPPOINTED ION YOU GLOBAL WARMING SO IM VERY SAD WINK WINK BECAUSE IT SAYS THAT POLAR BEARS ARE GOING TO BE EXTINCT HAHAHAHAHAH LOLZ
    I H A T E G L O B A L W A R M I N G! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

  60. thessa says:

    I LOVE YOU POALR BEAR ! ! ! ! ! !
    I HATE YOU GLOBAL WARMING! ! ! ! !

  61. chloe says:

    i love polar bears

  62. dylan Vickers says:

    khgrlsjijijijijijijiygbjht

  63. dimsim says:

    we shoudn’t kill animals only for food and no other reasons like poching and running them down on perpase

  64. dimsim says:

    if we poch we will feel guilty and god won’t be very happy because that is his best creation of life that can’t talk. And also it is our fault that our earth is heating up and that we are in global warming

  65. dimsim says:

    i really love polar bears to there my second favorite animal after the panda

  66. AMYA says:

    i love polar bears to but you need to help them when you use a lot of
    water your taking there water that is why they some of them have died.

  67. AMYA says:

    I HATE THE GLOBAL WARMING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  68. Twinkle Winkle says:

    I really dont want the polar bears to be extinct! What have they done to us? Stop burning fossil fuels!

  69. Twinkle Winkle says:

    Pollution here Pollution there!
    STOP IT STOP IT.
    Or polar bears wont be there!

  70. stacey says:

    save the polar bears :[

  71. Annie says:

    STOP GLOBAL WARMING WALK TO SCHOOL RIDE YOUR BIKE JUST dont go on a bus or car cause you POLLUTE

  72. Annie says:

    stop polluting ppl its no good foir the enviornment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    when ALL the animals become extinct and you ppl that are rich THAT KILL the animals for their fur I AM going to be very very upset cause YOU PPL only CARE FOR URSELF!!!!!!

  73. Dang says:

    save te polar bears stop global warming dont be lazy!

  74. sam mrklow says:

    the polar bears are very important to our lives and plus, they are living beings just like me and you.

  75. grant says:

    the polar bear population has risen from 5,000(1950) to 20-25,000 today… just to let you know…

  76. Wenat says:

    darnit

  77. chris says:

    i love polar bears but i gotta admit this pic is funny with its tounge sticking out! lol, but i think i agree to all these other people that have made a reply saying that we definitly need to save these animals from extinction

  78. let's all be mature eh says:

    I haven’t seen enough evidence to indicate global warming is solely our fault, but that isn’t to say I don’t believe we aren’t causing harm to our planet. If it wasn’t for all the terrible emissions of our cars and factories, I wouldn’t have terrible asthma today. Thank you air pollution.

    If we can do anything to make things better we should. Regardless whatever the real cause of this problem turns out to be, we should try to find solutions now rather than argue the point.

  79. Maggie and maia says:

    we are so sad about the polar bears dieing and it is our fault

  80. Anson Ang says:

    Here is my message to the moderator, you can sensor my message or you can put it up. Its up to you. Let me tell you one thing, I hate people who talks as if they are the king of the universe. All I want is to give them a piece of my mind. You can imagine just how pissed I m now

  81. I love polar bears!!!! says:

    global warming is ruening thier habitat, which is starting to make the polar bears endangered, do you really want to have any polar bears extinted? so lets try to save the polar bears… NOT help global warming!!! :D so lets try to help out the enviornment, and the polar bears!!!

  82. Kelly Ramsey says:

    what has happened to this world help the poor little guys

  83. kenny says:

    every one should get hybrid cars to save them

  84. kristin says:

    poor bears
    they should have a right to freedom
    they should stop all this stupid stuff like hunting them thats cause ing them to go extinced

  85. Megan says:

    i love this pic

  86. Megan says:

    i love polar bears there so cute

  87. Anonymous says:

    hey this bear looks very cool and awsome to amd i want as my screen saver on my computer

  88. natalie says:

    i want to save the polar bears but i can not do that on my own i need every one who cares!!!!

  89. Zach says:

    First, Kristin They are more free than any human could be ever.
    Second, Kristin Hunting is already heavily prohibited by almost all countries the polar bears inhabit.
    Third, Kenny hybrid cars are not so commercially available so that everyone could get one.

  90. lol says:

    save the polar bears

  91. Hannah campbell says:

    All i have to say is god help them

  92. jt;dfk says:

    jdjghxvjhamguijasdbvkhsdjkfdjghjdxnfdjhdfbzdfierkh. ndcvmbcdghjkdhauyghdsf hsd viJHSD gfvuASFIUasitdcASDht ASD AS D a sDGFsgJDRFTKLJAGH ERLGAW G WEFUYAW ES EG HYR FAEGGKJ RWERFakFGYIWGGYJTGWRHEASUYUYUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

  93. tfhtrfgfjg says:

    utttttttttttttttttttttttttyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuubbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

  94. tfhtrfgfjg says:

    utttttttttttttttttttttttttyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuubbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbhgjdcghjdghj

  95. yhjdfr says:

    hi bob !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  96. who cares save polar bears! says:

    help those little polar bears save them! do something stop globel warming they need our help!

  97. Zoe says:

    wow. this is crazy you guys. i

  98. tyler says:

    the polar bears are so cute why should we be letting global warming get in there way were on the top of the food chain c’mon cant we do anything!

  99. bedava okey says:

    i want to save the polar bears but i can not do that on my own i need every one who cares!!!!

  100. i love polar bears there so cute

  101. Sarah says:

    polar bears are so cute

  102. Tayler Pattison says:

    aaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwweeeeeeeeeeee.!!!!!
    I love polar bears.
    I really wish we could stop this global warming to keep them alive.They are my favourite animal and I’m positive everyone has a favourite animal that will probably be on the endangered species list because of us…

  103. ziggler says:

    global warming is not man-made…it is a cycle the earth goes through. ice age, heat age, ice age, heat age and etc…

  104. JUJUBE says:

    save polar bears

  105. Vgolfmaster says:

    Global warming is real. Man-made global warming is not. We are in the midst of a natural cyclical phenomenon of which none of us can or should control. The Gore base global warming hysteria is based on partial truths, scare tactics, and an emotion provoking flick.

    Look at the facts people, and understand why scientist after scientist are jumping ship on the man-made global warming hypothesis. I am al for responsible use of natural resources, and other avenues of responsible living, but choose to use research and fact before jumping on a bandwagon, which is exactly what man-made global warming is based upon.

    Do the research, live well, and make your own decisions. open your eyes to fact, and the notion that you MIGHT be incorrect in your assumptions, and you will see the truth.

    Good luck to you all

  106. jackie says:

    i love polar bears and i hate to see them die but i dont know what i can do to help.im soooooooooooooooooooooo sad.

  107. lolablue07 says:

    polar bears are bad

  108. kayanna_f says:

    i think that polar bears are so funny and cute and awsome

  109. Alexandra says:

    Okay, lolablue07 , how could you dare say that “polar bears are bad?” that is just wrong. You shoud be like the rest of us that love these animals and have a passion for saving our echo system. Come on, I mean, yes, Polar bears are my favorite animal, but I don’t like all animals, but what did a Polar bear ever do to you?????????????

  110. Alice says:

    We may not be one hundred percent sure whether or not humans really do cause global warming, but isn’t it better to be safe than sorry? We can’t say we definately have no effect, and we can’t say that we are definately causing it.
    It’s better to give it the benefit of the doubt, and assume humanity is causing the problem and try to stop it, just in case we really are making global warming worse. At least that way if it’s true that we are causing global warming, we will have done something about it. And if it turns out it’s not true, well then hopefully people will have learned through the process of trying to ‘save the planet’ to act selflessly and to care for something other than themselves.
    The consequences of global warming on both humanity and the environment are catastrophic and should not be toyed with. We should do as much as we can to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to avoid further desertification, rising sea levels and losing thousands of species of animals. Lets face it, no one wants these things to happen, so why not try to stop them?

  111. flash games says:

    I would like to say that this global warming is definatley man-made, but i would like to tell everyone who thinks that global warming is basically nothing to get up from the couch and start saving the ones that are going to be harmed in all this horrible global warming, and you could do this by switching off lights when not needed or not being used, switch off any compter, games, tv’s etc, anything basically using electricity, switch it off if it isn’t bein used, and i don’t mean put it on sandby.

    I mean switch it off by the plug, because everytime you don’t, global warming is getting nearer and nearer eachtime. thankyou for listnenig to my speech, i hope you do do wot i have said, it would be gratful for all the animals, people and especially for the environment.

  112. Eskimo says:

    Eskimo from the arctic slope. I don’t understand. Why is it such a big deal about a bear you have only seen on tv or in a cage at a zoo with about 50 squair yards, if it’s lucky. Any idea how far a wild polar bear travels on avrage a year? If it was realy that serious, why don’t you get those ones released so they can reproduce, so my family could eat the way we have for thousands of years. Or, help revolutionalize geo-thermal engineering or donate anually to those commited to “going green” in other ways. I don’t consider turning off a light being nearly enough. If you realy care, commit and reserch. There are plenty of ways you could be more helpful

  113. ISLY says:

    I like polar bears a lot .Polar bears

  114. me says:

    don’t just help save polar bears you should try saving every other animal too.

  115. sonny says:

    i am so scared every animal and person are in danger we are going to be extinct stupid scientist you are going to kill every one because of the black hole im serious i hate those people so much you suck11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  116. sonny says:

    not i mean joe jonas

  117. travis says:

    i love polar bears but what is global warming ?!?!

  118. c-los says:

    “me” polar bears are the only important animal out there. nobody cares about anything else; in fact I’d be willing to say that most people will slay every other animal besides polar bears.

  119. travis says:

    EXLPAIN

  120. Brandon B. says:

    The fact is the polar ice caps are melting REGARDLESS WHAT FROM. And I’m sure anyone who’s taken some sort of wildlife class knows that if you take away a creature’s habitat, you take away their life. Be it Global warming or another cause of unknown proportions, it’s happening and we have to deal with it, one way or another.

  121. Brandon B. says:

    And in my honest opinion, I think it couldn’t have been said any other way.

  122. Turn Ma Swag On says:

    –soulja boy, no just kidding, SAVE THE POLAR BEARS™

  123. trupti says:

    i think tthat this is our planet. god created us and we should take care of our planet. people are just being selfish when they don’t. pollution,global warming, and abuse to the enviroment is wrong!

  124. if you go on google and then imges you can get cute pictures of polar bears penguins you name it. :)

  125. shannon king says:

    i smell of poo

  126. dll says:

    I don’t believe we aren’t causing harm to our planet. If it wasn’t for all the terrible emissions of our cars and factories, I wouldn’t have terrible asthma today.

  127. Lisa says:

    If it is our fault, then what else are we doing to this planet? I mean, if we are the reason why Polar Bears are going extinct, then we must be causing other things, too. If we are the cause, then can’t we do something to help it?

  128. rasta boy says:

    i think polar are to big and the reason the snow is melting is because there farts are burning the snow in other terms its the polar bears fault :)

  129. rasta boy says:

    why ia everyone saying polar bears are cute
    they are sweaty fishmen in a reasonable sized room there head would poke out the top and then you would realise why the snow was melting coz there farts are so gastly

  130. Sikis says:

    Thank you very much, a good topic

  131. Daniel Rivera/Alex Cortez says:

    Im doing my Science Project on polar Bears and how they adapt to weather conditions.

  132. MU~ECA says:

    the polar bear are cute and so soft an cudlely!

  133. MU~ECA says:

    the polar bera are so cute ,soft an codlely i choose the polar bear for my project of my favorite animal i like at the zoo!

  134. Victoria says:

    i hope the polar bears are ok! (: i will save them one day,trust me erbodyyyy.

    <3

  135. 1000 games says:

    I love polar bears, they are so big and cute :)

  136. bruce says:

    thats very sad :o :(

  137. bruce says:

    who needs polar bears by the way i live in stouffville ontario

  138. Anonymous says:

    AAAAH SOOOO

    cute

  139. shannon says:

    We need to save the polar bears so it will all save the other animals in their ecosystem.

  140. Anonymous says:

    hi save the polar bears

  141. meagan says:

    save the bears !!

  142. Anonymous says:

    I love the picture of the Polar bear that is my favorite animal

  143. kim says:

    we need to do some thing bout it