There are conspiracies

Like the one the Troofers believe in so that they can 1. Have an outlet for their BDS, and 2. Make themselves feel smarter than everyone else.

And then there are actual conspiracies. Watch this video about that favorite pic of the Global Warming Death Cultists supposedly showing Polar Bears “trapped” on an ice floe.

Now, don’t get too pissed, but in case you hadn’t already guessed it, this is the reason why they push these completely unscientific theories. It has been just about forever and a day since anything was fisked here at RNS, but this one seems just too ripe for one.

Do polar bears belong on the endangered species list? Yes: Global Warming, hunters pose real threat

Vicky Meretsky – McClatchy-Tribune News Service

These days the news is full of beautiful — and wrenching — images of polar bears, often swimming in unending open water, or standing on tiny ice floes. Although polar bears swim readily, ice is the habitat to which they are best suited — where they hunt the seals that are their prey. And the ice is shrinking. Even those only vaguely familiar with polar bears know they are heading into troubled times.

Actually Vicky, it is only those who know nothing about polar bears who believe they are heading into troubled times.

Scientists now know enough about climate change to model future sea-ice conditions. Model results suggest the Arctic will be completely ice-free in summer well before the end of the century. As a result, polar bear populations are expected to decline by two-thirds by 2050.

Which scientists, Vicki? Did you miss this report which says that the ice sheets are back to their normal size for the winter season, with more than a month left to go in the season? Or how about these videos showing that the Perito Moreno glacier, which AlGore used in his film as “proof” of global warming, has actually doubled in size over the past couple years?

These anticipated declines have led to a proposal to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

Anticipated declines? So, no actual proof of decline yet? And what would be the response from the groups seeking to get the bears listed if, as what happened to the Caribou along the Alaskan Pipeline, the bears don’t decline? My guess would be to whine and complain to keep the bears listed until “More Study” could be done. “Studying” which could take decades.

A decision was due in January but has been delayed. To be listed as “threatened,” the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must find that polar bears are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. “Endangered” implies a species is threatened with extinction in the foreseeable future.

Listing the polar bear as endangered is warranted, and has value for conservation both as a symbol of the urgent need for action on climate-change issues and as a means of providing potential protection for the species.

Nevertheless, considerable noise and heat accompanied the proposal for listing. Shipping and mining interests and the agencies that support them are concerned their activities will be blocked if the Endangered Species Act comes into play.

Which is exactly why the eco-socialists are lying so unabashedly. They want all human capitalist activity stopped in any place they can force it. They are using the EPA as their instrument to retard the human activity.

ANWAR, anyone? Yes, this listing would stop any proposal to drill for American oil on American soil, the only realistic Energy Independence plan in existence.

Currently, U.S. citizens are the major clients for Canadian polar-bear hunts and bring trophies home with little difficulty. Both the hunters and their guides — often indigenous people — are concerned about the impacts of listing. In addition, fears have been raised that listing the polar bear is a way to force draconian conservation measures on the United States.

Those opposing listing polar bears point out that they are already protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, that their populations have increased in the past few decades and that solid management programs are in place for many populations around the Arctic.

Once again, Vicky, which scientists that you spoke about at the beginning of your article claim that the polar bears are threatened and that their populations are declining? You should really back that up before going on any further.

No? OK then. Continue with your blathering.

In response to arguments against listing, conservation groups point out that Endangered Species Act provisions are stronger than those protecting marine mammals, that “threatened” status could still permit hunting, and that management programs, however good they may be, are unlikely to protect the bear against the coming changes to its environment.

As for sending out the climate-change police, the Endangered Species Act has no provisions for such actions. Holly Doremus, an environmental-law expert with a gift for clear language, outlined the limitations of the act in this regard in a January commentary on the Slate Web site.

One of the more pragmatic reasons put forward for not listing the polar bear has been that listing cannot eliminate or even reduce the major threat to the polar bears — climate change.

Yes, it’s true that the Endangered Species Act offers no instant remedy. But listing a species does send a clear signal. It requires government agencies to arrange their activities and the activities they permit so as to protect listed species. Listing can also increase research and monitoring activity to improve management.

So, if the groups whose solution to the possible, but so far as yet unseen, decline of the bear is completely without merit as it will not save even one polar bear, which, surely by now you’ve realized is the actual truth, then what might their true motive be?

The threat to polar bears is well within the range of danger at which other species have been listed and listing as “threatened” may well offer protection in the future.

Which other species, Vicky? Is their situation the same, with no threat coming from human activites, and only from some theory of man-made global warming? Are you comparing apples to apples here, or have you tossed in some oranges to be able to make your comparison?

Presently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that oil exploration and extraction, hunting, and shipping are not major threats to the species. But as warming continues, these and other activities may become more damaging to the bears or their habitat. We should offer what safety we can through the law intended for that purpose.

So after repeated evidence from scientists both outside and inside government agencies that there is no actual threat to the bears, you continue to wave the alarmist flag. Would this be because you prefer to publish advocacy journalism?

And at the very bottom ov the page, we find out answer:

Vicky Meretsky is an associate professor in the Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs

Ahh, of course.

Ms. Meretsky engaged in that old as time style of journalism, stating whole lies as though they were facts, and stating facts but discounting them as though they were lies in order to shove her point down the throats of those who either refuse to educate themselves further on the subject, or cannot.

Do you have children, grandchildren or nieces and nephews? Ask them about the polar bears. Every piece if evidence they will be allowed to use to educate themselves on this topic will be of the same opinion as Ms. Meretsky. If they do happen to find some truthful article, they will most likely be told that it is a lie and that they cannot include it in their research by their state-funded instructor.

There is a commercial currently airing on the Seattle Air America affiliate which depicts the Earth as an abusive parent. One of the lines is “Drowning polar bears were a slap to the face”, and continuing on with the Mother Gaia becoming more and more violent with the human species with each hyperbolized example being listed. I literally cannot listen to it. I change the station as soon as the first example of abuse gets spoken, even if I have to listen to the basketball play by play.

There are also a set of commercials on the same station which I cannot understand why the listeners haven’t demanded they be removed for showing eco-nuts to be stupid. They depict a phone conversation between a college aged dude and a plumber. Dude is asking the plumber for an estimate to put a sprinkler system in “the forest” so that in case of fire, all someone has to do is “Flip a switch.” Dude says they’re calling it the National Sprinkler System and they’re looking for an estimate so they can ask for funding/

The plumber responds that dude is crank calling him and the conversation goes downhill from there until the plumber hangs up on dude.

This is exactly how idiotic the average “concerned” eco-socialist is. They find a few scientists, or even someone who isn’t a scientist, to make some wild-ass claim like “The Polar Bears are dying!” and they remember how cute the polar bears are on the TV and movie screen. Never mind that if they actually came within rock tossing distance of one, these idiots would be bear food.

But then those higher up in the eco-socialist movement latch onto this this false claim and use it and the “cute polar bear” believers to enact their end ideal, which is to keep humans, and especially corporations, out of the hinterlands. No hunting, because that uses firearms. No geological explorations, since the only scientists they want out there are ones on their side of the debate. No precious metals, minerals, or oil will be either pulled out or passed through.

That, my friends, is a conspiracy. And Ms. Meretsky is hip deep in it.