Here’s a newspaper letter from long ago.
I delayed putting it up until now because, for the first time ever since I started blogging about my submissions, this letter appears only in the print edition and not in the online edition!
So here is a scan of the NST print version and the text iof my original letter. (My first posting using the new style WordPress Admin, which I am NOT enjoying. Had to resort to pure html-age to get my picture in and sized.)
Remember: Environmentalists in general, global warming scare-mongers in particular and Al Gore especially have a vested interest in NOT TELLING YOU THE SCIENTIFIC TRUTH.
——————————
From NST Letters sometime around 21 Feb 2008:
When pictures don’t reflect the truth
Since the start of the year, cold and snowstorms have been sweeping around the world, in apparent defiance of the warnings about global warming.
Arctic ice levels have increased back to their early 2007 levels, meaning there has been no net melting.
This should bring cheer to the hearts of environmentalists everywhere, as the cute and cuddly polar bears will no longer be endangered by global warming melting their Arctic ice!
But wait… Something is wrong. The polar bears seem to be struggling to find food!
As the ice spreads, the bears are forced to wander in search of food – including scrounging in human garbage, as locals of the Greenland town of Sisimiut were shocked to discover recently.
And six hungry, aggressive polar bears are not safe animals for children to be around, regardless of how cute and cuddly they may look. One animal was shot on February the 1st.
How could this be happening, when global warming pundits insist that more ice is beneficial to polar bears, while melting ice will doom them to extinction? I mean, hasn’t everyone seen the photos of polar bears struggling for dear life on the melting ice?
In actual fact, the infamous photo of two polar bears ‘stranded on ice, their very survival threatened by global warming’, which is so often used to stir the emotions of readers, shows nothing of the sort.
The photographer who captured this moment was marine biologist Amanda Byrd. In 2004, she saw the two polar bears playing on the on ice, and decided to take a picture – in her own words, more for the wind-sculpted ice than the bears.
Readers can view the photo at Beaufort Gyre Exploration Project website, http://www.whoi.edu/beaufortgyre/dispatch2004/dispatch02.html where they will see Byrd’s innocuous caption for the photo: “Mother polar bear and cub on interesting ice sculpture carved by waves.”
Byrd uploaded her photos to her ship’s computer, where another member took it and passed it to the government department, Environment Canada.
From there, various groups adopted it as a symbol of the dire threat that polar bears face from global warming – incuding Al Gore, who told audiences: “Their habitat is melting. Beautiful animals, literally being forced off the planet.”
This amounts to sheer ignorance, if not outright dishonesty, as polar bear numbers have greatly increased from 5,000 in the year 1940 to over 25,000 today.
In fact, a lawsuit is currently brewing over the unauthorized usage of the polar bears photo. Denis Simard, the Environment Canada representative who distributed the photo explains on behalf of Byrd:
“…have to keep in mind that the bears aren’t in danger at all. It was, if you will, their playground for 15 minutes. You know what I mean? This is a perfect picture for climate change, in a way, because you have the impression they are in the middle of the ocean and they are going to die with a coke in their hands. But they were not that far from the coast, and it was possible for them to swim.”
And that is the truth about the not poor, not stranded, not endangered polar bears.
The practical lesson to be learnt here? Good intentions cannot substitute for informed decision-making.
If polar bears suffer – not benefit – from increased cold and ice, how accurate are the other predictions, claims and advice of global warming activists who get so hysterical over a 0.1 degree increase in temperature?
SCOTT THONG YU YUEN
Ipoh
——————————
References:
- Polar Bears International: 5000 polar bears in 1950s, 25000 polar bears today
- Polar bears pushed to human areas by expanding Arctic ice
- Byrd’s photo with original caption:
Tags: al gore, Amanda Byrd, Arctic ice, climate change, global warming, ice melting, Polar bear, polar bear pic
THE SCOTTTCAST 
April 5, 08 at 1:29 pm
Having been up to the bears’ habitat in Svalbard, I do have a certain amount of sympathy with these concerns. To claim, however, that they are facing imminent doom is stretching the truth. In 1950, let us not forget, there were about 5,000 polar bears. Now there are 25,000.
[ ]
If you’re really that worried about their demise, I’d book yourself a ticket to Churchill, Manitoba, where the evil buggers (about the only creature, incidentally, that actively preys on humans) are so rife they’re almost vermin.
And if things get really bad, we can always ship the survivors off to Antarctica where, unlike the North Pole, the ice shelf appears to be growing. Then the joke would be even less comprehensible. Why don’t polar bears eat penguins? But they do, actually!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2852551.ece
April 5, 08 at 2:56 pm
The possibility of the polar bears demise has been exagerated beyond reason. This link makes several points, with lots or references, concerning the history and current status of the polar bears.
For example, lots of links to peer reviewed journal articles that make it quite clear that it was warmer in the early to mid-holocen than it is today – and teh bears survived.
Or, blaming the loss of polar bear populations on diminishing sea ice doesn’t really fit the facts as put forth by the IUCN World Conservaton Union.
Best regards,
ClimateSanity
July 30, 08 at 7:32 am
I BELIVE YOU AL GORE
April 12, 09 at 10:59 am
I think anyone who alarms people with global warming lies should be investigated for their intentions. If it is found these alarmists are spreading lies about our environment to profit in any way, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I am sick and tired of hearing this bull from people who should know better. Our politicians are the worst.
April 22, 09 at 10:24 pm
global warming is two sides people think that global warming is true and others think its not
April 23, 09 at 10:11 am
And which side would you happen to be on?
Oh wait – read this post first before answering that.
April 24, 09 at 2:17 am
he is SUCH a LIER!!!!!!!!!!!!
October 14, 09 at 2:41 am
al gore is just another scum bag looter who has cashed in on peoples irrational fears that global climate change is a result of mans activities. no irrefutable evidence exists that man has caused climate change whatsoever. lest we forget that 10000 years ago the great lakes region was covered in 4 kilometers of ice? where were the coal fired power plants and carbon spewing automobiles back then? why did that ice, which was many many times thicker than the ice pack of today, melt and turn into the great lakes? the weight of that great ice pack was so immense that the state of michigan is still rebounding from it. im sure al gore enjoys flying over it in his private jet on his way to straif the polar bears.
December 11, 09 at 8:45 am
Gore that b*stard! Put that guy into jail immediately.
This b*stard. He photoshopped, lied and has cost us billions with his fraud.
Gore to to jail you b*tch!
May 16, 11 at 6:41 pm
Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science
posted at 6:00 pm on May 15, 2011 by Bruce McQuain
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/15/former-alarmist-scientist-says-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-based-on-false-science/
February 24, 12 at 10:55 am
I am a Science major and think former VP Mr. Al Gore is mtelling the truth. If he was lying why was he given the Nobel Prize. It is the greedy Big Oil Companies who had convinced the government millions of tax-payers dollars that i do not trust. If you trust the oil cimpanies then why has EXXON not cleaned uo their oil tanker oil spill qafter 20 years. They are quoted as making billions of dollars and then say they can not afford to clean up the rest of the oil that must be cleaned up after 20 years.
What about BP and the huge oil spill in the Gulf. It took them over 70 days to stop the spill and the environment is not cleaned up yet.
February 24, 12 at 1:54 pm
Fancy that, I am a Science major too! Bachelor of Applied Science.
But for a Science major, you seem pretty ignorant and rather lazy to check the facts.
——————————
First, on the Nobel Peace Prize. It is a purely political prize – Obama also won the Peace Prize, and he hadn’t actually done anything for world peace except mouth some platitudes when he got it! Now he has continued Guantanamo Bay, attacked Libya, increased troops in Afghanistan, entered Pakistan without permission to kill Bin Laden, escalated drone-based assassinations – all of which I do not necessarily oppose, but just to note that these are all the OPPOSITE of peace.
Note that Mr Gore did not win any of the Nobel prizes for the sciences (physics, chemistry, etc) but merely a political one! I thought global warming should fall under science?
———————–
Second, oil companies PAY tax dollars, not receive them. See cartoon and report at here.————————
Third, on the Exxon Valdez oil spill, you grossly mistate and misrepresent Exxon as a heartless, money-grubbing Gaia-hater.Exxon spent $billion cleaning up the spill and a further $1 billion in settlements. They cleaned up the vast majority of the spill, leaving only residuals that are practically impossible to remove – what you represent as ‘not cleaning up after 20 years’. 350 peer-reviewed studies find that the residuals will not cause any long-term effects.————————-
Fourth, on BP’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. I agree that BP had very poor execution in containing the spill, but that is more of incompetence than maliciousness – every hour meant more litigation and cleanup costs, as well as opportunity lost from the oil they cannot retrieve and sell.Meanwhile, idiotic government officials only made things worse for the mitigation efforts of others. For example, Louisiana wanted to build barriers to prevent the oil from reaching the wetlands – which was not given permission by the govt for weeks. Vessels going out to clean up the oil were stopped to be checked for proper safety equipment.And note that they had to resort to risky deep-sea drilling because, thanks to short-sighted and petty environmental lobbies, much safer shallow-water drilling is banned.So if you ask me, govt and environmentalists are as much to blame as BP for the incident.————————
I cut out all the above remarks on oil, because as noted below, it’s avoiding the real issue – whether or not global warming is happening.
Fifth and most importantly, all this talk about Big Oil is a distraction. I am not actually interested in defending the actions or inactions of oil corporations, merely righting your misconceptions. Besides, what do you propose – cut off all oil use, and run purely on unicorn farts?)
What Big Oil or any other lobby believes or tries to influence is irrelevant – the only deciding factor should be whether or not the facts show global warming is happening or not.
Anything else is a distraction, a red herring.
Head on over to my collection at Global Warming is Unfactual, where you will see (with citations) that the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit admit to no warming in the past 15 years.
Got that? CO2 levels are rising every year, which according to anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) is supposed to cause a global rise in temperature. But the data shows NO WARMING. Doesn’t that disprove AGW right off the bat?
My site above has plenty more arguments, including: CO2’s diminishing returns effect as regards trapping heat; Antartica’s record high ice levels; the shoddy science and outright lies pushed by the IPCC, NASA, the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, and other global warmists; and much more.
—————————
I’ve given you plenty of links as citations. Science majors are supposed to give citations to back up the claims in their reports, right?
You’re a Science major – research the facts and form an educated conclusion, instead of just whacking the straw man of Big Oil.