Would the oil and gas industry underwrite research that makes the plight of the polar bear seem, well, less dire? Does a polar bear swim in the Arctic? From NewScientist:
Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and his colleagues question whether polar bear populations really are declining and if sea ice, on which the animals hunt, will actually disappear as quickly as climate models predict (Ecological Complexity, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.03.002). Soon, who receives funding for this and other work from Exxon-Mobil, has been attacking climate change science for several years. Three of the six other authors also have links to the oil industry.
If the polar bears' habitat disappears later than predicted, is that a valid excuse to delay implementing a solution? How does this study jibe with the ExxonMobil Foundation's s biodiversity efforts ("Protect Tomorrow. Today")?
Since the Earth existed, there is a constant battle for the survival of the species. And this battle always existed.
Still, now it seems that global warming puts a big pressure on certain species. The human specie is lucky for now, we can survive the drastic climatic change, but we cannot ignore the fact that we are the only ones that can do something about it and protect the other species.
This is both a big responsability, but also a big challenge. If we continue talking about cars and energy, we will miss the point: oceans and the sun influence climate the most. www.1ocean-1climate.com presents an interesting theory about how we should first take care of the oceans in order to prevent climate changes.
Blogspammer. I sure get tired of this hokum post, it shows up on climate sites everywhere, usually over the same "Adrianne" name, always flogging the same weird notion with no math behind it. They have about a dozen different website names, which gets them past the filters.