BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 10:41 PM

Yes, indeed it does. Let's hope it isn't too late to achieve anything tangible to do with it. However, it's sure nice when the good guys and gals win one for a change.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: Bee
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 09:43 PM

Peace, that deserves celebrating.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 07:04 PM

About Bloody Time!

And the sad/funny think for Bush and his rich cronies, is that if they had done anything at all, they could have dragged their feet forever, but now they are exposed, and have to act.

"Big Wheels may grind exceeding slow, but also exceeding fine."

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 06:51 PM

I received the following e-mail about an hour ago.

"Dear Bruce,

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court finally set the Bush
Administration straight on global warming.

In a 5-4 vote, the Court agreed with NRDC and our partners that
carbon dioxide and other global warming emissions are
"pollutants" under the Clean Air Act.

And in a stunning rebuke to the Bush Administration, the court
ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency ALREADY has the
authority to start curbing those pollutants, which are wreaking
havoc with our climate.

This landmark victory belongs to NRDC activists like you, who
helped us launch this case four years ago and allowed us to play
a leading role in a winning coalition of nearly 30 states,
cities and environmental groups. We could not have prevailed
without you!

And I know you want to hear exactly what the Court's decision
means to our fight against global warming.

First, it obliterates the Bush Administration's leading excuse
for doing nothing about global warming: namely, that it has no
power to control carbon pollution. The Supreme Court has now
ordered the EPA to stop relying on illegal excuses and to start
getting serious about the problem of global warming pollution
from new cars, SUVs and trucks.

Second, it removes the major obstacle to measures in California
and ten other states that would slash greenhouse gas emissions
from car exhaust.

Third, it adds immeasurably to the history-making momentum we've
been building -- month by month, victory by victory -- for
Congress to pass strong global warming legislation. Consider
what's happened in just the last 90 days:

* Ten of the most influential companies in the world joined with
NRDC and other leading environmental groups to call on Congress
for a mandatory approach to cutting global warming pollution.

* NRDC helped spur a pioneering clean energy accord with TXU, a
giant utility, which marks the beginning of the end of America's
investment in dirty coal.

* NRDC helped persuade Arizona, New Mexico, Washington and
Oregon to commit to mandatory caps on global warming pollution,
bringing the latest total to 15 states.

* On April 14th, tens of thousands of Americans will mobilize
for StepItUp rallies, creating a groundswell of support for
global warming legislation.

A nationwide chain reaction has been unleashed, and yesterday's
Supreme Court ruling is going to focus new and intense heat on
Congress, which is just gearing up for serious debate on global
warming. The timing could not be better.

If you haven't already, I urge you to join that chain reaction
by making your own voice heard in Congress. Go to
http://www.nrdcaction.org/gwtakeaction and send a message
telling your Senators and Representative to pass a bill that
cuts global warming pollution 25 percent by 2020 and 80 percent
by 2050.

It will take overwhelming public support to pass the kind of
bold legislation that our planet so desperately needs. But if we
can prevail over the Bush Administration in the Supreme Court,
then anything is possible on Capitol Hill.

Let's take the fight to Congress!

Sincerely,

Frances Beinecke
President
Natural Resources Defense Council"

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 11:34 PM

"the subject was outside of the journalists' experience, the story was a maze, hard for an outsider to follow. I keep that in mind when I watch such programs now. "

Yep! Sadly 'journalists' now have dedicated University courses that deal with only 'journalism'. Older 'hacks' were experienced in 'Life' - including fields like Law, Engineering, Medicine, Science, often with degrees gained before they "found their life's calling", or stumbled into a journalism career, so they actually HAD the hooks to deal with complicated subjects.

One of the funniest stories "Media Watch" ever did was the one about the University of Southern Queensland - USQ, pronounced U-Suck! (wait for the punchline!) :-) which was an 'upgraded institute of technology'!!! (Oz now has 2 types of Unis - 'Unis for the real world' and 'real universities'!!!)

Someone had taken a set of Word documents which detailed the whole Department philosophy, (wait for the punchline!) and courses, etc. and ran them thru a 'web page converter program'.

Now you may not realise that Word documents, unless specially saved in a particular way, normally contain all the 'old crap' such as chunks of text that have been cut and pasted, reedited, etc... so you can imagine the sort of nonsense gibberish that the USQ Dept of Journalism was proudly displaying to the world!

As the program's producer said - now we know where they make all those journalists that we complain about every week!!!

As I said, Media Watch is not watched normally by those don't already know what is going on, so it is used a as source by those who can usually detect any nonsense that MW itself puts out - and they get criticised all the time...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: Bee
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 10:50 PM

F., I applaud the revealing of bullshit, but regret the possible responses. What's the sense in revealing a lie if you don't at least point to the truth?

I have a bias, though. There's long running and well repected 'truthtelling' investigative show here in Canada. I thought they were pretty good. I still think they're pretty good, but I happened to watch one of their programs a few years back, the subject of which I was very well and very personally informed about. I was amazed by the amount of distortion, the failure to understand the science, the missing crucial pieces of information, the failure to interview key (and available) individuals. No outright lies were told, but some good people were portrayed poorly, and some rotten individuals were given a free pass.

I can understand why: the subject was outside of the journalists' experience, the story was a maze, hard for an outsider to follow. I keep that in mind when I watch such programs now.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 10:14 PM

"So here they encourage readers to happily assume nothing is happening at all, it's all a fake and a lie. "

Nope - they just research the particular media propagated bullshit distorted about each particular incident.

"they also failed to point out that..."

That's not their task in the very limited time they have - about 15 mins, once a week, for only a few weeks a year (The Show needs massive amounts of research to work!). The program is only watched normally by those Aussies intelligent enough to think for themselves, and only some of them watch the (two) non-commercial channels (ABC & SBS).

The program has run for many years, and has uncovered lots of plagiarism (these 3 stories have a bit of that too) and dubious journalistic practices.

"A reader could leave their article not knowing that, and assume all photos they see of such ice formations are faked. "

They are not responsible for fools - or the type of 'Fox Channels' viewers, who would never watch 'Media Watch' anyway cause they would call the show ... yeah, well the show regularly runs many of that sort of uneducated negative comments made about it, usually by red-faced journalists caught out.... :-)

It just doesn't really help in the long run for any cause ('Saint Al' is probably very pissed to discover he was conned too!) to use 'faked material' - some Mudcat posters have railed about that sort of thing in various 'Iraq' and 'US political' threads here many times before.... :-) remember the 'Photoshopped bombing photos'? Media Watch tracked down the faking of those too, and many others... :-)

The third story clearly shows just how distorted some things can get - and shows that 2 activists who do their utmost to save animals have been defamed, misrepresented, and are now the target of many death threats by stupid fuckwits who believe all the distorted bullshit they swallow from the media...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: Bee
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 09:48 PM

Foolestroupe, I read the first two, and what I see is ABC Mediawatch debunking two photos which shouldn't have been used as they were, because the photos were misleading.

However, ABC also misleads their readers by not pointing out, with regards to the first photo (faked underwater iceberg), that real icebergs do in fact usually have much larger portions underwater than above. A reader could leave their article not knowing that, and assume all photos they see of such ice formations are faked.

In the case of the second photo, taken of perfectly safe polar bears in summer, and unfortunately used to falsely illustrate global warming in the Arctic, they also failed to point out that legitimate film has been taken of a drowning polar bear, and that there are many real signs and real effects of warming in the Arctic. So here they encourage readers to happily assume nothing is happening at all, it's all a fake and a lie. Tell it to the Inuit.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 08:25 PM

3 recent related topics on the latest ABC Media Watch TV prog
(Transcripts)
Go With The Floe
Snap! Freezing Bears
Look Out Knut...It's A Zoo Out There

Media Watch attempts to find out the real truth behind some of the distorted misrepresentations often put out...

Some of the stories have a lot of irony and other humour...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 12:07 PM

Of course, possible 'extinction' is a scare tactic used to make a point, but not all environmentalists use language that strong.
It can happen to species who face sudden changes that they cannot adapt to, whether it be hunting, climate, food supply...etc. It is obvious that Polar bears are already under stress. ( I saw film of one desparate enough to attack a herd of walruses....and failing miserably).

   We cannot be sure what the ultimate adaptations might be, but as I say, to stifle discussion of the issue for political reasons is counterproductive.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: Bee
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 11:32 AM

Wolfgang, the problem with polar bears is their dependence on sea ice and oceanic mammals (seals, mostly). At present, the polar bear population is for the most part stable, although several populations have gotten smaller. However, if much more warming occurs, these populations could fall catastrophically in a very short time.

When you look for warming information about the Arctic, you get mainly two stories: the story from organisations who pooh-pooh global warming, and cite temperature readings from Greenland, and the story from Arctic dwelling people, who can see with their own eyes what is happening in Nunavut, the Yukon and Alaska.

Last year, hunters killed a bear which turned out to be an anomaly: a grizzly-polar bear hybrid. Hybridization in the wild can be a sign of a species under stress (not necessarily in this case, but it is worrying). It has been documented with various dolphin and whale species, and with wolves (Eastern Canadian coyote populations are believed to be a well established wolf-coyote hybrid, called Brush Wolves in some locales).

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 10:56 AM

For Polar Bears, how big is a sustainable population? (Anything less=extincton).

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 10:48 AM

I agree that the arguments are strong for a threat to the size of the polar bear population. But the case for extinction that I often read of is not that clear.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 04:22 PM

I read some where (can't remember where) that the normal death rate from drowning for Polor Bears is 1 per yr. Also heard that the climate change is effecting the Penquins to where 3 species are seen to have their colonies dwindling are dying off. On the other hand it's working out great for the Emperor Penquins, it seems that they're thriving in it.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 11:53 AM

Wolfgang...as I understand it, Polar Bears are not normally 'communal' creatures. Each adult needs quite a bit of territory. If they could manage to move their activities to various islands, it would create conflicts for territory, not only with other Polar bears, but also with other carnivores. Also, with major reduction in sea-ice, seal breeding and feeding would be affected, altering hunting & feeding patterns quite a lot.
It would be very hard to predict the results, but it seems to me that it would cause serious realignment of species and habitat....perhaps even in interbreeding that would change 'Polar' bears to something else.

I suppose it is not the most serious aspect of climate change we need to consider, but it represents a lot in cultural terms....and the point right now is how the whole issue is being censored for political purposes, rather than being considered on its merits.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: Bee
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 11:00 AM

Thanks, Peace, I read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 10:44 AM

No, bee. It's some writing about creatures that are going to become extinct. It's ok to open on dial up.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: Bee
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 10:24 AM

Peace, is that the film footage of the polar bear swimming until he drowns? (Dialup here, so I didn't dare click). If it is, I saw that a year or so ago (CBC or CTV), and it was both shocking and heartbreaking.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 10:02 AM

It's enough to make a guy cry.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 08:24 AM

Scenario #1:

Polar bear lives on the ice. The ice is mostly anchored to a stable landmass or large body of other ice. The polar bear goes swimming to look for food. When the polar bear gets tired of swimming, polar bear goes back to his ice bound home.

Scenario #2:

Polar bear lives on the ice. The ice is melting and breaking up, so for many polar bears, "home" is now a floating/melting small floe. Polar bear goes swimming to look for food. When the polar bear gets tired of swimming, polar bear heads back for his home ... but it isn't there anymore. Polar bear drowns.

Scenario #2 is happening.

One recent survey in a couple of days counted approximately a dozen dead polar bears¹, because the breakup of the ice left them no place to return home. They are good, but not particularly strong swimmers. They died.

¹ A dozen dead bears found extrapolates (by that survey's estimate) to about 40 bears dead, since only a few are likely to be seen. That's a "whole digit" percentage of all the polar bears there are.

Any clearer?

John

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 08:09 AM

It is easier to love a polar bear than a chunk of land that today is 10' above sea level and in a decade would be 100' below sea level.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 07:45 AM

I have not much knowledge of wildlife biology but there is something I have never understood yet about the polar bear argumentation. If the polar ice melts they'd have to live on the many island around the north pole like Svalbard. A bit warmer than they'd like to have it but still cold enough for them to survive.

The argument as I have understood it is that they need the ice for feeding and resting in between feeding. What the feed for are predominantly the sea living mammals like seal and sea lions. Both need support for their young before those can swim. Without ice, they too have to look for islands or other coastal areas to breed. That then would be new feeding grounds for polar bears.

So can someone explain that puzzle to me. What I read is an argument of "what would happen to the polar bears if the ice melts and everythign else stays completely the same". But everything else then aslo would not stay the same. So, are the polar bears just good propaganda for an admitteldly good cause or is there something I have overlooked?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 12:38 AM

Note. They send an automatic reply to yer e-mail address.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: Peace
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 11:38 PM

Letter sent. It's like chicken soup: it may not help, but it won't hurt.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: katlaughing
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 11:31 PM

FWIW, there is a letter you can send HERE before April 9th, that may help.

The bastards really should be impeached by now.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 11:02 PM

The Republicans got where they are today by learning to play to certain special interest groups, and to anything that promises to keep money in the hands of those who already have it.

Obviously, telling hunters, miners, loggers, fishermen and those who supply them that they cannot do anything they wish to the environment will cost you a fair number of votes...no matter how you show them the long-term benefits.

Add in the 'moral' issues and the flag waving and you have a certain % who will vote for ANY Republican candidate, as long as the horns and tail aren't 'too' obvious.

I sure hope the Democrats can avoid inter-party squabbling and offer just enough sense to get by.....the Polar bears will appreciate it.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 10:30 PM

Mr Pitts, quoted above, continues:

"I would point out that this facts-optional approach shreds the government's credibility.

"But here's what really burns my toast: These people think I'm stupid. And they think you're stupid, too. What else can we conclude of a government that treats us with such brazen disdain?
They think we're a bunch of doofuses, dimwits and dolts who will never notice that they've placed the interests of their cronies above our own."

Mr Pitts is offended at being treated like an idiot. Unfortunately, if the Bushies are correct about approximately 15% of the people, it's enough to carry them in an election; and one may fear that they are correct about that required small percent.

The only way this disinformation can be opposed is to find a coherent group of at least 16% (?) of the voters, who will cooperate to outvote the 15% who actually are idiots. Taking even the 50% who may be assumed to be "smarter than the median voter" we find total fragmentation into tiny scisms each commited to their individual petty demands and unable to cooperate in any aligned fashion to specificaly and coherently oppose the stupidity of this administration.

I'm not particularly optimistic.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: Bee
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 09:48 PM

Just don't let yourselves become complacent about this kind of behaviour, neighbours.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: Peace
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 05:21 PM

No kidding!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 04:23 PM

Leonard Pitts put it pretty clearly:

"After 2002, when a National Cancer Institute statement reporting no link between abortion and breast cancer was changed by the Bush administration to say evidence of a link was inconclusive,

"after the administration cut language on global warming from a 2003 report by the Environmental Protection Agency,

after a government scientist was forbidden in 2001 and 2002 from discussing health hazards posed by airborne bacteria emanating from animal waste at large factory farms,

"after 60 scientists -- 20 of them Nobel laureates -- signed a statement in 2004 accusing the White House of manipulating and distorting science for political aims,

"after all that, Team Bush has once again been caught censoring science it dislikes.

"I refer you to this week's testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The committee produced paperwork documenting many dozens of instances in which the former chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality edited scientific reports on global warming. He cut definitive statements and replaced them with doubtful ones in order to portray climate change as something less than the settled science most experts consider it to be.

"… etc. … etc. … etc. … etc. … etc."


It is a paler version of the blatant mind control typical of fascist regimnes???

It IS the blatant mind control typical of fascist regimes

John

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: Peace
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 02:33 PM

More From The Republican   |   Subscribe To The Republican
EDITORIALS
Endangered wildlife under the gun again
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Memo to all endangered species: Head for the hills.

The United States Interior Department is considering sweeping changes in the federal Endangered Species Act that would put the historic legislation on the path to extinction.

The proposed changes would reduce protection for critical habitat areas; transfer some authority for imperiled species to states and allow governors to block attempts to re-introduce species in their states.

Interior Department spokesmen caution that the proposed changes are still very much under review, and that Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne will decide whether to make the changes.

Here's why that is little comfort to all creatures great and small: Kempthorne sponsored legislation to weaken the Endangered Species Act when he was in the Senate so he will likely approve the changes.

In addition, when he was governor of Idaho, Kempthorne sued to block reintroduction of the grizzly bear to a wilderness area near the Montana border because he said it would expose citizens of his state to a "flesh-eating, anti-social animal."

Congress should intervene to halt these wholesale changes in the landmark legislation to prevent the Interior Department from undermining the original intent of the legislation.

If changes are needed to better balance the need to protect species with the rights of property owners and developers, than make the necessary adjustments. Don't eviscerate the 34-year-old act.

If the proposed changes had been included in the original Endangered Species Act when it was signed into law by President Nixon in 1973, the bald eagle would not have been put on the list. The bald eagle was one of the first species to be listed under the act. Twenty-five years later, in a visit to Barton Cove in Gill, home to nesting bald eagles, then U.S. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt credited the legislation with saving the species from extinction.

The Endangered Species Act recognizes that every animal and plant on this planet is irreplaceable.

It's worth saving.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 01:20 PM

This is an extension of the long-standing policy of the Bush administration to subjugate scientific dialogue to their political vision. The apparent justification is that those who speak on the Administration's nickel need to cohere with the White House strategy for controlling public thought. It is a paler version of the blatant mind control typical of fascist regimnes, disguised as a sort of corporate image management. Ptui.


A

Subject: BS: Censorship over Polar Bears?
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 01:12 PM

I was just shown this article from a couple of weeks ago: I have not seen any follow-up.

Inquiry Sought on Agency Memo About Polar Bears, Climate Change



"Inquiry Sought on Agency Memo About Polar Bears, Climate Change

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 10, 2007; Page A06


Two senior House Democrats demanded yesterday that Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne turn over documents to Congress in order to determine whether the administration was preventing federal scientists traveling abroad from discussing how global warming affects polar bears.

In a letter to Kempthorne, Bart Gordon (Tenn.), chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology, and Brad Miller (N.C.), chairman of the investigations and oversight subcommittee, questioned why the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a directive that has stirred protests from environmentalists.        

Rep. Bart Gordon is investigating, (AP)
                                
This "appears to be the latest effort by the Bush Administration to block a full and free discussion of issues relating to climate change by the scientific community," they wrote.

The internal memo was sent to the wildlife agency's Alaska division under the heading "Foreign Travel -- New Requirement -- Please Review and Comply, Importance: High."

The memo, which was reported in other media on Thursday, cautioned employees against speaking about the relationship between climate change and the possible extinction of polar bears without getting official approval in advance. Those discussions became official business in late December when Kempthorne, faced with lawsuits by environmentalists, proposed listing polar bears as a species threatened with extinction.

The memo stated: "Please be advised that all foreign travel requests (SF 1175 requests) and any future travel requests involving or potentially involving climate change, sea ice, and/or polar bears will also require a memorandum from the Regional Director to the Director indicating who'll be the official spokesman on the trip and the one responding to questions on these issues, particularly polar bears, including a statement of assurance that these individuals understand the Administration's position on these issues.

In an interview, the Fish and Wildlife Service's director, H. Dale Hall, said the agency is not trying to censor scientists but cannot allow them to discuss subjects not on the agenda of official foreign meetings.

"The agenda is actually negotiated between these countries that are going to attend," Hall said. ". . . you have to be extremely careful."

But Deborah Williams, an Interior official in the Clinton administration who heads the advocacy group Alaska Conservation Solutions, said the directive amounts to stifling government scientists' freedom of expression.

"These memos are an outrage, and do a great disservice to federal employees and to advancing discussion and knowledge on these critical issues," said Williams, who provided the memos to news organizations this week.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The explanation by H. Dale Hall seems, on the face of it, a weak defense. If 'respecting agendas' were the issue, singling out Polar Bears to avoid mentioning is pretty lame.

Whatever you may think about Global Warming, telling scientists what NOT to say does not serve the public interest.

Anyone have other insights?