Not at all contrite over her loss in last Tuesday’s Monk Debate on climate change, Green Party of Canada’s leader, Elizabeth May, has launched a long diatribe on the Green Party’s Web site blaming all but herself for her poor showing.
“I hate being part of a side-show circus and that’s what any ‘debate’ with Lomborg and Lawson has to be,” she writes. If she hates such “side-shows” why would she have agreed to participate? Then she continues:
“I will leave out the many ways in which I felt the debate was conducted in a biased fashion. I was sad to have the rules changed in mid-stream such that I was asked a question by the moderator in a space when I had been told I could rebut what I had heard. Sadly, this meant that the fundamentals of Lomborg’s intellectual dishonesty remained unchallenged.”
Ms. Green, it has to be said, was given as much opportunity as anyone else to make her case, but chose instead to make spurious links between climate change and AIDS in Africa. (See video of full debate here.) But after the debate she attacks her opponent when he doesn’t have the opportunity to respond. How typical of her style: blame others for her own inept performance.
Something else in Elizabeth May’s blog post caught my attention: her concern for Canada’s polar bear population. It’s so typical of how climate change advocates like to blame everything they can on global warming that I can’t resist commenting.
Some environmentalists and biologists are concerned that as polar ice melts, the polar bears will not be able to hunt their primary food, seals. They do not seem to believe the bears will be able to adapt to warmer climates by eating other things like land animals and berries, and by hibernating during the winter months like other members of the brown bear species.
Ms. May apparently agrees with this reasoning and uses the polar bear as an example of the “cost” of not mitigating climate change.
But we all live in a changing world. We all face the choice to adapt or die. That’s a harsh reality of life. If there is not enough ice for the polar bears to live in their traditional ways, they’ll have to adapt to the ways of their close relatives the grizzle bears. Polar bears can breed with brown (grizzle) bears to produce fertile grizzly–polar bear hybrids, indicating that they have only recently diverged and are genetically similar. Consequently, I have every reason to believe polar bears can and will re-adapt to a lifestyle similar to the grizzles’, provided that hunting—the greatest threat to their existence—is severely restricted.
Polar bears are known to eat a wide variety of other wild foods, including muskoxen, reindeer, birds, eggs, rodents, shellfish, crabs and other polar bears. They may also eat plants, including berries, roots and kelp. And, although none of these are currently a significant part of their diet, they will adapt, if and when necessary, to survive on a new mix in their diet.
Yes, their numbers may decrease as polar bears adapt, and perhaps their descendants will revert back to being brown bears. But if they are not hunted into extinction, they will survive even if the arctic region does become warmer in centuries to come.
For people like Elizabeth May, the plight of the polar bear is just another weapon to be used in their crusade to sell the evils of man-made global warming. They write books, produce documentaries, go on speaking tours, organize/operate single-issue political parties and engage in other very profitable enterprises in the name of being environmentalists.
Job One for them is to convince Western governments to spend trillions on climate change mitigation strategies. This is how they will earn their lucrative livings, and without such jobs they’d have to go out and find real work.
Return to Main page »
© 2009 Russell G. Campbell
All rights reserved.