Time Magazine's Polar Bear Paradox: Curbing Global Warming ... To Hunt Polar Bears
Now we must save the polar bear â so that we can kill it?
In the October 1 Time Magazine â an issue that is dedicated to âwho owns the Arcticâ â Managing Editor Richard Stengel compares two Arctic regions that have been affected by the warmer swing in temperatures in the northern regions of Norway and Canada.
Stengel reported on two different Arctic attitudes based on what two Time reporters are telling him. In Norway, the people are âdelightedâ because they are now able to harvest natural gas reserves. But people in Canadaâs Nunavut territory are ânot so sanguine.â
âIn Resolute [in Nunavut territory], the native Inuit are not so sanguine about the benefits of balmy weather,â wrote Stengel. âOne man invited [James] Graff [London-based senior editor of Time] to watch a videotape of his 16-year-old daughter killing her first polar bear, a rite of passage that is under threat as the melting ice reduces the bear population. For the Inuit, says Graff, âthe idea that a warmer Arctic would be an easy place to live would occur only to someone from the South.ââ
So, are we supposed to be saving the polar bear or hunting it?
Saving the lives of polar bears has been one of the focuses of global warming alarmism hysteria. On the September 18 âGood Morning America,â ABCâs global warming reporter Bill Blakemore stressed how important it was for the polar bearâs habitat that we curb greenhouse gas emissions.
If the polar bears are struggling because of global warming, theyâre certainly not showing it according to at least one report. A study reported in the September 3 Telegraph (U.K.) showed the polar bears are thriving.
âThere aren't just a few more bears,â said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals, to the Telegraph. âThere are a hell of a lot more bears.â