To environmentalists no warming and more bears means global warming and an endangered species

Scroll down to read this post.
For many reasons, mostly political but partly ethical, I do not use Google, Facebook, Twitter. They practice corrupt business policies, while targeting conservative websites for censoring, facts repeatedly confirmed by news stories and by my sense that Facebook has taken action to prevent my readers from recommending Behind the Black to their friends.
Thus, I must have your direct support to keep this webpage alive. Not only does the money pay the bills, it gives me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.


Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.


Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:

If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652


You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.

A U.S. Geological Survey science team has determined that the grizzly bear population has recovered enough that the bear can be taken off the endangered species list.

A report delivered in November by the US Geological Survey’s Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team describes a resilient and healthy bear population that has adapted to the loss of pine nuts by eating more elk and bison, keeping fat stores at levels that allow the bears to survive and reproduce. For Christopher Servheen, a biologist who oversees grizzly-bear recovery efforts at the Fish and Wildlife Service in Missoula, Montana, that is not surprising. “Bears are flexible,” he says. “It’s easier to say what they don’t eat than what they do eat.”

Not surprisingly, environmental activists don’t like this decision. They claim that, wait for it, global warming threatens the bear enough that it should not be delisted.

Conservation groups have pushed back, saying that the government has under­estimated the threat that climate change poses to the bears’ food supply, especially stands of whitebark pine. As the Yellowstone region has warmed, mountain pine beetles and blister rust fungus — once thwarted by the cold, dry climate — have devastated the trees, depriving grizzlies of energy-rich pine nuts. Moreover, say conservationists, invasive fish have crowded out native cutthroat trout in Yellowstone Lake at the heart of the park, reducing another important food source for the bears.

“We have an unprecedented situation with deteriorating foods, and an ecosystem that is unravelling,” says Louisa Willcox, the Northern Rockies representative at the Center for Biological Diversity in Livingston, Montana. The centre was one of several groups that sued the US government in 2007, following an earlier attempt to delist the bear. After two years, a district-court judge restored protection, citing concerns about the declining whitebark pine and its effect on the bears’ diet.

The Center for Biological Diversity is a radical, extremist group that makes its living by suing the federal government. Its understanding of the facts on the ground is almost always wrong. In this case, they claim global warming is harming the bear, even though there has been no global warming and the bear population has increased.

Read the article. It demonstrates once again that global warming has never been an environmental or scientific issue with these leftwing activist groups. Instead, it was created as a political hammer to force society to agree to their ideology, regardless of the facts and without any real regard for protecting the environment.



  • Cotour

    Is it reasonable to see the earth and the life forms that live upon it and the universe as a whole for that matter as static systems? Because if you were to plug into the logic of some of the people that prognosticate on such things you might come to that conclusion.

  • Edward

    One has to wonder which climate the environmentalists want to have for the various species of the Earth.

    Today’s environment? Al Gore’s 2006 environment? The Kyoto Agreement’s 1992 environment? The environment of 1900, 1850, 1600, 1000, or even Egypt’s 4000 BC (they had so much prosperity that they were able to expend resources to build several pyramids)?

    How about the environment of 20000 BC? That was the midst of an ice age, and ice ages seem to be the normal climate on Earth, since they last longer than the interglacial periods.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *