Can a sad polar bear make you turn off the lights?

This is disgusting. First, because it's based on a false premise -- that polar bears are dying because glaciers are melting. Second, because children are being brainwashed to believe that technology and modern conveniences are bad for the environment. Environmentalism is a dangerous religion.

Well we have already doomed this generation to be emo-kids, we can plug at the heart strings of everything to get the desired result. Maybe the same thing could be used to get the Twinkie out of their mouths too.

Seems sort of tacky, but reinforcing energy conservation doesn't seem to be a bad thing. I will take that lesson over the 1950's brainwashing where everything was one time use and disposable. The effects of energy use is hardly based on any false premise so some real-time monitoring would seem to be appropriate, but this method dumbs it down too much.

Ah yes Common Sense is once again, showing his/her lack of it. No matter how much data is shown supporting the realities of global climate change/global warming... some people will refuse to believe it. Even though most of the world has embraced the reality of it.. some will still deny. But hey, how long did it take to convince the world that the earth was indeed round.

You have no idea what you are talking about #1 and it's your comments that are dangerous not Environmentalismn

Actually scientific data does suggest that glacial melting is contributing toward declines in polar bear populations, amongst other things. As their natural habitats shrink, they find themselves in places that require adaptation. Often, getting squeezed closer to humans. Although some geographic pockets have shown population increases, polar bear populations in general are expected to decline by as much as 67% by mid-century, according to USGS. Second, I don't think the screen brainwashes children. If you've seen it in action, it is just another way of displaying information graphically. When plug loads are down, energy is saved. When energy is saved, fewer resources are wasted. I don't think this relationship makes weaker children, I think it promotes positive behavior that shows children that their day-to-day choices, when taken collectively, can have an impact on the greater good.

It sounds like a decent idea, if implemented properly. A lot of folks just can't relate to abstract stats concerning CO2, GHG emissions, and so on. And it appears the program is working at Dartmouth.

The Polar Bear population went from 5000 in the 80's-90's to 25,000 currently. Polar Bears are doing fine.. They are not drowning.. they can swim 100's of miles at a stretch!

I don't think anyone is worried about them drowning, but getting closer to humans, where they are shot for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. When squeezed out of their normal habitat, they also have to compete for food with other predators, dwindling food supplies across the board. Also, if you look at the population growth from the 1980's to the mid-1990s, it was mostly attributed to regulations on polar bear hunting/poaching that purposefully brought the population up from unsafe (low) levels. That legislation is still in place, yet we are seeing a decline. Lack of habitat is the cause. There are nearly 7 billion people on the planet, I think we can make room for a few thousand bears.

Common sense: Kids are being taught that the planet is round and more than 6000 years old too. Crazy stuff huh?

The population of polar bears has exploded over the last 15-20 years. The reduction in ice would not be a problem without the population explosion.

The answer is a 30.06 (that's a rifle).

The idea that polar bears are in danger is a HYPOTHETICAL based on a HYPOTHETICAL. Instead of scaring kids into leftist conformity how about acting like teachers and presenting both sides of the debate? When you show An Inconvenient Truth also show The Great Global Warming Swindle. Then have a healthy debate about who may be right. Of course that kind of balance and objectivity seems to be out of the question for our schools, the media and Democrats.

The question should be, "does turning out a light make a polar bar happy?" The answer, of course, is "no".

There are too many people on the planet, and for some reason, mainstream environmentalism is ignoring this. Maybe it's a combo of our liberal democracies not wanting to own up to the fact that in many industrialized nations, the indigenous (or in the case of the US, the colonial) peoples need immigration to feed the capitalistic drive toward profit, since industrialized nations are at historic lows in terms of fertility rates. So you allow immigration - Mexican, Muslim, whatever suits you & whatever's close - to keep the economy going, since economics is more important than culture these days. Then the new immigrant populations reproduce at a higher rate as they were back home, and you have reverse colonialism.

Overpopulation is the real issue. 6.7 billion and growing, and we wonder why man-made climate changes occur...if a society is too shortsighted to see that reproducing at far above replacement level isn't a good idea today, we shouldn't be feeding the monkey by allowing immigration into nations that don't reproduce above replacement levels. The weak/overcrowded cultures will die off; the strong, forward-thinking ones will survive. That's environmentalism, because that's nature.

I don't think polar bears are in danger. I think they are dangerous. Too many people try to make this large, dangerous animal that eats people, into a cuddly, cute, friendly, politically correct, baby pet that deserves our love. Instead, we should leave it alone. Environmentalists who want to preserve nature, if they disagree, should adopt some of these hungry creatures and see what happens to the pets they already have. Students should instead be taught to be conservationists who are good stewards of nature and understand how to use resources at a higher sustainable level. Man should not worship false images.

Polar bears normally swim miles for their activities. This is some of the worst kind of misguided do-goodism (easily on par with "cat rescue".)

#10.,

After Earth moves through the equatorial plane of the Milky Way on Dec. 21, 2012, and you begin to notice that the core rotation at its center is decelerating far more rapidly than it unpredictably already is (in preparation for its stop and reversal, likely taking the poles with it as has already happened to several of the outer planets in the past few years (and maybe even the rotations at the surface at some point (adding credibility to archeological and anthropological histories handed down suggesting people lived with a sun rising in the west at one time)), and you combine that with the waning of the 24th Solar Maximum around the same time, along with a geologic record indicating our civilization is due now--yesterday in fact--for an Ice Age, and you find that you're living in unrelenting snowfall; and you find yourself stopping in your tracks on the way back from Starbucks pondering the concept that findings from the Huygens probe dropped from the Cassini orbiter circumnavigating Titan illustrate that methane likely has been with us far longer than dead dinasaurs and palm fronds, you'll learn what felt and shoe leather taste like.

I think visualization is a key to making people understand how their habits are affecting the planet. Charts and graphs are useful in some settings, but many people do not respond to this, especially younger people. A polar bear is an appropriate embodiment of what we are trying to save. Polar bears are endangered. Their habitat is disappearing (melting) due to the warming of the earth.

Polar bears are mean creatures. If you were to get up close to one, it would probably take a bite out of you. This is not the kind of animal I want on the planet.

Habitats are shrinking. Polar bear populations are declining. These aren't hypotheticals, they are facts. The thing is, polar bears are apex predators, which means that if they're in trouble, so are all the other things 'below' them on the food chain. They're indicators, and if they all die, then we have serious problems with everything else. Just look at how many deer there are eating your garden. Its because we killed off their predators and we don't hunt them.

“Hopefully students are learning behaviors they will take with them the rest of their life.'' That seems to be the point, and it's a great way to bring it home with this younger audience. From a political standpoint, how energy conservation could be labelled disgusting or leftist is beyond me. I'm a member of my town's town meeting, and saving tax dollars by teaching people to cut down on energy usage in schools and eleswhere is a priority for us.

its called darwinism. the weak die and the strong survive. if polar bears can't hack the heat then good riddance

Either way, whether or not you "believe" in global warming, being energy conscious is a good idea. Reducing consumption is a good idea. Burning coal and oil pollutes the air we breathe, which is a danger to ourselves. Eventually, we will run out of both things, then what?

Um, "heynow98", it’s not very likely you’ll run into a polar bear unless you're living in the Arctic and to justify their demise with your idiotic comment about not wanting them on the planet because they're mean and might bite you is foolish. Should every species that is 'mean' and 'may bite' be removed from the planet? I hate to point out that human beings would be on that list, too. The point that this program is trying to make is a good one – we should all be careful of our energy consumption and follow very easy guidelines (shut off electrical equipment and lights when not in use, etc.). Nobody’s asking us to give up our creature comforts; we’re simply being urged to curb them slightly for the sake not only of the polar bear, but of future generations of ALL species on the planet. (Even the mean ones who may bite…)

For those who understand the fundamentals of science, the scientific method, and are actually reasonable thinkers thank you for your posts as it is hard to get the point across to those who are not. To those who are not: please attempt to resist being further brainwashed. I have written these two posts in other blogs (to avoid restructuring them I just utilized the copy/paste function) if you have read them before please let them sink in. Do not allow unproven/false science to facilitate the 'unknowing' power-hungry governments to scare people into less freedoms. Please read below:

First posting: 4.13.2009 5:27 PM

Alarmism. The government is attempting to control your lives with fear and those who fall into the trap are letting it happen. You really think you are doing the right thing by helping the planet, but in actuality you are slowly decreasing the number of freedoms you currently have. The scientific method has been overlooked and the results have been consistently misinterpreted and skewed. Political agendas disguised by 'save the earth' and/or 'green' propaganda will in the end affect worldly progress negatively. You think the economy is bad now, wait until there are regulations on carbon emissions. (By the way carbon dioxide is a natural substance, necessary for all life on this planet, it is not a pollutant by any means.) Please do not fall into this 'green' trap. Believe me, I believe in conservation, energy independence, recycling, but I do not believe in a 'climate change hoax’ in which humans are the sole blame. Everything is completely and naturally variable. How can the sun, and sun spot activity and solar flares completely affect our satellite communications in 2012 with increased activity, but it cannot affect our climate? No, only we humans are to blame, there is no possible way that natural phenomena could have caused this? It is all a lie/hoax meant to scare you, and the real scary part is that it is effective. That’s all I have to say. Do your own research, and please overlook the uninformed media. Sorry for the rant, just using the rights I currently still have.

Follow-up posting: 4.14.2009 11:03 AM

I realize and agree that climate change is real, is currently happening, and has always occurred on this planet. The point where I disagree is that industrial/technological humans are solely to blame. There are so many other factors overlooked that can affect the climate on this planet: the big ball of burning gas approximately 8 light minutes away that cycles its output approximately every 12 years, water vapor opposed to CO2, natural variability, etc. Looking at this from a practical standpoint the earth has been completely covered with ice many times over its existence between brief warming periods, which we are currently in. The glaciers melted naturally after the ice ages, what caused that could it be the sun, its activity, our orbit, naturally, I am not sure the answer. But I am sure that there were no SUVs and no industrial revolutions. All I am saying is that the scientific method states that in order to prove a theory one must attempt to disprove it to the point where it cannot be disproven (every other theory is science/physics). In this case for some reason that is not happening. I think these pseudo-scientists are going at this the complete wrong way – they are stacking the deck. They are using their own skewed results on top of each other in a short time period of actual skewed data in order to try to prove their theory right. Other than funding, I am not sure why they are doing this. It proves false science and it makes the scientific community look bad. I am trying to inform people that governments are smart and they are trying to use a certain tactic - alarmism - to take away freedoms and gain more control. So governments, who may or may not know how science works properly, are exploiting the scientists’ false results to impose political agendas to control people in certain ways by making them scared that their actions or lack of actions will destroy the planet. I think that is fundamentally wrong. That is all.

Thanks for reading, please do your own research and don’t believe the uninformed media/non-experts. Someone else replied “Saving the earth sounds great, who wouldn't want to help do that? It's a guilt-free way to become brainwashed.” author unknown. Also, how much energy is the computer that runs the TellEmotion brainwash software using?

#16: Phenomenal information, not too many people understand that we are actually due for an ice age.

Sorry if I offended anyone with this information, it is so hard to convince closed minded people how science works, and what you are seeing today is not how science works, it is a mockery of the scientific method and it is all about the $ and power. Look at Al 'Propaganda' Gore and his convenient personal wealth-creating lies.

I won't say a lot, but I will say this. I work with the polar bear population of the Canadian Arctic along with the leading scientists from Canada and USA with regards to what is going on with the bears and their environment. Politics aside negative environmental change IS real and the bear populations are actually declining; contrary to whomever said they are 'booming'. You can call it what you want, but the bottom line is if the polar bears don't have ice they cannot and will not survive. The ultimate cause could be mother nature, or it could be all human responsibility, but the bottom line is something bad is happening and happening faster than ever before. All we can do as humans is control what we can and that is greenhouse gases. We must remember the polar bear is the poster child for the environmental concerns and humankind is not far from joining them in the crosshairs should we not make some changes...and fast.

Thank God nature is taking care of the overpopulation of polar bears.

If you guys haven't noticed "denying" is on the rise, and the term intended to marginalize dissent on this topic is getting old. The earth is in a cooling pattern. Animal life has adapted to climate changes for hundred of millions of years, and will continue to do so. It seems more likely that you environmental propaganda worshiping communists are at the greatest risk of extinction when the proverbial sky falls. Morons.

Mike T
Thank you for posting a comprehensive, principled argument supported by facts. You should copy and paste your own work into every discussion of this matter. Your tact and reason are impeccable, and your argument is free of the hostile emotional overreaction that typifies comments on this board.

Seems to me that many of you are missing the point: the school is just trying to get kids to think about energy conservation. If the students turn off some lights, disconnect their cell chargers, and turn music off when they are not there, they get some instant positive feedback. This project is about trying to find a new, innovative way to get students to learn some positive habits regarding energy consumption by providing instant feedback for their behaviors. Is this brainwashing? Is teaching them science or English brainwashing too? Schools are about education and this is just another tool in a school's toolbelt to help kids learn positive conservation habits using teaching methods (i.e. technology) that are innovative and creative. What's the harm?

This is brilliant! Finding a way to wake students up and show them how their daily actions have an impact on the environment is just what is needed. Starting with young people is also great. I think this should be taken to every school, college and home in America. Maybe it would get people doing something about climate change instead of arguing over how many bears there are or whether a polarbear can swim.

If the system is reducing electricity use, the monitor cannot be that much of an energy hog.

jerks like post # 21 is the reason the earth and its inhabitants
are set to self destruct. people need to have heart in all mankind
which there is so little of today.
what people dont get is first the animals die off, but then we are next.
people are so cruel and heartless that they cant even see
if we save the animals we save mankind.

Hi everyone. Better by far you should forget and smile than you should remember and be sad.
I am from Wales and also now teach English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "Fleas are one of the most common and irritating parasite, that affect dogs."

With best wishes ;-), Lennor.

"Posted by Chinook May 13, 09 04:45 PM"

Another Liberal lier promoting the biggest con in history. IF he was what he claimed, Chinook would know that ICE is not nessisary for the polar bears' health and well-being; they can live just as well on tundra, or in forests.
Please, wake up and face reality before the eliteists control every part of your lives!

Hi guys. I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it.
I am from Sudan and too poorly know English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "If the none has damaged his or her merchant, he or she is overtaken to strike a open car and much pay with the account, futura prepaid mastercard."

Thank you so much for your future answers :o. Bent.

I, for one, think this is a very cute and awesome idea. Wht better way to teach children how to save energy and live greener than by using an adorable polar bear? It goes along with virtual pets and I think kids really "get" that kind of thing. I think it's wonderful and I think more schools should use this concept.