I used to love the Coca-Cola Polar bear TV ads at Christmastime. I marveled at the quality of the CGI animations when they first came out, like this one:
They were fun and entertaining to watch, even though not reality based because papa polar bear would just as soon rip the heads off the cubs as he would to have a Coke. But there was never a hint of any political message. Just good clean fun and lightly pushing a uniquely American product I enjoyed.
But recently this started showing up on WUWT, courtesy of Google Ads:
You might even see it show up below this entry. Coke and Christmas always went together. To find out Coke has surrendered their famous Christmas polar bear ads to a political cause is like the day I found out Santa Claus wasn’t real.
This is where it takes you:
But it gets worse, on that page is a link to the real group behind it:
Egads! It’s the scummy WWF, purveyors of the 9/11 video ad showing airplanes hitting New York City.
Message to the Coca-Cola Company.
I don’t need your political views to quench my thirst. I now choose Pepsi* Tea, a company that has the good sense to not try hanging their hat on questionable causes or tactless eco-political organizations.
Maybe WUWT readers can enlighten the Coca-Cola company via their contact page on just how well polar bears are doing these days. See below.
A few countering reports:
Global warming leads to too many polar bears
Christian Science Monitor, May 3rd, 2007 – Despite global warming, an ongoing study says polar bear populations are rising in the country’s eastern Arctic region.
Science Daily May 10th, 2008 – Federal Polar Bear Research Critically Flawed, Forecasting Expert Asserts
National Post March 6th, 2007 – Polar bear numbers up, but rescue continues
WUWT May 9th 2009 – The “precarious state of the U.S. polar bear population”
Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a biologist with Nunavut Territorial government in Canada wrote this letter (PDF) on April 6th, 2006 to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
Some excerpts:
At present, the polar bear is one of the best managed of the large arctic mammals. If all the arctic nations continue to abide by the terms and intent of the Polar Bear Agreement, the future of polar bears is secure.
…
Polar bears are believed to have evolved from grizzly bears during the Pleistocene era some 200-250,000 years ago (Amstrup 2003). Polar bears were well developed as a separate species by the Eemian interglacial approximately 125,000 years ago. This period was characterized by temperature fluctuations caused by entirely natural events on the same order as those predicted by contemporary climate change models. Polar bears obviously adapted to the changing environment, as evidenced by their presence today. That simple fact is well known and part of the information contained in the reference material cited throughout the petition, yet it is never mentioned. This fact alone is sufficient grounds to reject the petition. Clearly polar bears can adapt to climate change. They have evolved and persisted for thousands of years in a period characterized by fluctuating climate. No rational person could review this information and conclude that climate change pre-destined polar bears to extinction.
…
The petition admits that there is only evidence for deleterious effects from climate change for one polar bear population (Western Hudson Bay [WH]) at the southernmost extreme of polar bear range (Fig. 1). The petition argues that the likelihood of change in other areas is reason enough to find that polar bears should be regarded as a species at risk of imminent extinction. I hope the review considers the precedent set by accepting this argument. Climate change will affect all species to some extent, including humans. If the likelihood of change is regarded as sufficient cause to designate a species or population as “threatened,” then all species around the world are “threatened.”
Some data. With hunting no longer allowed, bear populations have increased 4-5 times:
Fig. 1. Circumpolar distribution of polar bear populations. The Western Hudson Bay population (WH), for which data on negative impacts of climate change exist, is highlighted. Polar bears of WH comprise approximately 4% of the world total population polar bears.
* From comments: Turns out that Pepsi is involved in a carbon fund, looks like tea for me now.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
LivePositively.com/JoinUs returns a 404. Perhaps enough people griped about it that they pulled the page?
I propose that polar bears be allowed to immigrate to Antarctica where the sea ice is expanding/
Good idea, I’ll look for the store brand of polar bear meat when I’m shopping tomorrow.
‘Can’t wait for that non-carbonated Coke. I’d like it better. Meanwhile, long live Walmart’s Dr. Thunder! I don’t seek out any of it.
ABC: The story explained that the sea ice which the bears need to walk across when hunting, was not appearing until weeks later than usual.
Why, do they need to work up an appetite? Where do the bears get to? Do they think seals remain forever at sea? Polar bears aren’t going to have any trouble on land. They’re already there and have been reported wandering through Towns such as Churchill for a long time. Almost all bears are omnivores to boot. [Only the Panda and Koala “bear” aren’t?] They can live off of ants and large numbers of small berries. In answer to the alleged plight of the Polar bears I sometimes say, “What…they’re bears for god’s sake!”, to see if anyone knows anything at all about bears.
just promise me that JD have no plans involving the Fund, PB’s or indeed any eco-loon fundraiser.
PiperPaul, the chupucabra is an ugly smelly thing worthy of being Climate Realist’s mascot.
The alleged male cannibal bear at the planetark.org link at the top appears to be the mother of the cub that was killed. There is no photographic evidence that the cub was killed by a bear, but I accept that it was likely as male bears do that often.
Here’s the evidence from the photographer:
http://blogs.reuters.com/photo/2009/12/09/close-quarters-with-a-cannibal/#comment-341628
Comments from the photographer at the link:
____________________
Before I departed, I knew what I wanted to achieve – images that would help to show the plight of the polar bear in relation to global climate change.
___________________
After the male bear had finished consuming the carcass and moved away, the female bear approached the carcass, sniffed at it, and picking it up gently within her jaws, she proceeded to carry it away – where to is unknown as I could not follow her.
___________________
With the climate change conference being held in Copenhagen, I knew the images I had taken were topical and I had minimal time to publish them for maximum impact. The images were posted to my blog and my website after which, I approached Reuters for global syndication.
___________________
Comment: Reuters adds a comment from Iain that explains that the image above of a polar bear carrying the head of the eaten cub is actually a female bear who came in to take the body away after a male polar bear had already eaten the body.
___________________
I am the photographer who took these images.
I wanted to try and document photographically how changing environmental conditions is affecting local wildlife.
It is true that polar bears can and do kill cubs, however, this activity is not frequent. Polar bear scientists have indicated that cases of infanticide are becoming more frequent as sea ice generation is delayed.
The photographs are not meant to indicate or suggest global warming (natural or human-induced) in anyway. Sea ice generation or lack of can be caused by a variety of environmental stimuli. I am not a glaciologist so can not comment on this subject.
The photographs document animal behavior and how animals are altering their behavior to climate-induced conditions. According to polar bear scientists, infanticide is increasing from past years.
It was just coincidence that I discovered the the climate change summit was being held at this time.
I trust this clears up any concerns.
___________________
from me: EXIF data held within the picture:
Image description: A male polar bear carries the head of a polar bear cub it killed and cannibalized in an area about 300 km (186 miles) north of the Canadian town of Churchill in this picture taken November 20, 2009. Climate change has turned some polar bears into cannibals as global warming melts their Arctic ice hunting grounds, reducing the polar bear population, according to a U.S.-led global scientific study on the impacts of climate change. Picture taken November 20, 2009. REUTERS/Iain D. Williams
dan (19:38:33) :
What dilemma! In the 1960s MIT, Stanford, and CMU all discovered that computer programming “goes better with Coke.” ™ I’ll skip the stories. Brains run on sugar, and computer programming is taxing work. Brain food (not empty calories!), cooling, caffeine, and tastes good enough so you can drink a quart or so a day.
I believe the CO2 used in soft drinks comes from manufacturing Portland Cement. We produce a huge amount of the stuff, and CO2 is a by product. If it doesn’t go into soda, dry ice, fire extinguishers, etc, it’s just dumped into the atmosphere.
No need to worry about the CO2 in a can of Coke. Besides, you’ll be releasing a lot more when you metabolize all that sugar.
I try to avoid coke as often as possible. Not for any reason except I think it is pretty lame stuff. I often ask store staff if they have anything, and I mean anything at all, to drink not made by Coca Cola. Often they have no idea, and those that do check, find nothing apart from milk products.
I have since found Angostura Light, Lemon Lime and Bitters. Just like you get at the pub in Oz, safe for the kids (no caffeine) and tastes great. No more coke for me of any brand!
Better start researching the evil tea companies… here´s a list so you can get started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tea_companies
Good thing you didn´t say hot chocolate… you really don´t want to know about the child slavery that operates in the cocoa bean industry.
Just took the first one on the list Lipton, and oops:
https://www.just-drinks.com/article.aspx?id=91542
I guess they are a JV or Pepsico and Unilever. Oh well.. any other drinks you like?
Mr Watts,
I just spotted your edit…
LOL! Anyway, tea is MUCH healthier for you than either of those two beverages 😉
For the record, I love tea, but I shall be enjoying more than advisable amounts of a nice expensive single malt Scotch whisky soon – a tradition of mine every Hogmanay (google if you’re not sure what that is).
I may need quite a few cups of tea on Ne’erday 😉
I’ve always said it’s foolish for ANY company to make a political stand, they’re almost guaranteed to alienate 50% of their potential market.
The irony is, with almost total domination by the left of CEO positions, they STILL manage to convince most of their followers that it’s the right that are “evil rich capitalists”. Go figure.
On the Coke home page:
http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/
… is an annoying counter at the bottom (not to be mistaken for WUWT hits) that counts the number of “people enjoying coke today”
1.5 billion cokes today! The hypocrisy is unbelievable. Two-faced, capitalist, eco-fascist pigs. (Can I say that here? ☺)
No more Cokes for me. (Mind you I only drink about 10 a year anyway! Just guessing it won’t hurt their bottom line. ☺)
“I hope the review considers the precedent set by accepting this argument. Climate change will affect all species to some extent, including humans. If the likelihood of change is regarded as sufficient cause to designate a species or population as “threatened,” then all species around the world are “threatened.””
Great quote from Dr. Taylor.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Forget the politics of these companies. It’s no big deal. Pick your battles. Don’t fight them all.
ummm how much CO2 gas does each bottle of COKE produce, I mean COKE is a mass producer of CO2, they mix up stuff to produce this evil dangerous gas, it’s part of their product, are these ads their guilty conscience so that people don’t work out that COKE is themselves killing these beautiful fragile global warming bears lol
Polar bears are nice enough behind glass in zoos or in the far north but they are really violent animals and like to rip Inuit kids to shreds as they walk home from school. These bears have seen their population rise for the last fifty years. How many homicidal flesh rendering monsters do we need for a healthy ecosystem? Let the Inuit kill the seals instead so we have fewer monster bears. Especially if they are going to fall out of the sky on to our buildings and cars.
How about Shasta or Monarch Beverages? (Monarch makes the Dad’s brand.)
Both Pepsi and Coke have betrayed us, not only in climate-political-correctness, but also by adding that bastard evil substance HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP.
Cheapskates! Yeah and neither one of them tastes as good because of it.
And HFCS is directly….DIRECTLY associated with the obesity crisis in America today.
High Fructose Corn Syrup is to nutrition…what the Mann Hockey Stick is to science: fabricated….and bad.
Oh crap I forgot what this topic was about….oh yeah….polar bears.
They are magnificent creatures….and they will survive, no doubt, based upon their merit.
Same with us.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
It has always been a close thing between these two most popular brands, especially when activities and endorsements are considered.
Coke is the longstanding Olympic sponsor and Pepsi the company that blew up Michael Jackson.
Nearly a tie, I’m told, and so it remains with this AGW support.
ShrNfr (19:40:35) :
“I just buy the store brand”
A lot of the store brands are made by the big companies, so that’s often not a solution. Sorry.
If theres ever a carbon criminal its the lolly water that rots your teeth, rots your gut, gives you diabetes and creates an acidic environment in your body for disease and produces copious amounts of CO2. No wonder they need to spend millions on marketing!
If we put a $1 tax per drink of lolly water we could “SAVE” the carbon crisis without having to rule the world. Just think softdrink could keep mankind “FREE”.
More here (item 3) ;
http://twawki.com/2009/12/16/sensible-solutions-that-benefit-the-public-are-being-ignored/
I’ll stick to Canada Dry.
Polar bear meat must be very well cooked – VERY well cooked. Inuit kids are “inoculated” during the weaning process (providing small amounts of meat while breast feeding) so that they will not die from trichonosis from eating polar bear meat but most else does run that risk. It can be as dangerous to eat a polar bear as to be eaten by one. It’s not common pork trichonosis either – so watch out.