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.
Coke has made a mistake. Polls show more Americans don’t buy that humans cause climate change. This may cost them customers. I hope it does. It cost them my business.
During Copenhagen one of the speakers said Koalas are at risk due to climate change, because the nutrient levels in their favourite eucalyptus leaves was altered by warmer temperatures. This is also nonsense, on Kangaroo Island where they are an introduced species they are in plague proportions and there is talk of culling them to reduce numbers. So why do they thrive on Kangaroo Island in the era of climate change? They have a protected habitat. In the rest of Australia it is habitat destruction that is impacting on koala numbers not climate change!
MostlyRight (19:15:14) :
Drink water…all that other crap causes global fattening. Just don’t buy the tap water Coca Cola or Pepsi bottle and sell as something special.
—————————————————————-
Nah, Australians can’t do that. We are not allowed to build Dams anymore. Apparently it’s never going to rain here again and the fish and the frogs need the water more than we do…..
Sigh*
Hmmm – there’s an opportunity here. CO2 free, soft drinks.
What else dissolves in water under pressure? NO2!
I foresee a huge market among Californian high school students.
20 years ago, when polar bears could be polar bears…
Canada scrags several hundred polar bears a year. (It keeps the population in check.)
I can’t blame the Coca-Cola company — too much. What the heck do they know? They are just among the innumerable unwashed so far as this sort of knowledge is concerned.
Coke has a “marketing idea” webpage. Mighty nice of them.
https://secure.thecoca-colacompany.com/ssldocs/contactus/cokesubmit/index.shtml
So I am submitting an idea. ☺
My idea is that you should not present misleading information about climate and polar bears. You say they are “at risk” because of climate change when in fact their populations are increasing.
Polar bears range between sea ice and mainland. The length of shoreline-ice interface is hardly any different now than in past decades. The bears are fine.
My marketing advice would be to drop the nonsense and misrepresentation of facts just so you can sell more Coca Cola.
You are welcome.
They wanted to know the “business value” of my idea, so I said, “Well until you stop this nonsense, I for one won’t buy any Coke products from now on. Maybe about $10 a year in lost sales.”
Send in your marketing ideas.
Trichinosis is caused by the larvae of the Trichinella spiralis worm. There are eight Trichinella species; five species are encapsulated and three are non-encapsulated.[1] Only three Trichinella species are known to cause Trichinosis: T. spiralis, T. nativa, and T. britovi.[1] The few cases in the United States are mostly the result of eating undercooked game, bear meat, or home-reared pigs. It is more common in developing countries where meat fed to pigs is raw or undercooked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichinosis
So cook your Polar Bear Steaks WELL DONE.
P.S. To cook a random selection of meat orders without having the rare steaks still mooing and the well done ones suitable for charcoal, start the well done ones first. Sear the outside then lower the temperature. Add the mediums then the rares and turn up the temperature. With the correct time/temperature scale process all your steaks will be finished at the same time and none will spurt blood across the table or require a chainsaw to cut.
I got used to drinking Japanese green tea during a meal and I hear that it’s very good for you.
We should all stop buying anything from any company that either promotes AGW or exploits its popularity in the media to make a buck. Coke and Pepsi suck!
Never did drink coke so no need to switch to water, and as a true Scot I take my whisky straight. Happy Xmas and sceptical New Year to the wonderful team at WUWT and all you informed and engaging contributers. Anthony I’ll be flinging funds, it’s the least I can do.
One of the worst things you can do is to ban poaching of a predator who us used to be hunted for thousands of years. There numbers begin to rise and they then compete against each other for resources. Rising polar bear populations would be more harmful to them than keeping their numbers limited. Likewise rising whale populations threaten the existence of not only whales but also marine life.
The greens use these arguments against humanity yet humans produce what was not there before or what nature was not capable of creating in great quantity. The beasts are not capable of production, hence they become a threat to nature and themselves when their numbers grow.
I would suggest in the interest of supporting our camaign to force openness in data and methods that WUWT endorse OpenCola
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCola_%28drink%29
Funny thing, the Inuit training at RCMP Depot in Regina say there is no reduction in any of the wildlife they have grown up around. This mean they need to move several thousand miles south for an education from the WWF on what’s been their home for a lot longer than any whites have ever been anywhere near North America? Self righteous imbeciles.
High Fructose corn syrup is most probably as safe as table suger, sucrose, which is also simply a combination of glucose and fructose. Fructose apparently tends to be sweeter than glucose without fructose, so that starches, like those found in potatoes, which are comprised solely or mostly of glucose do not taste sweet.
Glucose is what your brain lives off of for calories, although the brain can possibly live off of other “monosacharrides”[sp.?] – one molecule sugars – also. I can’t remember if it can, or if the other monosacharrides have to be converted to glucose, or if some can’t be converted to glucose at all. Too lazy to look it up.
Comments from the photographer at the link:
I wanted to try and document photographically how changing environmental conditions is affecting local wildlife.
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.
Polar bears are *not* altering their behavior. “Infanticide” is increasing because there are more mature bears encountering more cubs, resulting in more opportunities for a kill.
Segue into one of the reasons Coke will always be around — police in many states in the US carry 5-gallon plastic jugs of it. *Nothing* works better than Coke when it comes to getting dried blood off the tarmac at an accident scene.
I work for Coca-Cola, so funny to read this. I’m also very much an AGW sceptic, with WUWT usually the first news site I read each day.
I’m uncomfortable with the company’s stand on AGW and polar bears. But of course the marketing and public affairs teams are good at reading the ‘mood’, but not in understanding the underlying science.
Expressing my views from within is not as easy as it may sound. Climate Change is accepted so widely as ‘fact’, that scepticsm is met with incredulity – and would damage my own credibility.
But maybe they will listen to the consumers via the links given.
In fact, I’m not much of a Coke consumer. Despite having access to as much free Coke as I could want, I have a can just once or twice a month. I much prefer water and coffee when at work, and beer and wine for pleasure.
On the other hand, the attacks on Coke I read here (obesity, health effects, etc) are as much nonsense and distortion as the idea that CO2 is a killing the world. It is a safe source of hydration and energy. Like anything, too much is not a good thing. There’s no question that the drinks (of which they are 100s of types) give a lot of pleasure to a lot of people. And the company does genuinely try to be environmentally and socially responsible. Like any company, not perfect, but certainly moving in the right direction.
Keep up the good work Anthony and friends. This is truly one of the most enlightened and entertaining websites of today.
>>>Awwww. Aren’t they cute?
Yes, especially when they want to play tag around your pickup truck.
.
Ha I’ll stick to irn-bru then it outsells coke here anyway http://www.irn-bru.co.uk
@Mr. Watts (? the post is unsigned)
You said – “…Coke and Christmas always went together….”
Thanks God I live in Poland and I was not brainwashed to American totalitarianism – “When we say
LeninCoke We mean thePartyUSA And when we sayPartythe USA We meanLeninCoke”.For us in Poland – “…Jesus and Christmas always went together…”
Regards
REPLY: Good point, and yes unless a post is listed as a “guest post” it is by me – Anthony
It’s one I always ask: if global warming is threatening the Polar bears, how then did they survive the Medieval Warm Period, the six hundred year Roman warming and the 4000 year Holocene Climate Optimum. The reply is often, ‘but the population has risen because we’ve stopped hunting them’ which is really no answer at all.
On the “Unbearable Global Warming Hype Threatens the North Pole at Christmas” entry I posted the statement “In marketing terms the end of the world will be very big. Anyone trying to save it should remember that.” – Taken from the book This Other Eden by Ben Elton. I also invited readers to “Discuss”. So I’ll kick off with a take of my own. In marketing terms “big” is good. So in marketing terms, the end of the world is good. The second sentence provides the strategy. Trying to save it (the world) should be good – right? Wrong! This would be counter to the end being big and therefore not good – in marketing terms. Solution – the “end” must be sustained as long as possible so as to maximize the big good. A marketers utopia complete with fear, guilt, compassion and action.
You don’t have to go to tea just yet, what about RC cola? If I remember correctly RC is made by the “Dr Pepper Snapple Group”.
Based on a quick search (see link below), they don’t seem to be involved with anything silly related to climate…yet…
“Global Warming”
http://www.drpeppersnapplegroup.com/search/global%20warming/
Returns 0 Results
“Carbon Dioxide”
http://www.drpeppersnapplegroup.com/search/carbon%20dioxide/
Returns 1 Result, but is unrelated to AGW
WWF are a bunch of hypocrites. They proposed this april a luxury world tour in private jet! The price? 64 950 $!!! The webpage is no more available, but you can download their brochure here:
http://skyfal.free.fr/uploads/WWFBinaryitem7982.pdf
And this is the type of organizations which compel us to reduce our carbon footprint!!
The ABC acknowledges that polar bears are not necessarily driven towards cannibalism because of climate change; this claim should have been attributed to conservationists.
Conservationists eat each other?
Sounds like a reasonable solution to AGW hysteria.
Thanks for a fun article Anthony and a hearty
Merry Christmas all.
Przemysław Pawełczyk (00:46:55) :
For a moment I had you mixed with Przemyslaw Prusinkiewicz, famous co-author of the mathematical book “The Algorithmic Beauty of Plants”. But then, you are famous in your own right. You must be, because you can pronounce Polish names as well as multilingual Coca Cola.