Polar Bears listed as threatened – now comes the lawsuits

polar bear laughing

Bear down! – Send an ambulance and a lawyer!

The big green machine has finally successfully lobbied enough FUD to get the thriving polar bear listed as a threatened species. Never mind the fact that the arctic sea ice has melted before in the last 100 years. See the news release from the Department of the Interior here:


Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne announced on May 14, 2008 that he is accepting the recommendation of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  The listing is based on the best available science, which shows that loss of sea ice threatens and will likely continue to threaten polar bear habitat. 

So what happens if sea ice grows? Let’s see how well that “best available science” holds up. According to the full DOI press release, computer model scenarios figured heavily into the decision.

Now come the lawsuits for everything under the sun that may potentially affect sea ice and those poor bears. Yep, fire up that big lawsuit engine, let’s get ready to ruuummmmble!

(h/t MattN)

Update: The Sierra Club is not happy about this, because the “decision is riddled with loopholes, caveats, and backhanded language that could actually undermine protections for the polar bear and other species”. You just can’t please some people.

Update 2: If you really want to see green stupidity in action, try the Polar Bear Brainwashing Parking game:


Play the game and watch the “education” at the end. Note to intellectually challenged game designers: Penguins don’t inhabit the arctic.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Texas Aggie
May 14, 2008 1:36 pm

Lawsuits may not be in the Greens’ best interest.
One possible outcome could be removal of the polar bear from the list.
Another could be a protected discovery, leading to witnesses who may be called upon to publicly defend their junk science – not exactly what they may want.
The whole scheme could end up exposed as a fraud.
Amicus curiae?

jep, Kansas USA
May 14, 2008 1:55 pm

The thing with lawsuits are they are very expensive and the law is no friend to common sense or good science.
You never know what a judge or jury may decide. It’s easy to shop around and find a judge who’s going to support you — get the proper jurisdiction and the outcome is almost a a forgone conclusion.
Those of us who are “State of Fear” enthusiasts remember how the lawsuit over rising ocean levels in that novel wasn’t doing well because lack of actual evidence. That was one of the motivations behind the conspirators.
On the other hand, a British court ruled on 9 factual errors in Gore’s infomercial , so it’s possible that going to court might actually be productive.
One thing’s for sure — the lawyers are going to make a killing.

Tom in Florida
May 14, 2008 1:56 pm

Now that the USFW Service has their “threatened” designation accepted it will be almost impossible to get it removed. We in Florida have been dealing with the scrub jay issue that hampers building on YOUR OWN land. The regulations are ridiculous. They consider scrub jay territory any place that has the type of tree or shrub that a scrub jay MAY use for nesting. At one point they were going to expand the definition of scrub jay territory to include any land that was capable of growing any type of tree or shrub a scrub jay MAY use. Because scrub jay habitat grows in sandy soil, that would put all of Florida in a scrub jay zone which would give the USFW jurisdiction over all building in the State. I do not know if this is still being considered or what, I just know they never give up any of their power and they are impossible to deal with.

May 14, 2008 2:04 pm

I just heard the official explain himself on the radio. He used the term ‘the computer models tell us….’ about 6 times. This is insane. It would not be so bad if the computer modellers were capable of acknowledging the limitations of their models however experience tells us otherwise.
I can see it now: 5 years from now the ice will still be at current levels or slightly higher yet it will be impossible to get the polar bears off the list because the modellers argue that increasing sea is ‘consistent’ with their models predicting the disapperance of the sea ice.

May 14, 2008 2:09 pm

There are so many ramifications from this activist judge’s decision they could boggle the imagination.
Never mind the polar bear population has increased from 5,000 to over 25,000; never mind the underpinnings of the Pogies has been exposed on many fronts; never mind the Nation is in dire straits for adequate oil, the Bush Administration has allowed this travesty to occur in the hopes it can salvage (or create) his legacy.
And please, don’t tell me bush is not at fault: he hired all the dimwits in his cabinet. I seriously doubt if Osama can do worse than what bush has already done.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project

Jeff Alberts
May 14, 2008 2:23 pm

I think everyone who is in favor of this listing should be required to give up anything remotely responsible, in their eyes, for AGW. So no cars, nothing that requires manufacturing, use of chemicals, no computers, no air conditioning, no TV, nothing. They should be required to return to hunter-gatherer lifestyles. If they don’t, they obviously don’t really believe the tripe they toss at the rest of us.

May 14, 2008 2:24 pm

By the way, I think that bear in the photo is laughing his a** off!
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project

May 14, 2008 2:31 pm

May 14, 2008. The day that science died. R.I.P. I agree with McGrats, I’ve given the Bush Administration the benefit of the doubt too many times. He does indeed now rank with Jimmy Carter as one of the worst presidents in the last 100 years. What a sad day. $6 a gallon gas here we come, plus with the cold winter coming next year, the economy hasn’t even begun to feel its true pain.

May 14, 2008 2:36 pm

Bears have quintupled and now are “threatened”?
The madmen in charge of the asylum. And these are the Republican madmen.
Wait til the other madmen are put in charge.
– * –
True that Bush’s Sec. of Interior put in place a bunch of caveats, with the clear intent of sopping the enviros. Many conservatives have tried such strategies in many areas of government. These usually don’t work. Once you have cracked the door open, once there are bureaucrats whose livelihood depends on having mandates, the bureaucrats will never relent.

Jerker Andersson
May 14, 2008 2:44 pm

If those white cute bears are threatened, why do we shoot several hundred per year to keep their numbers down?

May 14, 2008 2:45 pm

If they are threatened now at a population of ~25,000, what were they 40 years ago when there were only ~5,000 of them?
This decision completely defies any and all logic.

May 14, 2008 3:02 pm

A California law firm known for its conservative advocacy is poised to join the political melee over the fate of the polar bear, vowing to sue the government if it cites global warming as a threat to the species. — KYPost
Yeah, good luck with that one, guys. All I see is a landslide of wealth redistribution and a drop in our standard of living on the near horizon.
Nickelodeon is also exploiting the polar bear issue to brainwash everyone’s kids. Friday, June 6th, 8PM EST, the “Naked Brothers Band” will be enlightened by “An Inconvenient Truth” and set out on a quest to save the polar bears.
In the words of C3PO, “This is madness.”

May 14, 2008 3:10 pm

(looks around)
“Nope, don’t see any white bears on the white snow. Fire the charges!”

May 14, 2008 3:12 pm

Incidentally, the polar bears will appreciate the lunch provided by the “Naked Brothers Band”. Or does a man-made meal violate the Act?

May 14, 2008 3:19 pm

I expect California to pass the first CO2 restriction law. I expect lawsuits to be filed the same day.
It’s an absolute travshamockery of science.
As I said in the open thread (didn’t know where else to put this and I knew Anthony read every entry so he’d see it anyway, thanks Anthony!) the door has been kicked in…

Bill Illis
May 14, 2008 3:34 pm

What I have a problem with is the way “if global warming melts the Arctic ice … ” is portrayed. The ice only melts for a month or two at the height of the melt season.
Right now, some ice melts around the fringes of the Arctic in August and September and promptly refeezes back in October (after the six months of darkness sets in on September 21st each year.)
Even in an accelerated global warming scenario, the bears just have to leave the ice for a month or two – nothing unusual for polar bears as the polar bears on Hudson Bay are off the ice for 4 or 5 months.
Even if global warming and the models are accurate, it will not threaten the species.

Joe S
May 14, 2008 3:37 pm

All of you that have posted before me made your points well.
This Polar Bear thing is so disturbing, I hardly know what to say. Seems, though, that any of us that drive autos, turn an electric light on in the evening or even draw a breath of air are harming the Bear’s habitat.
This is far reaching stuff, folks.

May 14, 2008 3:56 pm

Based on what I read over at ICECAP, it appears that the decision was written to try to please everybody, which means it will please no one.

Robert Wood
May 14, 2008 4:21 pm

I tell you, up here in Canada, we eat Polar Bears. Ummm yummmy. We’d also eat Penguins if they’d only migrate from the South Pole.

Diatribical Idiot
May 14, 2008 4:43 pm

As an aside, I just went to the WordPress dashboard, and under the science section they have 4 posts listed. Three are for this blog.
Sheesh, ya big bully… 😉

May 14, 2008 5:02 pm

90 percent of the Arctic thaw is due to soot. As a thermal equivalent, it’s 20 percent of all global warming of the past century. If these enviros gave a flip about the polar bears, they’d address the soot problem first. Instead they’d rather martyr the bears on their holy cross of environmentalism and socialism.
I wrote this to to Andy Rivkin & John Tierney of the NY Times. No response.
“…With (no dis)respect to the polar bears, their threatened status and the Arctic thaw, I strongly suggest a review of the studies of V. Ramanathan & Charlie Zender on the effects of soot on snow & ice in the Arctic meltdown. It’s nothing short of astonishing, even James Hansen has commented on it. Up to ninety (yes 90.0) percent of the centennial Arctic thaw appears to be due to soot, with the Arctic ice loss constituting nearly 25 PERCENT of ALL global warming since 1880 (Zender, Hansen, Ramanathan).
A NASA & NOAA team are current surveying the Arctic haze situation as well, getting real field data on how much air-heating effects can be attributed to aerosol soot. And for what it’s worth, shipping through the northern passages is probably compounding the soot deposition trend – ships use very heavy crude.
One other angle to investigate is the potential of partial Arctic recovery due to the new emissivity of the open water. The annual emissivity-to-insolation ratio is somewhere around 2:1 from open waters in the Arctic. That is, without the winter jacket of ice over the open waters, the Arctic may be losing more heat at this point than it is taking in.
The Bush administration is essentially correct in saying that the polar bear’s situation is unrelated to CO2. The Democrats know this. Zender & Ramanathan have already spoken before Rep. Henry Waxman’s committee. It’s all there:
If just *ONE* prominent journalist would lead the way in broadly disseminating Zender’s soot findings, the information will cascade toward a new consensus for a feasible and inexpensive near-term fix, and not a pointless and divisive long-term fight about CO2 that won’t make a lick of difference in saving the bears in the next twenty years.
I’m a moderate liberal, but I would like everyone to think about this: What has Bush done to mitigate soot? Answer: More than Clinton ever did.
My post is #9. No response. CO2 is the agenda. Repeat the mantra.

Bob Tisdale
May 14, 2008 5:43 pm

Threatened is not endangered. We’ll just have to wait to see Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne’s “administrative guidance and…rule that defines the scope of impact…in order to protect the polar bear while limiting the unintended harm to the society and economy of the United States.” Under the threatened classification, they can actually do nothing, which sounds like their intent. A lot of time and money wasted for nothing.

May 14, 2008 6:18 pm

Will this law cover only those Ursus Maritimus which come under US jurisdiction in Alaska, or are those which infest Canadian and Russian soil excluded? They’ll have to sort that one out first. That’ll be profitable fun, said the lawyer, rubbing his hands with glee.

May 14, 2008 6:37 pm

Currently the increase in SH sea ice is more than 5 times larger than the decrease in NH sea ice.
Increases in SH sea ice adversely affects penguins trying to each their nesting sites on land (and this well documented, unlike the effect of ice decreases on polar bears). What’s needed is a lawsuit to make one or more species of penguin a protected species for this reason.

May 14, 2008 6:48 pm

All this means is that the polar bear bodies will be hidden after they are shot and there will be no way to track how many have been killed and populations REALLY WILL begin to decrease.

Joe S
May 14, 2008 7:19 pm

The Polar Bear ruling was one of the topics on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show tonight. He talks often about enviromental law. Says he’s practiced ESA law for 20 years. (Environmental Site Assessment?)
Anyway, tonight he suggested that industry ought to immediately begin challenging this with absurd suits…like shutting down interstate highway construction by connecting it to CO2 emissions. A caller suggested that Chinese imports could be challenged because of the CO2 China puts in the air.
No nibbling at the edges of this thing. Just dive right into it with the most wild absurd lawsuits that can be dreamed up. Not as an effort to shut down the country. Instead, to shoot down the law.
An example of Hugh’s recent blogging regarding the Polar Bear…

May 14, 2008 7:31 pm

Well if it takes a dammed polar bear to move us away from our dependency on carbon based fuel sources than so be it!
Wether its global warming or staying competitive in a global economy carbon based fuels have got to be replaced with something better!

May 14, 2008 8:11 pm

A quote from D. Keith Mano’s prescient 1973 novel, The Bridge:
“Whereas it has been ascertained irrefutably by the Council’s Emergency Committee on Respiration that the process of breathing has and will continue to destroy and maim innumerable forms of microscopic biological life, we of the Council, convened in full, have decided that man in good conscience can no longer permit this wanton destruction of our fellow creatures, whose right to exist is fully as great as ours. It is therefore decreed that men, in spontaneous free will and contrition, voluntarily accede to the termination of their species. . . It is hoped bretheren, that you will donate your physical bodies to the earth in such a manner that the heinous crimes of murder and pollution committed by our race throughout history may in some small way find redress.”
Fiction… set in 2035… the eco-fascists run the world…

May 14, 2008 9:00 pm

Well, I managed to knock over 4 penguans in one go (on the game), and after many tries, got the parking right.
That game is some very bad science propiganda.

May 14, 2008 9:02 pm

I thought the U.S. was a “secular” state which separated religion from Politics?

May 14, 2008 9:06 pm

“I’m a moderate liberal, but I would like everyone to think about this: What has Bush done to mitigate soot? Answer: More than Clinton ever did.”
First thanks for your brilliant post on the soot issue. Environmentalist rule #1: Hype trumps truth; politics trumps practicality. you cant hype something that’s the fault of China, god forbid we ask them to stop polluting instead of tightening the screws ever harder on ourselves.
The entire Democrat party is today in the hands of Bush-hating extremists now.
The idea that they would give Bush credit for even breathing is unthinkable.
I am sure they will find a way to hate even this sop of a decision as “not enough”
or other nonsense, even though it was what they asked for.

Retired Engineer
May 14, 2008 9:06 pm

Whenever I begin to think the world has not gone totally insane, Anthony provides absolute proof that I am wrong.
Of the lawyers, by the lawyers, for the lawyers.
How much CO2 do people exhale? Maybe we should ban breathing. At least for those folks who believe CO2 is the cause of all our problems.

May 14, 2008 10:14 pm

Hat tip to another blogger for pointing this out:
“Follow the movements of satellite-collared polar bears on the Beaufort Sea.”
Uh…are they still alive? Because it would appear most of them are floating face-down in the water…
….except for that one down in Phoenix. Maybe he got the memo on the PDO cooling phase and decided to migrate south for the next few decades.
Just for kicks, you can use their map to zoom in on the now-proven-fraudulent three-fingered “warming island” on Greenland. And to think just last year it was predestined to become “an international symbol of the effects of climate change” — until a map from 1957 showed it as an island as well.

Roger Carr
May 14, 2008 10:34 pm

Y’all ever see what happens when polar bears and penguins do get together in the wild?

May 14, 2008 11:03 pm

A growth in population from 5000 to 23000 is consistent with models as it falls well within the error bars…

Frank Ravizza
May 14, 2008 11:33 pm

Are we witnessing a Romanesque breakdown of society with the ‘green-movement’ orchestrated through ‘so-called’ science?

May 15, 2008 12:10 am

Is ther “NO” sanity left on this Earth?
Even the Republican Presidential Candidate is buying the to Al Gore’s “Money Maker” B— S—.

Pierre Gosselin
May 15, 2008 12:29 am

Lower than I expected.
Concerning the bears, it’s high time to pressure the candidates into telling us NOW what steps they intend to take to solve “this problem”. The Interior Dept has spoken, now ask McCain and Obama what actions they intend to implement. Nail them down now so that the American people know what to expect.

Pierre Gosselin
May 15, 2008 12:38 am

Compare May 12 2008 Ocean temps
to May 13 2007 ocean temps:
The Indian, Pacific were much warmer 1 year ago, and the western Atlantic shows a definite cooling trend.

Pierre Gosselin
May 15, 2008 1:21 am

Recall the GISS temp anomalies
March 2008 = +0.60.
March 2007 = +0.60.
Yet compare March 16, 2007 NOAA NESDIS colour map: http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.3.16.2007.gif
To March 17, 2008 NOAA NESDIS colour map:
Eyeballing the two, you’d have to say the 2008 map is noticeably cooler than the 2007 map.
Yet, how did Hansen come up with identical temp anomalies?
Granted I’m comparing only SSTs for one day in the middle of the month.

May 15, 2008 1:35 am

I here that Roy Innis and the Congress on Racial Equality is threatening to sue the DOI for doing this. Well, that’s what I heard from Pual Driessen.

May 15, 2008 3:10 am

Retired Engineer,
An average human inhales ” air” and exhales up to 900 grams of CO2 per day. With 6.6.billion humans on the planet. This means at least 6 billion Kg a day.
Then you have the animals exhaling CO2 + the Methane producing type.
The maths tell quite a story.
How many chickens does it take to feed the U.S. population in one year? – 10 billion? How many chickens and pigs does it take to feed the 1.4 billion Chinese population per year. The figures are astronomical. How much CO2 do all these animals produce?

Alex Llewelyn
May 15, 2008 3:26 am

$6 a gallon? You’ve seen nothing yet, here in Britain we’ve go £5 a gallon, about $10!

May 15, 2008 3:34 am

[…] has actually increased from about 5,000 to 12,000 in the 1960s (depending on who you believe), some people suggest that the Department of Interior’s decision is […]

May 15, 2008 4:39 am

Replacing a cheap fuel with an expensive fuel is the way to save the economy?
Next you will be telling us that the way to save a drowning man will be to through him an anchor.

May 15, 2008 4:59 am

If the polar bears are threatened by thinning sea ice it is not due to human caused global warming because there hasn’t been any global warming for at least the last 6 years.
Something else is causing the ice to melt other than CO2 emissions, because CO2 emissions have been increasing these 6 years that the globe has been cooling.
It is not the polar bears that are on thin ice it is those who state that we are warming when we are cooling, and call an increase in polar bear population since the last time we experienced global cooling a decrease worthy of endangered species status.
When you work in the arctic, the only thing that you need to know about polar bears is that you need to be protected from them, and you always want to have a local who is a good shot with you for protection.

Bob B
May 15, 2008 5:00 am

I think this could also cut the other way. If in say 5-10 years the Arctic shows no decrease in sea ice then I am sure many companies can show real damage because of this ruling. The climate model is in play as being incorrect and the modelers themselves can be sued.

Bruce Cobb
May 15, 2008 5:19 am

Well if it takes a dammed polar bear to move us away from our dependency on carbon based fuel sources than so be it!
Wether its global warming or staying competitive in a global economy carbon based fuels have got to be replaced with something better!

Typical AGW religionist. Use lies, pseudoscience, pass stupid laws, whatever, just so long as you promote your AGW propaganda. With the pogies, the ends always justify the means.

May 15, 2008 5:25 am

“Roger Carr (22:34:54) :
Y’all ever see what happens when polar bears and penguins do get together in the wild?”
I was just wondering that myself. Given the decline in NH ice and the increase in SH ice, it seems obvious to me that the Feds should move a genetically representative group of polar bears to Antarctica. Surely the endangered status trumps the UN’s limits on environmental impact in Antarctica.
How many penguins could a PB eat in a day? Sorry – I can’t figure out how to make it sound as cute as the woodchuck tongue-twister.

May 15, 2008 5:40 am

There’s a “Memorandum of Understanding” between Canada and the US over the PB listing at http://www.doi.gov/issues/polar_bears/MOU%20May%208-08.pdf
Item ‘f’ in the activity list is “Developing a plan for jointly enhancing forecasting models to better understand ecosystem changes that affect polar bears in North America.”
[Umm, how many PBs are in the Southern Hemisphere”? Perhaps some have been relocated and they aren’t telling us? Alert the conspiracy theorists!]
Oh my – http://www.doi.gov/issues/polar_bears/seaice.html hs the most misleading graphic I have ever seen – the attractive orientation greatly emphasizes the decline in ice cover. I’m surprised they started the Y-axis at 0. I’ll try to find time to post a note about it at Edward Tufte’s web site.
What I was looking for was hard data for observations and model output. I’d like to preserve it on a web page and track the performance of the models over the next few years. Does anyone know the source for that data? I’d be happy to contact the DoI after the news dies down. I’d be even happier if someone else wrote and maintained the page. 🙂

Tony Edwards
May 15, 2008 5:45 am

Retired Engineer (21:06:57) :
A little off thread, but related, I have for years pointed out that it can be clearly shown that, just before they die, everyone who does so was breathing. This conclusively demonstrates that breathing is dangerous and the sooner (some) people stop doing it, the better off we (the rest of us) will be.
Hasse@Norway (23:03:50) :
A growth in population from 5000 to 23000 is consistent with models as it falls well within the error bars…
Very bad for my keyboard, (snort).

May 15, 2008 7:02 am

What we have is an absurd decision by some wildlife biologists and bureaucrats based upon the ESA mandated “best available science.” The listing has the potential to destroy our strategic and energy policy initiatives designed to end our dependence upon foreign oil and fuel imports.
Our governance is totally corrupted. Worse, all three presidential candidates are committed to preventing development of our plentiful oil deposits in the
Arctic and our coastal waters.
Unless we exploit our oil in order to provide the time needed to develop new technologies for alternative energy production, our nation will be bankrupted.
It appears that idiots control our destiny.

Diatribical Idiot
May 15, 2008 7:14 am

GISS anomaly came in more reasonably this month compared to the satellite data (41 – still a little on the high side of reasonable, but within historical average differences), and the previous month’s anomaly was reduced by 7, to 60. Still comparatively high, but not quite as bad. Perhaps late-reported data came in on the cooler side. The Polar Bears must be thankful for this adjustment.
Last month I posted about my method of forecasting future anomalies that I just recently put together, strictly based on the data. It’s only one data point, but my predicted anomaly was 44-45. Not too bad.
I have written up my observations of the different data trends.
I don’t have updated predictions incorporating the new data, but I’m getting there. The above post references the post with the predictions from last month and the methodology if interested.
So, back to the bears… It is my understanding that there are other species of animals that are either considered – or are close to being considered – as endangered or threatened. For some of these animals, it is not global warming that is being blamed as much as the fact that they are being decimated by the Polar Bears. I don’t have a link to back me up on this one, so maybe I’ve heard wrong. If correct, though, I’m trying to reconcile how this all makes sense.

Robert Wood
May 15, 2008 7:18 am

Nathan Bobbs, Yes, let’s replace carbon fuels with Pixie Dust. Everything you say is not true.

May 15, 2008 7:42 am

Canada follows 13 sub-populations of polar bears, the US 2. The US has changed their status, Canada is leaving theirs where it is. The difference? As one WWF rep states “The (Canadian) process…..has been performed assuming that the sea ice will remain the same, this is a very false assumption”. So basically the Canadians looked out their window and saw a hell of a lot of ice (the norm), the Americans looked at their computer screens and saw none. For once, a Canadian government actually got it right (coming from a Canadian, that is a very rare occurance).
REPLY: Proximity to what you are measuring always trumps forecasting from afar.

May 15, 2008 7:53 am

OK, this is real simple. The only one of the 15 identified populations of polar bears that I can find good numbers on that is *actually* declining is the WEstern Hudson population.
As far as the Western Hudson polar bears, the numbers I have found say that there are currently estimated to be ~935 bears, and has been decreased by 22% in the last 17 years.
The math says: 17 years ago there would be 1198 bears (call it 1200, close enough)
1200-935= 265 fewer bears.
265/17 years = 15.5 fewer bears each year.
The quota for polar bear harvest in that area was recently reduced FROM 56 bears/YEAR!!!
What that tells me that WITHOUT HUNTING there would be (56-15.5)*17=688 more bears, or 57% more bears, despite decreasing ice levels.
The reduction in population of the Western Hudson polar bear population has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with ice.

Mike from Canmore
May 15, 2008 8:00 am

Nathan Hobbs:
It is blatant misunderstanding of basic economics that gets into the mess we are into now. Basic Lesson 1: All known risks, as perceived by the market, are built into the product price. That means ALL risk including, investment, technological and geopolitical. Money is just a tool to relate value and risk. If other things are more expensive, then other things are riskier and hence more detrimental to society. Essentially, it boils down to you can pay $X for electricity generated by oil/coal or you can pay $X plus more for electricity generated by wind/solar/nuclear. If it is better, it will be lower cost. Plain and simple. And please don’t tell me CO2 is a pollutant and it needs to be put into the cost equation. That’s just ridiculous.

May 15, 2008 8:04 am

Can this be asserted?
Re”I think this could also cut the other way. If in say 5-10 years the Arctic shows no decrease in sea ice then I am sure many companies can show real damage because of this ruling. The climate model is in play as being incorrect and the modelers themselves can be sued”.

May 15, 2008 8:08 am

AE General said:
“Hat tip to another blogger for pointing this out:
Now that is some funny stuff. There are acctualy 2 in Pheonix; on next to a soccer field (google maps shows kids playing soccer at this very moment, next to the polar bear), and one in someones house on Leah Ave.
As for the ones floating in the Arctic Ocean, I assum that at this time of year, there is ice there.

Wondering Aloud
May 15, 2008 8:26 am

This fits no thread and all but…
I was just reading up on some of this controversy and I stumbled into this:
Reading this blog I discovered that Anthony has been “debunked” and that anyone who doesn’t think GISS is wonderful data “doesn’t believe in science”
I don’t know, I think this blog makes a lot more sense than that one, what do you think?

May 15, 2008 8:26 am

The other day I was channel surfing and I came across some footage of a poalr bear circling a large group of Walrus. They are all freaking out and the polar bear kept trying to break into their circle to eat one.
Finally it approaches a female Walrus with baby and the Polar Bear jumps on the mother who is guarding the baby with her body while the Polar Bear chews on the back of the neck.
Thts where I changed channels.
Nature is cruel. Polar Bears are killing machines. Let them die if they can’t adapt.

old construction worker
May 15, 2008 8:39 am

N hobbs says.
“Well if it takes a dammed polar bear to move us away from our dependency on carbon based fuel sources than so be it!”
What does dependency on carbon based fuel has to do with CO2 Drives The Climate Theory? It has nothing to do with the theory. This is a carbon based planet. There is no source of fuel that is not dependent on carbon. You want wind power? Guest what? The blades are made from carbon.

old construction worker
May 15, 2008 9:27 am

The Pacific Legal Foundation treatened to file a law suite if the polar bears were put on the endanger list based on this. (A study by Informs)
“These studies are meant to inform the US Fish and Wildlife Service about listing the polar bear as endangered. After careful examination, my co-authors and I were unable to find any references to works providing evidence that the forecasting methods used in the reports had been previously validated. In essence, they give no scientific basis for deciding one way or the other about the polar bear.”
Sounds like the same thing the NCPA said about the IPCC.

Fernando Mafili
May 15, 2008 9:30 am

Dear Pierre Gosselin: GISS correction:
T march 2007 = ((T1 + T2 + … +Tn)/n)* 0 + 0,6 = 0,6°C
T march 2008 = ((T1 + T2 + … +Tn)/n)* 0 + 0,6 = 0,6°C

Bill P
May 15, 2008 9:30 am

I just heard the official explain himself on the radio. He used the term ‘the computer models tell us….’ about 6 times. This is insane. It would not be so bad if the computer modellers were capable of acknowledging the limitations of their models however experience tells us otherwise.
I can see it now: 5 years from now the ice will still be at current levels or slightly higher yet it will be impossible to get the polar bears off the list because the modellers argue that increasing sea is ‘consistent’ with their models predicting the disapperance of the sea ice.

Perhaps needed: a Model of Computer Modelers:
5 Years Out: Denial of Auditors and Surface Station analysts… (This is isn’t happening to me!)
10 Years Out: Anger as politicians axe funding… (Why is this happening to me?)

Bill P
May 15, 2008 9:35 am

Apologies to Raven. (I’m still figuring out HTML block quotes.) Two paragraphs should be in quotation marks as follows (set off the old-fashioned way):
“I just heard the official explain himself on the radio. He used the term ‘the computer models tell us….’ about 6 times. This is insane. It would not be so bad if the computer modellers were capable of acknowledging the limitations of their models however experience tells us otherwise.
I can see it now: 5 years from now the ice will still be at current levels or slightly higher yet it will be impossible to get the polar bears off the list because the modellers argue that increasing sea is ‘consistent’ with their models predicting the disapperance of the sea ice.”

May 15, 2008 9:36 am

Same as the DDT ban in the ’70’s with the added fillip of a court ordering the E.P.A. to decide: science be damned, politics trumps everything! Now, one of the consequences – intended or not is another issue – of the DDT ban was the death of millions – 30 to 50 million are estimates I’ve read – of humans from malaria and untotalled lost income and wealth production from inability to work or function though not dead from malaria. So, the question before the Committee is: how many are going to die as a consequence of this piece of Green tyranny and government idiocy? Who is going to be included in the victims list? How much longer are we going to tolerate this kind of nonsense? Forever, it would appear.

May 15, 2008 9:41 am

Wowzers. Climateprogress has drunk so much kool-aid, it’s a wonder they can stay out of the bathroom long enough to make that post….

May 15, 2008 9:45 am

Mauna Loa C02 continues to increase, despite the recent dairy posting eluding the contrary. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
While the sun may be the primary driver for temp, I can’t seem to fathom how man-made emissions can have no affect on climate, even as a secondary driver of temp.
Think it may be more evident for higher high temps, and higher low temps amid a larger climate cycle linked to solar activity. And while we may be entering a period of global cooling due to the current solar minimum, is it possible we run the risk of the climate not fully “cooling” due to our high levels of C02 emissions.
It would be helpful to given links to dispute how C02 is not driving temp or a link to sceptics viewpoints refuting C02 as any measure towards influening temp.
Great and very helpful site that I visit regularly. Thank you.

Bill P
May 15, 2008 9:54 am

Great picture and caption, Anthony.
My suggestion for a potientially money-making self-help guide (with apologies to Jon Krakauer):
“Onto thin Ice; Every man’s (and woman’s) guide to politically correct environmentalisms for the 21st century and beyond”
Has a certain ring to it. The handy guide could start with Kempthorne’s:
“While the legal standards under the ESA compel me to list the polar bear as threatened, I want to make clear that this listing will not stop global climate change or prevent any sea ice from melting.”

David S
May 15, 2008 10:28 am

McCain, Obama and Clinton are all big believers in the AGW scam. So get ready for more of the same in the future.
I know this isn’t a political forum so Anthony if you want to delete this post I understand.

May 15, 2008 10:50 am

With the demise of Mann’s Hockey Stick, the growing publicity over the poor surface temp records, the dearth of NATL Tropical Storms, a cooling Pacific and Southern Hemisphere, Artic sea ice seems to be the only consistent hobby horse the Alarmist have in thier arsenal. For over a year, they’ve been harping on it ad nauseum. Now we see why. The lawyers!
You know the game is over, when you must push your agenda through a pile of endless litigation. Look for a class action lawsuit filed against Big Oil for billions of dollars. The Polar Bears do have a function -enriching the trial lawyers bar.

May 15, 2008 10:59 am

If they are a threatened species, does that mean it is now illegal to hunt them for food and fur?
REPLY: Apparently, but there may be exceptions for native eskimos, or maybe not. They only thing certain for now is lawsuits.

May 15, 2008 11:03 am

Flood Guy,
I hate to break you the news, but there hasn’t been any Global Warming since 1998. Despite an increase in CO2 and peak solar activity global temps have slighty cooled. According to the JPL, global SSTs have been cooling since 2005 as well. You may wish to rethink your hypothesis.

May 15, 2008 11:44 am

That game is not easy. Best I could do was 6 penguins 😉

Larry Sheldon
May 15, 2008 12:10 pm

Sometimes reading this stuff gives me something akin to an incipient toothache–not clear what it is that is bothering me, you know?
So, as I understand it, as a result of a court order the polar bears have been listed as “threatened” because the models (what ever that turns out to actually mean).
That reminded me that the wind blew all the ice out of the Northwest Passage (or something) last year, then somebody was fretting that all there was left was “new ice”. Or that it was coming back to fast to be any good. Or something.
So I decided to try and sort it all out. (What’s up with the PB’s in AZ? Coyote rip off some collars? GPS gone nutso? Telemetry froze?)
Noted a comment by Evan Jones in the posting at http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/16/ice-between-canada-and-sw-greenland-highest-level-in-15-years/ “Well, were (sic) within a month of the point where ice will start to decrease. It will be interesting to see how this year’s melting trend goes.”
That was on 16 February instant–“within a month” would have run out certainly by the mid April.
What happened? Did it all decrease? By how much?

Pierre Gosselin
May 15, 2008 12:37 pm

Oh! That’s how it’s calculated.
Well shiver my timbers!
And all this time I thought you had to have a PhD to run that outfit

Pierre Gosselin
May 15, 2008 12:39 pm

If polar bears are on the ESL, then doesn’t that mean eskimos won’t be allowed to hunt them?

May 15, 2008 1:31 pm

Who is going to be included in the victims list?

I can quarentee that it won’t be anyone from any politicians, or beaurocrat’s families.

May 15, 2008 1:36 pm

Well, I am happy Polar Bears are now better protected. As I am happy for any species.
I think they should be protected in any case – if global warming is caused by humans or not – if the artic warms or cools now.
I agree the global warming hysteria is a nonsense – because we certainly do not understand what exactly is going on with climate.
But humans do not give the other species of the planet the chance to continue living. The word population grows so fast making it almost impossible for many other species to coexist with us on the planet. It would be stupid to destroy all the nature and other species – and many already became extinct in the past 10 000 years – because of us. We never know if we may need them – or our kids. We have no right to take away nature completely for our kids.
Just because one species is stable for the last 50 years or sligthly grows is not reason, not to protect them ! The artic isnt an attractive region for humans anyways – so why we have to touch it ?
I think at least 30 % of each country, each ecosystem in the world should remain complete wilderness – by a strict law. No species would die out and we would keep the richtness of our planet.
Independent of global warming

May 15, 2008 1:39 pm

What can I say!!
Posted today on “Icecap.com”.

May 15, 2008 1:47 pm
Alan S. Blue
May 15, 2008 1:48 pm

Larry Sheldon,
Artice Sea Ice Extent April
from NSIDC

May 15, 2008 2:00 pm

Wow, you think with all the brilliant minds on this site there would be more references to data, scientific journals and papers they’ve published.
That’s because you’re all a bunch of crackpots that wouldn’t recognize real science if it bit you. Real science includes computer models and updating those models to include new information. Real science recognizes that the trend lines for both Arctic and and global sea ice are still headed down as long as you use data that’s more than a year old.
And what the hell is your obsession with sunspots? If there’s no global warming it can’t be sunspots; if there is global warming then sunspots are not the most likely explanation but rather a minor influence. Make up you minds.
REPLY: Folks, don’t feed the troll. Not worth the effort.

Tom in Florida
May 15, 2008 2:05 pm

Storm:”The word population grows so fast making it almost impossible for many other species to coexist with us on the planet. It would be stupid to destroy all the nature and other species – and many already became extinct in the past 10 000 years – because of us. We never know if we may need them – or our kids. We have no right to take away nature completely for our kids.”
Perhaps you could lead the way and eliminate your own evil humaness as a start.

Larry Sheldon
May 15, 2008 2:06 pm

“If they are a threatened species, does that mean it is now illegal to hunt them for food and fur?”
Obviously, I am not an expert in this area either, but it is appears that most of the 50,000-odd bears live in not-Alaska, so unless the Canadians knuckle under, this nonsense won’t apply to Eskimos (all of whom live in Russia, anyway don’t they? And I don’t remember if there are polar bears where the Aleuts live. Maybe some Inuits will be involved.
Scandal up that way a while back: A Tlinkt man was discovered in a Haida bed.

Kent Gatewood
May 15, 2008 2:07 pm

How old does sea ice get?

May 15, 2008 2:09 pm

Pierre Gosselin said: “Concerning the bears, it’s high time to pressure the candidates into telling us NOW what steps they intend to take to solve “this problem”. The Interior Dept has spoken, now ask McCain and Obama what actions they intend to implement. Nail them down now so that the American people know what to expect.
Pierre, US politicians only lie when their mouths are moving. And Osama and McCaca have been moving their mouths in abundance now-a-days. I’m not too certain how it is in Germany (haven’t been there in many, many years) but in the US only nitwits believe politicians. They are in it for power, for themselves, and for all their relatives – damn the electorate!
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
PS: this will only be the second time in my life that I refused to vote in the presidential race. The other time was whem Jimmy Caca ran against bumbling Ford. In that race, as in this, you can’t even vote against one or the other — they both suck!

May 15, 2008 2:11 pm

We can’t create more ice for the Polar Bear habitat so what can we do? Club baby seals to make more room for the ESL PB?

May 15, 2008 2:12 pm

@Pierre Gosselin
Come to Canada, you can still hunt them here…and in Churchill Manitoba, you need to take special precautions from this ‘threatened’ species:
And bad polar bears go to jail where they are possibly not given food:
Good thing they aren’t ‘threatened’ in Canada, or we might have to parole them.

Dave Andrews
May 15, 2008 3:03 pm

You say there may be exceptions for native eskimos. This therefore will apply in Alaska right? But presumably those native eskimos are also Alaskans – how can there be one law for some Alaskans but not for others?
REPLY: That’s why we have lawyers ready to harpoon this law from any angle imaginable.

Evan Jones
May 15, 2008 3:28 pm

As an aside, I just went to the WordPress dashboard, and under the science section they have 4 posts listed. Three are for this blog.
Sheesh, ya big bully… 😉

You better watch out. You know hat happened when Harry Potter was hogging three of the top ten spots of the NYT bestseller list? The “banned” HP by excluding all “juvenile fiction”–no matter HOW well it was selling. (“They killed Harry! Bastards.”)
Next thing we know, the Rev will be redefined as a “non-scientist”, and WTFUWT will be determined to be “non-scientific” and thereby purged from the category!
As for the polar bear population, judging by its 300-to-500 percent increase it is obviously out of control. I recommend pruning.

May 15, 2008 3:41 pm

Note that the Arctic sea ice graph has a suppressed zero. Even 2007’s reduction doesn’t look so spectacular.

Retired Engineer
May 15, 2008 3:59 pm

Polar bears may well be endangered. Like deer along the front range of the Rockies. With few preditors, including hunters, they have outgrown their food supply and are not in great health. If those cuddly PB’s have tripled or quintupled in the past 40 years, what kind of pressure does it put on their food supply? They starve and the Goreons say “We were right!” Another excuse to go after Big Oil. Why do you rob banks? (W. Sutton)
How much did the trial lawyers association lobby to get this ruling?

May 15, 2008 4:20 pm

Let me get this straight: Canada has 13 of the 15 tracked “population groups” of polar bears, and isn’t doing anything extraordinary aside from restricting the hunting for the bears, and the US, that has 2 of the 15 population groups of polar bears has designated the polar bears as “threatened”.
What would the US Congress do if, say, Canada reduced all restrictions on hunting of polar bears completely? The population drop would be nearly instantaneous as well as tremendous! To me, it seems the biggest danger to bears is Canadian hunting restrictions. Say, the population of Canadian polar bears goes so high as to be a nuisance and hunting is temporarily encouraged. While the US is enacting legislation to increase the polar bear population, Canada would be doing their best to reduce it!
With tongue firmly in cheek, I’ll propose that Canada hire some human coyotes and truck their spare polar bear population across the Alaskan border…

Larry Sheldon
May 15, 2008 4:24 pm

“Folks, don’t feed the troll. Not worth the effort.”
I wish you could just drop them. No discussion necessary, I’m just sayin…..

May 15, 2008 4:40 pm

“It would be stupid to destroy all the nature and other species – and many already became extinct in the past 10 000 years – because of us. We never know if we may need them – or our kids. We have no right to take away nature completely for our kids.”

If polar bears were a part of my neighborhood, I’d sure as hell take nature completely away from my kids as I wouldn’t want my kids to become their next meal.

Larry Sheldon
May 15, 2008 4:56 pm

Alan S. Blue. Thanks. Looked. Looks to me like we are tracking a “more ice than last year” but “less ice than the long running average”. Is that right?
’bout what a know-nothing would expect, given that things happen in cycles and we aren’t apparently all the way out of the last ice age. But it makes me wonder sometimes when I go out to feed the birds and spot a few Juncos (“snow birds”) when I thought they had all left for the summer.

May 15, 2008 5:06 pm

A fellow poster on another forum summed it up perfectly:
“The problem I have with declaring polar bear as endangered is this: the proclamation dilutes and cheapens the pursuit of protections for other species that are in far worse danger of becoming extinct. Its important to put your priorities in order.”
I couldn’t agree more.

Steve Moore
May 15, 2008 5:30 pm

With the arrival of “Global Warming” in the PacNW this week, I expect to see the local news giving me “Live! On The Scene!” coverage from the zoo describing how the poor polar bears and penguins are managing.
Oh, and I tried to play that silly game yesterday. Gave it a big thumbs down. I looked at it today, and the vote is, shall we shall, “polarized”.

Pamela Gray
May 15, 2008 6:40 pm

Let’s hope the bear huggers don’t get wind about me and marmuts. I hate those nasty rodents. They poop all over high places, like on top of my stack of GOOD lumber in the barn. They also burrow under the floor boards and chew the hell out of old wood. I’ve shot three of these nasty creatures and will be shooting more as soon as I can buy more bullets.

May 15, 2008 6:55 pm

So, how did the polar bears survive the medieval warm period? Or the Roman? etc. For that matter, how did they survive the last ice age? I don’t know the answers to any of those.
How about when the polar bear evolved? Interesting – http://www.geol.umd.edu/~candela/pbevol.html says “Somewhere during the mid-Pleistocene period (roughly 100,000 to 250,000 years ago), a number of brown (same as grizzly) bears (Ursos arctos) probably became isolated by glaciers.”

“Hecht (in Chaline, 1983) describes polar bear evolution: the first “polar bear”, Ursus maritimus tyrannus, was essentially a brown bear subspecies, with brown bear dimensions and brown bear teeth. Over the next 20,000 years, body size reduced and the skull elongated. As late as 10,000 years ago, polar bears still had a high frequency of brown-bear-type molars. Only recently have they developed polar-bear-type teeth.”
Wow – it sounds as though modern PBs didn’t survive the Ice Age, instead, they became PBs.

May 15, 2008 7:21 pm

I killed 48 penguins. I ROCK!!!!

old construction worker
May 15, 2008 7:43 pm

floodguy, If you have been a reading this site for a long time, then you could research past post with the links to disprove CO2 drives the climate theory.
1) CO2 lags temperature has been known since 1992 falsified the theory.
2) Global temperature have been flate or declined since 1998 while CO2 has increased falsified the theory.
3) Tropic ocean evaporation does not produce heat traping clouds falsified the theory.
4) Oceans have been cooling since 2003 falsified the theory.
5) No hot spot in the upper troposphere falsifed the theory.
You go on to say. “While the sun may be the primary driver for temp, I can’t seem to fathom how man-made emissions can have no affect on climate, even as a secondary driver of temp.”
Secondary? The sun, our orbit around the sun, the earth’s wobble, the ocean currents, the cloud cover, water vapor and who knows what else comes before CO2.
How many legs of a table have to be knock out before it will fall over?

Jim Arndt
May 15, 2008 8:14 pm

Ok guys who here is in for a class action suit against Al Gore and the USFWS. LOL that would make me roll. Just like the bear is doing.

Fat Old Guy
May 15, 2008 9:12 pm

I was talking about this travesty to a very liberal friend of mine. He said that polar bear avg weights are down 30% and that this ‘fact’ played a big part in the decision. I can’t find that data anywhere. Does anyone have an idea where that number comes from?

J. Peden
May 15, 2008 9:41 pm

Apart from other facts delinking Polar Bear numbers from alleged AGW, they are BEARS, for God’s sake, and should, therefore, be extremely adaptable. I’d be more worried about them moving South or into adjacent civilization, once “protected” and needing greater area/food sources, given increasing numbers. What a riot!
An average human inhales ” air” and exhales up to 900 grams of CO2 per day.
Beano, I did my own calculations about 3 years ago and came out with about 1000 gms CO2/day, depending upon many assumptions about the size of humans, their activity, presence of fevers causing increased metabolism, etc… Anyway, hooray, it’s a consensus!
Also, from what I calculated, a “vigorously exercising” human can exhale 1lb. CO2/hr.. So should we issue a “warning” to AGW fanatics about their harmful health habits, including being alive, or would they dismiss these facts as “natural”, and therefore not a problem? Regardless, I’m going to warn some certain personal acquaintences just to try to throw them off.

Steve Keohane
May 15, 2008 10:00 pm

Rick Werme:
On how many penguines
would a polar ursine dine,
if a polar ursine on penguines
could dine?
(poetic liberty taken with ‘penguin’)

May 16, 2008 12:04 am

Jim Arndt
I am.
Money “out of his pocket” would “WORK”. He does have an “ego”, you know.
“He might even have to sell his “plane” and “non-Eco” house.
Any “Great” Lawyer’s out there want to take this on “Pro Bono”?

Evan Jones
May 16, 2008 12:08 am

(That is to say, “Good one!”)

May 16, 2008 12:11 am

old construction worker,
Thanks for the reply. I’ve read those postings and they all sound great and make good sense. I guess I’m alittle confused with the fact that our Dept of Energy seems to now overlook this after a period of denying AGW for a good while. Even Bush now agrees with the AGW views. Right or wrong, I think this is the greater public perception, would you agree?
What are the folks/scientists like those here, doing to get the truth out to politicians and the public to correct a policy which seems to be moving, day after day, towards a full blown war against AGW, which I am assuming you feel is headed in the wrong direction? If AGW is a myth, then its about to cost taxpayers allot of money, aside from what they are already going to personally spend to make themselves more “green”. How come viewpoints here and other blogsites, as well as those expressed at the ICCC, are not gaining traction in the public and media amid all the data?
How about that $2500 wager offered by Real Climate to any, regarding comparing the next 5 years temp would be warmer than the previous 5? Is Real Climate’s wager or something similar, anything this website and other sceptics would be interested in? If the mass media is essentially boycotting sceptics’ viewpoints, would this wager put alittle more attention on the anti-AGW viewpoints? Wouldn’t this be helpful as our Congress heads towards a climate bill this summer?
“Why did we propose a bet on this forecast? Mainly because we were concerned by the global media coverage which made it appear as if a coming pause in global warming was almost a given fact, rather than an experimental forecast. This could backfire against the whole climate science community if the forecast turns out to be wrong. Even today, the fact that a few scientists predicted a global cooling in the 1970s is still used to undermine the credibility of climate science, even though at the time it was just a small minority of scientists making such claims and they never convinced many of their peers. If different groups of scientists have a public bet running on this, this will signal to the public that this forecast is not a widely supported consensus of the climate science community, in contrast to the IPCC reports” Real Climate – The Global Cooling Bet Part 2.
I sure would like to see a bit more substance of a head-to-head debate comparing the two sides. Only having a continuous stream of opposing articles and discussion after another, just doesn’t seem to be moving opinion if the sceptic’s viewpoint is the truth.

May 16, 2008 4:06 am

Bear Down, Falling About Laughing
What, no more polar bears in Canada, Greenland or Russia?

May 16, 2008 5:40 am

Fat Old Guy said: “I was talking about this travesty to a very liberal friend of mine. He said that polar bear avg weights are down 30% and that this ‘fact’ played a big part in the decision. I can’t find that data anywhere. Does anyone have an idea where that number comes from?”
Out of the thin air?
Roughly 17 years ago the Lamestream Media began touting the figure that “10% of American males practice homosexuality.” Although data to the contrary wasn’t available at the time, later research suggests the figure is closer to 1%. After tracing down the source of the original quote, the originator (a homosexual activist) stated “I was asked for a figure so I invented one.”
Today, even though the “10%” figure has been debunked, most still quote it as fact.
The same thing is happening regarding AGW. Many still believe in Mann’s “Hockey Stick,” many believe both the Antarctic and Arctic are both melting, many believe Greenland’s name was given to is as a joke in order to induce others to migrate there, and many believe the PBs are dying off because Goffy Gore said so.
Urban Legends are difficult to turn back once they take hold. It’s only through blogs like this that a person can gain the truth. But it’s up to each of us to pass it on if we are to be successful in turning back the liars, deceivers, and parasites of the Planet!
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project

Dave Andrews
May 16, 2008 6:55 am

“Nunavut blames ‘misinformed public opinion’
In a news release, the Nunavut government said the US decision is based on “misinformed public opinion which disregarded sound science and Inuit traditional knowledge”, Premier Paul Okalik said……”It is unfortunate the [US Fish and Wildlife Service] has decided to disregard facts collected by those who have the greatest contact and longest history with polar bears. The truth is that polar bear populations are at near record levels”

May 16, 2008 6:55 am

The testimonies of V. Ramanathan & Charlie Zender before Henry Waxman’s subcommittee.
*CURRENT* black carbon heating effect in the Arctic is equal to CO2’s:
The video: Charlie Zender’s opening statement comes about a third way in, after Ramanathan:
Zender spells it out: In the Arctic significant soot mitigation would be like cutting today’s CO2 level by a third or more and getting an immediate improvement, vs. waiting 50 years for a change with CO2.
(http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071018110734.pdf )
(http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071127165326.pdf )

May 16, 2008 8:02 am

Funny how Congress lobbied hard for the Bush Administration to put the polar bears on the ESL, when by law the standards are set by Congress. All Congress had to do was change the standards. The President did the Democrats and thier trial lawyer masters a favor. In the future, the Dems can now point back to the Bush Admin for creating the problem.
As far as litigation goes, the key for the trial lawyers is to find a federal judge that is supports thier agenda. Look for Big Oil, the public utilities, the automotive industry to become their initial target. No one has much sympathy for the energy companies right now, so a bit of class envy and anger will go a long way. Right now Big Oil has a huge target painted on its back; they will become the new villians. Unlike the tobacco companies, the energy companies provide a vital service. If they must pay out billions in damages, they will just produce less. The trial lawyers of course are the big winners. It appears, this entire kabuki dance with artic ice was just a front for civil litigation.

Wondering Aloud
May 16, 2008 8:09 am

The prize now offered for anyone who can prove AGW scientifically is now at $500,000 over at junkscience.com.
I don’t know how important that is, though it is apparent that what they asked for proof of is what many claim has already been “settled science”

May 16, 2008 9:02 am

Jim Arndt (20:14:23) :
Ok guys who here is in for a class action suit against Al Gore and the USFWS. LOL that would make me roll. Just like the bear is doing.

John Coleman is considering a suit against Gore already.
If there’s any grounds for a lawsuit, it’s against Michael Mann. If a purchaser of a security can sue an accountant for fraud under the Securities Act of 1933 merely by proving a material omission in the registration statement and incurred damages, you’d think some part of international law would provide similar grounds….although I’m no lawyer.
Material omission? Mann still won’t disclose all of his codes that were used in conjunction with the (fraudulent) hockey stick graph. Damages? Just about every piece of climate legislation that has either directly or indirectly led to increased costs for consumers.
If there are any lawyers around here, maybe they’d like to weigh in….

May 16, 2008 9:13 am

While looking up a New Madrid earthquake page for a friend, I came across
“Newly-released USGS information from 9 recent studies presents relationships of polar bears to present and future sea ice environments.”
All look interesting, the first most interesting: “Uncertainty in Climate Model Projections of Arctic Sea Ice Decline.” I’m going to keep a copy of it, I think Figure 9 is a useful version of that crappy DoI graphic. If/When the AMO goes negative, that paper will be quite amusing a few years later.
Steve Keohane – that was deliciously awful, err, awefull. Good job!

May 16, 2008 9:46 am

Flood Guy,
Why did the globe stop warming after 1998? Why has the Southern Hemisphere been cooling since 1979? Why do you say there is global warming if the earth has in fact cooled for a decade?

Bruce Cobb
May 16, 2008 9:48 am

Wow, a real-live, diaper-filled, drooling, pablum-gobbling AGW troll from RC wandered in spraying his spittle along with his RC nonsense. Amazing. Soon, they too will be an endangered species.

May 16, 2008 10:44 am

JP Said: “As far as litigation goes, the key for the trial lawyers is to find a federal judge that is supports thier agenda. ”
The TL work in the same fashion as the ACLU does: have 40-60 ACLY lawyers file suits in various jurisdictions until they get their case assigned to a “friendly” judge. They then drop most of the other suits and concentrate on winning just that one before the “friendly” judge. Once a favorable opinion is rendered, they use it as a precedence.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project

Earle Williams
May 16, 2008 12:17 pm

Just a bit of background info…
The polar bear is protected in the U.S. and has been since the passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972.
US FWS Report on poar bear status:

May 16, 2008 1:24 pm

The comments on this thread lead me to conclude that those posting lack knowledge about how the Endangered Species Act works. I am a retired lawyer with many scars from various ESA battles. Rather than providing that knowledge personally, I refer all readers to Hugh Hewitt, a law school professor, syndicated columnist and radio show host, and ESA scholar. See for example:
An ESA listing provides powerful weapons to those who wish to stop activities in a listed species habitat. The lawyers representing Green groups are skillful. Moreover, the ESA provides bounties in the form of attorneys’ fee awards to successful private litigants. In effect, taxpayers pay the legal fees of the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and like organizations who use the courts to thwart lawful activities under the guise of protecting listed species because the defendants always include an agency of the US government.
Do not underestimate the amount of pain that can be inflicted through the ESA.

Tom in Florida
May 16, 2008 6:03 pm

Please re-read my post (3rd form top). Thank you for confirming my statement.

Evan Jones
May 16, 2008 10:39 pm

The other time was whem Jimmy Caca ran against bumbling Ford.
Ford was a brilliant intellectual. Not to mention, an All-American and head of his debate club in college.
He was house minority leader (no fool’s job) and as president, against all odds and expectations, he cobbled together his people in the “veto-proof congress” and vetoed over 40 bills (a record) and was never once overridden. (And he greatly reduced inflation–but all we remember about it now is poking fun at WIN buttons.)
The press was furious with him and slandered that brilliant ex-athlete as a clumsy, bumbling fool. They did to him what they do to people who question global warming.
But they didn’t fool me.
I want you all to consider this as they call us flat earther deniers who believe the moon landing was faked and try to take our jobs, funding, and certifications away.

Kent Gatewood
May 17, 2008 9:48 am

The FWS report on Polar Bears expresses concern (126) that the native harvest is not sustainable in 6 of the 19 populations.
The reason given for putting Polar Bears under a “threatened” status is global warming.
Does the “threatened” status given any leverage to change the native hunt? In the short term the native hunt seems to be a much greater threat to the bears, but climate change will take the hit.
Also on page 47, “heavy multi-year ice and low densities of ring seals” are linked.
Earl William May 15. 2008 (12:17:00) provided the fws report link.

Evan Jones
May 17, 2008 11:11 pm

I heard on the news that the polar bear classification was specifically and legally delinked with global warming, meaning that a lot of what we have been afraid about just may turn out to be moot.
Remember, this president (like Ford) is smarter than you think. And the reason you think dubya is dumb is the same reason that you think Ford was dumb. That is to say the exact same reason why AGW-subscribers think WE’RE dumb (and evil).
Remember, this is the MSM we’re talking about, here.
Professional historians have always regard newspapers (past and present) as lousy sources, and for good reason.

Jeff Alberts
May 18, 2008 7:39 am

Sorry, Evan, he’s an idiot. He might have smart people near him who manage to keep him from doing something TOO stupid, but when he’s unscripted, his lack of swiftness really shines though.

Evan Jones
May 18, 2008 11:48 am

Not according to the heads of state who have met him.
Actually, he’s terrible when he’s scripted. He’s not a great speechmaker. And that’s what we mainly see. But being inarticulate does NOT equal dumb. During his first term he ran circles around his opponents. Now he’s vetoing stuff (and not getting overridden), he’s getting the “Ford” treatment from the press.
Consider the GW legislation. He was about to get his with a draconian cut from Congress. Instead, what he did was very cleverly kick the can down the road. And it the temps have not gone ‘way up by then, those cuts will never happen. Ans it has forestalled congressional action.
If the press doesn’t like a body and he is not a great orator, how do you think the press portrays him? Over in El Reg, someone commented, “When was the last time a CEO ever had to work hard?” I almost fell out of my chair. But then I rememberd, he’s just parroting what the press says: CEOs are just a bumbling network of incompetent Old Boys.
The folks over at RC “know” we are as dumb as Bush and Ford. Where do you suppose they got that impression?

Jeff Alberts
May 19, 2008 10:06 am

Of course heads of state aren’t going to say anything bad about him, because they usually want something from us.
I don’t watch MSM, so his stupidity is what it is. Being inarticulate doesn’t equal smart either, perception is extremely important, if you can’t pronounce simple words, and make up words, you’re not seen as too bright. If it’s an act, he needs to stop, it reflects badly on Americans.

Evan Jones
May 19, 2008 1:42 pm

It’s not an act. He’s just inarticulate. And that doesn’t mean he’s dumb. I have known some dumb-sounding people who were far more intelligent than I am.
He graduated from Yale with an MBA. (Which is more than I can say with a lousy MA in History from Columbia.) Yale is not a playboy playpen like Harvard or a radical roadhouse like Columbia, it’s freakin’ TOUGH.

Evan Jones
May 19, 2008 1:44 pm

Remember how dumb Ford was made to look. all it requires is two shots out of context.

Pamela Gray
May 21, 2008 6:44 am

This ploy may be a way to appease liberal voters so the landslide in November won’t be too embarrassing. As far as oil exploration is concerned, any exploration and extraction of discovered deposits will NOT reduce the price of oil. It may in fact increase prices. Why? Folks, there ain’t no more liquid pools of sweet oil just below the surface. You can’t suck it up with a straw. The Beverly Hillbillies can’t just shoot a bullet into the ground and find oil. So far, the rest of the undiscovered big oil deposits thought to be in the ground are WAY deep or are in the form of rock. And even that isn’t petroleum oil, its called keragen. The extraction and refinement process will be extremely expensive with very little profit margin for stock holders. And after all that work, we will still end up with a low grade product useful for cars but certainly not for jets, and other forms of transportation that require high grade oil.
Bears or no bears, for many people oil exploration and extraction is a pie in the sky dream that is still holding on to the days of Texan oil rigs spouting black liquid over the bodies of jubilant wild catters. A belief somewhat like the one that says that polar bears are an endangered species.
All of this information is readily available for general reading yet I am constantly amazed at the number of people who complain about all that oil in the ground not being used because of some treehugger preventing the good oil companies from extracting. They ain’t extracting because they cain’t pay the stock holders their penny a barrel with a straight face while trying to convince rednecks that the rocks they will be putting in their tanks cost $15.00 a pound.

Evan Jones
May 21, 2008 9:12 am

But this is an old story: We were told (in Limits for Growth) we would be out of aluminum because high-grade bauxite was running short. But 6% of the earth’s crust is aluminum. 60% is feldspars (aluminum silicates). So while the price went up a little, supplies never failed or even ran short.
Fortunately the aluminum industry never had to deal with what the oil industry has had heaped on it.
The tougher grades of oil become profitable at around 30 to 40 bucks a barrel. And as those methods become more advanced the price goes ‘way down. If multiple layers of taxation didn’t destroy the profit margin and if stifling regulation didn’t prevent the building of refineries, fuel would be available at a reasonable price and with acceptable profit.

Joe S
May 21, 2008 8:23 pm

I found the link at Hugh Hewitt’s site http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog
Governor Palin and the Polar Bears

September 10, 2008 1:27 pm

The Facts:
Of the 20 distinct subpopulations of polar bears, one or possible two are declining in Baffin Bay; more than half are known to be stable; and 2 subpopulations are actually increasing around the Beaufort Sea. Global polar bear populations have increased dramatically over the past several decades, from about 5000 in the 60’s to 25000 today. The 2 populations in decline come from areas where it has actually been getting colder over the past fifty years, whereas the two increasing populations reside in areas where it is getting warmer. The best studied polar bear population lives on the western coast of Hudson Bay. That its population has declined 17 percent, from 1200 in 1987 to 950 in 2004 has gotten much press. Not mentioned in the press, however, is that since 1981 the population has soared from just 500, thus eradicating any claim of a decline. Moreover, nowhere in the news coverage is it mentioned that 300 to 500 bears are shot each year, with 49 shot on average on the west coast of Hudson Bay. Even if we take the story of decline at face value, it means we have lost about 15 bears to global warming each year, whereas we have lost 49 each year to hunting.
The polar bear story teaches us 3 things. First, we hear vastly exaggerated and emotional claims that are simply not supported by data. Second, polar bears are not the only story. While we hear only about the troubled species, it is also a fact the many species will do better with climate change. In general, the Artic Climate Impact Assessment { http://www.acia.uaf.edu/ } projects that the Arctic will experience increasing species richness and higher ecosystem productivity. It will have less polar desert and more forest. The assessment actually finds that higher temperatures mean more nesting birds and more butterflies. This does not make up for the polar bears but it is important that we hear both sides of the story. The 3rd point is that our hysteria makes us focus on the wrong solutions. We are being told that the plight of the polar bear shows “the need for stricter curbs on greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming.” Even of we accept the flawed idea of using the 1987 population of polar bears around Hudson Bay as a baseline, so that we lose 15 bears each year, what can we do? If we try helping them by cutting greenhouse gases, in theory we can at the very best avoid 15 bears dying. In actuality the number is about 0.06 bear deaths avoided. But 49 bears from the same population are being shot each year, and this we can easily do something about. Therefore, if we really want a stable population of polar bears, dealing first with the 49 shot ones might be a much better strategy. Yet it is not the one we hear about. In the climate debate we mostly Don’t hear the proposals that will do the most good but only the ones that involve cutting green house gases.

%d bloggers like this: