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:
http://www.doi.gov/issues/polar_bears.html
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:
http://www.gamesfree.ca/other_games/810/Polar_Bear_Parking.html
Play the game and watch the “education” at the end. Note to intellectually challenged game designers: Penguins don’t inhabit the arctic.
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. 🙂
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).
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.
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.
http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/2008/05/14/may-2008-update-on-global-temperature-part-1/
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.
Nathan Bobbs, Yes, let’s replace carbon fuels with Pixie Dust. Everything you say is not true.
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.
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.
I will type this once, in allcaps for effect: THE WESTERN HUDSON POLAR BEARS ARE HUNTED AND RECENTLY HAD THE LIMIT ON THEIR HARVEST REDUCED.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2007/09/21/bear-quota.html
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.
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.
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”.
AE General said:
“Hat tip to another blogger for pointing this out:
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/beartracker/”
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.
This fits no thread and all but…
I was just reading up on some of this controversy and I stumbled into this:
http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winning-especially-with-the-gop/
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?
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.
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.
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.”
http://www.informs.org/article.php?id=1383
Sounds like the same thing the NCPA said about the IPCC.
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
BEER FOR BEAR
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.”
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.
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….
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.