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.
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”.
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.
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.
I killed 48 penguins. I ROCK!!!!
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?
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.
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?
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.
Rick Werme:
On how many penguines
would a polar ursine dine,
if a polar ursine on penguines
could dine?
(poetic liberty taken with ‘penguin’)
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”?
Terrible.
(That is to say, “Good one!”)
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.
Bear Down, Falling About Laughing
What, no more polar bears in Canada, Greenland or Russia?
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
http://www.climateclinic.com
“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”
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/05/15/bear-reax.html
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:
(http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1639)
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.
Also:
(http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071018110734.pdf )
(http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1550)
(http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071127165326.pdf )
(http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/testimonials/BlackCarbonHearing-testimony.pdf)
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.
floodguy
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”
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….
While looking up a New Madrid earthquake page for a friend, I came across
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar%5Fbears/
“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!
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?
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.
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
http://www.climateclinic.com
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:
http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pdf/Polar_Bear_%20Status_Assessment.pdf
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:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2008/05/16/polar_bear_pushback
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.