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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
WFL,
Please re-read my post (3rd form top). Thank you for confirming my statement.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Remember how dumb Ford was made to look. all it requires is two shots out of context.
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.
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.
I found the link at Hugh Hewitt’s site http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog
Governor Palin and the Polar Bears
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90QBM4G1&show_article=1&catnum=0
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.