On one hand, we have a sensible decision, on the other, no good deed goes unpunished. – Anthony
U.S. global warming rules won’t change to help polar bears
By Jim Tankersley
Reporting from Washington — The Interior Department on Friday let stand a Bush administration policy barring the federal government from using the precarious state of the U.S. polar bear population as a reason to crack down on global warming, upsetting environmentalists and cheering oil and gas companies.
…
“The single greatest threat to the polar bear is the melting of Arctic Sea ice due to climate change,” Salazar said in a conference call announcing the decision. But the Endangered Species Act “is not the appropriate tool for us to deal with what is a global issue,” he added.
Like Bush administration officials before them, Interior officials said it would be impossible to directly link any one factory or power plant to the decline in polar ice, and thus impractical to regulate their emissions.
Environmental groups promised to sue.
“It just doesn’t make any sense to recognize that the polar bear is threatened and then exempt the primary threat to the species,” said Noah Greenwald, biodiversity program director for the Center for Biological Diversity.
…
Energy industry groups celebrated Friday, as did many Republicans.
“The Endangered Species Act is not the proper mechanism for controlling our nation’s carbon emissions,” said Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute.
…
President George W. Bush’s Interior Department listed the polar bear as threatened last year. But shortly before Bush left office, the agency issued a rule prohibiting the government from using the bear’s status under the Endangered Species Act to curb greenhouse gas emissions, closing what Bush officials called a “back door” to climate regulation.
Salazar pledged to reconsider the rule when he took office in January. On Friday, he said that revoking the rule would lead to “uncertainty and confusion” in the department’s efforts to protect polar bears.
Instead, he said, the U.S. must tackle climate change with a comprehensive set of emissions limits, such as the one President Obama is pushing Congress to enact this year.
…
Yet Salazar sided with Bush on another high-profile species issue, moving ahead with a plan to remove gray wolves from the endangered list in the Great Lakes region and parts of the Mountain West.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Matt E
I hope the public come to realise the good things that science has done for mankind.Extreme weather warnings have saved countless lives,I hope the day will come when an earthquake warning can be issued in enough time to save people.That said,I hope scientists takes a long look at what happened,and learns something from it.Maybe an independent world science organisation,or something like that.There is corruption in every branch of society,science is no different.
A reminder on the polar bear photo at the top. When I first saw I thought it was a good perch to look for food, passing British adventurers, etc. Mr. Gore, of course, had a better use for it:
Credit for the photo goes to Amanda Byrd, and that’s another source of controversy:
More at http://newsbusters.org/node/11879
The photo of the day is Pen doing ’science’
Which, with his measuring skills, will also prove conclusively that it’s possible to land a Twin Otter on six inches of ice…
I stumbled on this quotation just now, from Harold Macmillan, one time Prime Minister of Britain. It seems apposite:
“We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.”
Dr. Taylor and Dr. Dowsley published a nice overview of their opinion of the status of global polar bear populations and their alleged imminent extinction due to climate change.
Demographic and Ecological Perspectives on the Status of Polar Bears, by Dr. M. Taylor and Dr. M. Dowsley (2008)
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/demographic_and_ecological_polar_bear_perspectives.html
Excerpts-
“The concern that polar bears will decline if the climate continues to warm is valid. However, the assertion that polar bears will become extinct unless immediate measures are taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions is irrational because it is inconsistent with the long-term persistence of polar bears through previous periods of warming and cooling; and because the IPCC climate model predictions 50 and 100 years into the future do not suggest a future with insufficient sea ice to support polar bears as a viable species.”
“Although two polar bear subpopulations (Western Hudson Bay and Southern Beaufort Sea) no longer appear to be viable due to reduction in sea ice habitat, polar bears as a species do not appear to be threatened by extinction in the foreseeable future from either a demographic or an ecological perspective.”
“The popular notion that polar bears are declining or already expatriated worldwide has been initiated and perpetuated by environmental organizations and individuals who apparently believe that current subpopulation numbers and trends are an insufficient basis for an appropriate status determination. These individuals and organizations suggest that an ecological consideration constitutes more appropriate methodology to assess status of polar bears and presumably all species. Observations of natural mortality, intra-specific aggression, poor condition, and even healthy bears in good condition on ice floes have been cited as evidence of a population impacts on polar bears due to declining sea ice. Anecdotal information, although useful and interesting, is not equivalent to scientific information based on valid statistical analysis of sample data. Simultaneously, traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) from Inuit has been largely ignored because TEK is mostly oral, and because TEK generally does not support the assertion that polar bear populations are in general, or even local decline.”
Old joke (that even made its way across the Atlantic): Why did New York get all the landfill sites and California get all the lawyers? New York got first choice. (Apologies to Kaboom, Roger Sowell and any other WUWT-reading lawyers. I couldn’t resist.)
Sorry – I think that should have been New Jersey.
I’ve had the pleasure of knowing a few real scientists in my life, including a couple that you wouldn’t let out except on special holidays. To a person they were explorers who would admit to wrong turns and conclusions, and then poke around in another dark corner for more clues. These folks you don’t loose faith in. But they are not the ones the news services like to interview either.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me we started to slide when businesses stopped funding pure research and development departments. ATT, Dupont, Westinghouse, 3M, Kodak, HP, etc etc. These organizations, while directed along certain lines of thinking like communication, chemical processes, photography and the like produced some of the greatest discoveries of the last century – often by happy accident. These businesses also funded university research to a large extent as well. Yes, it wasn’t all hugs and kisses then, because anywhere you have people politics is in play – but you have to admit, it was productive.
Has there been one breakthrough discovery this century? I can’t think of one that doesn’t have its roots firmly planted in the 20th century. We are nearly a tenth of the way into this century and the voyage of discovery has wrecked on the shoals of government funding. Funding provided for the express purpose of federal policy direction. Probably with the understood provision that the policy in question is such-and-such, and this grant is given with the beief that policy will be supported by the data.
The answer to MattE is no, I won’t loose respect for true scientists whatever their belief, because these people are explorers and admit their errors then poke their noses into another dark corner.
Mike
Um,
Third paragraph, last line, beief should by belief (curse that sticky “L”!!)
MJB
Polar bears? What polar bears? They went extinct long ago during much warmer periods than todays’. Such fevered imaginations those “environmentalists” have!
It seems they’ve adapted to climate change before. If only we humans were as smart!
MattE (02:52:51) :
“As a scientist, one thing that worries me is what the public will think of science when the predictions fall flat. AGW is the biggest public display of ’science’ and when it crashes it will reflect poorly on all of us.”
I couldn’t agree more. This is PRECISELY what worries me more than anything else. Science is already, as Carl Sagan aptly put it “a candle in the dark” of our “demon-haunted planet”. The number of human persons who has a clear idea even of what it consists of is almost vanishingly small when the global population is considered. The rise of “fundamental” (read: simplistic) religious groups threatens a new Dark Age, and the likes of the young earthers out there are always looking for an opportunity to shame what they perceive as “mainstream” science. The collapse of the AGW paradigm may well bring with it some serious consequences for the already beleaguered public image of Science, and hugely increase public distrust.
This is why WUWT (and its like) is SUCH an important blog, since by and large it is highly science-regarding, and careful in its content, even attracting regular posts from acclaimed public figures in the scientific community. In order to thrive, Science must be true to its roots, and be truly independent. The chief sickness of AGW hype is that it overpoliticizes what ought to be a much more purely scientific inquiry.
The polar bears are fine, I’m going to snip myself about the lack of benefit to politicians for regulating polar bears. I have done what I think is an interesting plot of arctic ice. – Lots of work for a simple result.
I’ve expanded on the trend plot and done a calculation of trend for each pixel of the gridded data. I don’t think I’ve ever seen the data presented this way, it revealed an increased ice level in the Bering strait as the weather pushed ice out from the cap.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/arctic-ice-flux/
Seeing the trend in flow show up so visibly was surprising to me.
Anthony,
Rather than “no good deed goes unpunished”, I would suggest “hoist by one’s own petard”. (Being just a simple red neck, I thought I’d better look it up:
http://www.bartleby.com/59/4/hoistbyoneso.html )
When the AlGoracle negotiated the Kyoto accords for the United States, the Clinton Administration floated a trial balloon to see if they could get it approved by the Senate. There was not a single Democrat vote for it, much less a Republican vote.
“On 25 July 1997,…..the U.S. Senate unanimously passed……..should not be a signatory”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
For the eight years of the Bush Administration, the Democrats used the failed Kyoto treaty as a cudgel to beat Republicans. And the sycophants that repeated their drivel in the press failed to mention that not a single Democrat supported the treaty.
(It was reported, but not widely. There are a few in the media that are willing to say that the king has no clothes.)
Now the Democrats have total control over both the White House and Congress. They can pass any legislation they want and the voters have chosen that the Republicans can not stop anything. In deed, Nancy Pelosi has changed house rules to cut Republicans out of the process altogether.
The Democrats know that cap-and-trade and other “green” regulations will complete the ruination of the US economy. They will increase energy prices and take tens of billions of tax dollars out of an already weakened economy. And they are stuck with their rhetoric.
This is much like their claims that they didn’t know about the extreme interrogation techniques being used by the Bush Administration: Now we know that yes, they did know in detail what was going on and they lied about it in an attempt to cause the Bush Administration to fail.
Their chickens are coming home to roost.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack
Our chums on the ice have posted their first results
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/science
Open the excel file. Note all the gaps in the data. Maybe they only drill when they are on thin ice? Hence the average 1.77
Note the disclaimer: ‘Measurements biased for undeformed ice.’
They didn’t do ‘science’ on 17 days out of 45. Or maybe they did but the results they got were wrong so they left them out.
Is there anyway to cross check this ‘data’ with the results from the Bremen survey? They give coordinates so should be straight forward, but of course only if they covered the same ground.
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/science
I don’t know why the insistence on that imaginary polar bears extinction. Hybridization between polar bears (Ursus maritimus) and brown bears (Ursus arctos) is happening at the present time. Hybridization is possible because the two species are genetically related and is unequivocal signal of an entry of polar bears to territories of gray bears. If the problem was real, I would charge on hunters more than on a supposed melting of the cryosphere.
Compare and contrast the data in the excel file with the team’s mission statement (still showing on the ‘science’ page)
“The Catlin Arctic Survey’s highly experienced team will be travelling on foot, hauling sledges from approximately 81°N 130°W, across 1000 km of drifting sea ice, for over 90 days, in temperatures as low as -50°C, towards the North Geographic Pole.
The surface-based team has the experience to continue the Survey through blizzards, white-outs, fog, and across ice rubble-fields, even donning immersion suits when open water and thin ice crossings deem it necessary.
Over 30 different types of measurement and sample will be taken by the surface team (some continuously, others hourly, daily or weekly) from the water column (using a SeaCat CTD Profiler), the ice/snow layers and the atmosphere. Such information will build a benchmark data set on the state of the ice, allowing for a better understanding of the interaction between the processes affecting the condition of the sea ice.
The team’s ground-penetrating radar (SPRITE) will distinguish between the base ice layer and any over-lying snow layer, as it is the thickness of the ice which is an important parameter for lifespan estimates by computer modellers.”
I count 44 datapoints in all measured over the forty five days shown. Pretty poor return I would say.
I spent a little time at Huffingtonpost yesterday talking with the biggest bunch of bleeding hearts you’ll ever encounter. This one guy, despite the fact that I showed him graphs and charts showing the ice was in fact still there, kept referring me to Disney’s ‘Earth’….because that’s how he knows the polar bears are endangered. ‘Oh, the children were crying’ he said. Oh the outrage. Seriously, that’s how they think.
Polar bears aren’t going to be doing much hunting on ice where they’re prey can’t get through. I would think that if we go into an extreme cold regime where you’re looking at thick multiyear ice their hunting range could become more limited rather than less.
Check out the Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent graph at Cryosphere Today.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
Note that the slope of the decline curve (May to July, say) last year is twice as steep as the current decline slope. Can’t say whether this trend will hold, of course, but at the moment it certainly seems that we are headed for a less extensive melt than last year.
I would not cheer this, it is simple housekeeping in the Administration to make sure there is no cross-purpose regulations between agencies. The EPA is the Gestapo on GHG emissions and having to bring the DOI in is counter productive to the plan.
The environmental lobby will rattle some sabres, but will back off as to not hurt the chances of the EPA regulations. Speaking of which the clock is ticking on this front and the EPA regardless of public comments will rule that GHGs are a dangerous pollutant. The Obama administration has effectively doubled the EPA budget in 2010 to 13.8 Billion Dollars through the Stimulus and Budget, why would you need to do that if you had any intention of not regulating GHG? The regulations are being written in advance of the finding thanks to the extra 3.6 Billion (Operating budget was 7.2B at the EPA in 2008 Budget) given to the EPA in the Stimulus for 2009.
When in doubt about a Government Action follow the money.
Shameless self promotion bit at the end…;)
I am planning to be in Seattle on May 21st, as long as my work schedule will allow it, for the EPA Public Hearing (Seattle .. land of the 20c plastic bag and coffee cup tax, you think that was an accident?) and hope to blog it on my site.
The photo almost looks like a tongue-in-cheek Disney creation. See if you can see what I see, and I hope a cartoonist with ‘paint’ or some other program can embellish it, but the highest bear (at 9 O’clock) looks like it’s sitting on the head of a large-billed duck. The ice at 6 oclock looks like a Pirouetting pig, the ice at 3, looks like the back end of a dancing elephant, and the one at 12 looks like the back of a head of a dancing elephant.
Make that last one the side of the head of a dancing elephant.
Paul Coppin (03:47:50) :
““precarious state of the U.S. polar bear population”
I guess as a Canadian, I have to say “what U.S. polar bear population’?”
Great catch! I had overlooked that in the article. A little more evidence of the laziness of environmental reporters (read: advocates)
chris y (06:44:48) :
“Dr. Taylor and Dr. Dowsley published a nice overview of their opinion of the status of global polar bear populations and their alleged imminent extinction due to climate change.”
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/demographic_and_ecological_polar_bear_perspectives.html
I’ve read this through recently. Well worth the time. The interesting part is that Dr. Taylor doesn’t try to fight the global warming theory, but uses the IPCC ice estimate for the analysis. Using AGW data, he still determines the polar bears are not in any forseeable danger of extinction.
Let’s see… Should I trust the PR efforts of WWF and Greenpeace or a researcher that has been studying polar bears for 30 years? Hmmm…
BarryW (08:07:43) :
Polar bears aren’t going to be doing much hunting on ice where they’re prey can’t get through. I would think that if we go into an extreme cold regime where you’re looking at thick multiyear ice their hunting range could become more limited rather than less.
Indeed, Barry; polar bears extinction is another irrefutable idea.
The Greenies might have their day in court, and might ‘somehow’ be tried before an activist judge. But the defining problem of our time is the relentless brainwashing by National Geographic, Discovery and the media at large. Huge chunks of the population, and most so, the young people, take it as read that any hint of extremity of hot, cold, dry or wet weather is a direct outcome of despicable manmade global warming. (Oops! Climate change). Probably earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis too. Those California fires–don’t even ask the question. Who needs to so much as enquire as to whose responsibility they might be?
What I don’t see is those people who are so uptight about electricity and oil refusing to have anything to do with electricity and oil. It would demonstrate considerably better sincerity if they were to permanently pull their main breakers and confine their transportation to the riding of bicycles while never forgetting to wear their CO2 absorption gear.
Thank you Anthony for working so tirelessly to restore a modicum of sanity to this twisted and beleagured planet. We all owe you a huge debt of gratitude!
Geoff Alder