Free Markets, Free People

Polar bears not "endangered" per White House – Al Gore in shock

A favored myth of the warmist alarmist is we’re killing off the polar bears through AGW by melting their habitat.

Not so fast says the Obama administration:

The Obama administration is sticking with a George W. Bush-era decision to deny polar bears endangered species status. In a court filing Wednesday, the Fish and Wildlife Service defended the previous administration’s decision to give the polar bear the less-protective “threatened” species designation, a move that will frustrate environmentalists who hoped for stronger protections under the Endangered Species Act.

One of the more obvious things most should understand, at least by now, is getting an animal on the endangered list isn’t so much about the animal is about power. All sorts of regulatory restrictions kick in with such a designation.

And the enviros get to help enforce them. Go out on Ft. Bragg NC’s maneuver areas and marvel at the red-cockaded woodpecker’s power – and the the enviro monitors who sit out in the habitat area and ensure soldiers don’t invade the woodpecker’s space.

The same sort of power would accrue the enviros with the placement of the polar bear on the endangered list.

FWS Director Rowan Gould said the 2008 "threatened" listing was made "following careful analysis of the best scientific information, as required by the ESA." At the time, the service determined the bears weren’t danger of extinction, so did not warrant the “endangered” status.

The bears were listed as "threatened" because they face serious threats from projected decline in its sea ice habitat due to global warming would result in them likely being in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.

Typical of the "science" used by the alarmists is this:

In a news release issued after its conference last July, the PBSG concluded that only one of 19 total polar bear subpopulations is currently increasing, three are stable and eight are declining. Data was insufficient to determine numbers for the remaining seven subpopulations. The group estimated that the total number of polar bears is somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000. (Estimates of the population during the 1950s and 1960s, before harvest quotas were enacted, range from 5,000 to 10,000.)

So the polar bear population has more than doubled from the high 1950’s estimate yet they’re "endangered" according to some? This little caveat is also listed:

However, the PBSG quickly acknowledged that “the mixed quality of information on the different subpopulations means there is much room for error in establishing” the numbers, and “the potential for error, given the ongoing and projected changes in habitats and other potential stresses, is cause for concern.”

Or said another way, "we don’t know what the real polar bear population is but it must be in decline and, btw, our projected decline is based on those stellar climate change models that have been so accurate to this point". Regardless, it is hard to sell endangered species when the species has had a 100% plus growth in 50 years (with harvesting).

The “science?”

Harry Flaherty, chair of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board in the capital of Iqaluit, says the polar bear population in the region, along the Davis Strait, has doubled during the past 10 years. He questions the official figures, which are based to a large extent on helicopter surveys.

“Scientists do a quick study one to two weeks in a helicopter, and don’t see all the polar bears. We’re getting totally different stories [about the bear numbers] on a daily basis from hunters and harvesters on the ground,” he says.

Want to make a bet on who is right?

Bottom line: “Science” in the name of a political agenda is no science at all.  And as more information continues to come out, it appears that the “science” of AGW isn’t based in science so much as it is the accrual of power and control to those who would love to dictate how you must live – for the planet, of course.



26 Responses to Polar bears not "endangered" per White House – Al Gore in shock

  • We live in strange times.
    We can afford to worry about how to “save the Polar Bear”.
    Not long ago, we would worry about how to prepare a Polar Bear.

  • The Obama administration is sticking with a George W. Bush-era decision

    >>>>  It’s like the new fill in the blank game, because for all the reviling of Bush,  it seems practically ALL of his policies (including the most demonized) are still in force.


    • I think we should start the following theory to explain to them why it was bad and evil and  stupid of Bush to do certain things, but Obama does them anyway. It will fit right into the paranoid leftist mindset.

      It’s Rove and Cheney. See, they were even more successful at gathering power during Bush’s administration than the left claimed. So they’re still pulling the strings behind the scenes. They’re secretly forcing Obama and Democrats in Congress to do all the things leftists hate.

      They’ve got something on him, man, I’m telling you. Wake up sheeple. Obama is just a pawn. Rove and Cheney are still in control. Just go down the list of the stuff Obama promised that somehow he can’t do:

      Close Guantanamo

      Pass climate change legislation to save the planet

      Raise taxes on those nasty rich people

      Get a full public option so that poor children have healthcare

      Pass card check legislation so unions, those upright protectors of workers’ right, can more easily defeat the wicked corporatists

      Etc. etc. etc.

      All of them are priorities of the Rove/Cheney axis and their corporatist allies. Since Obama and his supermajority couldn’t pass all these constraints on the corporatists, the obvious conclusion is that those guys hold vastly more power than even the left feared. Look at the horriffic battle over healthcare to see the awesome power of this fully armed and operational Rove/Cheney death machine in action. Why, those brave, courageous Democrats barely got anything passed! And many of them were drummed out of office because of it! Raw power, man, Rove/Cheney is all about raw power.

      Not passing the left’s agenda certainly has nothing to do with the fact that those were bad laws that would cause loss of freedom, economic deprivation, and a long term descent to an economic meltdown. Not according to the left, anyway, who think those laws are somehow cost free and imbue bureaucrats with magical powers to make the world right. So it’s gotta be Rove/Cheney doing it. It’s just gotta.

      • Sounds like Erpish logic to me….

        • One thing for sure: if a New York Times or Newsweek columnist published an opinion piece claiming this “theory” were true, the imbecile from Maine would jump on it like a starving coyote jumps on a squirrel.

          I’ve lost count of the number of times I saw some preposterous assertion in one of his smug comments and then later run across the leftist opinion piece it obviously came from.

          • Too true.
            Original thinking was not something for which he could be convicted…

          • I kinda miss the little fella though.  Doubtless he’ll be back the minute Boehner makes a mistake of some sort…

          • I  kinda miss the little fella though.

            To me, that’s like missing possums. They’re slow, stupid, tear open garbage and spread it around, and get worse if you don’t continually fight them back.

          • Unfortunately, the prophets of climate doom violate this idea. No matter what happens, it always confirms their basic premise that the world is getting hotter. The weather turns cold and wet? It’s global warming, they say. Weather turns hot? Global warming. No change? Global warming. More hurricanes? Global warming. No hurricanes? You guessed it.

        • In fairness to possums…they make a tasty stew.
          Erp…not so much…

  • The “threatened” designation does seem to be the right one, assuming we have some idea as to what the ideal population numbers should be.  Listing them as endangered because there may come a time in the future when their habitat might become less hospitable would have been remarkably stupid.  Or ordinarily political.  Making sure we avoid a return to a time when they were at risk of being hunted out of existence is not a bad thing, IMO.
    As for Obama, I feel that he has become the victim of his own rhetoric, his own campaign messaging, and his own tactics in dealing with opponents and critics (both Republican and Democrat).  Anything he does now gets panned by either the right or the left, and few people feel inclined to step up with a good word when his actions are to their particular benefit.  In wanting to grab credit for any success and spread blame to others for any failure, he has ended up getting criticism for every success and for every failure.  I think that he’s lost his party, and he has precious little time to win it back before the campaign season for 2012 begins.

    • Yes, indeed. But since he rode to success on post-modern leftism, seeing him stewed by the that vile brew is just deserts. The narrative is established. Once that’s done, it takes a concerted effort by the entire left to change it, and I don’t think he commands the godlike respect he needs to do that any longer.

  • “Want to make a bet on who is right?”
    Well, I’ve heard the polar bears are walking in each other’s tracks to hide their numbers, AND, they’ve adopted a form of camouflage that makes them hard to see in the snow.  Very clever, very advanced, so it’s been difficult for us to count them.  Plus we rarely see them from our campus apartments in New York and California, so we’re fairly convinced their numbers must be in decline.

    • There’s the old joke about the young Eskimo hunter, trained to watch for attacking Polar Bears by watching for their black eyes and nose.
      On finding the young hunter badly mauled, an older hunter asked why he did not remember his training.
      The young hunter croaked, “The bugger ran  at me with his eyes closed and his paws over his nose!”
      I love sight-gags.

      • IIRC, they actually will push snow or ice in front of them to hide their nose when they are hunting. So cute! As long as you are not the one they are hunting!

    • I’m sure if they really wanted to, they could use data adjustment programs to hide the decline.

      Or maybe they’re already using them to hide the increase. That’s the problem when collectivism contaminates science. Tainted science really isn’t science at all.

  • Damn the facts, we have this leftist agenda to follow.  Good grief.

  • These environmental zealots are Nazis.
    In 1986, we were working on $100M set of instrumentation range upgrades over the Gulf of Mexico in support of the Aim-120 missile development program.  If the USAF delayed Hughes missile development testing, we would have to pay $28M per month in standby costs, so it is an understatement to say we were schedule sensitive.   One of the upgrades involved putting custom telemetry antennas on 90′ poles so we could maintain rf link with missiles, targets and relay aircraft down range.  I tried to buy some creosote poles, but procurement said I had to use more environmentally friendly brine cured poles at about 3 times the cost.  We put up the poles first, then had our climbers install the antennas.  The data guys loved the set up.  Unfortunately, so did a family of endangered red-cocked woodpeckers who pecked four 4″ holes in the last 10′ of our new pole.  The climbers were afraid to go up the weakened timber, so I arranged to borrow a cherry picker to retrieve my antenna.  That’s when someone called the US Fish & Wildlife Service who had an office in Panama City Beach.
    A green truck with a guy in a green shirt drove in and told our contractor we had to stop or we would disturb the “rookery.”  He had a 3″ thick book and while he was reading me the law, I motioned to my RCA guy  in the basket to take down the antenna.  There were medium sized birds flying everywhere.  By this time he was extremely agitated repeating, “you can’t do that!”  I handed him the book and asked him to show me where it said USAF officer cannot, after being directed by a USAF general officer, remove USAF antenna from a USAF pole on a USAF base.  In a huff, he put on his smokey bear hat and his birth control glasses and drove away.
    I called the general and told him what I’d done,why, and that he should expect a call from someone in the Department of Interior.  He laughed and told me that as punishment I should go to bed with no supper.