Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Those endangered polar bears
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, May 15, 2008

I'm certainly not averse to taking steps to save a real endangered species - reasonable steps of course. But I prefer the species actually be endangered, not just one which fits in nicely with the overall scheme of an agenda - like AGW. That description, as far as I can tell would fit polar bears:
Polar bears are not the fragile, vulnerable creatures of liberal iconography. They have thrived in the Arctic for thousands of years, both through periods when their sea-ice habitat was smaller, and larger, than it is now. They will continue to adapt – and the Endangered Species Act can't make the slightest difference.

Such realities haven't prevented green showboaters from claiming victory after the Bush Administration designated the polar bear as a "threatened" species yesterday. And it is a kind of victory, though the ruling itself is mostly symbolic – at least for now. However, this is really the triumph of bad legislation over the democratic process.
The WSJ's point is important as it points to a movement really just getting started within our legislative process. Polar bears are only a sign of what is to come if any of the three present presidential candidates gain office. Science, for all the complaints the left has about the current administration ignoring it, isn't the basis of the legislation. Nor will it be if we start talking about carbon taxes or cap and trade programs.

If science were the basis for the legislation making polar bears a threatened species, you'd think this from Dr. Mitchell Taylor and Dr. Martha Dowsley in the SPPI report on polar bears:
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.


Current and historical polar bear subpopulation performance demonstrates that viable polar bear subpopulations have persisted and generally increased throughout the current period of climate warming ...

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. ... Anecdotal information, although useful and interesting, is not equivalent to scientific information based on valid statistical analysis of sample data.
But when politicians with low, even abysmal, popularity ratings see a fairly easy and low-cost (to them) way of pandering to a special interest group, science is not going to stand in their way.

The WSJ points to the real danger, of course:
The greatest danger is that this ruling will be distorted by the courts, where it is inevitably headed. On the other hand, not listing the polar bear would have proceeded to litigation too, with potentially worse consequences. Climate-change lawsuits have already deformed the Clean Air Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and others.
And anyone who doesn't believe the same won't happen in this case just isn't paying attention.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

RIP: American Capitalism.

If greenhouse gasses are killing the poor widdle polar bears, then any business, anywhere, doing anything can be fair game for an eco-lawsuit.

Written By: shark
URL: http://
Is the ESA really a current matter of law ?

It ran out 2 or 3 years ago, and given the "tenderness" of the issues, it never came up for a vote (unless I’m mistaken).

Since about half of all the "species" covered by the act are "voles", they are always looking for something sexy to replace the Bald Eagle as a sales point to aid in the process to reauthorize the act.
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Polar bears are only a sign of what is to come if any of the three present presidential candidates gain office.
Quick! Somebody find a suitable candidate to advance past the present big three. Or better still, let’s cancel the whole upcoming election and just let the White House air out for a few years. Surely some endangered species or another could find some shelter there.
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
I yearn for the day when government gets back to governing.
Written By: the wolf
URL: http://
I have a 62 acre parcel that’s been in the family for over 100 years, and I can’t build on it ’cause they found 9 (count ’em) endangered butterflies on it.

Well, technically they can’t stop be from building, but at this point all of the best places are basically off limits.
Written By: Don
URL: http://
I have a 62 acre parcel that’s been in the family for over 100 years, and I can’t build on it ’cause they found 9 (count ’em) endangered butterflies on it.
That would suck.

Who’s "they"?
How did "they" discover these butterflies?
Did "they" trespass?

I’m dying to know. I don’t want "they" to come on my property.

Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
The listing of polar bears as an endangered species is clearly a political move foisted upon us by climate alarmists. The real science indicates that the polar bears have survived warmer climates in the past.

Best regards,
Written By: Tom Moriarty
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks