Wednesday - May 14, 2008

Did I miss the “Denial Of Reality” memo?

US Declares Polar Bears “Threatened”

U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced that the polar bear will receive protection as a “threatened” species under the U. S. Endangered Species Act. Conservation groups had petitioned the U.S. to give full “endangered” protection to the mammals — citing a rapid decline in Arctic sea ice, and U.S. government studies predicting a rapid decline for the bear population due to loss of habitat. The government was under federal court order to rule on the bears’ status by tomorrow.

Just in case you were wondering, here is yesterday’s picture of the sea ice, compared to the sea ice in mid January.

Lost of habitat indeed. The parts of the world where Ursus Maritimus (the old pole bar) lives are the least habitated areas on the planet. And the ice pack seems to be doing just fine. Heck, if this fellow is reporting things properly (looks that way to me) then there is actually far more ice around right this minute than is usual for this time of year, for the past 25 years!

On a global basis, world sea ice in April 2008 reached levels that were “unprecedented” for the month of April in over 25 years. Levels are the third highest (for April) since the commencement of records in 1979, exceeded only by levels in 1979 and 1982. This continues a pattern established earlier in 2008, as global sea ice in March 2008 was also the third highest March on record, while January 2008 sea ice was the second highest January on record. It was also the second highest single month in the past 20 years (second only to Sept 1996).

But, but, but, if it isn’t the ice pack, or the habitat, something must be killing of the polar bears. Right? Otherwise they wouldn’t get put on the Threatened List. Right? So maybe it’s from hunting? Just how few bears are left, and how many did there used to be? Well, according to Polar Bears International

“In the 1950s the polar bear population up north was estimated at 5,000. Today it’s 20- to 25,000, a number that has either held steady over the last 20 years or has risen slightly. In Canada, the manager of wildlife resources for the Nunavut territory of Canada has found that the population there has increased by 25 percent.”

So the P-bear population is 4 or 5 times higher than it used to be. Gee, that seems really threatening. But wait, I was wrong. (which is why you should always follow the links and read things for yourself.) Mr. Dr. Expert at that web site says this is a bogus statement, and the real truth is ... um ... well ... we don’t exactly know, and we never really did know, exactly or even roughly how many bears there are or used to be. Hey, maybe because they’re hard to see? Especially in snowstorms! But let me not knock Mr. Dr. Expert On Polar Bears. He is giving us an answer, and it’s a very scientific and wordy “we don’t know”. At least that’s honest science. For once.

So maybe people should lay off hunting the bears for a few decades, just to see what happens. It worked here in NJ with our regular bears, and now they’re damn near everywhere. I’m sure that when the P-bear population rises enough so that they start competing with California coyotes for tasty little children to snack on, then it will be time to think about “managing” their numbers.

So, let’s have a tiny bit of truth in government. Ain’t nothing wrong with the polar bear habitat. And nobody can tell if their numbers are growing or shrinking. Nope, they just got the special treatment from the evinron-mentalists because they’re cute when they’re babies.

UPDATE

HA! The thing about news blogging is that everyone else is going to jump on the same story. There are no exclusives, and nobody really cares if you get there first. So Michelle Malkin has put up her version of this story, which links over to the American Enterprise Institute. Where they say, and she quotes

At present, polar bear populations are robust and, according to native people, are considerably larger than they were in previous decades. Predictions of polar bear endangerment are based on two sets of computer models: one set predicts how much Arctic sea ice will melt as a result of global warming, and the other predicts how polar bear populations will respond. But computer models of climate are known to be fraught with problems, and the ecological models used to predict polar bear response are equally limited.

Because of extreme limitations in data, it is essentially impossible to decide whether polar bears are endangered and whether their habitat is threatened by man-made global warming or other natural climate cycles. This is acknowledged by the experts themselves–the actual IUCN/SSC report is more broad in naming causes and more conservative about estimating their effects.

What we do know about polar bears is that, contrary to media portrayals, they are not fragile “canary in the coal mine” animals, but are robust creatures that have survived past periods of extensive deglaciation. Polar bear fossils have been dated to over one hundred thousand years, which means that polar bears have already survived an interglacial period when temperatures were considerably warmer than they are at present and when, quite probably, levels of summertime Arctic sea ice were correspondingly low.

In discussions of whether to drill in the Arctic, one of the arguments raised by environmentalists is that this would harm the habitats of the many creatures, including polar bears, that make their homes in Alaska. If polar bears are placed on the endangered species list, the legal hurdles to oil and gas drilling will increase.

Now, I have to say that I didn’t think of that, perhaps because the news articles I heard and read said “threatened”. But it nice to see that both AEI and Ms. Malkin notice the same Global Warming tie-in I wrote about. Even sweeter is AEI’s title for their article - “Is the Polar Bear Endangered, or Just Conveniently Charismatic?” which really says exactly the same thing I did, although maybe in a little more polished manner: the darn bears got on the list because they’re cute.

Posted by Drew458     on 05/14/2008 at 02:41 PM   
Filed Under: • Animals • Climate-Weather • Government •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner