The question is, is this something President Bush is pushing personally, has been involved, or just something pushed by those long term workers in the Executive Office beauracracy?
The Bush administration wants to add polar bears to the endangered species list as a result of the ice melting in the Arctic. Global warming is being blamed for harming the bears' habitat, but global warming skeptics are unconvinced.
"We are making this proposal because scientific review of the species by the Fish and Wildlife Service found that populations may be threatened by receding sea ice, which polar bears use as a platform for many activities essential to their life cycle, including hunting for their main prey, arctic seals," Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said Wednesday.
"There is concern that their habitat may literally be melting," he said.
Although Kempthorne attributed receding ice caps to the melting caused by "global warming," he said the administration's proposal "does not include a scientific analysis of the causes of climate change."
Ah. No scientific analysis. Typical. They feel that the habitat is threatened by so called global warming (as caused by Man). Truthiness at its best. For myself, I prefer some facts.
Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, disagreed, insisting that current warming levels are "not unusual."
"Most of the Arctic experts who have studied the Arctic have figured out … [that] the current warming in the Arctic Ocean seems to be a change of ocean currents and wind patterns," Ebell told Cybercast News Service.
Those changes in currents and winds also appear to be cyclical, Ebell added. "Over decades, the currents and the wind patterns change. The evidence of this is that it was warmer in the 1930s in the Arctic than it is today."
Those are facts. Want more?
"Scientists who study polar bears are pretty divided as to whether their numbers are declining at all," he said.
"Even using the World Wildlife Fund's own analysis, if you broke it down to where the polar bear populations are declining, those areas are not warming up" in terms of the climate, Ebell said.
The areas where polar bear populations are declining are actually getting colder, he said, while in "the areas where the polar bear seems to be prospering, it seems to be warming up."
While it is admirable to try and save the cute, cuddly polar bears, who would rip apart a human for brunch with no problem, how "scientists" and beauracrats is disengenuous at best. Global warming adherents are delusional and full of it. They try to affect policy simply with feelings and overblown rhetoric, rather then facts. They would like to create another Silent Spring fiasco, but this time, the damage would be to the worldwide economy.
Trackposted to Rightwing Guy, Perri Nelson's Website, The HILL Chronicles, The Random Yak, Don Surber, basil's blog, Dumb Ox News, Jo's Cafe, Conservative Cat, and bRight & Early, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Of course there’s Global Warming. The question is how much can we change that? The geologists mostly think its gonna happen anyway.
That being said, I support any clean energy alternative. Don’t give me “clean coal”, please. Lets work a bit harder at what gets us off of oil – those gas guzzlers, better mass transit (don’t get me started on that, we’ve been trying to get a commuter train for….decades…)
Actually one of the biggest green house gas issues is methane gas. Don’t hear much about that? Yeah, its those environmental correct cows…no they aren’t. Dairies are huge polluters.
OK, lets say the environment a complex issue not resolved by bumper sticker politics.
Exactly. The Earth is warming, probably, but we need to worry more about things we can affect, clean water, clean air, clean land. No coal. Solar would work well as suplementary for individual buildings. Use more nuclear. Wise use of mass transit, make the rules for MPG tougher, especially for SUV’s and light trucks.
I read about those cows, had a post a week or so ago. Funny stuff. :)