Palin: Alaska will sue over polar bear listing
Originally published Wednesday, May 21, 2008 at 3:21 p.m.
Updated Wednesday, May 21, 2008 at 4:31 p.m.
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!ANCHORAGE -- The state of Alaska will sue to challenge the recent listing of polar bears as a threatened species, Gov. Sarah Palin announced Wednesday.
She and other Alaska elected officials fear a listing will cripple oil and gas development in prime polar bear habitat off the state's northern and northwestern coasts.
Palin argued that there is not enough evidence to support a listing. Polar bears are well-managed and their population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation, she said.
Climate models that predict continued loss of sea ice, the main habitat of polar bears, during summers are unreliable, said Palin, a Republican.
The announcement drew a strong response from the primary author of the listing petition.
"She's either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading, and both are unbecoming," said Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Alaska deserves better."
Siegel said it was unconscionable for Palin to ignore overwhelming evidence of global warming's threat to sea ice, the polar bear's habitat.
"Even the Bush administration can't deny the reality of global warming," she said. "The governor is aligning herself and the state of Alaska with the most discredited, fringe, extreme viewpoints by denying this."
As marine mammals, polar bears are regulated by the federal government, not the state. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne last week made the listing decision and said it was based on three findings.
"First, sea ice is vital to polar bear survival. Second, the polar bear's sea-ice habitat has dramatically melted in recent decades. Third, computer models suggest sea ice is likely to further recede in the future," he said.
Summer sea ice last year shrank to a record low, about 1.65 million square miles, nearly 40 percent less than the long-term average between 1979 and 2000.
Polar bears rely on sea ice for hunting ringed seals. In recent years, summer sea ice has receded far beyond the relatively shallow, biologically rich waters of the outer continental shelf, giving polar bears less time in prime feeding areas.
The bear's numbers rebounded after the 1970s, but conservation groups contend that was in response to measures taken to stop over-hunting.
Polar bear researchers fear recent effects of the loss of sea ice on Alaska polar bear populations. A 2006 study by the U.S. Geological Survey concluded that far fewer polar bear cubs in the Beaufort Sea were surviving and that adult males weighed less and had smaller skulls than those captured and measured two decades previously — trends similar to observations in Canada's western Hudson Bay before a population drop.
A U.S. Geological Survey study completed last year as part of the petition process predicted polar bears in Alaska could be wiped out by 2050.
Kempthorne said last week he considered every point Palin made, and rejected them.
However, he sought to limit the economic effect of the decision with the inclusion of "administrative guidance" that said the listing would not be used to create back-door climate policy outside the normal system of political accountability. He also said that the threat to polar bears did not come from the petroleum industry.
In response, conservation groups including the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council are seeking to overturn Kempthorne's administrative actions and seek limits on greenhouse gas emissions.
Palin and other state officials called arbitrary a decision to list a healthy species judging by what they deem uncertain modeling of future climate change and unproven long-term impact of any future climate change on the species.
State Natural Resources Commissioner Tom Irwin said it could have wide economic effects.
"Inappropriate implementation of this listing decision could result in widespread social and economic impacts, including increased power costs and further increases in fuel prices, without providing any more protection for the species," he said.
Deborah Williams, a former Interior Department special assistant for Alaska and an advocate in the state for global warming response, said Palin's lawsuit was not a prudent use of state money.
"Clearly Secretary Kempthorne put a tremendous amount of thought into the listing decision and concluded correctly that listing was required," she said.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
"The [Interior] Secretary’s decision to list a currently healthy species is based on not only the uncertain modeling of future climate change, but also the unproven long-term impact of any future climate change on the species,"
AMEN!!!! Way to look through the mistruths and false beliefs, Sarah, and look for global truth.
Hot Dog Sarah!! Our governor kicks butt, love it.
YAY!!!!! This is wonderful news!!!
The lower 48 would turn all of alaska into a sanctuary if they could.
This polar bear crap has political agenda all over it.
The lawsuit is not called for and a waste of State money. There is ample evidence to disprove anything that remotely resembles sound science behind the governer's staff recommendations. If polar bears are the issue, then the federal government will win this case, it is fact that climate change will impact them and sea ice will be impacted, and not to any polar bears advantage in survival. No models are perfect or right all the time, but they are useful. If the models said sea ice would increase, the State would jump on the band wagon and say, yes now this is sound science. The fact is money talks, and it's talking now, case closed.
Good for you, Governor! What an insult to have a bunch of outsiders tell us we can't manage our own wildlife. And by manage, I mean shoot. Nuisance bears cannot be successfully relocated. They need to be shot. And one showed up in Ft Yukon a while back just to underscore the point. Stop hiding behind the skirt of development and simply say this is an Alaska issue and butt out now, thank you very much.
The outsiders, like humanbeing above, seem to ignore that polar bears are at an all-time population high. The numbers are exploding. There simply is no justification to call them endangered. This is just another fed takeover attempt. And last time they tried to divide our population with the subsistence issue when they did away with regional management and went instead with racial management in violation of their own laws. Keep these "people" out of our business, I say.
By all means, let's stick our heads in the sand and ignore the scientific evidence. If those pesky "outsiders" believe in climate change, it must be wrong. Let's also pretend we don't see the melting permafrost and the buckling highways…they're just illusions staged to trick us red-blooded Alaskans into giving up our God-given right to rape the environment. Who needs polar bears anyway? They just attract those intrusive "people" from the lower 48. I say let 'em drown!
The listing of the Polar bear cannot do anything to stop, or lessen, the loss of sea ice... Mother Nature will regulate that process...If the ice goes the bear will adapt just as man must adapt...The listing is more about employing attorney's, building walls in the way of meaningful progress by man.
I hope the Governor develops a case to show the nation just how shallow these wacko's are and finds a way to stop them.
Aeronchamp
Try changing the channel from CNN and get the facts. I don't see you or any other sheeple taking airconditioning units up there for the poor polar bears. Get real.
The word is denial. And what a an us and them complex we have developed. I'll say it outright: this complex is the single worst thing about this state. None of you live in a vacuum. You are not a separate country. You are not special simply because you are not connected to the Lower 48 (tellingly sometimes called Outside). You're like the reverse of the idiots who think Alaska exists as an island somewhere in the Pacific.
ACLOWN, you get real. There, it needed to be said!
Politically astute move.
What a waste of Alaskans money!!! Oh wait, I almost forgot .... the oil industry is paying for all of this. No wonder Palin is taking such an utter extreme, guess we need to check her money flow also right along with Don & Tom & Lisa. I actually thought she had been a decent gov. Guess the blinders have to come off sometime.
Postscript: reading over my comment again, I realized that my last line insinuates an insult. I didn't intend that. I actually only meant 'idiot' to apply to the people who so blatantly misread maps that they can't accurately figure Alaska's location. The reason I said "you are the reverse" was because you know where Alaska is physically, yet you sometimes act like anyone who is not here can't say, assert, or argue anything about the state. AK coexists with a number of other states and with a larger gov't, just like every other state.
I can't re-edit that post, so you'll have to take this for what it is. So, if you were offended by my insinuation, I apologize.
Read Humanbeing's post: I think the best point is made there.
oops, "Don", Ted", and "Lisa" someone was talking and I typed the wrong name. Sorry
We can thank Tom Irwin. Go to the State's home page and read Palin's first response, where she offers our Fish and Game professionals to help preserve our resources. This was a classic Palen goof - mouth in gear, brain in neutral.
*hearts* Im in love with Sarah Palin!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Great job!!!
So what did the polar bears do to survive the last few times the earth warmed up? If my understanding of history and science are correct, we are coming to what is called the end of an ice age. It has been proven that over population will cause extinction quicker than melting sea ice. For those that don't know, male polar bears are the number one predator of polar bear cubs. If they are at record numbers, then they are going to start heading inland looking for safety and food. Seems like only last year that they found one by the Yukon River eating from garbage cans. He crossed the entire expanse of the pristine ANWR and the best meal he could find was garbage. I have pictures from a few years ago of the one that in September was 100 miles south of the precious sea ice.
The wrinkles in the road are as welcome to me as the change in seasons from winter to summer that causes them. Melting permafrost is an oxymoron. If it is permafrost, it doesn't melt or it violates the definition of permafrost. For those conservationists that just don't get it, global warming is NATURAL.
Get yourselves a deciduous tree and petition congress to do something that will make it keep all its leaves in the fall. The squirrels will lose the shelter of the leaves and some hawk might kill it. In an average summer Alaska loses more acres per year as a result of wild fires than the entire lower 48 combined. Imagine what that heat, smoke, and destruction is doing to the bear habitat, permafrost, and global environment. Oh my!
Don't legislate from a world away, based on speculation. The Governor is right to fight the half-baked science being turned into legislation in Washington. What makes you think that big oil isn't behind the bear? What if they are? Would it make oil prices jump? Think outside the box. The governor has proven time and again she is on the side of Alaskans not the oil barons.
Heck with the Polar bear lets put the polar ice on the endangered list lol.
Everyone knows that the movement behind listing the bears as an endangered species is a thinly veiled attempt to ramrod a radical, fascist agenda on the good people of Alaska (and the U.S. in general). There is not one piece of peer-reviewed science that proves a causal relationship between the bears and activities on the Slope and Coast - and they know it! But that isn't the point, is it? Unproven relationships to "global warming" are fashionable at the moment. All the "useful idiots," as Stalin called them, are 100% behind the "facts" and those that dare to question them are akin to "holocaust deniers." I thought this was the United States. The REAL point to all of this is to control all of us humans - we're really the issue here, not protecting bears. It's time we all woke up, stood up and fought this leftist political agenda - because it is destroying our economy and way of life. Don't think so? Check your pump prices. Better yet, try and discuss real global warming science and real evidence with a "true believer." You'll be shouted down and called a "hater." Instead of the "Center for Biological Diversity," how about some honest diversity of opinion? Good on 'ya Gov - we're behind you all the way!
Wow. Most of these comments remind me of kids that put their hands over their ears & say "La la la la la I can't hear you".
Pretending that AGW doesn't exist will not help. The facts are there for all to see. Most of the scientific community believes that we're causing harm to our planet.
The scientists that argue against that view are on thr oil industry's payroll, and apparently so is Gov. Palin.
Why don't we stop shooting them for fun too????
A nice political gesture, but otherwise a waste of time and money.
I didn't realize the governor, and a lot of you readers, are scientists with the background to evaluate climate change models, sea ice models, and polar bear population trends. Where's your evidence of all time highs of bear populations and data to refute the best available science that goes into developing the models? Or are you just spouting the rhetoric you hear that reinforces your uninformed view of the world?
Listing the polar bear was the right thing to do--it is the proverbial canary in the coal mine. Maybe it will force our politicians to start to seriously think about how this country contributes to the declining state of the world. But I doubt it. They will probably do as so many of the readers here are doing, and hope that denial means a problem doesn't really exist.
It was wise that the writers of the Endangered Species Act did not include economic impacts as part of determination to list a species as threatened or endangered, because even the Bush administration could not get around the facts and was forced to list the polar bear. That alone says alot about the the staus of polar bears, because you can bet they did every thing they could to not list the polar bear as a threatened species.
the centers for biological diversities phone numbers are availiable on line i say pass it on to a friend and flood their phone lines with alaskan advise
Wow, according to the above post we're now being compared to children. Very persuasive. So much for inclusiveness and reasoned, "progressive" thought. Diversity of opinion doesn't exist in their narrow, lock-step world. How lucky to be so certain of your belief system. A new religion is born... or is it Marxism painted green? Somewhat both, I reckon.
Oyegi_Thamu and those who continue to be confused,
It irks me to no end, when I see the statements suggesting that most people are denying that global warming, oops I mean climate change (what will it be called later) is happening.
I find that most people are questioning the idea that the climate change is predominately caused by man.
Many of those in line with the current belief that climate change is caused by man claim that there are plenty of studies to prove it.
Actually most if not all of the studies only show evidence that change is occuring. None have been able to find the smoking gun or have been able to conclude that the change was caused strictly by mans indeavors on the planet.
When studies are produced they usually provide tons of technical data showing the evidence of the change that has occurred then make suggestions that cannot be proved, these are but opinions of what may have caused the change, most are based on software models injected with many assumptions that lack any supporting evidence.
Goverments worldwide are making policy changes based on opinions and and infant computer models that already are having unintended consequences. Ethanol production and the resulting sky rocketing of food cost are a good example of of those consequences.
Government and big corporations are falling over each other at the prospect of a 3 trillion dollar cap and trade of carbon.
No wonder you and I are seeing more and more commercials touting how there product is green or going green and politicians who are typically opposite of each other are now sitting together trying to convince you that climate change is real and they can stop it if you give them more control.
The polar bear should have never been placed on the endangered species act at least not until scientist could produce real numbers showing actual declines that may put them at risk of going extinct.
Putting the bears on the endangered species act will only produce more unintended consequences (or are they) and line the pockets of lawyers and provide incentive for more action by the far left conservationist (I see they are already lining up to put walruses up on the list)...
All the sacrifices that you and I will be forced to make will be based on the arrogant idea that man can actually control the thermostat of the planet.
I am wondering who will it be the ones that will actually decide just where to set it?
Are you prepared to reduce your standard of living to that of your ancestors, who struggled to survive and strived to get us where we are at now?
In response to AKhusky - Here's a quote from Wikipedia on subject: "Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and President of the World Federation of Scientists : "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view" The IPCC formed the "consensus" opinion referred to in above posts and was cited as one of the principal views in the U.N. report on climate change. I guess the President of the World Federation of Scientists missed that part. Just to let you know, those that disagree with your "enlightened" opinion are hardly uninformed. Just ask over 31,072 climate scientists and researchers who just signed on to another "consensus" that mankind's release of CO2 cannot be scientifically tied to climate fluctuation or catastrophic warming. Look it up. Over 9,000 of the scientists who signed are PhDs. I guess they're uninformed also and on the "payroll of the oil companies." Wake up. Inference, speculation and propaganda are not scientific certainty. This matter is political, directly tied to leftist movement(s) and not scientifically settled by a LONG SHOT. Yet we rush head-long into our own destruction, blindly following our masters. Never thought I'd see this in America. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, sure. Here, no.
http://www.petitionproject.org/ here is the link to that petition.
ABSTRACT A review of the research literature concerning the
environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric
carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that in creases during the
20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide
has, however, markedly in creased plant growth. Predictions
of harmful climatic effects due to future in creases in hydrocarbon
use and minor green house gases like CO2 do not conform to
current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of
rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries
are discussed.
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabas...
Ooooh, Wikipedia! It must be true then!
Global warming is in fact occuring. The cause of global warming is where I differ with Al Gore. I believe it is caused by the cyclical nature of our planet, rather than being man-made. I spoke to a geophysicist the other day who felt the same way.
He also said their was nothing we could do about it. I agree.
Am I disappointed to see people conserving more and considering alternatives to fossil fuels? Not one bit. The time has come for a wind farm in ANWR!!!
Why has the earth cooled by 0.4 degrees since 1998?
"The governor is aligning herself and the state of Alaska with the most discredited, fringe, extreme viewpoints ...." Yep that's us.
Come on, when they first started to say the polar bear should be on the Ex-list didn't we all realize that the people behind it really wanted to stop drilling in Alaska?! I and I am sure others aren't so short sighted as to not see it coming. If it hadn't been the polar bears it would have been some other animal or whale or something. People just don't want to see Alaska developed plain and simple. That is why so many cry pork barrel spending in Alaska and bridges to no where.
Why is it if someone says they dont think that polar bears should be listed as endangered it is assumed that you want to go out and gun murder all of them?
Listing a bear as endangered wont bring back the sea ice that has receeded. I am not a bear expert, but expect the bears to start heading farther south in the search for food. Give them enough time, they wont be white anymore! They might want to evolve less fat too.
Who is going to make China and India stop growing and releasing evil CO2? What about all the smoke from wildfires? Volcanos? People, SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE TO STOP THE MADNESS! Right now, volcanos are plotting OUR planet's demise.
Really now. I think we should get off the oil, but its not going to happen over night.
"Do you know how much the sea level rose since 1850? 1 foot.
And what did we do? How did we handle this catastrophe? Well, actually, we didn't notice that it was happening -- that's how horrible the climate change we experienced was.
Do you know how much the UN's IPCC panel predicts the sea level will rise by 2100? One foot."
Better go by some arm floaties.
"Climate models that predict continued loss of sea ice, the main habitat of polar bears, during summers are unreliable, said Palin, a Republican."
Am I the only person that saw the last two words in this paragraph completely out of line? What does her being a Republican have anything to do with the story?
I have no doubt that climate change is happening. I also have no doubt that climate change has happened many times on this planet, well before humans arrived. What I do highly doubt is that we are the sole cause of this change. To think that we as a species have the power to control the "thermostat" moreso than the sun just seems foolish to me.
User said it right, this screams of a political move by those in power to convince us to give them more power to correct the problem.
This is all a figment of our imagination. You see there is no way this conversation can possibly be happening. The planet already ended Jan 1st 2000 (Y2K). Remember the "experts" predicted it so it just has to be true, they had evidence and everything.
Gorebal Warming is a farce! And a scam! Oh yeah just give us money and quit enjoying life and we will change the weather to the way it should be! What a joke.
Why do humans assume that just because we walk upright and use tools that the earth will suddenly stop its eternal cycle of change? For better or worse the planets atmosphere will never remain stable, climate change will be CONSTANT, UNPREDICTABLE and INDIFFERENT to humankind.
Ursus maritimus would not be the first species on this planet to go extinct due to direct and/or indirect results of climate change nor will it be the last. We should be more concerned with our own health as a species and "society" rather than worried about the fate of something we have no control over.
Prepare for the worst and hope for the best my friends!
"She and other Alaska elected officials fear a listing will cripple oil and gas development in prime polar bear habitat off the state's northern and northwestern coasts." This is what it really comes down to--oil developement. No one really cares about the polar bear, as long as it doesnt affect whether they can drill for oil.
Well I have been saying this for years. The only time alaska gets any attention from the lower 48 is when something like the polar bear deal, the PFD, or an earthquake. I say the people of this state need to stand up and tell the government what we want or we secede from the nation. Then we can kick all these oil lords out and develop our resources here to benefit the people of this great state.
yeah, this one is politically motivated. i can see some twit in DC sitting in the Sierra Club conference room pitching an ES-listing for polar bears as a winning strategy for AK coastal conservation. that federal judges are taking computer forecasting models as 'evidence' is absurd to me.
I don't know if any of you remember Oxyfuel in Fairbanks. But EPA used computer models at that time too and it ended up putting poisons in our air. Maybe we need to send them a polar bear to bite their butts.
Many of the comments here claim or assume that the Bush administration is part of a leftist-environmentalist conspiracy to take control of Alaska's resources. With that being part of your argument, I don't know how I could seriously have a discussion with you. Kempthorne, a solid conservative former governor of Idaho--Idaho, what a hive of leftist activity--took about as long as he could to make this decision, and added provisions that specifically protect industry.
I don't understand why Palin (and so many of you) want to fight against a listing that specifically protects industry and makes clear that arctic development has not been detrimental to the polar bear. The environmentalists are suing not to limit arctic development, but rather to limit greenhouse emissions nationwide.
Many of you are acting like children. Yes, Alaska is unique in more ways than probably any other state. But in legal status, we're equal. The feds don't just manage ALASKAN marine mammals, they manage ALL marine mammals, from Maine to Florida to California to Hawaii. Tom54 makes this point well.
Another way some of you (and many other people) behave like children: Per person, Americans consume a huge amount of energy compared to the rest of the world. India and China produce a sickening amount of pollution, but they have much larger populations than the U.S., so there per person energy use and pollution is less than ours. Someone commenting here used the tactic of blaming other countries for pollution. Are we NOT leaders in this world? Why should we let other countries lead US?
Why? Because many of us are childish. Let's be adults and set a good example.
The enviro wackos use the courts to delay, stop, and generally interfere with as much resource development as they can. Remember the Pogo mine fiasco from a few years ago? I think the motivation for their actions are from a deep loathing for their own country and not the noble cause of saving the earth. When good people fight back and attack them with the courts they squeal and cry. If I were them I would be worried too as the state has some serious money to throw at this B.S. Go Sarah!
Why is it so stupid and childish to think that the history of the earth's climate is proof in itself that change happens whether humans are a part of it or not? Is it so much easier to believe that we as humans have that much of an effect on this extremely complicated ecosystem? There is no doubt that global warming is happening, but there is also research that says we are entering into an ice age. What then? There is proof that the earth's climate has and will change over the years and temps vary.
Palin rocks!!! This is total crap listing these bears on the endangered list. It is just another ploy to stop oil drilling. Whoever said that no one cares about the bears, you were right. The environmentalist had an agenda and they succeeded. Bush may not be on leftist side, but he doesn't want drilling in ANWR either. This was a way to let the leftys win one.
The listing of the polar bear is nothing more than an attempt by the environmental community to do through the ESA and courts what they couldn't do through the legislative and executive branch's of government: push their agenda on the masses. We have seen this with the Spotted Owl in the Pasific NW before as an instance.
And they have already shown their hand in vowing to sue over the economic aspect left in Kempthorne's decision.
I made NO such claim that it's "stupid and childish to think that the history of the earth's climate is proof in itself that change happens whether humans are a part of it or not?"
One thing we can agree on--history of the climate shows constant change. Another thing we can agree on--the science is unsettled. I am saying it's childish (in a selfish way) to boldly plow forward when we don't know for certain the ramifications of our actions.
Do you really believe (as you wrote) that "Bush...doesn't want drilling in ANWR."??? Really? Seriously?
I guess it comes back to my first point in the first comment: I don't know how we can have a serious discussion when you make such claims.
I stand corrected. My apologies about the Bush comment.
Of the 20-25000 polar bears in our hemisphere, there are 19 subpopulations. 5 populations are stable, 5 are declining, 2 are increasing, and for the 7 left, there is insufficient scientific data to determine how well their population is doing and how vulnerable they are to endangerment.
AK science center – US Geological Survey, http://alaska.usgs.gov
I think our diversity groups are focusing on the 5 that are declining. The Polar Bears have evolved from the Brown bear, so I really have confidence that they will survive on land as they have 10k years ago.
One more comment to counter the statement from critical_reader that per person the U.S. consumes more than any other country on earth, etc. The Left and their fellow travelers use this statement to shame all of us into bowing to their political will. We're supposed to feel guilty about consuming so much. What they don't say is that the U.S. PER PERSON has the highest worker output and GDP of any country in the world. We produce more, export more technology, donate more money and generally care for more people than all other countries in the world COMBINED. Fact. I guess we don't get any credit for that. The polar bear issue in question is only one in a long line of attacks using the liberal judiciary. In the socialist workers paradise we're all supposed to be equal. Let's break down the U.S. and bring it down to a Third World level. Yes, that's the way! You can see the fruits of the "progressive" movement all over the U.S. Seems they're winning. For now. P.S. - Kempthorne is NOT a conservative. He's a political hack and has been way before he was Governor in ID. He bends which ever way the wind blows and wants to set himself up for a possible position in an "environmentally conscious" McCain Cabinet. Wake up.
It sounds like theres not enough problems in this state- everybody is worried about oil prices and polar bears and GOSSIP. meanwhile, the highest criminal population per-capita of any state is producing drugs and bootlegging alcohol, vandalizing and stealing from homes and businesses, domestic abuse and other alcohol related crimes seem to take up alot of the populations time as well.
maybe taking some of the polar bear suing money and putting it towards a cause that will actually help peoples lives rather than further some politician/s personal agenda/s and bragging rights. They live a pretty cush lifestyle most Alaskans don't.
The groups have asked a U.S. District Court judge in Oakland, Calif., to dump Kempthorne’s exemption and give polar bears the full protection of the act, something that could have serious consequences throughout our economy.
This is the first time that a threatened status has been given to a healthy population of animals because of projected habitat problems detailed by scientific models which themselves are a point of contention. The habitat prediction is, if you will, a long-range guess based on little more than whimsy.
The ramifications of the original listing, themselves onerous to development, likely could be wildly overshadowed by the mischief that could be caused if the federal judge removes the greenhouse gas exemption. Virtually every development action anywhere could be challenged as having a deleterious effect on greenhouse gases and therefore further endangering polar bears’ habitat.
Perhaps most troubling, these radical groups have managed to place themselves in a position to cripple development in Alaska and the rest of the nation — not by congressional action, not by a vote of the people, not by uncontested, accepted science, but by the provisions of a horribly flawed law.
The Endangered Species Act seriously is in need of revision when something as nebulous and unproved as global warming can be sneaked into a public policy debate through the back door and be used as a weapon to harm Alaska and the United States.
But getting that done with this Congress, with many of its members bought and paid for by environmentalists and animal rights zealots, is highly unlikely.
I remember one time, a radical group called on Anchorage whether they really dropped Moose...
They have the annual moose dropping contest... LMAO!
I'd like to recommend a book (that's at Noel Wein): The Secret Life of Dust by Hannah Holmes. Climate isn't all about "greenhouse gasses," and I've not heard anyone talking about how dust and particulates are an even larger part of the equation. Nothing is ever mono-causal and no system is ever so simplistic. Go, Sarah.
Al Gore's ignorant followers of half baked crack pot science. Which wasn't backed by almost 30 percent of the scientist that where invited shows how far their willing to stretch the truth. Land polar or other wise is as unpredictable as telling when the tripod will fall. It's based on Gore's money making scam to cause the crazy follower to come outta the wood work. There are to many variables that can't be for predicted in polar ice. Wind,Sun, water vapor and others that of you knew all that you'd be "profit" on the weather channel.
We all know we orbit around the sun in an oval fashion, and every twenty years we are either closest to the sun or farthest to the sun.. a continuing cycle so.. yeah, we are globally warmer this time because we are at the closest stage to the sun.
Nutty,
Great point but it's not seen that way it's easier for then to blame then use common sense. But still where going thru a cooling period now. I live in Michigan and our temp has been 15 degrees below the average at low 40 highs 60 where usally at lows 55 high aroung 75. It's been this way for ever since the beginning of the year with the usual temporary (indian summer) like weather. But I've never seen any difference in weather. Only get Alarmist hipped up when a disaster happens.
i wonder if polar bears taste as good as spotted owl.
I dont advocate it, but riddle me this. If every last polar bear dies tomorrow, how would your life change?
I asked a coworker what he thought of the listing, he said we should do anything it takes to save the bears. I asked why. He said cause he likes them. Typical attitude. Save them so I can look at them.
Then I went after the "do anything to save them." Anything? Spend trillions. Allow millions of humans to starve or freeze to death. Yeh, that makes sense.
Its time we take a step back and ask why the federal government has its greedy paws in our lives on a daily basis. Law and justice are not the same animal.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.