I’m having trouble reconciling this bit of news with the administration’s stance on global warming:
The Bush administration has decided to propose listing the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, putting the U.S. government on record as saying that global warming could drive one of the world’s most recognizable animals out of existence.
[snip]
“We’ve reviewed all the available data that leads us to believe the sea ice the polar bear depends on has been receding,” said the Interior official, who added that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials have concluded that polar bears could be endangered within 45 years. “Obviously, the sea ice is melting because the temperatures are warmer.”
One cannot very well say the ice is melting due to warmer temperatures, and simultaneously insist that temperatures are not warming. Either the left and right hands are off doing their own things in a vacuum, or the Bush administration is considering making a 180 degree position turn to the polar opposite. Sort of:
Still, the official added that the decision to propose polar bears as threatened with extinction “wasn’t easy for us” because “there is still some significant uncertainty” about what could happen to bear populations in the future.
“This proposal is sort of like a scientific hypothesis. You put this out there and say to the world, ‘Tell us, is this right or is this wrong?’ ” the official said, adding that Interior will hold several public hearings about its proposal. “We’re projecting what we think will happen in the future, not just what’s happening at this moment.”
Ah… yes… the “tell us whether we should say this or not” approach. Nothing like a firm maybe.
Thanks for pointing this out. It takes common-sense folks to see the absurdity and word games they play.
I recall someone once saying, when I mentioned that a particular vendor’s position seemed to be changing (for the better), that “sometimes it takes awhile for a ship as large as this one to change direction – but eventually it will come about.”
I would say this is especially true when you are talking about the ship of state. And, to be honest about it, even small course corrections are an improvement.
~EdT.
Polimom,
It’s difficult to discuss this subject rationally, since so many people do not have a rational position on it. Irrational positions range from there’s nothing happening here, and if there were it wouldn’t matter, to we’re all gonna die!
Particularly hard to talk to are those with a religious orientation to the whole global warming debate (i. e. it is happening, mankind’s activities are causing it (or at least are a/the main factor), we (i.e. the Western industrialized democracies–namely the US and Europe) can slow/prevent/reverse it if only we do_______ (fill in the blank), and above all, if the data does not support all of these points, then my faith is stronger than your data. When faith is stronger than facts, there can be no discussion.
As for the specific point you raise, here is a link to an article on NASA’s earth observatory site on the importance of polar (land) ice–i.e. the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica.
So, depending on whether the increased snowfall or increased melting dominates, the land ice will either grow or shrink over time. Or stay the same. Hmmm . . . what to do . . . .
However, sea ice, i.e. ice in the Arctic, is a bit different:
Hmmm . . . . again, what to do. However, this last excerpt seems to clear up the question you asked. If there is some risk that the Arctic ice is receding (and it has been for several years) and if it continues, then polar bears may indeed be cramped for range. However, the melting of the Arctic ice cap does not impact the disaster scenarios the global warming faithful dwell on. The entire Arctic ice cap could melt with no impact on sea level (though the polar bears would be swimming!)
Have surface temperatures been increasing gradually for the past 20 years over most of the earth? Yes. Will they continue to increase? We don’t know. Are temperatures in the upper atmosphere also increasing? No. Do the computer weather models that predict an increase in surface temperature also predict an increase in upper atmospheric temperatures? Yes. Can anyone explain the discrepancy? No. Should we then believe the most extreme predictions of these same computer models for surface temperatures in the future?
Facts or faith . . . .
Why are we even debating this issue? How could anyone be so heartless as to not want to protect something as cute as a polar bear? As a measure of cuteness, polar bear cubs are off the chart! So its an already obvious answer! Protect them!
I don’t think it matters whether global warming is happening or not. If it is and we’re right, then we’ll do what will help slow it down and help our environment, and if it’s not and we’re wrong, we’ll still be doing something to help our environment and at least get it a little cleaner. It’s a win-win. What’s the problem?
This may be the most important and most overlooked story of the decade because when an animal is put on the endangered species list, it means that the gov’t is required to take action to ameliorate the threats to that critter and in this case, the “threat” has been identified as Global warming. What this means in practical terms is that the Federal Gov’t and it’s agencies will begin to review all permit processes and permit awards with an eye toward reducing Global warming; thus for example, the Federal Permits necessary to build a power plant will be subject to new review standards. The examples are endless and we’ll need to keep a close eye on the Federal Register to see how this plays out, but I can imagine that, for example, the Trans Texas Corridor as presently planned will be subjected to renewed scrutiny. If you think about it, darned near anything that needs any type of Federal Permit will be affected, i.e. Offshore drilling, Interstate Highway construction/mainenance, pipeline permitting, retrofits at Refineries, etc. There’s a sea change a coming, I assure you.
It is speculated that the polar shift may begin around 2012 which would line up with the end of the mayan calendar. Again – just speculation.
http://www.polereversal.com