The Endangered Species Act is potentially the latest victim of the anti-science Bush Administration:
The Bush administration wants federal agencies to decide for themselves whether highways, dams, mines and other construction projects might harm endangered animals and plants. […]
Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said late Monday the changes were needed to ensure that the Endangered Species Act would not be used as a “back door” to regulate the gases blamed for global warming. In May, the polar bear became the first species declared as threatened because of climate change. Warming temperatures are expected to melt the sea ice the bear depends on for survival.
The draft rules would bar federal agencies from assessing the emissions from projects that contribute to global warming and its effect on species and habitats.
“We need to focus our efforts where they will do the most good,” Kempthorne said in a news conference organized quickly after AP reported details of the proposal. “It is important to use our time and resources to protect the most vulnerable species. It is not possible to draw a link between greenhouse gas emissions and distant observations of impacts on species.”
Except that all the peer reviewed science say it is and stuff. But whatever – better to rely on what some political appointee or DOT lawyer thinks is causing the polar bears to drown than people who actually spend their lives studying the issue.
DWTFTW seems as appropriate here as ever.
jake
Fixies!
Expect a lot more of this crap as the final days of the Evil Empire approach.
Paul L.
Unless it involves Gun control(NRA), where to drill for oil(Exxon) or any cause/issue that you disagree with?
As for your picture, of the bear who is dying because it forgot how to swim.
Polar Bear Liars Exposed
dmsilev
Sigh.
Read this:
Yes, there’s the now-obligatory disclaimer to appease the knee-jerk screamers, but the fact is that the Arctic icecap is shrinking. Drawing the connection to polar bears is left as an exercise for the reader.
-dms
Person of Choler
Citations, please, for the peer reviewed science that shows polar bears are drowning.
“Exercise for the reader” is a poor excuse for references.
douglasfactors
You’ve just seen a reference the proposition that the Arctic icecap is shrinking. The icecap is over an ocean. You may recall that polar bears live on polar ice.
It’s generally assumed that readers are capable of logical inference.
phobos
Unaware of what year it was, Joe wandered the streets desperate for help. But the English language had deteriorated into a hybrid of hillbilly, valleygirl, inner-city slang and various grunts. Joe was able to understand them, but when he spoke in an ordinary voice he sounded pompous and faggy to them.
rachel
There you go, Person of Choler, just head on over to Nature, log in and read.
BH-Buck
Hey, I have an idea! What say we site back and do nothing and wait for all the animals to die off – then complain that no on warned us. Sound like a game plan?
Fact is, many species of animals die off each year. And no, kiddies, it’s not because God is calling them home. It’s due mostly to greed, abuse and outright stupidity… originating from the George Bush I-don’t-give-a-frig crowd.
But I can now relate to these people. If God or global warming decides to call this group home, I plan on sitting back and doing absolutely nothing to stop it.
John Harrold
Michael says this:
Except that all the peer reviewed science say it is and stuff
Someone asks him for a citation and the first response includes:
It’s generally assumed that readers are capable of logical inference.
Either there are peer reviewed articles stating that polar bars are drowning because of global warming, or there are not. State your case but don’t overstate it.
Seriously, global warming is the left’s version of Iraq.
Ash Can
And asking for citations is a poor excuse for laziness when a garden-variety Google search using the words “polar,” “bears,” and “ice” brings up more citations than will fit on this page.
I’m old enough to have seen climate change denial before. The same thing happened in the 60s and 70s with smoking. The tobacco industry fought it tooth and nail, but the incessantly mounting scientific evidence of the connection between smoking and various life-threatening diseases ultimately swamped the protests, spin, and lies spouted by cigarette makers and their sympathizers (the latter group made up overwhelmingly of smokers who were in denial over what they were doing/had done to themselves).
Now it’s happening all over again, with deniers clinging to the few contrarian memes floating around in a vast and still growing sea of evidence issuing forth from the scientific community. I’ve got news for the People of Choler of this world: When a whole army’s worth of people who have made it their life’s work to study this sort of thing say that there’s a problem, and some shmo off the street points to an isolated blurb on the internet and says, “No, there isn’t,” who do you suppose I’m going to believe?
rachel
The schmo! The schmo! ‘Cause he doesn’t sound pompous and faggy!
John Harrold
Searching through google is not likely to return “peer reviewed articles”. I could be wrong, but I don’t beleive Nature News is a peer reviewed publication.
This is the deal with science. Either the results of a scientific study say something: x = 1 or they suggest something x is sort of like 1. Saying science says something is fine, but don’t get all uppity when someone asks you to cite your sources. Saying global warming is a problem is not the same thing as saying “it will kill polar bears”.
Jake
Right, with the exception of the overwhelming evidence in support of the theory, a scientific consensus, and etc. You know, the kind of stuff that basically makes your comparison bullshit.
rachel
Nature is a peer reviewed magazine. The article I linked to is in Nature’s news page.
Gus
Nature is one of the most highly cited peer reviewed scientific journals, so yes, you’re wrong.
Gus
In any case, nice misdirection by the trolls. The issue is whether or not the Endangered Species Act should be gutted. No reasonable person thinks it should be so attack the misleading picture.
John Harrold
Jake:
There is a scientific consensus that man is causing changes in the global temperature. This consensus does not include doomsday scenarios such as stopping the natural currents in the oceans, all the ice melting off Antarctica, etc. These things are conflated with the scientific consensus, and the distinction between consensus and speculation is glossed over by folks like Al Gore. It is this doomsday type stuff (ala Iraq has weapons of mass destruction) that prevents people from taking climate change seriously.
Either science supports a statement, it does not support a statement, or there is some ambiguity. Asking someone to prove their statements with some sort of peer reviewed citation (after the individual claimed it exists) is neither pedantic nor argumentative — at least most scientists wouldn’t consider it to be.
Punchy
Holy fucking shit….
/picks jaw up off the floor
dmsilev
Nature News both is not peer-reviewed.The actual articles are written by staff writers at NPG (Nature Publishing Group), which are then edited and published. However, the articles in question are summaries of, and contain links to, actual peer-reviewed technical articles. For instance, the article on the polar bears cites an article in the Journal of Wildlife Management entitled “Effects of Earlier Sea Ice Breakup on Survival and Population Size of Polar Bears in Western Hudson Bay”, which talks about the correlation between ice breakup and increased mortality in the bear population in that region. The key sentence from the abstract of that paper is
(article link here, may be subscription access only).
I will note that in the space of roughly 10 minutes I’ve provided direct links to two original-source technical articles. Those who are stamping their feet and crying “show us the peer-reviewed citations” will now kindly STFU.
-dms
John Harrold
Nature is not the same as Nature News.
dmsilev
The earlier comment, with the first citation, seems to be still in moderation (probably due to the big blockquote). The paper in question can be read here (warning: PDF).
-dms
Jake
Well, that and the right’s efforts to ignore the consensus, or by hauling every scientific hack to testify in front of Congress that global warming is fiction. We’re pretty much the only country that doesn’t take this problem seriously. That’s not because Al Gore is an American.
As for the peer-reviewed publication, it’s given in the link Rachel provides above. If you want more, all you have to do is look at the references listed in that article. Google scholar also provides lots and lots.
Punchy
Yes, you’re wrong. It’s a subset of Nature, which is about the most prestegious, well-respected of all science literature.
I don’t, of course, expect you to know this.
douglasfactors
Reasonable people assume matters of common knowledge and carry on the discussion from there. Your petulant demand is nothing more than an attempt to interrupt and obfuscate.
John Harrold
We propose that this correlation provides evidence for a causal association between earlier sea ice breakup (due to climatic warming) and decreased polar bear survival.
Which is not the same as:
Except that all the peer reviewed science say it is and stuff
Otherwise they would have “said it and stuff”. These are two distinct statements. This is not misdirection, and I’m not trolling. Being explicit and rigorous is healthy for debate. And debating is how you sell your position. Hyperbole and exaggerations are just going to piss off the people that need to be sold on the argument.
John Harrold
Hey far be it for me to question conventional wisdom and stuff. I’ll just, you know, STFU, because that’s what is best for folks who disagree with you or think you are over reaching.
douglasfactors
I said common knowledge, not conventional wisdom.
Your ignorance is not our problem.
Dennis - SGMM
That Gore is a sly one. He even chumped the Nobel Committee.
Zifnab
Just because you are destroying an animal’s natural habitat doesn’t mean it is going to die out. You don’t know that for certain. You don’t know. Here, read my article printed in the Rush Limbaugh Monthly that clearly states Polar Bears survive best in climates that approximate that of Hawaii. If you oppose green house gases, you clearly hate polar bears and want them to become communists.
And isn’t Nature Magazine produced by a bunch of liberal elite college professors who donate exclusively to the Demon’c’Rat party? Just for posting that link, I’m going to hop in my Hummer and drive in circles for the next two hours on under inflated, bald tires well above the speed limit. Take that, you stupid hippies.
Why are my gas prices so high?
gil mann
Concernus trolli will never be on the endangered species list.
Big E
As long as we’re letting decisions be made on an ad hoc basis…..
The people should decide for themselves which politicians and companies are accountable for the current mess, owe them money, and, they should be able to go and recover any portion thereof by whatever means necessary……
Jake
Scientist: if a drought removes all of the water from a lake, the fish in the lake are very likely to die.
Sean Hannity: prove it!!!
dbrown
Nice of someone who has zero knowledge of a subject to state that a vast body of scientific, peer reviewed work, most of which is done by experts in the field with PhD’s is all based on bush whack’s mass murder of choice.
Other than hot air what scientific proof does anyone have that AGW is false, other than empty words of it aren’t so?
If you wish to be stupid, please, stay that way. If you want to learn the scientific facts and then try and prove you are right by shooting down these points then go to ” http://www.realclimate.org/” and read their overview of AGW.
If not, your points are like all people’s comments who know zero facts – I’m right because I say so and all the world is wrong – then go join a church and learn how to hate, kill and cheat your neighbors and you too can be the perfect bush lover.
dmsilev
Actually, translated from academic-ese, that sentence says very simply “There is strong evidence that the decrease in the Arctic ice is reducing the polar bear population.”
Which was the claim that was being argued about. Someone asked for peer-reviewed citations to reinforce that claim. I provided such. If you want to dispute the claim, fine, go ahead. But, I’m going to ask for the same standard of proof. Please provide links to articles in the peer-reviewed literature showing that either (a) the Arctic icecap is not shrinking or (b) the polar bear population is not being affected by the changes in the icecap.
-dms
Third Eye Open
If the damn bears ain’t contributing the the GDP, then fuk’m
jibeaux
I don’t know what the fuss is all about, there’s going to be a public comment period that will surely attract a lot of outrage, and the Bush administration, utilizing its formidable capacity for empirical thought, will have to reverse course on this.
Sigh.
Vote Democratic, that’s all I’ve got to say, from president to dogcatcher. They aren’t necessarily much better, but they’re all we’ve got. Trying to reason with these people is impossible and the only solution is to remove every last one of them without the sense to run away as fast as possible from the rotting, decaying, diseased, pustulent corpse that is the Republican party.
I hope that didn’t come across too strongly. I used to be a nice, moderate, reasonable person who believed in judging all people on their merits rather than on labels. Oh well.
dmsilev
It’s worse than you think. Nature is a British publication, owned by a German publishing house. It’s all a plot by those Nefarious Liberal Europeans to bring down America!
-dms
dbrown
As for polar bears and if they are drowning, that is a complex task to prove for a population of animals that roam over millions of square miles. Studies of polar bear survival of clubs and adults is time consuming and takes at least a year or more and cost money that only Federal agencies generally have (under bush ass suck, you think the money would be rolling in.)
Of course, the Artic ice sheet is thinning at an alarming rate that has been increasing faster than even worse case models ever predict. Since polar bears need to swim to the ice to hunt for food and the ice edge is getting farther and farther from the land area the bears breed on, then it is (danger rightwing nut jobs, a dangerous idea word is about to be said – read at own risk) logical that more bears will drown – this isn’t rocket science; however, proving that this occurs and is seriously damaging a given animal’s population is not trivial; however, this has no relevancy on AGW. AGW is a scientific fact and Humans will suffer from that one.
As for polar bears, why must science prove they are in trouble? Why do wing nuts demand science and then ignore it? If experts say it is a problem and they have the training and knowledge, what is so difficult to believe it?
Are you wing nuts so stupid that you believe the sun goes around the Earth? If not, then why? So tell me, using your vast knowledge of scientific and math skills how to prove that the Earth does go round the Sun (yes, I can and have done that and boy, it sure isn’t easy! As for direct proof, good luck, that is very tricky.) Yet you believe it and know you would be laughed at since all experts say it does. How does this differ on AGW or even polar bears? The exact same science and proofs are used for AGW as used to prove the Earth goes round Sun.
Either you are just assholes who refuse to believe facts or just frighten children refusing to face reality.
mamaph
Hmmm. I’m new to the global warming debate on the blogs. I didn’t realize the anti GW folks were out in such force (call me naïve). I just encountered two similar arguments (reflecting the sentiments of the trolls here) from people writing letters to the editor in my local paper. When I read them I wanted to puke. I know the people out there who don’t care about facts will be influenced by the bs.
Gus
That’d be great. Thanks!
les
The perfect answer to the dangerous assumption that people will, in fact, think. I’d hate to believe it’s an issue of ability, and I’m comforted by the relatively small number of people passing out on the street after forgetting to breath.
grandpajohn
How does it differ? Simple, accepting that the earth revolves around the sun does NOT affect corporate bottom lines and profits
montysano
It’s always seemed to me that, if there’s high probability that human activity is impacting the climate, then the conservative thing to do would be to err on the side of safety and try to mitigate those effects. Just as the conservative thing to do would have been to verify that Iraq was a threat before rushing off to dump a couple $T down a hole.
And certainly the Dittohead/Hannity crowd that I work with consider themselves to be conservatives. Just shows how far down the rabbit hole we’ve gone.
“It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.” O’Brien, from Orwell’s 1984.
Grumpy Code Monkey
Al Gore (or any other suitable representative of “The Left”) could make a statement that the sky was blue, water was wet, and fire was hot, and there’s a substantial number of people who will immediately argue the contrary just because Al Gore said it.
It’s like arguing with a bunch of 7-year-olds.
rachel
Nuh-uh! Pbpbpbpbbpttt!
montysano
Al Gore………. he’s fat, y’know.
Adam
fire was hot
Al Gore is objectively anti-combustion. He constantly fear-mongers about the dangers of fire despite all the benefits it brings modern society. He probably thinks he invented fire, LOL
xephyr
We’re not going to be on this planet anywhere near as long as the dinosaurs were. Their primitive survival instincts were vastly superior to our clever, egotistical, self-destructive “thinking” apparatus. Stupid people are sooooo fond of the short view – too bad they drag the rest of us along for the ride.
OriGuy
Michele Bachmann (R-Nuts) says that we don’t need to save the planet, Jesus already did that.
mikefromtexas
What was that Obama said last week? ‘These guys take pride in being ignorant’, or something like that. Understatement of the year. They wallow, and revel, in self inflicted, willful stupidity.
w vincentz
Until recently, the greatest amount of Arctic ice melt was 2007. Satellite images substantiate this fact.
Unfortunately, during the past three weeks, the ice melt is now greater in 2008.
Some scientists give it SIX more years. Yup, you heard me, six more fucking years.
Sorry to tell all the nay sayers but we are now past the point of arguement about climate change. Shit, we’re past the point of remedy.
Sure was nice knowing you all, and our gentle Arctic creatures, and ALL the rest.
Somehow, you humans had a great planet. It didn’t take you too long to fuck it up beyond repair.
Oh well…