Sen. James Inhofe weighs in on polar bear mania
Sen. James Inhofe, one of the few sane voices in the Senate battling global warming hysteria and Gore Inc., issued a statement about the polar bear listing today:
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, today expressed disappointment with the U.S. Department of Interior’s final decision to list the polar bear as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act.
“Unfortunately, the decision to list the polar bear as ‘threatened’ appears to be based more on politics than science,” Senator Inhofe said. “With the number of polar bears substantially up over the past forty years, the decision announced today appears to be based entirely on unproven computer models. The decision, therefore, is simply a case of reality versus unproven computer models, the methodology of which has been challenged by many scientists and forecasting experts. If the models are invalid, then the decision based on them is not justified. It’s disappointing that Secretary Kempthorne failed to stand up to liberal special interest groups who advocated this listing.
“Lost in the debate is the fact that polar bear numbers have dramatically increased over the past forty years – a fact even liberal environmental activists are forced to concede. According to Canadian scientists, 11 of the 13 bear populations are stable, with some increasing. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service now estimates that there are currently 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears. These numbers are substantially up from lows estimates in the range of 5,000-10,000 in the 1950s and 1960s. Credit should be given to protection already provided the polar bear by way of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the several international conservation treaties including the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears and the U.S.-Russia Polar Bear Conservation and Management Act of 2006, as well as conservation, education, and outreach agreement with native peoples.
“Today’s decision will have far reaching consequences. Liberal special interests have employed hundreds of lawyers to try and convert current environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act into climate laws. Yet the ESA is simply not equipped to regulate economy-wide greenhouse gases, nor does the Fish and Wildlife Service have the expertise to be a pollution control agency. The regulatory tools of the ESA function best when at-risk species are faced with local, tangible threats. Greenhouse gas emissions are not local. The implications of today’s decision, therefore, will undoubtedly lead to a drastic increase in litigation and eager lawyers ready to use this listing to do exactly what they have intended to do all along – shut down energy production.”
See this Senate minority report debunking the myth of imminent polar bear extinction.
See also my sit-down interview with Sen. Inhofe last September on his truly maverick attempts to inject reason into the Beltway global warming debate.
Keep carrying the torch, Sen. Inhofe. It’s a lonely job. We need you there.
***
Much more from Allahpundit, who sums it all up:
Your quote of the day comes from Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, who notes with great nuance that “this listing will not stop global climate change or prevent any sea ice from melting.” It also won’t stop China from continuing to belch out greenhouse gases at such an amazing rate that in two years it’ll have singlehandedly wiped out all of the reductions from the left’s beloved Kyoto. What it will do in theory is give greens the right to use the Endangered Species Act to challenge economic development all over the country, on grounds that carbon emissions anywhere are a threat to polar bears everywhere.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Jules Crittenden » Carbon Runway Skidmarks
- Polar Bear “Threatened” Yeah, Right…. « Bob’s Bites
- Suitably Flip
- A Conservative Christian Environmental Blog - 'Cause the World's Not Ours to Mess Up [Ps 24:1]
- Michelle Malkin » You go, girl: Alaska GOP Gov. will sue Bush administration over polar bear listing
- Michelle Malkin » First, the polar bear…now, the Pacific walrus
- Contempo Magazine Blog » Blog Archive » Female Reactions to the Palin Pick
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Enviro-nitwits
Mudville Gazette
» The five-year plan
Legal Insurrection
» Is "Finish the Job" the New "Peace With Honor"?Sister Toldjah
» WaPo and NYT to Obama: We love ya, you stylish deep thinkerPundit & Pundette
» Hiding the decline: Deniers made them do itPower Line
» More From the East Anglia ArchivesFounding Bloggers
» Did The New York Times Just Tell Glenn Reynolds To “STFU”?Doug Ross @ Journal
» 'Hope is fading fast' --- the T-Shirt
It must be man who is changing the enirovment because the enviroment never changed before man was arround….. As for computer models, you can adjust computer models to produce whatever result you want. The democrats acuse people of ignoring science, well the fact is they acuse us of ignoring the science THEY like. The fact is that the most powerful infulance on the enviroment is the sun, yet thier models assume the sun remains constant which we know is not true. One single volcano can change the world tempature in less than a year yet thier models do not take them into account. So much for the liberal “science” and “computer models”. These arogant dumbasses will kill us all yet.
#95 Dancingwithdachshunds:
What he said!
“Global warming” is far more of a political phenomenon than a climatic one.
Maybe lgm ought to get out of the office once in a while.
Newsbusters did a story on this Australian scientist yesterday. Here is the Youtube link to his opinions on Global Warming. Worth the time to watch.
I’ll try that again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=related
I have much respect for science – it’s scientist I have a problem with. IF they would quit presenting science that hasn’t been proven as though it’s fact (evolution for example), I’d probably give an ear more than I do. Scientists simply fill in the gaps when they don’t have all the facts to serve their own political agendas and then present it as though they have discovered yet another secret to the universe. I will not replace my faith in the Lord with a scientist who thinks he’s God! I have zero respect them!
LGM is still proving my point that those who can’t do, teach..
and those who can’t teach, troll..
The problem with science is that it denies faith which actualy hamstrings it sometimes. How amny times have we seen science deny a fact only to have one person with faith in the idea to prove them wrong? Science is the orthodoxy of today. Never to be questioned. Yet they wrong more times than they are right.
nothing against a good amount of teachers I know.. except for the truly, willfully ignorant teachers like LGM..
Thanks for the add, completely agree. The whole junk science involved with this is at best, dubious, and at worst a complete fraud.
Woot! Rightwingrocker: fellow member of the greater Philadelphia area.
Dude, I live within about 3 miles of the airport.
That’s a pure lie. Over 19,000 scientists signed on to a protocol refuting the idea (not ‘fact’) that people caused warming. A huge percentage “don’t know for sure what causes it”, and a small, very vocal (”give me the grant money or you’ll all die”) group are riding this pony for all it’s worth. Most noteworthy is James Hansen whose data, models, and conclusions have been found to be BS by dozens of his peers. He’s an incompetent or a liar, or both.
This despite the fact that the actual scientific analysis says they didn’t, won’t, and can’t.
I’d say those 10 per 1 are on the dole.
Just a scientific thought.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Swing by my blog and leave a message with an email address, and I’ll meet up with ya for a brewski!
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Perhaps over the next 50-100 years, the polar bear pop can increase and migrate down to the our area here in North America (I don’t know if it will still be called the USA), where they can dine on the corpses of people who starved to death because of the mandate to grow crops for fuel.
Most polar bears live in Canada, what is the U.S. supposed to do about a Canadian problem? Maybe if the Canadians stop clubbing seals long enough, they will figure out how to deal with the problem.
I think you’re coming on to something here. Hmmm? Let’s see… polar bears eat … SEALS! So that’s the main reason polar bears are threatened; Canadian hunters are ’stealing’ the polar bears’ favorite entrée. Why I’ll even bet those hunters drive SUV’s too.