An inconvenient dangered species

December 28, 2006 12:06 AM

Global warming is to blame for the disapearing act of Polar Bears in the arctic. After years of so called "Scientific proof" the Bush administration finally admits they were wrong.
posted by PreteFunkEra (51 comments total)

Not to (acid) rain on your parade, but how does putting the polar bear on the endangered list mean that the Bush administration is admitting anything about global warming?
They've already given in and admitted that global warming is real, but they seem to still refuse to believe that it is caused by human impact. If polar bears are endangered because of melting ice, that's related to a symptom of global warming, it shows nothing about the cause of the warming. Thus the administration can continue to avoid the topic.
posted by nightchrome at 12:15 AM on December 28, 2006

"I read the report put out by the bureaucracy," Mr. Bush said dismissively when asked about the EPA report

So, the EPA is "the bureacracy". Great.

I bet he didn't actually read it, though...
posted by flapjax at midnite at 12:23 AM on December 28, 2006

Maybe an Intelligent Designer can come up with new, improved polar bears to replace the ones that don't survive?
posted by wobh at 12:29 AM on December 28, 2006

The Bush Admin didn't admit any wrongdoing, Bush himself dismissed it as nonsense.
posted by mathowie at 12:32 AM on December 28, 2006

I'm not understanding this FPP. As Matt says, they did nothing of the sort...they still are claiming that they were right all along and humans aren't the cause.
posted by Kickstart70 at 12:35 AM on December 28, 2006

By placing the polar bear under the protection of the Endangered Species Act, the US Government must prevent any activity that could further jeopardise the animal or its habitat.

They're not going to stop the sun from becoming too hot. This is a WINK WINK acknowledgement that things must be done to reduce greenhouse gasses. So how does one reduce greenhouse gas?
posted by PreteFunkEra at 12:41 AM on December 28, 2006

I'm not understanding this FPP. As Matt says, they did nothing of the sort...they still are claiming that they were right all along and humans aren't the cause.

Such a decision would require all federal agencies to ensure that anything they authorize that might affect polar bears will not jeopardize their survival or the sea ice where they live. That could include oil and gas exploration, commercial shipping, or even releases of toxic contaminants or climate-affecting pollution.
posted by PreteFunkEra at 12:44 AM on December 28, 2006

The most amazing thing about all of this is not that there's a debate about global warming --- that would be merely embarassing --- but that people are actually waiting for the ruling administration to weigh in on the issue. It's like being in 18th century France and reserving judgement on the revolution until Louis XVI says it's morally justified.

To anybody with even the most passing familiarity with climate science, global warming is, undeniably, both a real and manmade thing. This is an unescapable fact. The entire philsophical jutification for the existence of a ruling class is that it's their job to deal with this kind of shit, and the entire popular justification of democracy is that it allows the people to depose of them when they fail to do so... and yet when faced with the overwhelming evidence that the ruling class has fucked up in every possible way and that the people have been lied to, the people's natural inclanation, apparently, is to say 'Well, let's see what the liars have to say. I mean, maybe that's not what they meant.'

You can blame it on the media's attempts to give equal time and, unintentionally but accordingly, equal respect to even the most ridiculous and appalling of opinions; you can blame it on the constant politicizing of even the most non-political issues; you can blame it on the fact that every real issue that faces the world is dramatically turned into some kind of ideological sport where everybody picks a team and defends it to the death for no other reason than that it's their team --- but it still barely explains why people would put up with

Actually, nevermind. I was going to write '...it still barely explains why people would put up with being lied to with patience and confidence, in the face of the most obvious truth, or why they would fervently believe and defend those lies, even after their falsehood lay bare'...but while I was writing it, I realised that the last paragraph pretty much explained this one. It's why everybody, regardless of how confused, informed, outraged, indignant or ignorant they maybe be, still have to hold their breaths for the latest word about the state of climatology from the goddamned Bush administration. I mean, shit.
posted by Tiresias at 2:14 AM on December 28, 2006 [15 favorites]

I don't much care about whether or not the Bush Administration "means it" or not, the fact is they've finally done something positive.
The BBC link
NY Times
USA Today article about the nomination of Dirk Kempthorne.

The fact that Kempthorne is at the helm of this really means something important: Not even the right can deny that SOMETHING'S HAPPENING, which is a step forward, at least.
posted by eparchos at 2:27 AM on December 28, 2006

Sorry, I didn't mean to piss all over the parade here. This is definitely positive and, given the recent climate, a monumental step in the right direction. For me, it's just like 'What the hell took you assholes so long? And why the hell do the rest of you assholes care what these clowns think about anything?'

I guess these are the questions of the day. And they're probably questions for the ages, too.
posted by Tiresias at 2:37 AM on December 28, 2006

'IF' he read it, i doubt he was capable of undersatanding it. (IQ about what? 70?)

'IF' was capable of understanding, i doubt he was capable of caring. (spoiled rich kid)

'IF' he was capable of caring, i doubt he was capable of making an independent decision. (daddy/donald/dick, what should i do?)

'IF' he was capable of making an independent decision, i doubt he was capable of making the correct decision. (what's good for GM is good for america)

this man is an abomination.
posted by altman at 4:06 AM on December 28, 2006

But in a conference call with reporters, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said that although his decision to seek protection for polar bears acknowledged the melting of the Arctic ice, his department was not taking a position on why the ice was melting or what to do about it.

I'm betting Bush thinks terrorists are responsible...
posted by sexymofo at 4:49 AM on December 28, 2006

Anyone whose seen him speak lately can tell he's very close to losing his shit entirely. He's a broken man, drowning in a sea of his own shit. Everyone has turned against him, and even Daddy tacitly acknowledges that he's an utter fuckup and an embarrassment to a family known to be full of the vilest of criminals.

And you think he gives a flying fuck about global warming?
posted by Optamystic at 4:59 AM on December 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

Everyone has turned against him, and even Daddy tacitly acknowledges that he's an utter fuckup and an embarrassment to a family known to be full of the vilest of criminals. And you think he gives a flying fuck about global warming?

Nixon, who was no slouch in the vilest of criminals and utter fuckup categories, found the time to create the EPA, so anything can happen.
posted by three blind mice at 6:09 AM on December 28, 2006

What is it the kids are calling it now? Disses? Is that right? Ok, put that in there.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 7:08 AM on December 28, 2006

sorry this may pedantic, (IQ about what? 70?) is completely wrong. Bush may be somewhat spoiled, he is very seemingly incompetent in many things and also may exhibit some sociopathic tendencies (clinically speaking), these things can be debated with some level of anecdotal evidence. However, he does not operate on the level of (clinical again) an individual who is retarded. My, strictly off the cuff, guess is his level of intelligence is somewhere around the standard 100. I don't think he is particularly stupid, just that he is an average (intelligence) man put into a job that requires above average intelligence. There may well be a lot more that goes into this equation, but this post has gone on long enough.
posted by edgeways at 7:23 AM on December 28, 2006

I'm curious if anyone complaining about Bush made a conscious sacrifice this holiday season for the sake of global warming - for example, choosing not to fly. Or if you did, paid a carbon offset.
posted by stbalbach at 7:26 AM on December 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

I personally made a conscious effort not to kill any polar bears.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 7:49 AM on December 28, 2006

'IF' he read it, i doubt he was capable of undersatanding it. (IQ about what? 70?)"

Probably some where between 85 and 115. 70 is mildly retarded.
posted by Mitheral at 8:08 AM on December 28, 2006

Is there somewhere I can go to get trained on how to not consistently kill polar bears?
posted by blue_beetle at 8:09 AM on December 28, 2006

blue_beetle: Just do the opposite of everything contained herein.
posted by synaesthetichaze at 8:20 AM on December 28, 2006

First they came for the Polar Bears, and I said nothing because I hated bears. Then they came for the islands.
posted by drezdn at 8:24 AM on December 28, 2006

'IF' he read it, i doubt he was capable of undersatanding it. (IQ about what? 70?)

'IF' was capable of understanding, i doubt he was capable of caring. (spoiled rich kid)

'IF' he was capable of caring, i doubt he was capable of making an independent decision. (daddy/donald/dick, what should i do?)

'IF' he was capable of making an independent decision, i doubt he was capable of making the correct decision. (what's good for GM is good for america)

Dayenu!
posted by sourwookie at 8:37 AM on December 28, 2006 [2 favorites]

Can we drop a few breeding pairs onto Antarctica? There seems to be a lot of juicy penguins to go around.
posted by meehawl at 8:56 AM on December 28, 2006

If we did that then Gary Larson will finally be vindicated, and the infamously inaccurate depiction of Polar bears and penguins together will have come to pass.
posted by edgeways at 9:02 AM on December 28, 2006

Thats very bad news. If they admit it's happening at all it's only because it's irreversable and they don't have to do annything about it.
posted by Artw at 9:23 AM on December 28, 2006

The polar bears need protection because their numbers are being reduced by guys sick of chasing them out of their garbage. If CO2 is to blame - and it very possibly isn't - the ice is melting anyway and this ancient species will survive as it has in the past by adapting. Always assuming they can do it without 'help' from the human race. Whatever we touch, we change. I don't give the bears much of a chance.
posted by Cennad at 10:29 AM on December 28, 2006

Tiresias: The entire philosophical justification for the existence of a ruling class is that it's their job to deal with this kind of shit, and the entire popular justification of democracy is that it allows the people to depose of them when they fail to do so...

Just to add to this thought:
We're responsible too, as individuals, for causing this problem and for fixing it. Foisting the problem onto the shoulders of the ruling class, tidily washing our hands of it, and denying our own influence is and has always been a recipe for failure.
posted by kid ichorous at 10:30 AM on December 28, 2006

Anyone care for some "inconvenient facts"?

"One polar bear population (western Hudson Bay ) has declined since the 1980s and the reproductive success of females in that area seems to have decreased. We are not certain why, but it appears that ecological conditions in the mid-1980s were exceptionally good."

"Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada , 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present."
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 10:38 AM on December 28, 2006

Two other scientists working on polar bears disagree with your link, Steven C. Den Beste.
posted by drezdn at 10:48 AM on December 28, 2006

How will this affect the Polish Spolar Bear of Tibet? [video link, funny]
posted by fleetmouse at 11:13 AM on December 28, 2006

[oh and probably nsfw due to cussing]
posted by fleetmouse at 11:15 AM on December 28, 2006

So President bush is concerned about Iorek Byrnison's thoughts on Arctic Ice. Great, we're getting somewhere.
posted by econous at 11:18 AM on December 28, 2006

im in your ice, killin ur berz
posted by Hands of Manos at 12:00 PM on December 28, 2006

oops, I mean "ur" how unl337 of me
posted by Hands of Manos at 12:00 PM on December 28, 2006

It fascinates me how that "I has a" and "I'm in ur" image macro jargon is creeping into every nook and cranny of our crumbling society.
posted by fleetmouse at 12:46 PM on December 28, 2006

then let me say I for one welcome our nook and cranny overlords (since that term hasn't been mentioned on this thread...I'm sure it will soon however).
posted by Hands of Manos at 1:08 PM on December 28, 2006

If I see that fucking nook and cranny overlord one more time...
posted by fleetmouse at 1:15 PM on December 28, 2006

I'm waiting for the nookie overlord
posted by InfidelZombie at 2:17 PM on December 28, 2006

If he read it...

Can't remember where I saw it - possibly a Gore interview linked here - but Gore had said he'd done both a book and a movie of An Inconvenient Truth because he knew Bush was such a reader.
posted by Zinger at 3:15 PM on December 28, 2006

EXTRA! EXTRA! Bush administration found responsible for decades of global warming, individual citizens exonerated!
posted by Eideteker at 5:44 PM on December 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

I doubt the Bush administration could invent themselves an ashtray, let alone a time machine, Eideteker.
posted by tehloki at 7:22 PM on December 28, 2006

The problem with global warming (ok, one of the many problems with global warming...) is that, last time I checked, the US shared space on this planet with other countries. Countries like China, whose pollution problem can be seen from space. While it is awesome that the government is doing something about this, I wonder how much of an effect it will have on the problem as a whole.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 7:44 PM on December 28, 2006

There is a difference both in the capabilities and in the efficiency of mitigation policies in developed and in developing countries, CitrusFreak.

Although I agree with you that emissions from developing countries (and most populous) such as China and India need to be addressed by all the countries because we share resources, the problem is a little more complicated:
The growth of Chinese imports in the U.S. economy boosted the total emissions of carbon dioxide (a primary greenhouse gas) from the two countries by over 700 million metric tons between 1997 and 2003, according to a study published online in the journal Energy Policy. The analysis, prepared by two scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, suggests that American emissions of carbon dioxide in 2003 would have been 6% higher if the United States had manufactured the products that it imported from China. Meanwhile, China's 2003 emissions would have been 14% lower had it not produced goods for the United States.

But, really, these are some of the interesting problems to address today. Issues that have to do with the impacts (geographical, political, economic, social and whatnot) of climate change and the political leverage for mitigation. However, we are still spending precious time arguing whether global warming is real and anthropogenic.
posted by carmina at 9:14 PM on December 28, 2006

Who would have thought a guy most americans would have liked to have a beer with turned out to be an amoral moron. I cant decide who looks worse here, GWB or GOP voters.
posted by damn dirty ape at 9:17 PM on December 28, 2006

For the record, China is the second biggest producer of greenhouse gas emissions at the moment, guess who's first? However, it is expected that China will surpass the US within the next 10 years (I apologize I cannot find the reference now, too late, too tired).
posted by carmina at 9:32 PM on December 28, 2006

Dang, I hadn't thought about the economic factors in this situation. Good point, Carmina.

But can't some middle ground be reached where the goods are still produced but the emissions are lowered? Or is the US unwilling to acknowledge Global Warming and get it's act and the acts of other countries together because of the adverse effects it may have on trade relations?
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 9:42 PM on December 28, 2006

More relevant to PreteFunkEra's original discussion topic, I think we are quick to celebrate. The point is to bring the administration to admit that the climate change (sic, global warming, less sic) is attributed mainly to manmade interference with the environment (aka anthropogenic effect). Everyone accepts that there has been an ever increasing trend in surface temperatures (how can you dispute that really?) over the last century. But some politicians and very few scientists tend to blame natural variability for that (i.e. the intrinsic variability that has always been present in earth's climate records). The problem is that they do not accept who's really responsible and ultimately accountable.
posted by carmina at 10:11 PM on December 28, 2006

"70 is mildly retarded."

The last six years have been severely retarded.
posted by Twang at 2:03 AM on December 29, 2006

It fascinates me how that "I has a" and "I'm in ur" image macro jargon is creeping into every nook and cranny of our crumbling society.

I kind of dig it, though. For a long time, African American slang has been appropriated by children, and eventually adults, of European descent. It's nice to see slang that's being generated independently of that connection.
posted by davejay at 9:38 AM on December 29, 2006

IF the Dems win in 08, Gore should be the head of the EPA. Instead of just running a Pres/VP ticket they should run a Pres/Vp/EPA ticket. It would show proactive thinking and really shore up the conservative environmental movement.
posted by PreteFunkEra at 7:16 PM on December 29, 2006