You know it wouldn’t be a normal day in Beeboid land without a smattering of AGW stories. This is the new religion of the Left and the BBC always lives up to low expectations on the topic. This morning it’s been running this story about the US Government “finally” recognising that the Polar Bear is a “threatened species”. It quotes the Environ-mentalists partially approving of this decision whilst still lashing the Bush administration for not going even further. The thing that I find odd in this report, and so true of much BBC reporting, is the missing statistic that the Polar bear population in Canada is actually INCREASING. This must be the first time in natural history that the increase in numbers of a species is indicative that it’s population is in danger. Then again, don’t those bears like so cute? Let us consider the cold facts concerning the Polar bear but that means showing all sides to the story – the BBC shows but one.
THE BEAR NECESSITIES.
Bookmark the permalink.
Here’s an odd thing: when you click on the video marked ‘polar bears in their natural habitat’, you get a few seconds of pathetic bedraggled bear, struggling out of the water onto shard of ice (looking so scared, perhaps, because of all the caremas trained on him – listen for the hubbub of conversation), followed by lots of seconds of doom-voiced official at a lecturn.
One small point Canada is not part of the US. In Alaska it is decreasing – therefore it should be protected.
hasnt global warming been called off for the next 10 years due to the fact its getting colder
save a polar bear, club a beeboid
cheers
Gas Guzzlin Geeza
Polar bear meat is rather pleasant. A gamier type of chicken.
Did polar bears only evolve after the last warming period then?
This decision is going to be used by the left as a weapon with effects way beyond the bears and their local enviroment.The left is determined to drive the west(primarily)back into the stone age…well those of us not members of Gores chosen liberal elite, who will watch over us from their own pampered lives.
Meanwhile Vlad Putin the Impaler, on behalf of Russia, is granting MASSIVE TAX BREAKS guaranteed for 7 years to encourage those evil, profitable oil companies to drill for oil.
Why would he worry about Polar Bears whose numbers have increased fivefold in the past 50 years.
I bet he had a Polar Bear rug as well.
I’m not really sure what the point of this post is. As George Orwell points out, the article is clearly about the US recognising that polar bear numbers are falling on US territory (in this case Alaska). The article also points out that:
“Canada – home to around 15,000 polar bears – has not listed the animals as threatened.”
So the BBC reports that there is concern about polar bear numbers declining in the US (which they are) and it also adds that in Canada they are not considered to be in danger. So, what exactly is your point regarding this article?
And by the way, where does “finally” come from? From the usage in your post it suggests that this comes from the article (and implies that the BBC has said that the US government has “finally” accepted the premise). I cannot find any evidence of this within the article at all. Where does the “finally” quotation come from??
Korova,
The “finally” came from a heart-rending BBC interview this morning on Today.
Perhaps you might to make that clear in your post. It appears misleading otherwise. Anyway, I notice it was said during an interview. Was it said by the interviewer or the interviewee?
korova
none of the BBC Radio 4 reports I heard between 07:00 and 08:00 made any qualification re USA/Canada, the very clear (and I suspect intended) inference being that Polar Bears were a threatened species and in danger of extinction because of Global Warming.
Similarily Harrabin’s report (on Prince Charles’ comments) never mentioned that much of the destruction of rain forests is because of this love affair with bio fuels. (this was mentioned in a later discussion on carbon trading however)
A bit off track, sorry, but the BBC’s desperate reporting contortions are quite fascinating, as it witnesses the foundering of New Labour.
Today I noticed three stories. The front page headline was yet another unashamed pur over Brown’s old recitals:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7401846.stm
But as if reluctant to not slate the conservatives, they find this story, also front page news as of 1pm, where George Osborne has a complaint against his office “upheld” (except that he did nothing wrong which you learn only on the 6th line).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7402679.stm
Then, as if to truly expose the bias, another story appears on the same page as Osborn, promoting that ludicrous left winger Peter Hain as Saintly:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7181613.stm
This is just dreadful, license-funded propaganda.
I friend of mine has just returned from a photographic tripe to Churchill, Canada. Tell the locals that polar bears are declining and they’ll just laugh. It simply isn’t true.
I’m not really sure what the point of this post is. As George Orwell points out, the article is clearly about the US recognising that polar bear numbers are falling on US territory (in this case Alaska).
You’re talking through your backside.
There are an estimated 20,000-25,000 wild polar bears today, up from an estimated 8,000-10,000 in the late 1960s.
The US Interior Department was under court order to announce by May 15 whether polar bears will be designated an endangered species—despite their thriving population—because global warming supposedly will melt all the ice where they live on off-shore ice packs.
This ruling is based on the entire SPECIES. Not on those Polar Bears grunting with an American accent on “US territory.” Their numbers are not falling.
So, as a so-called “news” organization BBC News has a responsibility to point that fact out.
The article has a duty to point out that this is a decision based on disupted claims of what may happen IF global warming MAY happen in 50 years.
By the way — SPECIES mean the entire species. Not which member of that species happen to reside in an artifical construct human beings call a country.
The REAL motives of the mental enviros is clear. They boast about it:
The Center for Biological Diversity originated the lawsuit to declare polar bears as endangered. Their website acknowledges that their goal is more than protecting the bears from a claimed threat of global warming. CBD brags they have fought since at least 2001 to block oil and gas drilling in polar bear habitat, and claims credit for preventing drilling last year in the Beaufort Sea area (an area with projected reserves that could replace two years of foreign oil imports).
Did the BBC mention any of this as background?
There does seem to be an interesting story and debate in there that the BBC either doesn’t want or can’t be bothered to report.
Readers might naturally wonder why the US Interior Secretary would say he’s taking steps to make sure the listing of an animal as an endangered species is “not abused”. Rather than explain this as the post above does, readers are just left to conclude he’s a paranoid, reactionary moron. Life is so simple for a certain type of BBC reporter, it seems.
Hi David
Glad to see you taking recycling more serious. You have written about the Canadian polar bear population in April under this headline:
“SMARTER THAN THE AVERAGE POLAR BEAR!”
Perhaps you are now an environ-mentalist too (note that English may be the only language for which that word play works).
On to your link (April 2007):
http://www.news.com/5208-12_3-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=26483&messageID=255460&start=-1
Which, is a reader comment based on the story from here (6 March 2007):
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b839-b71a9e5df868
Here is the main point in the article:
“The latest government survey of polar bears roaming the vast Arctic expanses of northern Quebec, Labrador and southern Baffin Island show the population of polar bears has jumped to 2,100 animals from around 800 in the mid-1980s.”
This is an increase of 1,300 polar bears in this region. Why the polar bear population has increased from a small base is not discussed. I would have loved to know how this increase could be explained. Perhaps extensive hunting has reduced to bear population to 800 in the mid 80s and bears in this area were thereafter protected. I don’t know but perhaps you can explain this.
Anyway, not sure how last years news compare with the latest statistics from the WWF (January 2008)
http://www.wwf.ca/NewsAndFacts/NewsRoom/factsheet_polarbears.asp
The WWF states that the total bear population is estimated to be between 20,000 – 25,000 (15,000 in Canada).
The trend in the Canadian bear accross population is split into 5 regions declining, 5 regions stable and 2 regions increasing (from severely reduced historic levels). But read and analyse for yourself.
Polar bears are predators,there have never been great majestic herds of any kind of large predator.Predator numbers in correlation to their prey.Perhaps instead of clubbing seal cubs to death,polar bears should be introduced,because let’s face it polar bears don’t live on a diet of ice.
Obviously the BBC puts absolute trust in the Republican government and its scientists to decide which species it considers endangered. So much so they didn’t mention any other studies on Polar bear habits or population, simply the government’s decision.
Obviously the BBC puts absolute trust in the Republican government
Obviously you don’t seem to know that the “Republicans” are the minority party in both two Houses of Congress.
That would make the current “governing” party of the Legislative branch, the Democratic party.
thud | Homepage | 15.05.08 – 11:23 am |
100% correct. As is Jack Bauer @ 2:34pm.
“Obviously you don’t seem to know that the “Republicans” are the minority party in both two Houses of Congress. That would make the current “governing” party of the Legislative branch, the Democratic party.”
Good point, if it weren’t for the key involvement of the executive Branch, including, according to the report, US Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, the Republican member of George Bush’s cabinet who
“said the government had made the decision on the advice of scientists, but he suggested the impact of the move would be limited“. So this is clearly a largely Republican measure the Beeb is jumping behind.
‘This must be the first time in natural history that the increase in numbers of a species is indicative that its population is in danger.’
The Left uses the same principle for Gaza: bewailing an Israeli ‘genocide’, while the population level booms, thanks partly to the medical resources supplied by er, Israel.
Polar Bears… Israel… I won’t start 🙂
If Israel supplied the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip with (much-needed) condoms, the BBC would be calling that ‘genocide’.
Alex:”Obviously the BBC puts absolute trust in the Republican government and its scientists to decide which species it considers endangered…”
Yes, because the story is obviously being used to puff the Republican administration, rather than to have a go at its environmental record, as any fair reading would attest.
Do not be mislead by the title of this Alaska news report, and do read it all as it [eventually] gives both sides –
http://community.adn.com/adn/node/123321
Both sides say (or admit) that the bear population has increased 500 percent during what is supposed to have been catastrophic warming. And since that is from a former base of 5000, it looks like 5000 is not only a “sustainable” population but a healthy and growing one – so how is it that 5 times that number is “endangered”?
And Alaska/Canada – they may not form large packs like caribou, but the bears do migrate. They do not build houses and farm the land.
This issue has had a bit of coverage over here on the US chat shows.
The ‘federal’ judge as cited in the BBC is an activist judge in California.
The environmental lobby in the US are using this as a test case to hamper any further oil exploration. (Great time to do it).
The hillhunt doppelganger above has quoted the findings of WWF Canada.
I’m afraid that I’m a little more sceptical of groups such as the WWF, ever on the lookout for more funds.
Here in Canada the view is that polar bears are not on the decline. There have been a plethora of TV programmes about the bears. The overall message being that they are a confounded nuisance.
In the deserts of Sudan
And the gardens of Japan
From Milan to Yucatan
Every woman, every man
Hit me with your big green stick.
Hit me! Hit me!
BBC is eco sick!,
Hit me! hit me! hit me!
Hit me with your big green stick.
Harrabins a lunatic!
Hit me! Hit me! Hit me!
sincere apologies to Ian Dury.
Supt Simon Nickless from Nottinghamshire Police said officers had been working alongside community representatives to “offer support and reassurance”.
Which Community?
For some strange reason the articlr does not tell us.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7403654.stm
I know that this is not about Polar Bears but the Open Thread is miles away.
There always two things you can rely on when the weather starts getting warmer:
(a) The Tube drivers go on strike.
(b) The BBC runs more AGW stories.
“Yes, because the story is obviously being used to puff the Republican administration, rather than to have a go at its environmental record, as any fair reading would attest.”
It does a bit of both. The US government adopts a minor policy:
“The United States has listed the polar bear as a threatened species”
and explains its minor impact
“However, the government stressed the listing would not lead to measures to prevent global warming.”
The other side expresses its reservations:
“Environmentalists have expressed disappointment that more will not be done to protect the bear’s habitat.”
The government sticks to its guns on climate change.
“While the legal standards under the Endangered Species Act compel me to list the polar bear as threatened,” he said, “I want to make clear that this listing will not stop global climate change or prevent any sea ice from melting.”
Environmentalists express their opinion
“Environmental campaigners described the listing as a limited victory. “Protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act is a major step forward,” said Andrew Wetzler of the Natural Resources Defense Council in a statement.”
And make a demand:
““But the Bush administration has proposed using loopholes in the law to allow the greatest threat to the polar bear – global warming pollution – to continue unabated,” he continued”
Government makes concessions.
“Mr Kempthorne said there would be greater steps to monitor polar bear populations in Alaska, and more cooperation with foreign governments to protect the species.”
And the environmentalists reply.
“But environmentalists said this would not be enough. “By denying a direct link between the sources of global warming pollution and the loss of the polar bears’ sea ice habitat, and by denying that the polar bear will be protected from oil and gas development, they’re willing to sit by and let the polar bear go extinct,” said John Kostyack of the National Wildlife Federation.
Now I admit the greens’ words are a bit stronger, a bit longer and probably a bit more absorbent, but it’s hardly the BBC’s fault that the Republicans are being wet blankets when it comes to fighting their corner. This may even be their strategy – cold, rational legal language in the face of outrage.
Did i miss the part where the bbc hauled in another expert who said polar bear numbers are increasing?
The green meme marches on.
One of the important things about this is the unprecedented use of predictions from computer models to justify this. I notice this BBC page links to an article that hand-wavingly justifies the use of computer models in weather prediction. The history of computer modelling is incredibly dodgy, when people say things like “Listen to the science” they really mean “Trust the models. Please!”
The sea ice cover is predicted to go down yet the models haven’t been verified in advance, they just retro-fit to existing past data, and then pick the nearest match and claim to know the future. Nice work if you can get it a bit like working at the BBC I guess 😉
Banjo is right. It speaks volumes that Alex must have been unaware of the glaring anomaly in his argument, even as he typed it.
This really is first form stuff. It’s simply depressing to keep banging up against it.
Just one point of information: The (Republican) Secretary of the Interior may have felt the law gave him no choice in the matter. (It’s a notably rigid law.)
Of course the key thing to understand is that polar bears are not endangered — and every serious person knows that. Including some of those who brought the original lawsuit. (Even some journalists know that — though they don’t always share that information with the public.)
One quick question: Did the BBC mention that polar bears are still legally hunted in some areas? Some might think that fact relevant, when discussing polar bear populations.
So, Alex, your initial suggestion that this report (also covered by every newspaper, news agency and media outlet) was in fact an example of the BBC demonstrating “absolute trust in the Republican government” and presenting its views without challenge was entirely without merit.
Since it was neither funny nor true, why did you bother making the argument?
By the logic used to protect Polar Bears one could also now put Homo Sapiens on the list since if the AGW theory is indeed correct we too could disappear.
Forget polar bears, the human race is on the decline.
Excellent comment from IntersetedParty. The BBC (and much of the media in general) cannot get their head round the fact that climate “predictions” are not based on science but commuter models. In science you need experimental verification and a theretical basis. Climatology has neither. It may be very techical and it may be even mathematical – but it’s not science.
“So, Alex, your initial suggestion that this report (also covered by every newspaper, news agency and media outlet) was in fact an example of the BBC demonstrating “absolute trust in the Republican government” and presenting its views without challenge was entirely without merit.”
Absolute trust in its science, less trust in its policies. See the distinction? Anyhow, slightly odd to see you all complaining that the Beeb gives the Bush Administration’s scientists an easy ride.
I thought we’d established the scientists aren’t Republican appointees – while the policy makers (those the BBC is ‘less sure about’) are.
They’re obviously scientists the Republicans give a fair amount of credence to. Besides, far more people seem to have spoken out on the politics than publicly refuted the scientists’ findings. (Linking to blogs that pre-date the decision doesn’t count as refuting the findings).
An interesting point of view to ponder on this subject:
I like the conclusion that maybe the only reasons humans are here is to leave eternal carrier bag waste after we’ve gone 🙂
Alex: “They’re obviously scientists the Republicans give a fair amount of credence to
Not necessarily. Here’s what Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said: “…the legal standards under the Endangered Species Act compel me to list the polar bear as threatened”.
Of course, this and the subsequent reference to ensuring the listing was not “abused” make almost no sense since the BBC doesn’t provide the context to the story: That there’s some suspicion the move to get the bears listed is more political than scientific.
As I say, it’s an interesting debate – more interesting, anyway, than simply using the story to inform me that environmental groups don’t rate Bush’s green credentials. Whodathunkit?