welfare

If you're a conservative or a climate change denier, undoubtedly there were as follows efforts underway to officially declare Ursus maritimus (also known as polar bear) listed as an endangered species, the United States under Endangered Species Act.

In 2005, the Center for Biological Diversity petitions for polar bear protection, based on research done climate and wildlife experts worldwide (ammals / polar_bear / index.html "> pdf). There is no international scientific agreement that the polar bear is heading toward extinction unless protected (details here). Finally, in 2006, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has responded to the petition of the Centre, and proposed </ a> that polar bears be listed as threatened with extinction.

Predictably, those who are more interested in the welfare of fossil fuels than in the survival of polar bears were doing their best to prevent the door to be protected.

To make a long story short, there was unfa4ef-802nd-23ad-445f-e4d88bad74b1 "> initial Senate hearing in which Senator James Inhofe and a choice of" expert "did their best to confuse the issue; nity was follow-up hearing investigating the Bush administration's foot-dragging (to which a senior official did not even bother to show up). Finally, a federal judge put down his order and the Department of Interior to make a final decision dedicated May 15, 2008.

Which brings us to the latest attempt to legislators to keep the door off the list endangered. If science proves something that you do not like because, you pay scientists to come to conclusions that correspond to your business interests.

Alaska State lawmakers decided to go "scientist" shopping:

A $ 2 million program funded with little debate by the legislature last month calls for using state money to finance an "academic-based" conference highlights that contrarian scientific research on global warming. Legislators hope to undermine the perception of a widespread consensus among scientists that the polar bear global warming temperatures and melting Arctic ice threatens polar bears' survival.

Republican legislative leaders say federal decision to declare the polar bears "threatened" by climate change would have worrying effects on oil Article development and the state's economic future.

[…]

Legislative leaders said they are frustrated that researchers skeptical of doomsday scenario to get marginalized as crackpots or industry shills in the media and scientific bodies. "We want to have the money to hire scientists to answer the Interior (Department) scientists," House Speaker John Harris, R-Valdez, said last week.

In other words, they want some good climanegazionisti change to present "evidence" that the Interior Department scientists are wrong.

House Speaker both Harris and Senate President Lyda Green underlying the request for $ 2 million. In particular, Green was one of the promoters of a 2007 Senate resolution to oppose listing the polar bear as threatened.

At least Harris is honest about their motivations, nd what he thinks of scientists:

But the point is not to seek some non-biased measure of scientific truth. The point, said Harris, is to provide a forum for scientists whose views back Alaska interests.

"You know me as that scientists are like lawyers," said Harris.

Rick Steiner is a conservation scientist at the University of Alaska. For months, it statodi groped to obtain Alaska state officials to make public the scientific reasons that have to prevent the protection of polar bears:

[He said] "This is truly the conference in anything," […]

Friday [May 2, 2008], Steiner released a long chain of e-mail correspondence, saying the state first promised to send internal documents and then refused. The Department of rule of law is now reviewing the internal memo from scientists to see if it can be released under tegli been open records laws.

"And 'stunningly hypocritical that the state will spend $ 2 million to convene a scientific conference on this theme, but will not release its own scientific analysis," said Steiner.

At the end of the Anchorage Daily News article, there is a summary of a conference call (with Harris and green). Note the part that I highlighted in bold:

The project will include research methodologies such as computer modeling and perceived consensus. The research must be non-biased specific groups' opinion and fact scientifically based results.

Not flawed? Since when were the climate change sceptics "non-biased"? By definition, this conference is being paid for and convened to challenge a search shows that polar bears are in danger, to provide a platform for quelli71, filter.all / pub_detail.asp "> denier tired old ideas for discussion with whom we are so familiar .

Stay tuned. I'm sure we'll see soon enough that the "experts" to be called are not exactly "non-biased".

(Cross posted from my other house, DeSmogBlog.com.)

RW55U ">

Source Plutonium Page