It's Time to Get Serious About Endangered Species and Stop Using Speculation As Evidence of Threats

A blog called Polar Bear Science makes a great point about how climate hype is being used to generate polar bear hype. It’s all a vicious circle that keeps coming back to the beginning with no end or answer to the question of whether the big cuddly white beasts who will hunt a man are really threatened or not.

Here are some excerpts from the story that explain:

Driven by legal petitions filed by activist conservation groups in 2007, polar bears were the first species considered for [Endangered Species Act or ËSA”] protection where future habitat changes predicted by climate models were used to conclude that significant population declines would likely occur within the foreseeable future (i.e., three generations). Despite objections from respected scientists … this entirely new approach to designating species at risk of extinction received final approval in 2008 and was subsequently upheld in 202…

This acceptance of predictions of future habitat loss based on climate change models has now expanded beyond polar species. You might be surprised to learn that the US is an outlier regarding its obsession with climate change models.

Other countries and conservation organizations do not share such pessimistic and unscientific views of species survival as supported by the American ESA, which hinge so completely on very uncertain future changes in climate generated by predictive computer models…

[I]n Canada, where most of the world’s polar bears live, the polar bear is considered only a species of Special Concern (a level below Threatened), which has been the case since 1991. Canada also does not include any of the other species mentioned above as worthy of extinction concern, except the bearded seal which has been earmarked for possible future attention…

[S]ince the ESA listing of the polar bear, four other species or subspecies have been listed as threatened based on climate models, with activists pressing hard for the addition of at least two others…

Here’s what we know: Field work by polar bear researchers has shown that despite continued low Arctic sea ice cover in summer since 2007, polar bear numbers have not taken the catastrophic nose-dive that was predicted to happen based on climate change models…

Most people have already realized they were sold a false narrative on polar bears—otherwise, we’d be knee-deep in carcasses by now and hoards of starving polar bears would be roaming the Arctic every summer—which means it should not be difficult to convince voters that climate models don’t belong in ESA assessments.

I realize there are many items on the agenda of the new Trump government but if it’s serious about supporting science, reducing unnecessary spending, and simplifying government regulations, it needs to get predictive climate change models out of ESA assessments or eliminate the ESA altogether.

The full post is well worth reading and the author includes this quote from a colleague that addresses the risk of this type of regulation:

There is no limit to the number of species, subspecies, and distinct population segments (DPS) that can be subjected to climate or other models and predicted to be threatened in the future. There will no longer be a scientific standard for empirical data and information, only predictions derived from models. The potential for new ESA listing petitions to expand greatly is apparent. Previously, the use of subjectively-defined subspecies and DPS made the number of potential ESA candidates essentially limitless.

If predictive scenarios of threats of extinction are allowed, as with the polar bears, findings of threatened or endangered status will also be limitless. This warrants reflection on the proper role of the federal government in what is traditionally state jurisdiction of resource management. It seems more appropriate for the federal government to deal with climate change as an issue by itself (basically an air pollution issue), and not allow proliferation of ESA cases to astronomical levels.

Well, yes, of course. What is not said that needs to be said is that using the ESA in this way creates a vicious circle of climate hype where prediction is transformed into supposed reality. It begins with the premise that global warming could threaten polar bears, which then turns to theories of polar bears becoming evidence of global warming threats, and from there it's all rinse and repeat. The polar bears aren’t even the point anymore. It's all about promoting an anti-human religion and scam.

#ClimateCult #Climate #PolarBears #ESA #ClimateChange #GlobalWarming #EndangeredSpecies