Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Alaska Mad At DC Democrats For Polar Bear “Protections”

As the left-thinking side of our nation continues in its attempts to push us over the “climate change cliff,” the governor of Alaska cried foul for playing with her state’s economic growth potential based on shoddy data and stupid science.

Alarmists love to claim that polar bears (and scores of other animals) are on the verge of extinction due to manmade global warming—an imagined “reality” that is completely stupid and without any merit in data or science (and that’s with consideration of the opinions and pseudo-science offered up by its usual suspects). The warmlist and Animal Death-Watch series list scores of such “endangered animals.” If you believe these “news” stories then you believe that the Earth will be without most flora and fauna within a few decades, which is the most comical thing I’ve ever heard...much less typed.

The hyperbolic paragraph below attributed to Kassie Siegel really brings home just what sort of crack these alarmists are smoking. POLAR BEARS ARE NOT EXTINCT and they are IN NO DANGER OF BEING EXTINCT! If anyone has their “head in the sand” it’s the stupid alarmists like Siegel, who continue to ignore the fact that manmade global warming is nonexistent.

In my opinion, the global warming hoax and cult have been completely exposed, but as long as the media still maintains its unassailability as truth then we’ll continue to watch as opportunists maneuver to take advantage in whatever way they can—whether for profit or political power (or both).

Alaska Sues U.S. Over 'Threatened' Polar Bear Status:

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — The state of Alaska sued Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne on Monday, seeking to reverse his decision to list polar bears as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

Gov. Sarah Palin and other state officials fear a listing will cripple offshore oil and gas development in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas in Alaska's northern waters, which provide prime habitat for the only polar bears under U.S. jurisdiction.

"We believe that the Service's decision to list the polar bear was not based on the best scientific and commercial data available," Palin said in announcing the lawsuit.

****

Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity, the lead author of the petition that led to the listing, said U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientists addressed skeptics' objections during the listing process. She called the lawsuit "completely ridiculous and a waste of the court's time."

"This lawsuit and her head-in-the-sand approach to global warming only helps oil companies, certainly not Alaska or the polar bear," Siegel said. "Gov. Palin should be working for sustainable, clean energy development in Alaska instead of extinction for the polar bear."

2 comments:

John_David_Galt said...

The original founders (or inspirers) of the environmental movement, men such as Thoreau, Muir, and Audubon, were moved by the beauty they saw in nature; but what all three failed to appreciate was this simple fact: the only reason it was safely possible for any of them to go out and see that beauty is that human beings spent centuries systematically killing off nearly all wildlife big enough to be dangerous to man.

Ceasing to do this is a big mistake. The whole point of civilization -- maybe of intelligence -- is to protect people from encountering such dangers.

It is just plain stupid to allow bears or any other man-eating creatures to exist outside of cages.

And don't tell me it's their world too. When they have the intelligence to say so for themselves, I'll buy it.

For that matter, there is no real need for any creature which is not below us on the food chain to exist in the wild.

It's time to abandon Rousseau's stupid idea that nature is "noble" (one could equally assert that man should go back to Hobbes' state-of-nature and stay there) and start seeing the Earth as a life support system for humans.

G.W. Denier said...

Although I don't share your disdain for the natural existence of animals (I'm perfectly fine with sharing the planet), I do agree with you on exploiting nature for our species. We have evolved this intelligence, so why not use it? Animal "lovers" will always attempt to apply human standards to the existence and propagation of other species, because there's this strange duality of belief that seems to say that we're of equal footing with animals and plants on one hand, while on the other hand we humans are of superior intelligence and can do far more harm to them than they can to us.

Obviously, nature evolved us into hairless, defenseless wimps for a reason; we have a superior intellect that can utilize natural resources far more effectively than any other species.