NBC's Williams touts Bush administration "milestone" in listing polar bears as "threatened," but doesn't note lawsuits forced its hand
SUMMARY: On NBC's Nightly News, Brian Williams said that the Bush administration's decision to list polar bears as a threatened species was a "huge milestone." But neither he nor the Nightly News report on the subject mentioned that the "milestone" comes after environmental groups twice sued the administration to make a listing decision -- and just one day before a court-ordered deadline to make a final decision on the polar bear's status.
On the May 14 edition of NBC's Nightly News, while previewing a report on the Department of Interior's announcement that it was listing the polar bear as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), anchor Brian Williams said: "Then today, a huge milestone by the Bush administration: Polar bears were declared a threatened species." However, neither Williams nor the report by chief environmental affairs correspondent Anne Thompson mentioned that the "milestone" comes after environmental groups twice sued the administration to make a listing decision, almost two years after the administration published a proposed rule to list the polar bear as a threatened species -- and just one day before a court-ordered deadline to make a final decision on the polar bear's status.
By contrast, a May 15 article in The Washington Post noted: "Yesterday's decision marked the resolution of a lengthy battle between environmental groups and the Bush administration, though it is not likely to be the last one over the issue. The Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council petitioned to list the polar bear in 2005. When the Interior Department took no action, the groups sued. As part of a settlement, the administration proposed listing the polar bear as threatened in late 2006, but it delayed finalizing the rule until the groups took the government to court again and won a ruling setting a deadline of today."
The article also quoted the former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under President Clinton as saying: "The administration has been brought kicking and screaming to this decision."
The environmental groups sued the Bush administration in December 2005 after FWS did not act on their petition to consider listing the polar bear under the ESA. As a result of that lawsuit, in February 2006, FWS began a full status review of the polar bear. In June 2006, the federal district court granted the parties' stipulated settlement agreement, which committed FWS to make the second of three required findings under the ESA by December 27, 2006, at which time the administration announced the proposal to list the species as "threatened." On January 9, 2007, pursuant to that agreement, FWS published in the Federal Register a proposed rule to list the polar bear as a threatened species. Under the ESA, the administration was required to make a final listing decision within one year of the proposal, or January 9, 2008. After the administration did not make its final decision within the deadline, the groups again filed suit on March 10. On April 28, the district court for the Northern District of California issued an order requiring the administration to issue a final decision by May 15. The administration announced its decision to list the polar bear as threatened on May 14.
From the May 14 edition of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:
WILLIAMS: This has been a very big week for those who are fighting to save the environment. Yesterday in an interview, President Bush said there's no question global warming is real. Then today, a huge milestone by the Bush administration: Polar bears were declared a threatened species. But none of that apparently has changed the fight over what to do about climate change. Our report tonight from our chief environmental affairs correspondent Anne Thompson:
[begin video clip]
THOMPSON: The polar bear is on thin ice and could well be on its way to extinction. Today the Bush administration acknowledged global warming is shrinking sea ice, a crucial part of the bear's habitat in Alaska. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne used satellite images to show the dramatic change in ice from 1979 to today in explaining his decision to list the bear as threatened, but he insisted this would not be a way to regulate greenhouse gases from cars and power plants.
KEMPTHORNE: The Endangered Species Act is not the means nor the method nor the vehicle by which you can deal with global climate change.
THOMPSON: That disappointed many environmental groups, leading some to label the listing as an empty victory.
DALE BRYK (National Resources Defense Council): The administration on the one hand is saying, "Yes, global warming is the dominant threat to your survival." But at the very same time, they're saying, "We're going to do nothing to protect you from that threat."
THOMPSON: Dr. Scott Bergen of the Wildlife Conservation Society says they can already see the impacts of the shrinking ice. Pregnant females are lighter, and fewer cubs are surviving their first year.
What role does the sea ice play in the polar bears' survival?
BERGEN: It determines the polar bears' survival.
THOMPSON: The 20,000-plus bears use the ice to catch the seals they feed on.
The fear is, without protection, this will be one of the few places polar bears exist. Last year, government scientists predicted two-thirds of all polar bears will disappear by the year 2050, including every bear in Alaska. And today a new international study confirmed man-made climate change is causing a reduction in the number of bears, more evidence that those in the wild tonight are at risk. Anne Thompson, NBC News, New York.
[end video clip]
That last paragraph cannot be denied:
THE fear is....
....GOVERNMENT scientists think....
....a NEW INTERNATIONAL study says....
All incorruptible and undeniable. Especially THE fear (set your alarm clock to find out what THE fear is tomorrow morning).
...new sucker born every day...
Sure smart boy. Polar Bears are endangered? How?
Today, there are an estimated 22-25,000 Polar Bears depending on who you talk to about this. This is an increase from the estimated 5,000-18,000 bears when the 5 signatories to International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears, estimated their population in 1972. The population has been stable at the current level for the last 10 years. So how is it Polar Bears are threatened?
There is only one peer-reviewed paper on polar bear population forecasting that has been accepted for publication in an academic journal. It condemns the government's forecasting methods which predict the Bear population will decline.
There is no legitimate scientific basis for placing the Polar Bear on the endagered species list. this is purely a political move by Global Warming activists who seek to achieve through the courts that which they have been unable to achieve by any other means.
link to article
Precisely the studies [not peer-reviewed, BTW] that are discredited.
The Bears are not now endangered. There is no credible proof the Bears will become endangered under the current hunting restrictions. Adding an animal to the endangered species list which is not demonstrated to be endangered is unprecedented. Doing so based on dubious projections about future populations which cannot be supported by the present conditions is sheer idiocy.
There is nothing credible about your post.
Apparently you didn't read it. The paper itself indicates that it is peer-reviewed. But beyond that, you could easily do the research for yourself. Google turns up this article which says:
"It is scheduled to appear in the September/October issue of the INFORMS journal Interfaces"
and further contains:
"The authors examined nine U.S. Geological Survey Administrative Reports. The studies include “Forecasting the Wide-Range Status of Polar Bears at Selected Times in the 21st Century” by Steven C. Amstrup et. al. and “Polar Bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea II: Demography and Population Growth in Relation to Sea Ice Conditions” by Christine M. Hunter et al.
Prof. Armstrong and his colleagues concluded that the most relevant study, Amstrup et al. properly applied only 15% of relevant forecasting principles and that the second study, Hunter et al. only 10%, while 46% were clearly contravened and 23% were apparently contravened.
Further, they write, the Geologic Survey reports do not adequately substantiate the authors’ assumptions about changes to sea ice and polar bears’ ability to adapt that are key to the recommendations.
Therefore, the authors write, a key feature of the U.S. Geological Survey reports is not scientifically supported."
As for your criticisms about the author's credentials, who better to examine census taking and forecasting methodology than an Economist? This is exactly the subject matter being discussed here: Dubious claims that a population which is presently INCREASING is going to decline sufficently in the near future to threaten its very viability.
It would seem to any impartial or intelligent observer that the burden of such proof would have to be upon the forecasters in light of the current facts, yet the government has acted under the goad of partisan lawsuits as if just the opposite were the case.
"Armstrong's claims regarding the increasing polar bear population have been debunked again and again (which doesn't stop Inhofe and others from repeating the claims, of course)."
Hi Mary,
In NL207's defense, I think the paper he linked to is actually classified as "peer reviewed", but I'd seen some articles about the different standards of peer review applied to it. I was just messing with him a bit, seeing if he would actually come up with some backup besides "because it says so".
It's easy to be baffled by all of the contradictory papers and studies on the various controversial issues, and I sure don't claim to understand many of them. I just get a laugh out of the wingnuts who find a paid "expert" who supports their conservative agenda, and use their testimony for that "case closed" sort of argument.
"peer review" for these guys: Armstrong read the paper to his right wing friends at their local pub.
...and why shouldn't he? All bears are a very threat to the fabric of freedom that is vital to the liberty of the American people.
Those entitled bears need to start paying their share of taxes! After all, they are squatting on OUR soil. If they refuse, we should deport them to the 3rd world nations from which they came, such as Antarctica.
I thought Bush thought the bears were working with Al-qeida.
Was Yogi Bear Hindu? Just wondering... ;>)
Yogi was a Liberal, always taking hard working Americans picnic baskets. Boo Boo was a Conservative, always trying to stop him, believing those hard working Americans should be able to hold on to their own picnic baskets.
At least that's what I've heard ;-)
Come on Pete.
I was using "picnic basket" as an analogy to "our own money". Not perfect, wasn't meant to be. Just getting into the whole "bear" thing here.
Libs want to take more of our picnic baskets [money] for taxes, while Cons want us to keep more of our money instead of paying higher taxes. Another words letting us keep our picnic baskets.
Geez. Relax.
I don't know Snoop here's what Wikipedia has to say about Boo Boo:
Boo Boo Bear is a Hanna-Barbera cartoon character, an anthropomorphic bear cub in a bow tie, who is Yogi Bear's best friend, and often acts as his conscience; he tries (usually unsuccessfully) to keep Yogi from doing things he shouldn't do, and also to keep Yogi from getting into trouble with Ranger Smith. Often he would say "But Yogi, Ranger Smith's not going to like that" or some other variation.
Ha!! Yes!!! Oh man that was perfect!
Ok it's settled:
Boo Boo=Condi Rice.
If Condi ever had one, she must have misplaced it.
That would eliminate most public figures from any comparisons to the little guy.
Jeter, think about it:
Boo Boo Bear is a Hanna-Barbera cartoon character, an anthropomorphic bear cub in a bow tie, who is Yogi Bear's best friend, and often acts as his conscience; he tries (usually unsuccessfully) to keep Yogi from doing things he shouldn't do, and also to keep Yogi from getting into trouble with Ranger Smith. Often he would say "But Yogi, Ranger Smith's not going to like that" or some other variation.
You just described Tucker Carlson!
Alrighty...
Boo Boo looks like Tucker, acts like Condi.
Hey aren't we supposed to be discussing polar bears ;-)
In the Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law episode "Death By Chocolate" (2002), Boo Boo (voiced by Tom Kenny) was suspected of being a terrorist known as the Unabooboo
Aha! I knew there was something fishy about that bear!
I think you are right except boo boo knows more about middle east diplomacy.
; )
Boo Boo was never successful at anything, was he? Makes sense, he's today's textbook conservative! ;)- snoopy
Not successful? He got Yogi to do all the dirty work, while he took the moral high ground, and probably didn't turn down anything out of that picnic basket.Boo Boo probably had a "Support the Picnic Basket Liberators" sticker on his ...whatever little bears drive.
If you people aren't willing to share your picnic baskets with others, you shouldn't be allowed to use publicly funded National Parks such as Jellystone. You also shouldn't be allowed to drive to Jellystone using the roads that were paid for with public funds. You also shouldn't enjoy the protection of park rangers and park security, who are paid by the government.
Just sayin'
Yeah I know, like I said it wasn't a perfect analogy.
Anyway Irony & Snoop have come up with a few better ideas for Boo Boo [see above]
;-)
I believe that's in the bible, too:
Leviticus 20:13
If a bear lies with another bear as a man lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put on the endangered species list; or else they should all be put to death.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSpveNffrbY&feature=related
Another reason to blame the Bush Administration for high oil prices.
DRILL NOW
You're blaming Bush??? I believe you are misguided, sir. Bears are the direct cause of our oil shortage, as they think they are entitled to use land that is the sole property of the United States of America - to ravage as we see fit.
Thus, bears are indirectly responsible for the Iraq war, as well.
Why do they hate freedom?
Ever see a bear wearing a flag pin? I haven't either... - IRONY 101 / Friday May 16, 2008 4:03:21 PM EDT
Maybe a Soviet flag pin.
Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb the Bears
Someone described the Cal State flag as showing a bear baiting a tree.
No halfway measures here,NUC THE UNBORN GAY WELKS!!!!!
Don't know what you mean by aligence, but your allegience to economic illiteracy is certainly steadfast.
We have to develop all energy options forthwith, including drilling Anwar and offshore, nuclear, wind, solar, and all coal options. We can do it cleanly and we will.
Twenty-five million Canadians know what to do with their resource (oil sands), and they are prosperous because of it--prosperous enough to buy good medical procedures down here.
DRILL NOW. DO IT ALL NOW, and our prices will still be high. We've waited too long.
they have yet to establish the critical habitat, so presently nothing will change.
the lawsuit didn't prompt it, it prompted the study that led to the decision.
twenty years ago the polar bear population was 5000. now it is 20-25000.
boy are they endangered.
I saw a stuffed polar bear in an alaska airport. so huge. must be a real rush to bring one of them down.
I'll let an expert in the field debunk your comment.
Do you ever get tired of being made a fool of here? Is that why you keep changing screen names? Or are you just a masochist?
I see you are bring your usual intellectual vinegar and Walter Mitty bloodthurst to the board.
Good show, continue spreading blight till the cries of survivors echo world wide. Myanmar is hiring sadist's. Good pay and benifits.
you know, a guy could forget how to spell on this board. bloodthirst. sadists does not need an apostrophe.
the number of polar bears comes from an editorial today in the wsj. of course, you folks don't read papers, or at least not the wsj, so you would not know that.
interestingly, you have not commented on my first post related to critical habitat. i guess it's beyond your ken.
Did you get a chance to read my reply to your post? It turns out the WSJ is misleading you (shocker).
What kind of response are you looking for regarding your habitat comment? My guess is that it'll take another lawsuit funded by caring, decent, moral people who donate their hard-earned money to environmental advocacy groups to force Bush to do his job. Again, big shocker.
You forgot the word gullible to include with caring and moral. You shut-ins are easy prey for nature-faker groups classifying themselves as environmental advocates, when in fact they are primarily slick fund-raising professionals who know an easy mark: YOU. The last one they played you for was the spotted owl (never endangered, but you like to think it was).
Would logic suggest that the bears have adapted and survived every ice acreage fluctuation over eons? Guess not, for you Jethros.
DRILL NOW to save the retirement funds of the anti-drilling nuts on this site, who are too dense to realize THEY are OWNERS of eeeville Big Oil.
As I said before, you're an easy mark for professional fund-raisers. And you are, essentially, shut-in. The population and culture is increasingly urbanized and relatively provincial, and people know little about their own state of residence; they just see it on the news. Furthermore, they really don't care that much.
I will say this for Nature Conservancy and The Trust for Public Lands: they both raise money to BUY property, rather than just advocating for the theft of it.
Oh....
Save the Whales and DRILL ANWAR NOW. The Arctic Titmouse will never know the difference (except for an enhanced sex life), and neither will you (except for better energy independence).
How much better energy independence?
1) 2 to 4 cents per gallon for a few years energy independence?
2) No plans beyond continuing dependence on a limited and increasingly expensive energy source independence.
3) Denigrate, redicule, and arrouse suspicion of all who see the real threats and work against them energy indepenence?
4) Trust the administration and business leaders to bestow a viable energy future to its grateful citizens energy independence?
5) Shut up and god bless the oil companies energy independence?
Please clarify, in the mean time.
GO GEOTHERMAL!
Go geothermal as well. Energy prices, due to worldwide demand, will remain high so as to support most alternatives we are looking at now.
When geothermal gets big, as it will, will you villainize it too?
With suffient evidence I will villainize persons, and small groups of people. Beyond 100 people, what you got is stupidity in the large. Nations societies and inanimate objects or forces get a pass.
You have not clarified your position beyond the most harm for the most people. That sustains your villian status 3rd class in my book. Keep at it and I predict you can make it to no class.
Plug-in technology allows electric energy created from geothermal to power electric/hybrid cars and trucks to increase petroleum efficiency.
You still ain't answering much. I got time. Transportation um, LNG is not a solution. Alcohol powered fuel cells is an possible intermediary. Very efficient, still puts out some co2. There's nearly an electric motorcycle out. 80 hp and torque from the word go. Hydrogen based transport has all but two bug worked out. Storing the hydrogen on board, nano tubes is the current favorite. The infrastructure to support the use of hydrogen is the other. Hydrogen itself can be produced at the cost of gasoline, at year ago prices.
As to envirenmentalists single handedly stopping a LNP distribution system. Well as I've noted you ain't much when it comes to answering questions, but give it a shot, Howed they do it all by themselves?
OK, I get it now. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You are one of those people who pull things out of their ass and think they made a great point.
Environmental protection is one of those issues that the vast majority of people are in favor of. One reason is because they realize that we are destroying it with disastrous consequences. Another reason is because they realize that human health and welfare and the condition of the ecosystems around us are closely tied. Finally, most people enjoy wild areas for their recreational and aesthetic value. So, keep trying to push your loser, ignorant argument that we shouldn't be responsible members of our environment.
Furthermore, you are apparently completely clueless about all the positive things being done by hundreds of environmental non-profit groups. I'm not sure what you mean by stealing land, but I'm sure Rush was making a highly intelligent point when you heard it from him.
Finally, as others have pointed out, if you think we would be one inch closer to energy independence by opening up to drilling here, you really need to go educate yourself before spouting off. You're embarrassing yourself.
As I said, you're the standard townbound, starry-eyed idealist who populates the choir here. You hiked the John Muir Trail (10 miles of it) or whatever one time so you know all about wilderness. What you don't know you will buy hook, line and sinker from hucksters who put "non-profit" behind their names (just a bare subsistence, dontchaknow). Riotously funny.
Somebody has to save your dumb ass from your own foolishness. We have to use ALL energy opportunities NOW. You've been conditioned against the use of "fossil" fuels and the technologies that make them practical and increasingly clean; you drink that Utopian koolaid that villainizes fossil fuel use.
Fine. Stop using it. Mount an additional propeller on your beanie, and tell the Canadians what a waste of time and resources it is to develop the Athabasca Tar Sands. It's an excercise in futility, according to you, and you have no right to withhold your wisdom and scholarship from your brothers to the North.
VOTE LIBERTARIAN, and come back to Earth.
You have no idea who I am or what my experience and education are. Just for your info, I have a BS in zoology, a MS in Natural Resource Management, and 10 years experience in environmental science. I've worked with government agencies and NGO's. What have you done to gain that apparently vast wealth of knowledge in this subject?
You've brought nothing to this discussion besides idiotic talking points and childish assumptions and biases. If you don't have anything substantial to bring to the discussion, stay out of it and let the adults talk.
According to BriWi, Bush has seen the light.
Reality? NOT!
But the Oil company cheerleaders seem convinced that everybody else is suckers for conservation fund-raisers.Amazing.
Maybe if they're visited by Bi-Polar bears in their sleep....
Maybe thats what Rick S (ex R sexualpathologic) was really trying to warn us about.
Reminds me of a horrible joke concerning a Bra Scootish lad. Who eventually set up house keeping with a great she bear.