Junk Science Wins… Obama Sets Aside 200,000 Miles to Save Thriving Polar Bear Populations

Junk Science Wins–
After democrats passed the junk science “pile of sh*t” Cap and Trade legislation in June a report was released, and suppressed, that showed that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, were much higher than they were 30 years ago.

In fact, it’s about time for a cull.

Polar bear numbers in Canada have increased in 11 of 13 regions in recent years.

Polar bear encounters on the North Slope oil fields have risen to record levels the last two years.
There are 5 times as many polar bears today as there were 50 years ago:

But, the Obama Administration won’t let facts get in their way.
The White House this week set aside more than 200,000 sqare miles of federal land in Alaska to protect the thriving polar bears from global warming.
The News Tribune reported, via FOX Nation:

The Obama administration said Thursday it is designating more than 200,000 square miles in Alaska and off its coast as “critical habitat” for polar bears, an action that could add restrictions to future offshore drilling for oil and gas.

Federal law prohibits agencies from taking actions that may adversely affect critical habitat and interfere with polar bear recovery.

Assistant Interior Secretary Tom Strickland called the habitat designation a step in the right direction to help polar bears stave off extinction, while recognizing that the greatest threat to the bear is the melting of Arctic sea ice caused by climate change.

“As we move forward with a comprehensive energy and climate strategy, we will continue to work to protect the polar bear and its fragile environment,” Strickland said at a news conference.

The total area proposed for critical habitat designation would cover about 200,541 square miles – about half in the rugged Chukchi Sea off Alaska’s northwest coast. About 93 percent of the area proposed for the polar bear is sea ice, with the remaining 7 percent made up of barrier islands or land-based dens of snow and ice.

UPDATE: David from Alaska added this the announcement:

What NO ONE is this article is talking about is ‘why the Chukchi Sea’. While ANWR is closed to oil development because of the Feds, the oil companies started looking in the opposite direction several years ago….in the Chukchi Sea area. WELL guess what they found……..OIL, NATURAL GAS, and more OIL speculated to be equal in the amount of output as Prudhoe Bay. And even better it was in areas that they could drill without Federal intervention. As soon as the discovery was announced here came the environmentalists screaming ‘migratory birds’, ‘arctic foxes’, ‘owls’….they pushed it all. At the same time they lost on all merits. It wasn’t until recently the Feds got on board to work with environmentalists to label the Polar Bear endangered, and now ‘LAND GRAB’ of oil producing area. LET NO ONE BE MIS-INFORMED, this is about stopping oil production, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POLAR BEARS, polar bear populations are skyrocketing in this area. At a time when we need domestic oil, jobs, revenue to the state and the Federal Government….and instead we see the only enemy that the Obama Administration has in the world is the ‘American Economy’.

Because the Polar Bear population has grown so large they are gorging on seals and walruses is mass amounts. In a couple of years you will see ‘seal and walrus’ populations go down and you will hear from scientists and the feds that it is because of ‘ice melt’ and ‘global warming’ and will plan more land grab. They won’t point a finger at the fattened over populated Polar Bears.

#1 October 23, 2009 at 9:40 am
Richard Kane commented:

What are the administration powers that exclude the State of Alaska and United States Congress from this decision process? No checks and balances with this administration.
#2 October 23, 2009 at 9:47 am
JPL17 commented:

It’s just Obama’s way of extending his long, hyperactive middle finger to the state of Alaska.
#3 October 23, 2009 at 9:51 am
Elektra commented:

Right, JP. Those Alaskans will pay for ever even thinking of electing that pesky reformer, Sarah Palin.
#4 October 23, 2009 at 9:55 am
Larkin commented:

Facts? What facts? We don’t need no stinking facts!

Meanwhile, back at the ranch…kudos to all of the dumb-ass americans (small “a”) who have saddled us with this abysmal administration.
#5 October 23, 2009 at 10:01 am
Mike W commented:

But, the Obama Administration won’t let facts get in their way.
That will be the legacy of this administration.
#6 October 23, 2009 at 10:07 am
chuck in st paul commented:

The Chukchi Sea is where they have recently discovered HUGE oil deposits. I’m sure that has nothing to do with it of course. [/sarc]

I’m also sure the Russians will observe this protected area too, right?
#8 October 23, 2009 at 10:12 am
Dante commented:

save the polar bears that aren’t really dying but don’t save our soldiers who are!? this guy is borderline seditious.
#9 October 23, 2009 at 10:17 am
kittymyers commented:

What does this do to the oil business of the North Shore region — anything?
#10 October 23, 2009 at 10:23 am
k commented:

I love how your source comes from another partisan blogger. Even if the table is accurate, you missed the point. Twenty-five thousand is not a big number and the population is only on the rise BECAUSE of the government intervention that protects them.

But scientists cannot accurately count just how many polar bears there are due to limitations on research (and, I might and GOVERNMENT FUNDING for research), as Factcheck.Org investigated:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/are_there_three_times_as_many_polar.html

Factcheck also reported that that while some populations are stable, others are dropping as much as 22% in a 17 year period.

The argument you are really seem to be trying make is whether or not the existence of polar bears matter at all. Your egregious research, though, it what makes Gateway so entirely special.

k
#11 October 23, 2009 at 10:23 am
Joanne commented:

Anyone who thinks Obama cares about the polar bears is a complete and utter moron. It is just to stop Alaska from drilling for oil on land and off-shore. Obama is the biggest POS going.
#12 October 23, 2009 at 10:26 am
Ted commented:

The colony of juveniles currently infesting the whitehouse are trying to sequester valuable natural resources from profitable exploitation as retribution against Mrs. Palin’s state.

Their hyper-egos have dulled their sensibilities to the extent that their angst over her powerful influence manifests itself in irrational behaviors such as we have here.

It is a temporary folly, as the incoming administration will rescind and repeal all of the mistakes these reprobates are making.

Continue your prayers. They are all being heard.
#13 October 23, 2009 at 10:28 am
ar05075 commented:

The left has to make sure America can’t gain energy independence. For them, a weak America is thier America.
#14 October 23, 2009 at 10:29 am
JKB commented:

Look on the bright side, swelling polar bear population plus swelling number of researchers in the field equals swelling polar bear bellies. Nature has a way of finding balance.

Reality might be a bitch but she’s always willing to screw you.
#15 October 23, 2009 at 10:30 am
Joanne commented:

I find it interesting that people who speak out in the interests of polar bears do not have to live within thousands of miles of one. Polar bears are man-eaters, and they will hunt you down if they get a whiff of your scent. I suggest Al Gore and Obama go to the frozen north and take a look for themselves.
#16 October 23, 2009 at 10:38 am
wildman commented:

And did Acorn do the polar bear census? Exactly how did these folks come up with the number? I find it ridiculous that the enviro elites in the urban cities can make policy for the state of alaska.
#17 October 23, 2009 at 10:43 am
avery commented:

It all about energy,they have to get the price above 4.00 a gallon to make Omaba energy saleable.We need to get as many as we can in 2010 out of offical.
#18 October 23, 2009 at 10:46 am
The Elector of Saxony commented:

Let’s hang on a minute. This could be important to our survival. What if, some day in the future, a space ship heads toward Earth sending out a signal that destroys our technology and causes terrific destruction if it is unanswered? What if the only answer can come from the polar bears? If they are extinct, our whole planet might be destroyed…….

Leftists base their entire worldview upon fantasies, why not Star Trek? Besides, it FEELS good to pretend to save the polar bears, and it allows a graduate student hippie to FEEL superior for hating evil oil and carbon! At some point, though, you are all going to shiver in the dark and eat you pets right along with us!
#19 October 23, 2009 at 10:51 am
Palinfan commented:

Don’t worry. As soon as the oil starts drying up, the government will march right back up there, open that land up and start drilling. We just haven’t gotten to that point yet.
#20 October 23, 2009 at 11:01 am
Chisum commented:

Factcheck.org. Hmmm.

I guess this study has little value compared to Factcheck.org.

Federal Polar Bear Research Critically Flawed, Forecasting Expert Asserts
ScienceDaily (May 10, 2008)

Research done by the U.S. Department of the Interior to determine if global warming threatens the polar bear population is so flawed that it cannot be used to justify listing the polar bear as an endangered species, according to a study being published later this year in Interfaces, a journal of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080508132549.htm#
#21 October 23, 2009 at 11:06 am
Kevin commented:

The Obama administration has shot itself in the foot so often and accurately that it is now limping badly in the polls and the minds of the American public, by next year it will be crawling on bloody stumps.

I 2010 the electorate will give it a shot of morphine just to shut it up and put an end to it’s wailing, and in 2012 will simply euthanize it due to it being a non-producer.
#22 October 23, 2009 at 11:14 am
JPL17 commented:

Right, JP. Those Alaskans will pay for ever even thinking of electing that pesky reformer, Sarah Palin.

Yes, which will make revenge all that much sweeter in 2013 when the Palin administration bans all pleasure boating and swimming along Chicago’s Lake Michigan shore.
#23 October 23, 2009 at 11:17 am
Poor dumb K commented:

k
October 23rd, 2009 | 10:23 am 10

I love how your source comes from another partisan blogger. Even if the table is accurate, you missed the point. Twenty-five thousand is not a big number and the population is only on the rise BECAUSE of the government intervention that protects them.

But scientists cannot accurately count just how many polar bears there are due to limitations on research (and, I might and GOVERNMENT FUNDING for research), as Factcheck.Org investigated:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/are_there_three_times_as_many_polar.html

Factcheck also reported that that while some populations are stable, others are dropping as much as 22% in a 17 year period.

The argument you are really seem to be trying make is whether or not the existence of polar bears matter at all. Your egregious research, though, it what makes Gateway so entirely special.

k

You were educated in the Public System I see. Can you count the number of contradictions in this one post? Snicker. Good Lord child.
#24 October 23, 2009 at 11:20 am
Solaratov commented:

The argument you are really seem to be trying make is whether or not the existence of polar bears matter at all. Your egregious research, though, it what makes Gateway so entirely special.
kOctober 23rd, 2009 | 10:23 am 10

Factcheck is a product of the Annanberg Foundation – as is your “president”.

And, like your “president”, factcheck leans waaaaay left.
Factcheck has never gone against the leftist meme or anything that obama has said or done.

Find a reliable source. Then – maybe – we’ll believe your “facts”.

And, btw, when it comes down to a question of polar bear habitat and an energy source that is desperately needed by this country – I’m going with the oil field. Which is not too bad, since it’s already been proven that wildlife and a sensibly-run oil field can co-exist quite nicely. (Think caribou and pipeline.)
#25 October 23, 2009 at 11:23 am
bg commented:

++

sarc on/

oh but but but you don’t understand.. it’s not about the polar bear, it’s not about the weather, it’s about filling our coffers with enough green stuff to bring our plan to unite the global community, make US all citizens of the world, and gather around the camp fires & sing kumbaya..

duh, you grasshoppers have a lot to learn about ants..

/sarc off

==
#26 October 23, 2009 at 11:36 am
aprilnovember811 commented:

Our country has been taken hostage. I’m embarrassed at how stupid millions of Americans were to do this to their own country. This is all they thought of their country to elect the scum of the earth in Obama, and the rest of them.
#27 October 23, 2009 at 12:31 pm
People's Front of Judea commented:

I could use a new rug.
#28 October 23, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Snuffy commented:

Lucky us! Not only is Chairman Zero a crackerjack economist, but a wildlife expert as well!
#29 October 23, 2009 at 1:03 pm
David commented:

I am in Alaska and yes, Alaska will be paying the price for supporting Palin. Obama is already removing the missile defense system that was JUST put in Ft. Greeley, Alaska.
And now this….the Chukchi Sea was a recent oil and natural gas find that is monsterous. Environmentalists have already tried to stop it and keep failing. This would have been jobs to Alaska and the rest of the states, income to the State and the Feds, and would have brought on more domestic oil production. Alaskans don’t view this as a ‘stake in the heart’ but instead see it as an attack on the only enemy that Obama has…the American Economy. Today Obama made OPEC very happy!
#30 October 23, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Cher Cropper commented:

George W. Bush deserves some credit for this fiasco as well, since he signed off on making the polar bear a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act on May 12th, 2008. I suppose if his administration hadn’t the Obama admin would have by now. Either way we the average consumers are screwed.
#31 October 23, 2009 at 2:03 pm
JPL17 commented:

I am in Alaska and yes, Alaska will be paying the price for supporting Palin.

Yes, but only till Binky’s out of office…1/20/2013 at the latest.
#32 October 23, 2009 at 4:20 pm
John DeFlumeri Jr commented:

Maybe he’s confused and he thought that he dedicated the land to the Chicago Bears!
#33 October 23, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Mike W commented:

Do polar bears make good pets as in the kind that one could sit down and eat?
I would only be doing it to save us from the global warming disaster,end of times.
#34 October 23, 2009 at 5:43 pm
jonyjoe101 commented:

From this report there seems to be too many polar bears.
Sarah Palin should go out there and cull the flock of polar bears.
All the “love the earth” liberals think a polar bear is a big lovable fluffy animal like in the cartoons. But the polar bear is one of the most dangerous “man-eating” animals in the world, even the king of the jungle (lion) walks around the polar bear.
oil or polar bear? decisions decisions.
#35 October 23, 2009 at 6:19 pm
ar05075 commented:

Chisum
October 23rd, 2009 | 11:01 am 20

But we know it’s not about the Polar bears, Chisum. There are HUGE oil and natural gas deposits up there and that does’nt fit into Obamao’s green energy scam.
#36 October 23, 2009 at 11:19 pm
bg commented:

++

Cher Cropper @ 1:33 pm #30

huh??

[Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced today that he will retain the Bush administration's controversial rule on polar bear protections, rejecting special authority given to him by Congress and the pleas of Democratic lawmakers, environmentalists and scientists to overturn the regulation.

While keeping the rule -- which limits use of the Endangered Species Act to curb emissions of greenhouse gases -- Salazar held open the possibility of adding habitat protections for the polar bear later.

[..]

Some environmental groups see the polar bear listing as their best opportunity to force the government to consider harm from greenhouse gases and regulate emissions. Even though the Obama administration has pledged to address climate change, Salazar said today that such action should not come through the Endangered Species Act — the same position taken by the Bush administration.]

the way it’s written has me going in circles.. at any rate, maybe what Bush did was a good thing, as in the lesser of two evils.. else why would they be up in arms to more or less “get it out of their way” so to speak..

==
#38 October 24, 2009 at 10:15 am
Andreas K. commented:

k, a population increases why?

Because the living conditions are good.

That’s the only reason.

Where is the evidence that our CO2 does anything to the climate? Where is it? Our 1% of the CO2 insects produce by breathing. Where is the evidence?

There is none.

There are only forgery and lies. Mann’s forged hockey stick. Hansen’s forged data. Lies and lies. That’s what the “global warming” hype is built upon.

Oh yes, then there are the lovely climate models. Computer models, running on -usually- outdated machines, not following any software standards and trying to foresee the longterm development of a non-linear, chaotic system. That’s not science. That’s reading tea leaves.