Recently, a decent and otherwise intelligent person made a comment to me about polar bears. Yes, polar bears are apparently dying by the truckload, drowning as the ice around them melts and stuff. So, of course, the government has classified them as endangered. It all makes sense, right?

Well, since I hate scumbag dirtworshipers, I thought I would do a little research.

So, I found this article that summarizes the deal:

Note that these regulations were put into place not because of present bear conditions or populations, but "government scientists believe that the gradual decline of arctic sea ice due to climatic warming will threaten polar-bear survival." That is, now follow this in your best confused teenage girl voice, "that uh, if global warming is real and, er, if global warming does cause a reduction in polar bear habitat, then, well, we think that there could be less polar bears, and, you know, less polar bears could make them endangered. right?"

more quotes:

the purpose is to create a "layer of greenhouse gas regulation on private projects that require federal permits. This would “force anyone in America whose business requires the emission of greenhouse gases to go through an additional layer of consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service, creating delays and expenses,” the Alaska Oil and Gas Association’s Marilyn Crockett told the Associated Press."

Got that? The dept. of Fish and Wildlife could become the most important governmental department in America, regulating all carbon emitting activity? Talk about a back-door end run around that whole constitution thingy. I know, I am using a little hyperbole, but what else is the point of suing the government to make an animal considered endangered, where there is no current direct man-made (i.e., hunting) threat to their numbers. Is it merely a piece of feel goodism? Or do they want the government to do something about this whole Man Made Global Warming Phenomenon? On one hand, it's just silly hippy self-love, on the other hand, it is an attempt to control American's behavior, yes? Oh wait, the CBD has said as much, "CBD hopes to use the listing to limit energy development in Alaska and force restrictions on greenhouse-gas emissions from federally permitted facilities." But why stop there? I theorize more on this at the end of this screed.

I am trying to find the actual legal definition of endangered, but generally the definition appears to be a "species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range." So, endangered species are species that are about to go extinct.

Are polar bears about to go extinct? Short answer: "no, you fucking idiot!"

Instead of going extinct, there are compound speculations concerning the impact of certain man-made activities that could theoretically (in my mind, if you are high) lead to, at worst, a reduction in the current population of polar bears, but would not lead to an extinction because the bears also live on terra firma in North America? You know where I am going with this...

In my research, I came across a condescending response to my line of reasoning. Dude gets huffy by pointing out that the record is incomplete because noone tracked polar bears before the 50's and that the numbers of polar bears are bound to go up because of a reduction in harvesting of these bears.

Well, swell, but I think the writer at that website mistakes a "sword and shield argument ," with a "double-edged sword argument." That is, he is attempting to hide behind the lack of data before the 50's as proof of, well, I guess he doesn't go that far to actually make a point. In reality, his logical sword swings right back at him because at the same time, he is also admitting that he has no idea what a natural state of affairs is for polar bears. And, of course, he misses the point that what these "polar bears are endangered types" are arguing isn't merely that there may be less polar bears in the future because of man (similar to how there are less trout after trout season, less bears in Maryland, or less deer living in DC) (but they aren't endangered, there are just less of them) but him and his kind are arguing that they are endangered, that they are on the precipice of going extinct. So, even at the height of man-made harvestation, he admits that there were about 5000 polar bears in Canada. That may not sound like a lot for a continent, but these are what scientists call, I think, mega fauna, animals that weigh over 400 pounds. They take up more room and stuff, there are less of them around for a reason. In addition, their population was sufficient to recover to 20,000-25,000 in 50 years.

In addition, newsbusters has a nice roundup, including why that stupid picture is misleading propaganda and more anecdotal evidence about the polar bear population.

Of course, it is pointed out in the National Review article that "polar bears appear to have survived earlier periods when ice levels declined," which is odd because I thought that earth never had a change in climate before man started emitting a lot of CO2. Pardon my snarkiness, but if there have been earlier periods when ice levels have declined, and the bears survived, then what are we talking about again?

What are we talking about is the control of the economy to regulate CO2. That is, someone making a decision that could affect your job and your standard of living. So, for what are you willing to lose your job and your car? Oh yeah, even your apartment. Would you do it to ensure that the polar bear population remains above 20000? 10000? 5000? Or, what about choice? What if you were allowed to only have 100 hours of a heated house a year, or to drive 1000 miles a year. Do those polar bears actually matter to you that much? Before you lose your wealth or ability to choose how to live your life, wouldn't you want there to be some sort of actual, tangible proof that the situation is so dire that such acts were necessary? Or would you feel good enough knowing that generally, there are some polar bears in an unspecified number out there and that they are living relatively unmolested normal lives while you enjoy the comforts of western civilization?

I have a theory that socialists (including watermelons - green on the outside, red on in the inside) have a huge inclination towards pushing what is known in the American left as "comparative worth," (Edited in deference to the linkee (which is good...), I can't find a link to an actual wikipedia style entry on CW, which is weird because CW was a major arrow in the feminist arsenal back in the 70's (second wave feminism, natch) and Kaus had a whole series on how both Obama and Hillary were major supporters of this insane crypto-dictatorship concept) where a judge or other bureaucrat (but not the free market, natch) would determine the relative value of different activities. This whole regulation of carbon dioxide thing strikes me in the same way as being the same thing.

Basically, if every human endeavor emits CO2, then every human act would have to be regulated to protect the world. And. Someone has to make a judgement call on what is a worthwhile creator of CO2 "pollutants." And really, what is the difference between the two concepts. Free-will and free-markets suddenly become regulated to the point where no act can exist unsupervised.

Of course, you can just feel that Algae would love to be able to be the one who decides whose CO2 output is more comparatively worthwhile. You can sit in your tonka toy hybrid while he and Leonardo DiCaprio go jet set to Tahiti.