The Feds “Flawed Research” To Determine Polar Bear Future
Posted by Tom Remington on May 8, 2008
Research that the Department of Interior is using to render a decision on whether to list the polar bear as endangered is critically flawed, according to Professor J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School and others who were part of an audit group formulated by the State of Alaska.
Prof. Armstrong and colleagues originally undertook their audit at the request of the State of Alaska. The subsequent study, “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public Policy Forecasting Audit,” is by Prof. Armstrong, Kesten G. Green of Monash University in Australia, and Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. It is scheduled to appear in the September/October issue of the INFORMS journal Interfaces.
According to Science Daily, Armstrong says that in order to list a healthy species as endangered, you have to have “valid forecasts”.
“To list a species that is currently in good health as an endangered species requires valid forecasts that its population would decline to levels that threaten its viability. In fact, the polar bear populations have been increasing rapidly in recent decades due to hunting restrictions. Assuming these restrictions remain, the most appropriate forecast is to assume that the upward trend would continue for a few years, then level off.
“These studies are meant to inform the US Fish and Wildlife Service about listing the polar bear as endangered. After careful examination, my co-authors and I were unable to find any references to works providing evidence that the forecasting methods used in the reports had been previously validated. In essence, they give no scientific basis for deciding one way or the other about the polar bear.”
Armstrong says that his group examined nine U.S. Geological Survey Administrative Reports and found that the most relevant study, “properly applied only 15% of relevant forecasting principles”. They also determined that these same studies showed that 69% of the information was “contravened”, to some degree.
The group further states that the studies failed to substantiate “assumptions” of melting sea ice or the ability of the polar bear to adapt to changing climate patterns.
In short, Armstrong has determined that any ruling, whether to list or not list, cannot be scientifically substantiated using the flawed studies the Department of Interior is using.
Next!
Tom Remington
climate change, Department of the Interior, endangered species act, global warming, polar bear research, prof. j. scott armstrong, science daily, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological SurveyIf you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
But critics say that Fish and Wildlife hasn’t made a ruling yet because another agency within the Department of Interior, the Minerals Management Service, is on the verge of handing out oil and gas leases in vast swaths of the polar bears’ remaining habitat. The Endangered Species Act prevents the federal government from taking actions that harm protected species. “At the same time the administration is illegally delaying a decision on the polar bear listing, it is also racing to sell some of the polar bear’s most important habitat in the Chukchi Sea for oil and gas development,” said Andrew Wetzler, director of the Endangered Species Project at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Alas, another Big Bad Bush conspiracy to supply a means to develop our own energy resources!! All on the back of the poor Polar Bear. Hope they are not listed. I might need a polar bear coat to stay warm next winter!!
May 8th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Part of the race for public opinion has involved telling people that selling the oil rights will destroy the polar bear. Whether you want to believe that having drilling rigs in polar bear habitat is good or bad, none of this much matters IF the polar bear is listed.
It is my understanding from someone who has studied ESA law, that if the bear is listed, the drilling will cease.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Tom,
First, a public apology to you for my unseemly behavior last week. I did not exercise the least patience and ask your (and Steve’s) forgiveness.
As for the polar bears, they are caught in an environmental change which - no matter the origin - cannot be stopped in time to benefit them. So, why list them as endangered if such a listing will be of no positive value? Right now the permafrost in the tundra of Canada, Alaska, and Siberia is melting for the first time in millennium. Thus carbon “buried since the Pleistocene era is bubbling to the surface of lakes, and dissipating into the atmosphere as methane”. We can’t stop, or even slow (in the near-term), that natural buildup/breakdown in the atmosphere. Any effects this carbon release will have is also beyond our human efforts to mitigate. Grizzlys are now moving north into polar bear territory — do we start shooting grizzlys?
Will the caribou herds also be affected by the melting tundra? Probably, as it will alter travel, calving, and increase insect attacks and disease. The interconnectedness is awe-inspiring.
Reed
May 8th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
I’m surprised someone hasn’t sued the entire lot of ‘em for endangering right of life.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Just in case your interested. You only have 2 days left!
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2167/t/5243/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=1200
May 12th, 2008 at 9:28 am
I didn’t sign the above! I disagree with their logic anyway. Just came across this link in my inbox and sent it along to see if we can generate any more comments on either side.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Thanks for that explanation George! For a minute there, I thought you were a goner!
May 12th, 2008 at 10:39 am