Polar Bears

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB124657655235589119-lMyQjAxMDI5NDA2MjUwNzI2Wj.html

For those of you who have shared a class or two with me, you know that I was "shocked" (yes "shocked") to read George Will's column (washingtonpost.com 5/28/08) and find that Polar Bears had been declared a "threatened" species because they might be endangered "in the foreseeable future" meaning 45 years. The polar bears had the distinction of being the first species whose supposed jeopardy had been ascribed to "GLOBAL WARMING".

The Interior Department, bound by the Endangered Species Act, had so declared this status because the bears could be threatened if the current episode of warming is, unlike all previous episodes, irreversible, and if it intensifies, and if it continues to melt sea ice vital to the bears, and if the bears, unlike in many previous warming episodes, cannot adapt. Are we following?

With all of this, I was happy to find that Will remembered that time in 1975 when the general consensus of scientists was that we were entering a "New Ice Age" ("Science" magazine, March 1975 reported "...the approach of a full blown 10,000 year ice age."). Will quoted Nigel Lawson as saying that "Over the past 2.5 million years, a period where the planet's climate has fluctuated substantially, remarkably few of the earth's millions of plant and animal species became extinct. This applies not least, incidentally, to polar bears which have been around for millennia, during which there is ample evidence that polar temperatures have varied considerably." I would guess that this type of temperature variance would have been what created the opportunity for ancient Indian tribes to walk across the Bering Strait on land from Siberia to Alaska. I'm also guessing that the polar bears of that time viewed that process with no great amazement.

If we might get back to today, Kimberley Strassel has written an article in the 7/3/09 WSJ (attached) about silencing a climate skeptic: Alan Carlin. Mr. Carlan works for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) where everyone is supportive of President Obama's edict that "...there will be a new transparency in government, and science." I agree with him.
However; I'm confused about how Mr. Carlin (a 35 year veteran of the agency) has been treated by his own agency. In March, the Obama EPA prepared to engage the global warming debate in a whole new way by issuing an "endangerment" finding on CARBON. It establishes that carbon is a pollutant, and thereby gives the EPA the authority to regulate it - even if Congress does not act. Around this time, Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98 page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. This analysis noted that global temperatures were on a "downward trend." (I'm guessing this would be good news for the polar bears!) It pointed out problems with "climate models." (I'm guessing that this would be similar to the problems with "financial models.") It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. Mr. Carlin was silenced, or rather, told to be silent. But, Congress is now involved and we can read about the situation so, perhaps, some light is being shed on the situation.

For Kimberly Strassel, I applaud her report and her conclusion that the professional penalty for offering a contrary view to "elites" like Al Gore is a "smear campaign." Internally, within the EPA, Carlin's work is being "trashed." Kimberly Strassel's work is not being trashed.