Brad Miller, Polar Bears and Sarah Palin
Regular readers know I like me some polar bears. But what do polar bears, a local Congressman and the Republican's vice presidential nominee have in common?
Glad you asked.
A story from the Guardian popped into my news reader last night, that said:
"The Republican Sarah Palin and her officials in the Alaskan state government drew on the work of at least six scientists known to be skeptical about the dangers and causes of global warming, to back efforts to stop polar bears being protected as an endangered species, the Guardian can disclose. Some of the scientists were funded by the oil industry."
Right, but why was it showing up in a feed reserved for local federal officials? Because:
The citation by Palin and her officials prompted complaints from Congress. One member, Brad Miller, dubbed the polar bear study phony science.Palin told Miller: "Attempts to discredit scientists ... simply because their analyses do not agree with your views, would be a disservice to this country." Miller now says that Palin's use of the paper shows she differs greatly from John McCain, the Republican presidential contender, who has pressed for scientific integrity. "Turning to the cottage industry of scientists who are funded because they spread doubt about global warming is not integrity," Miller said.
I'm not sure this is exactly breaking news, but it is interesting how something going on in a Science subcommittee that has a local connection (through Miller) can wrap back into the presidential campaign. I'm not sure any of this discussion will change the minds of those who take global warming or the lack thereof as an article of faith.
The upshot here is this: Miller was calling out Palin for using research funded by oil companies in Alaska's state-sponsored effort to fight the placement of polar bears on the endangered species list. Palin contended the research was just fine, while Miller and others on the Science Committee in Congress contend that global warming is happening and we should look out for the polar bears. Polar Bears were listed as a threatened species in May, 2008.
For those inclined to step into the Wayback Machine:
- * You can get video of a Congressional hearing on the topic here. The video link is on the right. There's lots of other nifty background there as well.
- * Here's a news release from Miller on Exxon and polar bears.
- * This is a letter from Miller to the Interior Department saying he's worried about the administration moves to keep government scientist from talking about the threat to polar bears.
- * This is a letter from Palin telling Miller he ought not to be picking on the oil-company-funded scientists.
- * Miller also asked Exxon mobile to make with some information regarding the funding they put toward global warming research.
- * And this is a letter from Exxon blowing off Miller's request for grant information and saying that at least one of the studies in question is just fine.
Comments (9)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Who the hell eats polar bears ?
Posted on October 1, 2008 11:18 AM
I don't know...I imagine if there was nothing else in the pantry, I might.
Personally, my kids like looking at them in the zoo and there was (at the link on that line) a legislative debate on polar bears this year.
Posted on October 1, 2008 11:21 AM
"Who the hell eats polar bears ?"
The issue is not really about keeping people from hunting polar bears (for sport or food), it's about the protection of their habitat. If you map out the entire area that is "ranged" by the polar bear population, it represents an unbelievable mass of territory, and not just sea ice either.
The oil companies fought placing the polar bears on the endangered species list because it makes it a lot harder for them to secure leases for the exploitation of possible petroleum reserves. Plus, since the shrinking sea ice issue is being more aggressively linked to global warming, carbon emissions can also be directly linked to the deterioration of an endangered species habitat.
Meaning, it provides one more legal stick to beat the fossil fuel industry with.
Mark, Ryan posted a diary on this a few weeks ago over at the Dome, but I hate trying to find old stuff there.
Posted on October 1, 2008 3:41 PM
Re: Dome: I'll go check it out. Oh, wait...it's here: http://tinyurl.com/6ospgb
I missed it back then.
Posted on October 1, 2008 3:48 PM
"I missed it back then."
That's okay. As far as I'm concerned, this is a subject that needs to be talked about a heck of a lot more, anyway.
North Carolina is not just sitting on the sidelines of the global warming and environmental conservancy debates, we're neck-deep in it. Thanks to the coal-friendly atmosphere that's been prevalent here, we're one of the "brown" states that emit an above-average level of carbon dioxide into the air, and we've also allowed ourselves to be poisoned with mercury, sulfur dioxide and a whole laundry list of other nasty elements.
And we also have our own little war of scientists going on, with corporate-funded media outlets citing findings from science-for-hire entities like the American Enterprise Institute and the like, in an effort to malign clean energy technologies and draw attention away from the short- and long-term dangers associated with burning fossil fuels.
Unfortunately, many average folks are not aware that science is being misused to sway their opinions about some of these issues, as is evidenced by the 2/3 support of offshore drilling and the desire to construct refineries & pipelines and such here. So yes, please talk about it as much as you want.
Posted on October 1, 2008 5:47 PM
Let see liberals are against drilling, against coal, against nuclear power. Wonder how they think we are to make electricity and power our country? Wonder if its true about Brad Miller home life? Maybe he can snuggle up to a polar bear! Not that I care about Miller home life, if the liberal media is worried about Palin daughter, they should also care about Miller personal life. Liberals want to rebuild NO, yet they say it will be under water in a few years. Seems they do not believe their own rhetoric!
Posted on October 2, 2008 6:21 AM
Hugh Webster is running against Brad Miller -
a vote for Hugh is a vote for common sense !
Posted on October 2, 2008 9:12 AM
Mark, how about a good story on why liberals in Raleigh are letting illegals run around with no car insurance, seems folks would have more interest in this than damn polar bears.
The liberal press will kill Hugh, one think the liberals hate a honest person. With all his faults Hugh, is honest.
Posted on October 3, 2008 6:02 AM
What Palin - or her advisors - didn't realise was that the "science" she was quoting was not a peer reviewed paper - it was simply a science magazine's equivalent of a Letter to the Editor.
You'd expect the State of Alaska to be a little more scientifically rigorous, wouldn't you.
Posted on October 6, 2008 12:06 AM