Paying For The Science They Want: Alaska State Legislators Go Denier-Shopping

Whether you're a conservationist or a climate change denier, undoubtedly you've been following the ongoing efforts to officially declare Ursus maritimus (also known as the polar bear) listed as an endangered species, under the US Endangered Species Act.  

In 2005, the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned for the polar bear's protection, based on research done by climate and wildlife experts worldwide (pdf).  Indeed, there is international scientific agreement that the polar bear is heading toward extinction unless it is protected (details here).  At last, in 2006, the US Fish and Wildlife Service responded to the Center's petition, and proposed  that the polar bear be listed as endangered.

Predictably, those interested more in the welfare of the fossil fuel industry than in the survival of the polar bears have been doing their best  to prevent the bears from being protected.  

To make a long story short, there was an initial Senate hearing  in which Senator James Inhofe and a carefully chosen "expert" did their best to confuse the issue;  there was a follow-up hearing  investigating the Bush administration's foot-dragging (to which a senior officialdidn't even bother to show up ).  Finally, a federal judge put her foot down  and ordered the Department of the Interior to make a final decision by May 15, 2008.

Which leads us to the latest attempt by lawmakers to keep the bears off the endangered list. If the science shows something you don't like, why, you pay scientists to come up with conclusions that match your business interests.

The Alaska State Legislature has decided to go "scientist" shopping:

A $2 million program funded with little debate by the Legislature last month calls for using state money to fund an "academic based" conference that highlights contrarian scientific research on global warming. Legislators hope to undermine the public perception of a widespread consensus among polar bear researchers that warming global temperatures and melting Arctic ice threaten the polar bears' survival.

 Republican legislative leaders say a federal decision to declare the polar bears "threatened" by climate change would have troubling effects on Arctic oil development and the state's economic future.

 [...]

 Legislative leaders said they are frustrated that researchers skeptical of the doomsday scenario get marginalized as crackpots or industry shills by the media and scientific agencies.  "We want to have the money to hire scientists to answer the Interior (Department) scientists," House Speaker John Harris, R-Valdez, said last week.

In other words, they want a few good climate change deniers to present "proof" that the Interior Department scientists  are wrong.

Both House Speaker Harris and Senate President Lyda Green are behind the request for the $2 million.  Notably, Green was a co-sponsor of a 2007 Senate Resolution to oppose listing the polar bear as threatened.

At least Harris is honest about their motives, and what he thinks of scientists:

But the point is not to seek some non-biased measure of scientific truth. The point, said Harris, is to provide a forum for scientists whose views back Alaska's interests.

"You know as well as I do that scientists are like lawyers," Harris said.

Rick Steiner  is a conservation scientist at the University of Alaska.  For months, he has been attempting to get Alaska state officials to make public any scientific reasons they have for preventing the protection of polar bears:

[He said] "This truly is the conference to nowhere," [...]

On Friday [May 2, 2008], Steiner released a long chain of e-mail correspondence, saying the state first promised to send internal documents and then refused. The state Department of Law is now reviewing the internal memos from scientists to see if they can be released under the state's open records laws.

"It is stunningly hypocritical that the state will spend $2 million to convene a scientific conference on this issue, but they will not release their own scientific analysis," Steiner said.

At the end of the Anchorage Daily News article, there is a summary of a conference call (with Harris and Green).   Note the part I've highlighted in bold:

The project will include research methodologies such as computer modeling and perceived consensus. Research shall be non-biased to specific groups' opinion and shall present scientifically fact based outcomes.

Non-biased?  Since when were climate change skeptics "non-biased"?  By definition, this conference is being paid for and convened to dispute extensive research that proves polar bears are endangered, to provide a platform for those tired old denier talking points  with which we are so familiar.  

Stay tuned.  I'm sure we'll see soon enough that the "experts" they'll call aren't exactly "non-biased".

(Cross posted from my other home, DeSmogBlog.com.)

•  Excellent work

  for both your homes.

  Nice to see dealing with deniers on the front page (after having another residing on the rec'd list for much of the day).

  by A Siegel on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:22:19 AM PDT

•  Was that Don Young I saw

  out there in ANWR, wearing a white polar bear suit, surrounded by family members and lobbyists, also in polar bear suits, posing for the media and chanting, "Moooo...we're polar bears, and we're fucking! Moooo!"?

  Or maybe it was Ted Stevens and family.  Either way, I would have liked to have a hunting rifle with me and a chance to go "Ooopsie".

  by AdmiralNaismith on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:24:01 AM PDT

•  MCed by Ben Stein, no doubt.

  "You know as well as I do that scientists are like lawyers," Harris said.

  Unfortunately, far too many Americans would agree. And that is not based on the behavior of scientists, but on the mockery of the pundits and a degraded and debased popular culture, where the crazy lady on The View can assert that the earth is flat and somehow not be laughed off the stage. After all, her opinion is as valid as anyone else's. More so, because she's famous.

  This has to be fixed first.

  by melvin on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:28:30 AM PDT

  •  We like to promote tolerance of ideas

    Which is good. But sometimes being wrong is just being wrong. Somehow wrongness is now passed off as a difference in opinion.

    by AngryZealot on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:35:11 AM PDT

    •  It's never actually WRONG-wrong

      unless it's a Democrat who says it.

      by AdmiralNaismith on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:41:17 AM PDT

    •  Tolerance of ideas implies that both ideas are

      valid. If an idea is factually false, however, it has no place in public debate. Would you respect a pupil's opinion if he said that he ''doesn't believe'' that there exists any world outside the United States?

      by Dauphin on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:56:47 AM PDT

      •  So how do you determine an idea's falsity?

        The scientific method does so by formulating hypotheses to test predictions of an idea.  That has been done for the predictions of AGW.  The predictions made by AGW have consistently been proven wrong by observation.

        by MJBrutus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:59:46 AM PDT

        •  Well, by empirical observation.

          If you cannot disprove it, it's still viable. But if you demonstrably can, then it has no place in public discourse. A prime example would be the theory that the Earth is flat.

          But there is no central bureau that can determine the falsity of ideas. That is up to the people, and if they are stupid and gullible enough not to listen to rational arguments, well, then they and perhaps their children, as yet unborn, will suffer for it. Personal responsibility, no?

          by Dauphin on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:02:57 PM PDT

          •  Agreed, so then as applied to AGW

            AGW predicted that we would observe a heating of the earth's troposphere in advance of ground surface temperature increases.  Yet satellite observations have shown no significant rise in tropospheric temperatures over the time frame that CO2 was supposedly causing the surface to heat up.

            AGW predicted that the increase of man-made CO2 would result in an increase of the global mean surface temperature, but observation has shown that while we have continued to emit increasing amounts of CO2,  surface temperatures have not increased for over a decade.

            There are other instances of the failure of AGW theory to match observation, but these 2 are enough to discuss in limited space.

            by MJBrutus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:09:00 PM PDT

            •  To which I would reply:

              We have noticed an increase in median temperature as a constant trend during past decades, beyond reasonable doubt in relation to greenhouse gas emissions.

              More specific calculations, however, are very difficult to make. Why? On a most abstract level, it's because you're using inductive logic, which always carries the risk of mistakes (unlike deductive logic, where correct premises necessitate a correct synthesis).

              The Earth is a complex meteorological system, with a nearly infinite number of variables, and, while we can predict general trends easily enough, we cannot account for every fluctuation, every nuance, which Your examples clearly demonstrate. It does not mean that the underlying theory is false, merely that predictions made because of it are. The two should not be conflated: If I attempt to predict the evolution of a species and I'm wrong, it doesn't mean that the theory of evolution itself is false.

              by Dauphin on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:14:06 PM PDT

              •  It's very much in doubt

                We have noticed an increase in median temperature as a constant trend during past decades, beyond reasonable doubt in relation to greenhouse gas emissions.

                You are arguing from your conclusion.  When one looks at the data, such as presented in Al Gore's movie what we see is that temperature changes have historically preceded elevated CO2 on the order of 800 centuries!  Just looking at the data in shorter and more recent time scales, we see epochs such as the medieval warming period when temps were much above today's prior to man-made CO2 emissions.  The AGW theorists are unable to account for such large-scale trends in their work.

                he Earth is a complex meteorological system, with a nearly infinite number of variables, and, while we can predict general trends easily enough, we cannot account for every fluctuation, every nuance, which Your examples clearly demonstrate. It does not mean that the underlying theory is false, merely that predictions made because of it are.

                The earth is highly complex and our understanding of it is in its infancy.    In fact, the factors that are most responsible for temperature change are the least understood!  CO2 concentrations are a small part of the puzzle.  We know that CO2 does trap some heat, but the conclusions of the IPCC are based on highly speculative science based on this theoretical consequences of this effect.  The heating directly from increased CO2 is not something that any of us would worry about.  The theoretical danger lies from the feedback effects (speculation about how CO2-caused heating causes other climactic events which form a self-reinforcing cycle).  This is where the AGW scientists go astray.  While many of them are aware of the limitations of their understanding of the validity of these feedback models, the more responsible among them recognize the very speculative nature of their work.  The fact that observation contradicts their conclusions certainly does tell us that the models are wrong.  Especially when the more fundamental phenomena are contradicted, such as the troposphere's temperature stability when the theory tells us that it should precede surface temperature increases.

                by MJBrutus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:34:13 PM PDT

                •  Fatalism logical consequence from contrarians

                  You do understand that the time lapse argument has already been refuted countless times, right.

                  The premise that there is not enough known about climate forcings (or "feedback effects" as you call them) so that we are in doubt about the strong correlation between carbon dioxide emissions and the rising global mean temperature is not accepted by the scientific community.  

                  I always wonder when people try to use the argument that correlation doesn't imply causation (which is true, generally speaking) to cast doubt upon the nature of the relationship between carbon dioxide and global mean temperature if they have thought the matter through.

                  For, once having agreed that there is a strong correlation (which is simply undeniable), then the conclusion would be:

                  1. even if there is not a causative relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and global mean temperature, whenever carbon dioxide emissions are higher than the global mean temperature will be higher.

                  2. carbon dioxide emissions will continue to increase (obvious and the "contrarians" don't mind increasing the carbon dioxide emissions)

                  3. Therefore, the global mean temperature will be higher (even if it is not caused by increased carbon dioxide emissions).

                  4. However, in this scenario, we won't even know the real cause.

                  5. Hence, we are forced into a fatalistic situation where the global mean temperature will continue to rise and we don't know what is really causing it. Thus, we can't stop it.

                  You are welcome to your logical conclusions.

                  by math4barack on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:19:02 PM PDT

                  •  The conclusion that I draw

                    I say that SINCE temperature rises have historically preceded CO2 concentration increases the causal relation is almost certainly the reverse of what AGW alarmists would have us believe.  That is to say increased surface temps cause more atmospheric CO2.  

                    The causes of increased surface temps are still well beyond our ability to understand.  We understand some parts of the puzzle but have shown no proficiency at predicting what our climate will do next.

                    by MJBrutus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:31:11 AM PDT

            •  Thus do we uncover

              the true face of evil.

              It is not "OK" to arrange  conferences to prop up a fundamentally wrong take on the survival of an entire species.  Among other reasons, those legitimate scientists doing polar bear research are quick to point out that the effect on the food chain is, as yet, unknown.

              They've fished out the oceans, killed the coral, created miles wide floating island of discarded plastic bags, and now we are to stand by while they find pseudo-scientists to prop up their greed?

              Disgraceful.

              by Granny Doc on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:17:03 PM PDT

            •  tell that to the melting glaciers

              and melting Greenland icepack and to the nations who are trying to assert claims of ownership of oil resources under the melting Arctic and shipping lanes through where the polar ice cap will soon be disappearing.

              BTW, this actually isn't according to predictions, it's considerably worse than "worst-case" predictions would indicate.

              How does astroturfing for ExxonMobil pay these days?

              by alizard on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:07:30 PM PDT

              •  This icepack?

                It's baaaack

                by MJBrutus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:11:41 PM PDT

                •  Are you saying this is an upward trend?

                  Apparently I'm not allowed to link the actual image, but this is from the  site your site mentions as its source of information.

                  hemispheric anomaly

                  You would do well to spend a few hours learning some statistics before making a complete fool of yourself.

                  by JMcDonald on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:59:01 PM PDT

          •  I think it's a brain-capacity-cleanising...

            ... instead of ethnic cleansing.  Kind of saying: If you are too stupid to know that We need fresh air and water and healthy soil -- then we are gonna let you die to purify the race of your 17 brain cells.

            But not this time!  

            by FundaMental Transformation on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:10:19 PM PDT

            •  Then the

              following site might be of interest to You:

              www.darwinawards.com

              by Dauphin on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:20:30 PM PDT

      •  Yeah, tolerance of ideas that do not infringe...

        ... on the health and safety of others... in this case ALL OTHERS

        by FundaMental Transformation on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:07:38 PM PDT

  •  Repuke candidates can avow that Genesis

    trumps Darwin! In the venue of a public "debate"!

    (I always put quotes on that word, my small protest)

    Aloha   ..  ..  ..

    by dolphin777 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:36:39 AM PDT

  •  Don't get me started on Ben Stein

    Here's the relevant part of his rant on "How to ruin innovation and competitiveness in America".

    http://www.forbes.com/...

    Destroy the knowledge base on which all of mankind's scientific progress has been built by guaranteeing that such learning is confined to only a few, and spread ignorance and complacency among the many. Watch America lose its scientific and competitive edge to other nations that make a comprehensive knowledge base a rule of the society.

    Elevate mysticism, tribalism, shamanism and fundamentalism--and be sure to exclude educated, hardworking men and women--to an equal status with technology in the public mind. Make sure that... in America, you act as if science were on an equal footing with voodoo and history with ethnic fable.
    

    I mean, it's a good thing that Stein and his fellow conservative Republicans would never support anything that might lead to THAT.

    by AdmiralNaismith on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:40:35 AM PDT

    •  Riiiight!

      And I have this bridge for sale...

      by JeffW on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:18:09 PM PDT

  •  Agreed

    The mishandling of scientific information by the overabundant talking heads makes me cringe.

    As a scientist I can understand all too well how such a statement can be made. Ideally, grant money is provided to allow adequate investigation of a particular question or problem.  The resulting data is meant to debated and scrutinized, ensuring that the best information is put forth.  
    However therein lies the problem, the grant money.  Most grant money is attached with instructions, some more specific than others.  If the granting agency is looking for a specific answer, and if the scientist wants the money then they will do their best to find the answers the agency is looking for.  After all, they will want to ensure continual future funding (job security).
    Fortunately, the vast majority of grants and granting agency are unbiased and request varied views and experimental approaches.  This is why science is always advancing.
    It is situations such as this, which manipulate the system to better serve their selfish needs, that permit such a negative view of science.

    by Wavingsuzy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:58:28 AM PDT

  •  Too bad they're wrong.

    Scientists are nothing like lawyers - defense is obliged to defend a client whether they believe the client is guilty or not. Prosecution must prosecute. Scientists are held to specific testing methodology that - unless they are unethical - determines whether or not their hypothesis is right or wrong.  Then the results are vetted by their peers.

    Never let "scientists are like lawyers" go unchallenged, if anything they're direct opposites.

    by pakaal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:57:05 PM PDT

  •  it's what happens when "fair and balanced"

    replaces a "Fairness Doctrine".

    It appears that our Fortune 1000 CEOs and the Richistani have wandered into the delusional world the Soviet nomenklatura lived in where scientific "fact" is "whatever The Party says it is" and scientists who want to live in the regime repeat The Party Line of the day, or else.

    How'd this turn out for the Soviets?

    by alizard on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:03:02 PM PDT

    •  Animal Farm revisited

      Animal Farm

      by In her own Voice on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:51:41 PM PDT

•  "...conference to nowhere"! Paging Ted

  Stevens!  Is that aging turkey still trying to sell "his" bridge?

  I've been appalled that "MY" Senator, Dan Inouye, often sides with Stevens in so-called energy issues! It never made much sense to me -- until I happened to watch a PBS program on Alaska. It was well-presented, and I must admit I really did NOT know much about Alaska's becoming a state. Except that they beat out Hawai'i, making us 50th instead of 49th.

  And in that context I discovered that Stevens was one of the (very aggressive!) midwives in the statehood process. Explains why he has sooo much juice!! The tentacles extend far 'n wide, folks!

  The association bewteen Stevens and Inouye dates that far back; they scratch each other's backs on every occasion.

  A few years ago, I contacted Inouye in re ANWAR; received back a fuckin' form letter, which basically reminded me he has done such great stuffs for Hawai'i. Did NOT address my concerns, howevvah!

  Aloha   ..  ..  ..

  by dolphin777 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:34:05 AM PDT

•  Holy Ayatollah, Batman!!

  A $2 million program funded with little debate by the Legislature last month calls for using state money to fund an "academic based" conference that highlights contrarian scientific research on global warming.

  compare to:

  Iran's foreign ministry will host an international conference in Tehran next week that will ask if the Holocaust in World War II actually happened.

  When the fuck did Ahmadinejad become governor of Alaska??

  by Egypt Steve on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:35:41 AM PDT

  •  The only good thing about it

    Will be news coverage of the creationists, Christian Identity zealots, and Dominionist theologians who are going to show up for it.

    by Egypt Steve on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:47:03 AM PDT

    •  I'd like to be in charge of the travel arrangemen

      for both conferences.

      Would anybody notice if the Dominionists went to Iran and the Holocaust deniers went to Alaska?

      Actually, I think the Dominionists would notice when they discovered that there weren't any local bars to go to after the conference was over for the day.

      by alizard on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:11:11 PM PDT

•  You can always count on ...

  ...Senator James Inhofe's name to show up in these stories.

  Scientists are like lawyers, eh? Well, indeed, throughout history, there have been a handful of experts in every field who will tell you what you want other people to hear if you pay them the right price, truth be damned.

  It is at least refreshing to hear the employers of such policy whores say they don't care about the science. Polar bears extinct? Well, no skin off my nose, I'll be dead before all of them are. I bet most of the Permafrost will outlive me, too.

  We've gone from the time when the Iroquois Confederacy made major decisions based on looking ahead seven generations to an era when we choose without even looking at the consequences for tomorrow.

  by Meteor Blades on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:35:45 AM PDT

  •  And even when lawyers whore out

    their services it is disgusting. Law has its principles, its dynamics, its purpose, and its logic. When a lawyer sells out - and many do - it is always a sad sight to see, and their work is a terror to read.

    Worse still, they give lawmakers and other holders of power a patina of legitimacy. Their opinions and the laws they write might be garbage, but their reputation helps to push the most disgusting acts through.

    And yes, I am referring to specific people, although I will not name them. Being sued isn't pleasant.

    by Dauphin on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:00:14 PM PDT

    •  Check out Moyers from last night.

      He had Phillipe Sands discussing his new book about torture under the current administration.  He implicates lawyers' involvement in torture implementation as the means by which our leaders justified torture.  Without an advisory opinion written by a lawyer, our leaders would have had no authorization to sign.  Addington, Yoo, Feith, Gonzalez are all mentioned.
      Using lawyers to undo the Constitution they've sworn to uphold and asking scientists to ignore the scientific method in drawing their opinions renders every boundary blurry.  Perhaps our moral boundaries suffer the most.

      by EmmaKY on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:29:58 PM PDT

      •  The difference is

        if you graduated from law school and passed the bar, you are a lawyer and have a license to prove it. But merely graduating from a university with a science degree does not make someone a scientist. Science is an ethical discipline, and only people who practice that discipline ethically are scientists. People who graduate with a degree in science and become a mouthpiece for whatever group pays them without regard for truth are called whores, not scientists.

        by carolita on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:40:09 PM PDT

•  BRAVO!

  The "science" of AGW has been a runaway train, destined to crash in to the hard truth with our very way of life ending up as the casualty.

  Proponents of AGW have led a politically-driven campaign to stifle all dissent, not because of empirical evidence but because of money and power.  Academic work has been sponsored solely for those who support the political agenda behind a misguided movement.  Dozens of Enrons are waiting in the wings to compete for carbon-trading scams.  GE is smacking their lips at the thought of replacing every incadescent light bulb in the country with their pricey CF products.    The list goes on and on.  Ah, but it's only the "deniers" (a loaded, malicious term intended of course to evoke images of Holocaust deniers) who are subject to the influence of money.

  The fact is that the earth's global mean temperature has not risen for over a decade, in direct contradiction of the theorists behind AGW.  The earth's troposphere temperature is another powerful contradiction of the theory, based on solid evidence from satellite data such as that collected by AQUA.  The fact is that not a single prediction made by the IPCC or Hansen of NASA has been verified.

  Science is about the construction of theories to explain nature, followed by the formulation of predictions to put those theories to the test.  The theories behind AGW have been put to the test and AGW has flunked each and every one.  To continue to support such theories is not science, it is an act of faith!

  by MJBrutus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:36:13 AM PDT

•  Diane Benson - running AGAINST Don Young! Pls see

  http://www.bensonforcongress.com/...

  and

  http://www.bensonforcongress.com/

  and  

  http://

  She was also the first Alaskan to force Don Young into a live televised debate.

  by Blue Waters Run Deep on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:38:31 AM PDT

  •  good link below.Diane only Native Alaskan running

    http://www.bensonforcongress.com/...

    by Blue Waters Run Deep on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:40:32 AM PDT

•  Ah, that reminds me of grad school...

  In a class I was taking in molecular biology, there was so much reading of the literature we had to do.  It was a slog.  

  One guy never seemed to be doing the reading.  So finally the professor said, "__, have you actually read this paper?"

  __ said, "Abstract and conclusions only!" And he said it with such zeal, it was just bizarre.  

  That's the world we are in today.  Abstracts and conclusions only, I'm afraid.  

  And people here sometimes want to direct the research based on the outcome they desire: bees killed by GM crops, stuff like that....sigh.

  ABSTRACT AND CONCLUSIONS ONLY!

  by mem from somerville on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:41:27 AM PDT

•  I love it:

  non-biased to specific groups' opinion

  Double-speak in action!

  by Temmoku on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:48:44 AM PDT

•  Great diary

  I posted a diary about the judges May 15 deadline a little while ago.  Thanks for the progress report about the bullshit attempts to bring pseudo-scientific denialists into the mix.

  It makes me freaking crazy that these people need only say repeatedly that something is wrong with the science and a bunch of idiots jump on the bandwagon and insist something is wrong with the science.

  I know, I know, this is a trait of all right-wing blow hards and science denialists, but it still annoys the living shit out of me.

  Every time I post something on environmentalism or animal rights I get these brilliant chaps swearing there is one small and brilliant group of poor scientists somewhere who are so much smarter than the consensus of all the scientists in the world that they and they alone can see the mistakes the rest of us make when we say there is climate change or polar bears are endangered.

  On a side note, I had a commenting denialist to one of my diaries quoting a couple of position papers by a group of deniers called the Public Policy Forecasting special interest group. There are clearly a group of deniers specializing obfuscation akin to the Discovery Institutes work on intelligent design. Their two papers to date according to their website argue against the evidence for global warming and against the idea that polar bears are threatened. Also their biggest claim to fame that I could find was that they like to tout that they challenged Al Gore to some kind of debate or challenge and he NEVER RESPONDED...I know, how dare he not answer every one of these idiots.

  Does anyone know any more detailed info about this group, who is behind it, who funds it, etc?  I just like to know the enemy, so to speak, but could only find limited info. Any info would be appreciated.

  by matthew fogarty on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:04:00 PM PDT

•  Great work.

  What comes to my mind is something that brings the deniers back to the 'oil people' and here's the connection...

  Most sovereign wealth funds are foreign, but not all.  The US has one - just one, that protects the interests of those invested in it.  Find out that and (IMO) you find out who is paying the Alaska-destroying-deniers.

  by FundaMental Transformation on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:04:59 PM PDT

•  Read this yesterday in the

  Anchorage Daily News. They are doing a daily editorial called the Daily Pork. In it they are highlighting appropriations by the legislature that are ripe for the  governor's line item veto pen. This 2 million dollar appropriation made the list Friday.

  Never underestimate the wingnut legislators in this state to do crazy shit. Too bad more of them didn't get swept up in the VECO bribery case.

  by realalaskan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:06:11 PM PDT

•  There's been a lot of discussion

  on science blogs regarding the anti-science crowd. Whether for profit or dogma, a  a large movement to undermine the credibility of science exists. But like the myths surrounding Iraq, these arguments ultimately collapse under their own falsehood.

  by jck on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:06:24 PM PDT

  •  But you're still in Iraq today, yes? n/t

    by Dauphin on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:07:21 PM PDT

    •  You noticed? n/t

      by JeffW on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:14:55 PM PDT

      •  I have my moments. n/t

        by Dauphin on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:15:18 PM PDT

    •  True, but the public is no longer buying it.

      Whether that's enough I guess we'll see in November.

      by jck on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:16:16 PM PDT

•  Polar Bears are the new Spotted Oil, er I mean

  Spotted Owl. Must have oil on the brain for some unknown reason. Can't imagine why that'd be.

  by londubh on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:07:43 PM PDT

•  Global warming probably seems like a good idea,

  to Alaskans.

  by irate on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:09:13 PM PDT

•  I have written about the myth of scientific

  objectivity.  The problem is that it goes both ways.  The willingness of some scientists to sell their credibility makes it easier to discredit the honest ones.  Meanwhile the greedy can continue to rape the planet for profit.

  by don mikulecky on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:11:22 PM PDT

  •  A lot depends on what counts as a scientist

    anyone -- and I mean that almost literally -- can get a degree in SOME scientific discipline, I know that because Regent University teaches both biology and earth science, and has a general science degree. Does that make someone who holds that degree a scientist? No. I doubt that even the teachers of those courses would be considered scientists by objective standards. But could you rationalize calling them scientists for nefarious purposes? Of course.

    If the only science a person has ever practiced is in the employ of an evolution-denying think tank, they aren't a scientist in my book. But I'll bet it qualifies for the purposes of the Alaska conference.

    by carolita on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:30:21 PM PDT

    •  I wish it were only that

      Otherwise reputable scientists have their price.  Sad but true.

      by don mikulecky on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:08:29 PM PDT

•  Just one example of the denial industry

  This Alaskan heavy-handed and ludicrous attempt to influence is just one part of an entire, well-funded industry to emit falsehoods around global warming.

  The best site to monitor the overall global warming denialists' falsehood production is desmog blog.

  Check out all the fun you can have debunking lies!

  by oregonj on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:36:49 PM PDT

•  Bush doublespeak and elections...

  A creepy thought just occurred to me.  Two important issues have gotten lip service from the Bush Administration for a while now, and I was sort of confused until I read your post.  

  Bush & Company have generally said they agree with their scientists that human-induced climate change is occurring.  They have also tried to put forward an immigration reform plan (not much of one at all, but hey), much to the chagrin of the Republicans in general.

  Since the Bush presidency has obviously been failing for a while now, and rats leaving his sinking ship weekly, it struck me that Bush's embracing these two important Dem issues would ensure that Republican voters cemented those two issues in their minds as "part of the mistakes of the Bush presidency".  Which is why we now have state legislatures like Alaska talking about hiring "scientists to answer the Interior (Department) scientists".

  by pakaal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:49:14 PM PDT

•  Global Cooling is coming

  The latest satellite observations show that worldwide Icecap coverage is at a record extent, that's both the north and south poles together.

  It would seem that if this keeeps up the polar Bears may be in trouble. Not enough open ice for them to hunt seals.

  Did you also notice that this past winter was one of the best skiing seasons in history?

  Damn those playstation climate models, they just can't get it right.

  by 162 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:54:16 PM PDT

  •  welcome to DailyKos

    Now go home to RedState. I'm not even going to bothering asking you for cites.

    If you really believe the bullshit you're spouting, go tell the nations already waging propaganda battles over who gets the North Pole after the Arctic ice pack melts they're wasting their money. In person.

    by alizard on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:20:53 PM PDT

  •  Actually,

    this is half right.  The extent of sea ice in the northern hemisphere was greater than previous years.  However, what this post neglects to tell you is that it is thinner than ever.  There's something called "multi-year ice" that persists over the summers, and is generally thicker than first-year ice.  Thickness matters because polar bears, walruses, and seals are heavy animals that break through thin ice.

    It's this cherry-picking data that really bothers me.

    by frsbdg on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:35:25 PM PDT

•  A consensus has been reached about

  climate change by climate scientists.

  It has also been reached by other scientists who are not bought and paid for by the Petroleum/Oil Industry.

  That consensus says:  

  1. Climate Change is real and largely caused by humans through the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  

  2. That there is a strong direct correlation between carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere and the global mean temperature.

  And science/math challenged people like Limbaugh and Inhofe and others routinely misrepresent what we are saying.

  (e.g. if on one particular day in one particular city, there is a colder temperature than normal then it disproves climate change).

  That is patently false. It is a straw man argument.

  We never, ever asserted that in every city on every day, the temperature would be warmer than normal.

  www.realclimate.org is a great site for this.

  I am also a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists.  www.ucsusa.org which devotes extensive time, money and effort to stop the perpetration of science fraud by this administration and similarly minded people (charitable).

  by math4barack on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:02:16 PM PDT

•  A Canadian Promise

  You come up here and try to shoot Polar Bears for sport and I promise you at Least ten Indians for every bear shooting back you spineless gutless nut jobs. This is the kind of American stuff that makes me think I want John McCain for President, lets just get the Decline and Fall of America over with. God some of you people just don't deserve a place on this planet.

  Lary Waldman

  by lwaldmann on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:11:43 PM PDT

  •  Are you insane? It's kind of...

    ...strange, you seem to be able to write, but there's no evidence you can read.  Nothing in this story says anything about anyone shooting polar bears. Certainly no one on this list would ever recommend that, we're the ones fighting to get polar bears on the endangered list.

    Nutjob.

    by pakaal on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:32:24 PM PDT

    •  All Americans Kill first and ask questions latter

      I've been called worse, and you know, nut job is a compliment in Canada. Here we spend so much on health care for the indigent that we have no money to teach people to read only write. But we get by, sort of. Just keep your bloody hands off our Polar Bears, you see the ones roaming around ANWAR are visitors from Canada.

      Lary Waldman

      PS; It's just like an American to suggest he or she was just following orders, after all.

      by lwaldmann on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:23:12 PM PDT

•  Thx for this - I started a diary about this but

  don't have time for in-depth research right now.

  I thought the opening paragraph of the ADN article was priceless:

  The state Legislature is looking to hire a few good polar bear scientists. The conclusions have already been agreed upon -- researchers just have to fill in the science part.

  by 1BQ on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:04:15 PM PDT

•  Welcome to Alaska polltics

  Lived there for 14 years. My ex went from Hooker (Love Canal) Chemicals in Niagra Falls to the Hazardous Waste Environmental Engineer for AK Dept of Environmental Conversation (not a typo).  An Air Force brat, he and the whole family fell in love with the state during their '64 to '67 assignment and all ended up there.

  Alan spent a lot of energy trying to bring State law in compliance with the then new EPA regs. He found out that his scientific expertise carried no weight in the legislature over the oil company lobbyists who handed over the bills they wanted and were passed with only minor revisions.

  When he left in '83, he had forced the pipeline consortium to properly equip the loading facility in Valdez with spill response gear in a centralized location and to hold yearly drills for managing a spill. One problem they really needed to get a better handle on was that almost all spill response technology was based on spills in much warmer ocean temperatures. The PWS temperatures simply did not allow standard responses to work sufficiently.

  Six years later, instead of maintaining that start and having a group of people who could step in quickly with a clue about what should be done and the capacity to carry it out; the equipment was dispersed, inadequate and no longer available, no drills had been held for several years. The response can only be compared to NOLA.  Alan, by then an independent consultant, was in Prince William Sound for 6 months. It was a personally devastating nightmare to see the widespread destruction of that environment from human greed and apathy.

  One other issue. Wikipedias account has some flaws (!). The double hull requirement had been in effect for 5 years. The oil companies had been stalling this for longer and managed to evade it until this happened. It was the final slap in the face when Exxon started advertising how they had started the program - as though they had taken the initiative...

  This may shed light on Young's capacity to stay in office. He is married to a Native woman and was able to keep their vote by the ususal bribery available to politicians with access to pork.

  by Ginny in CO on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:49:21 PM PDT

•  But what about the NW Passage?

  This rather contradicts another major politician: Congressman-for-Life Don Young—though there is some doubt about that title this time around.  I heard an article where he was pushing for more federal investment in icebreakers.  It seem the CfL is expecting that global warming will open the Northwest Passage up often enough (with the help of the icebreakers) so that Alaska can have a sea route to Europe and the East Coast.  So Young is not only expecting global warming, he's banking on it.

  by KingBolete on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:39:19 PM PDT

•  It is one thing to deny the existence of climate

  change.

  It is another to concede that there are few options to deal with it.

  I had a loved one, well, it was my mother, who went to the doctor because she was falling down and was told that she had the flu.   When she kept falling, she went to another doctor.   The second doctor correctly diagnosed a brain tumor.

  Even though the second doctor had the correct diagnosis, it did not follow that he could cure the brain tumor.   My mother still died.

  I have noted that one of the major practices of people who claim to be highly concerned with climate change is to oppose the world's largest, by far, form of climate change gas free energy.

  Personally, I spent some effort trying to fight the ignorance connected with this practice, but on reflection, I am reminded of the famous work of Kubler Ross, who reported that the stages of death are these:

  Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance.

  Some people think that climate change can be fought effectively by buying new stuff, Priuses for instance.   If that doesn't sound like either denial or maybe "bargaining" or a mixture thereof, I don't know what does.

  Since climate change is an international affair - and death will be involved, beyond, I expect, the death of bear species - and since climate change effects all human beings, we may note that some human beings are in different stages in understanding the nature of the problem.

  Denial may seem ludicrous on one level, but it is a human trait.

  One form of selective science is not particularly more satisfying than another.

  by NNadir on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:34:47 PM PDT

  •  Sure but...

    ...until you can get everyone focused on the fact that it is happening, how can you start considering effective policies to counteract it?

    by pakaal on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:34:30 PM PDT

•  Just what are Alaskans going to do

  if the earmarks stop since they get more per capita than any other state?

  Why, up the money coming in from the oil drilling that's what.

  They want money to go to them that shouldn't be theirs since it is coming from federal land.

  Last time I checked federal land belonged to every American.

  That's why Alaskans are so f*cked up. They want the free ride and will never vote for someone telling them they can't have it.

  They are hypocrites. Trying to say they are independent when they are the biggest government-supported population in the country

  by Crazy like a fox on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:18:36 AM PDT

  •  The oil money does not come from federal land

    This is a very late response, but I think it's necessary to correct your misunderstanding.
    If you look at a detailed map of Alaska that identifies both land ownership and location of oil fields, you will see that almost every drop of oil currently produced within the state comes from STATE lands. Prudhoe Bay, Kuparuk, Alpine, Endicott, Point McIntyre, Milne Point, Badami, Tarn, Fiord. . .have I left any out? . . .all those North Slope fields are on state land. Even the Cook Inlet oil and gas production is almost entirely from state lands and waters.
    There is only a tiny bit of oil being produced from federal territory, though that would change if development proceeds in the NPR-A and the Beaufort and Chukchi. The Northstar field, which has one corner containing some federal leases, represents the only North Slope oil production on federal territory. Most of Northstar is actually on state leases. There is also a tiny, tiny bit of oil, almost insigificant, that comes from the Swanson River field on federal territory on the Kenai Peninsula. As far as oil produced from federal lands or federal waters in Alaska, that's absolutely it. And yes, the revenues from this tiny bit of oil production from federal territory do go to the federal treasury. The revenues from oil produced on state territory go to the state treasury.
    It was the state Division of Oil and Gas that sold the leases and administers the leases that hold the currently producing oil fields. You can check this out for yourself. Had this been federal land, the DOI would have sold the leases.
    In Alaska, only three entities are allowed to own mineral rights, according to federal law -- the state, the federal government and the Native corporations. No individuals own mineral rights. Even on private land, even the land beneath their homes, individuals are precluded from owning mineral rights. (Those are owned by the state)
    I'm not defending Alaska earmarks, which have been much criticized within Alaska, by the way, or this effort to put $2 million into junk science, which I'm pretty confident will be vetoed, or any other bad things that Alaska politicians have done. But it's important to get your facts straight.
    The oil that is produced from Alaska is indeed a public resource owned by the state of Alaska -- just like oil produced from federal lands is a public resource owned by the American people. Hence the heated debates over the years in Alaska, and especially over the past few years, about how to best compensate the Alaska public for the extraction of this non-renewable resource. If you're not aware of these debates over the ELF or PPT or ACES, as the various oil-production tax systems have been called, or over the state's recent efforts to rescind leases at Point Thomson because of nonperformance by the leaseholders, then you're just not keeping up.

    by mtn mama on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:35:56 AM PDT

•  Science is about Data

  It is the data , not the scientists who matter.
    Unfortunately Americans have become so scientifically illiterate that they often don't know this.
    There is no belief or faith or cult of personality in science.
     Scientists are nothing like lawyers...lawyers make stuff up a person who does that is not a scientist.
     
     

  by drblack on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:30:07 AM PDT