This administration's line, that the ESA is "not the proper mechanism for controlling our nation's carbon emissions," is uncannily familiar to anyone who paid attention to the previous administration's climate clap-trap. On the contrary, we are so far down the road to morphing our atmosphere into some kind of Venusian oven, any measure is "proper," if not indispensable.

And BTW, Salazar's a jerk, I strongly opposed his nomination.  Ranchers are hardcore anti-environmentalists, and Salazar is no exception.

BTW, Steven Chu really messed up when he was testifying before Congress.  Grist reported the story wrong.  Grist made it look like Joe Barton did not know what he was talking about.  Andy Revkin disagrees and sent one of his stories off to Chu to inform him of the facts. Here's the story he sent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/science/earth/30core.html 

I would have made this comment on the correct Grist story but comments were closed on it.

Second, you are dead wrong about polar bears not being in trouble.  Scientists predict that if global warming continues apace, polar bears will become extinct before the end of the century.  And despite polar bears being strong swimmers, they are already starting to drown due to having to swim unnaturally long distances because of ice melt caused by global warming.  Also, pointing to the 1950s as an example of a good level of species population is absurd.  If you want to look at what the biologically and ecologically sound polar bear population number would be, look to the time before Europeans began causing it to be reduced.

Second, the scientists who offered these predictions did not follow scientific forecasting principles.  Scientific forecasting is a fairly new discipline.  The first peer-reviewed scientific forecasting journal began publishing about 25 years ago. Now four journals publish in the field. Two of the leaders of scientific forecasting were commissioned to audit the polar bears prediction and found the prediction to be worthless.  See http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=79&Itemid=131

Summary:  The polar bears are not currently in trouble.  According to scientific forecasting principles, there is no reason to predict a large decrease in polar bear population.  Sea ice melt stopped in 2007 and a new cooler climate regime began in late 2007 when the PDO switched to its cool phase.  This switch to the cool phase was predicted in a peer-reviewed paper in 2002 written by Bratcher and Giese. A free full version of the paper is not available online but you can see their slide presentation at http://www.decvar.org/documents/CCR_workshop/bratcher.htm?PHPSESSID=df81bed52419c895efef9135099fb26e9

More voices.......we need many more voices speaking out loudly and often.  Time is being wasted by those with wealth and power who adamantly defend unsustainable status quo overconsumption, overproduction and overpopulation activities of the human species that are overwhelming and threatening to ravage the Earth in our time.  Because these distinctly human activities could soon become patently unsustainable, necessary behavior change has to occur fast.  If more members of the human family do not speak out to vigorously resist what the leaders of the human community are demanding all of us do now as we strive to ravenously overconsume Earth's resources; to relentlessly hoard wealth; and to overproduce unnecessary stuff, then the planetary home we are inhabiting and overpopulating could be made uninhabitable for our children and life as we know it by 2012.

but the polar bear is also us.

Kudos to Grist for leading with this story-- the biggest story in the news: one more significant step speeding step toward global warming.

Obama is showing a terrible weakness for supporting BIG COAL, BIG OIL, BIG GAS. 

We already have seen since almost the first days of electioneering that Obama evinces a belief that there is such a thing as "Clean Coal".  He is from a BIG COAL state-- and they did elect him.  BIG COAL, BIG OIL and BIG GAS also did elect George W. Bush, from whose policies we are still emerging. Well-- almost.  Seems Obama agrees with the Bush Administration on the Polar Bear and its habitat.

WHY THE POLAR BEAR IS "ALSO US"
One effect of global warming which is not in dispute is that when the oceans get warm enough, massive amounts of the greenhouse gas methane  (23 times as effective as carbon dioxide) currently frozen below the surface, will suddenly escape into our atmosphere.

Scroll down to "Arctic Methane Release" for details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Feedback

There is no such thing as clean coal
http://thedirtylie.com/

Listen to Duke Energy CEO talk about among other things how he expects America to pay for his company's research into the unfeasible alchemy: carbon sequestration-- so called "clean coal".  These companies and their management are only interested in their own paychecks and profits, and we let them run these deadly polluting carbon-fuel businesses at the cost of our own lives
http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenpeaceusa_blog/2009/05/05/duke_energy_ceo_does_doublespeak_on_ccs

This decision-- not to protect the Polar Bear and its habitat-- coupled with others where Obama is in agreement that "clean coal" is feasible-- are fatefully flawed steps toward ever-speeding global warming.

Energy Czar Steven Chu is silent on this matter. What up?