The May's And Might's Of Global Warming

The Fish & Wildlife Service has proposed listing the ice-flow polar bears as endangered, so it's in the midst of a process that must, by law, be based on science. Basing decisions on science is supposed to give critters the best opportunity to survive -- but it is also designed to protect the people from erroneous, unneeded, expensive errors in the decision-making process.

Do you trust the government to do the right thing? If you do, you haven't read as many species listing petitions as I have. Or as many as Julie Smithson has. I'm not sure who she is, but her email name is "propertyrights@----." My kind of gal.

Here's a portion of the official comment she submitted to USFWS on the proposed polar bear listing:

The use of nebulous, unprovable words, including, but not limited
to:

"might" (Pages 8, 49, 85, 86, 140, 147, 155, 243, 252, and 259 -- Page 243 is of special concern),

"may" [not to be confused with references to the month of May] (Pages 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 38, 39, 40, 42, 44, 53, 54, 57, 58, 59, 64, 67, 68, 71, 74, 77, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90

["... may be difficult to measure ..." and "... may initially obscure trends... "], 91, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 107, 112, 114, 115, 116, 120, 121, 122, 123, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 134, 135, 139, 140, 142, 145, 149, 153, 155, 158, 160, 161, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 173, 174, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187 [many times on this page], 188, 189, 243, 244, 246, 247, 248, 250, 251, 254, 257, and 259),

"possibly" (Pages 13, 16, 27, 33, 41, 54, 72, 80, 100, 101, 104, 105, 184, 185, 187, 246, 248, 249, and 251),

"potential" (Pages 21, 32, 34, 37, 58, 60, 68, 75, 82, 95, 97, 110, 126, 128, 129, 130, 138, 140, 141, 145, 152, 153, 156 [three times], 166 [three times], 169, 170 [three times], 175, 176, 178, 179, 183, 187, 191, 210, 236, 239, 249, 254, 257, and 259)

"potentially" (Pages 20, 24, 42, 99, 113, and 169),

and "could" (Pages 13, 15, 18, 20, 27, 28, 37, 42, 52, 54, 72 [many times], 74, 76, 77, 83, 85, 86, 87 [many times], 89, 90, 91, 95, 97, 98, 99, 101, 103, 107, 110, 115, 126, 137, 138, 142, 143, 144, 147, 153, 155, 165, 168, 169 [several times], 170, 180, 181, 184, 186, 187, 189, and 251),

clearly illustrate failure to prove any need for polar bear listing.

Those words do have a place in science, of course, because we simply don't know everything we'd like to know. But when they stack up like this, it shows not only how questionable the proposed polar bear listing is, but also how unproven the theories behind global warming are. After all, melting polar ice is a god in the pantheon of Warmism.

What will happen? How will it happen? What will the effect be? When? For how long? The answer is a string of may's, might's and could's that together form the Warmie belief system. That's fine; let them have their belief system.

Just don't force a government that's supposed to be separated from churches to put billions upon billions of dollars on their alter.