Research that the Department of Interior is using to render a decision on whether to list the polar bear as endangered is critically flawed, according to Professor J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School and others who were part of an audit group formulated by the State of Alaska.
Prof. Armstrong and colleagues originally undertook their audit at the request of the State of Alaska. The subsequent study, “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public Policy Forecasting Audit,†is by Prof. Armstrong, Kesten G. Green of Monash University in Australia, and Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. It is scheduled to appear in the September/October issue of the INFORMS journal Interfaces.
According to Science Daily, Armstrong says that in order to list a healthy species as endangered, you have to have “valid forecasts”.
“To list a species that is currently in good health as an endangered species requires valid forecasts that its population would decline to levels that threaten its viability. In fact, the polar bear populations have been increasing rapidly in recent decades due to hunting restrictions. Assuming these restrictions remain, the most appropriate forecast is to assume that the upward trend would continue for a few years, then level off.
“These studies are meant to inform the US Fish and Wildlife Service about listing the polar bear as endangered. After careful examination, my co-authors and I were unable to find any references to works providing evidence that the forecasting methods used in the reports had been previously validated. In essence, they give no scientific basis for deciding one way or the other about the polar bear.â€
Armstrong says that his group examined nine U.S. Geological Survey Administrative Reports and found that the most relevant study, “properly applied only 15% of relevant forecasting principles”. They also determined that these same studies showed that 69% of the information was “contravened”, to some degree.
The group further states that the studies failed to substantiate “assumptions” of melting sea ice or the ability of the polar bear to adapt to changing climate patterns.
In short, Armstrong has determined that any ruling, whether to list or not list, cannot be scientifically substantiated using the flawed studies the Department of Interior is using.
Next!
Tom Remington
