"Don White" wrote in message
...
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 22:15:16 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 19:57:17 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 19:19:06 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

Just how endangered is the polar bear? It depends on whom you ask.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1262...tml?mg=com-wsj

Scientists: Polar bear populations are plummeting! Tax Carbon! Fly me
to Rio! er. Tax Carbon!

Inuit: Say, we're seeing an awful lot of polar bears these days. More
than normal really.

Scientist: Anecdote! The only way to count bears is to tag a few and
then extrapolate!

Inuit: We have many words for "snow" in our language, but only one
word for "extrapolate". That word is "guess".

Scientists: Denier! Besides, even if there are 10 times as many Polar
bears now as in 1950, they are still endangered because if they can't
eat seals, they don't eat anything. You're just seeing the starving
Polar bears who are incapable of hunting anything other than seals.

Inuit: Then why do I keep running into so many fat polar bears? In all
your, um, sciencing, did you miss some land-based seal population?

Scientists: Shut up, that's why. Tax Carbon!

~~snerk~~
This reminds me of the so called "endangered" manatee BS that we
endure here if FL. Meanwhile there are more of then then ever, and
anyone who wants a slow speed zone, for whatever reason, claims that
they once saw a manatee endangered by a boat in that area.
If they really wanted to save the Manatee, they would stop
artificially heating the water at the power plant on the
Caloosahatchee. Then they would go south for the winter like they did
before we built the power plant.

We went out of our way to buy a more efficient power plant that didn't
waste as much heat, then FPL was sued because the manatee didn't have
a warm enough place to hang out in the winter so now we are heating
the river for them. I suppose we will be paying a carbon tax on that
too. This manatee hot tub is already showing up on our electric bill.
The strange thing is it is a violation of the ESA to do anything that
alters natural animal behavior but artificially heating the river is
OK.
10 years ago the heat from the old plant was called thermal pollution.
I'm confused.

Why should that surprise you? It's not about logically assessing a
condition and making a reasoned decision. It's about keeping lawyers
busy and making the agenda work by using the courts to enforce
ridiculous judgements based on nothing more than feel good "science".

It does not have to be logical.


Damn Tom, you sure can act like a real jack-ass

You do know you're insulting the intelligence of the handful of sensible
posters here by trying to con them.