| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Polar Bears' Future
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~~ |
Polar Bears' Future
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. |
Polar Bears' Future
On Jan 4, 6:57*pm, 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. isn't that kinda like record fishing reports after the supposed ecological disaster in Prince William Sound brought on by the oi spill of the Exxon Valdez? |
Polar Bears' Future
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. Another asinine comment from Dr. Tom Anti-Science, world renowned expert on...well, nothing. |
Polar Bears' Future
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~~ Go ahead and snerk your ass off. If this is an actual account, how does the Inuit know that the bear population is growing? It's more likely the bears are being driven towards the areas they inhabit. Smart fellas like you know best though, eh? |
Polar Bears' Future
jps 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~~ Go ahead and snerk your ass off. If this is an actual account, how does the Inuit know that the bear population is growing? It's more likely the bears are being driven towards the areas they inhabit. Smart fellas like you know best though, eh? Nothing is funnier than watching JPS jump to conclusions. He has such a vivid imagination. -- If it's not posted with a mac, it's the real deal. |
Polar Bears' Future
In article , naled24511
@mypacks.net says... 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. Another asinine comment from Dr. Tom Anti-Science, world renowned expert on...well, nothing. whoop, whoop **Jackass Alert** |
Polar Bears' Future
"Don White" wrote in message ... In article , naled24511 @mypacks.net says... 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. Another asinine comment from Dr. Tom Anti-Science, world renowned expert on...well, nothing. whoop, whoop **Jackass Alert** Well...somebody's getting creative. My jackass alerts are to warn when a cheap imitation tries to spoof me How did it get put in this position? |
Polar Bears' Future
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:33 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com