|
Scooby Doo wrote:
As I said, the caribou population has TRIPLED since the Alaska pipeline went in. So please don't dust off moronic arguments that were categorically refuted a generation ago. Who "dusting off moronic arguments," did you completely miss the point that caribou are not the ONLY animal in the ANWR? There are lots and lots of deer living in the suburbs of pretty much every city in the U.S. does that mean houses & streets & cars etc etc are good for the environment? And if the deer don't convince you, maybe the higher rat population will. As I said, since you can't rationally debate ANWR, you're useless. Actually, you have yet to make a factual and logical answer to *any* of the points I've raised, yet you're convinced you're "winning." B-bye. DSK |
DSK wrote:
Scooby Doo wrote: There's also more forestland in the US than there was in 1900. Malarkey. I guess back in 1900 they were paving thousands of acres per day for shopping mall parking lots & roads. There might be more acres with trees but monoculture tree farms are not equivalent to healthy forests in providing diverse habitat. Download google earth at http://earth.google.com/ and have a look at the clear cuts. -rick- |
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... Scooby Doo wrote: As I said, since you can't rationally debate ANWR, you're useless. Yet another brain-dead reich-winger for rec.boats. Seems you can't rationally debate either. |
Around 8/9/2005 1:51 PM, Gene Kearns wrote:
By the way, this is a totally unretouched sign... it genuinely said what is says.... Would you please stick it up on tinypic.com or somewhere else for those of us whose news servers strip binaries from text-only groups? -- ~/Garth - 1966 Glastron V-142 Skiflite: "Blue-Boat" "There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats." -Kenneth Grahame, The Wind in the Willows |
Bill McKee wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... Scooby Doo wrote: As I said, since you can't rationally debate ANWR, you're useless. Yet another brain-dead reich-winger for rec.boats. Seems you can't rationally debate either. Sure I can, but there's no point to doing so in this newsgroup, not with the current population of right-wing robots. |
"Bill McKee" wrote:
ANWR is not all pristine wilderness. There were military bases, villages, Bull****. ANWR covers 19 million acres of ground. The "1002 Area" which refers to the coastal plain of ANWR is 1.5 million acres. At the very northern edge of that is Barter Island, in the Beaufort Sea (the Arctic Ocean). On Barter Island is the one and only village inside the confines of ANWR. There are fewer than 300 people living in Kaktovik, the village on Barter Island. There was once a DEWLINE radar and communications station on Barter Island, but is has been closed for many years now. It was owned by the US Air Force, but was never operated by a military crew. Hence, 1 small village, and 1 abandoned radar station. That is *not* "military bases, villages". And hardly makes ANWR "not at all pristine wilderness". etc. in the region. Friends that have been there say you see old 50 gallon drums and other signs of habitation in the far north. There are 55 gallon drums on Barter Island, but you'll be darned hard pressed to find half a dozen drums in the rest of ANWR. You are simply exaggerating. It is the *most* pristine wilderness in the entire United States. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
DSK wrote:
Scooby Doo wrote: A "fool" is someone who won't accept a compromise where he gets more than 92% of what he wants. ANWR is 19 million acres. The area identified as the largest untapped petroleum supply in North America is 1.5 million acres, or 7.9% of the 19 million. Uh huh. And if "opening" that 7.9% negates the value of the rest, then it's not enough, is it? In fact that is demonstrably true too! The entire purpose of ANWR was and is to protect the subsistence resources of the Gwich'in people, who depend on the Porcupine Caribou Herd. We have a treaty with Canada to provide that protection, and both counties have set aside parks and refuges as required on respective sides of the border. It happens the range of the Porcupine Herd is rather large, but there is a very small area which is so super critical that environmental damage to it alone could have a major negative impact on the herd. That area is commonly called the "calving grounds", though that is not technically an accurate description. It is the relatively small area where the herd *nurtures* their calves every summer. It centers on their preferred calving areas, but also includes the adjacent areas they move to at different stages of calf nurturing. There are 30+ years of caribou biology studies on the North Slope, and dozens of field biologists who have contributed to that body of work. You cannot find more than one of them who says the drilling in ANWR is harmless. (There is indeed exactly one, a guy named Matthew Cronin who claims all of the others are either mistaken or liars. Cronin of course has zero credibility...) For background information, these two URLs are good: http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm http://arctic.fws.gov/content.htm For caribou research, here is more than anyone really wants to know: http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/index.htm To just get the conclusions, go to this URL and read what they decide it all means: http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section3part5.htm .. The proposal to open that 1.5 million acres would create about 700,000 jobs, decrease our dependence on Middle Eastern and other unstable foreign sources of energy, and allow 92.1% of the wildlife refuge to remain untouched. No, it will provide approx six months worth of oil at current consumption, probably less by the time all is said and done, and cut across the entire wildlife refuge disrupting migration & seasonal habitat. In other words, for a couple days supply of oil (and huge profits to those allowed "in"), you want to destroy the refuge. Good idea. Well stated. Greed is the basis for all of it. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Scooby Doo wrote:
DSK wrote in : Scooby Doo wrote: A "fool" is someone who won't accept a compromise where he gets more than 92% of what he wants. ANWR is 19 million acres. The area identified as the largest untapped petroleum supply in North America is 1.5 million acres, or 7.9% of the 19 million. Uh huh. And if "opening" that 7.9% negates the value of the rest, then it's not enough, is it? What "value" is being negated? Before you answer, ponder the fact that the caribou population has TRIPLED since the opening of the Alaska Pipeline. No doubt you were one of the Chicken Littles warning about 'negating value" before that project, n'est-ce pas? That simply is *not* true. In fact the Porcupine Caribou Herd has been in decline for several years now, and is at a minimum (120,000 animals). Note that every other herd, including the huge Western Arctic Caribou Herd at something like half a million animals, is indeed increasing in size in all areas where there is no oil development. And the *very small* (5000 to 30,000 animal) Central Arctic Herd has in fact increased in size *in* *areas* *with* *no* *oil* *development*. On the other hand, this very small herd is the only one that inhabits the areas where Prudhoe Bay oil infrastructure exists. While, as you claim, that herd has multiplied... the fact is that is a very small herd in a very large area and has simply moved away from the oil infrastructure, and no longer calves anywhere near Prudhoe Bay, Kuparuk, or Milne Point infrastructure. It is the study of the Central Arctic Herd's reaction to oil infrastructure that has caused virtually *every* credible caribou biologist that has done field work on the North Slope to state that developing ANWR would have a negative impact on the Porcupine Herd. (Dozens of them have signed letters to Clinton and then Bush asking that it not be done.) .. The proposal to open that 1.5 million acres would create about 700,000 jobs, decrease our dependence on Middle Eastern and other unstable foreign sources of energy, and allow 92.1% of the wildlife refuge to remain untouched. No, it will provide approx six months worth of oil at current consumption, probably less by the time all is said and done, and cut across the entire wildlife refuge disrupting migration & seasonal habitat. 15 billion barrels is "six months worth"? Arthur Andersen teach you math? 15 billion barrels is a pipe dream. The actual prediction is just under half that. It isn't enough to have any significant effect on a national scale. For Alaskans, and in particular those who live on the North Slope, it would be worth millions in tax dollars. But it won't reduce dependence of foreign oil (and will export dollars, because all of the oil companies that will benefit are either foreign based or multi-national) and won't reduce the price of gasoline more than about 4 cents a gallon. Speaking of Andersen math... -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Scooby Doo wrote:
DSK wrote in : Uh huh. And if "opening" that 7.9% negates the value of the rest, then it's not enough, is it? Scooby Doo wrote: What "value" is being negated? The value as wildlife refuge & habitat. The other NINETY-TWO PERCENT REMAINS UNTOUCHED. Try coming up with a scenario where destroying the Porcupine Herd leaves 92 percent of the Gwich'in Nation "untouched". Or leaves ANWR untouched for that matter. But since your definition of "compromise" is rejecting a deal that gives you over 92% of what you want, it's obvious you don't have a rational cell in your brain. Your "deal" leaves a few billion dollars in the pockets of a certain sector of the oil industry and helps fund the State of Alaska, but does virtually *nothing* else. Some compromise! -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:38 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com