PDA

View Full Version : Bush's global warming hits Las Vegas.



LWW
07-14-2008, 11:27 AM
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported today that a totally naked man stole an ice cold beer from a local convenience store, then hijacked an air-conditioned bus and took it for a spin. Yet even now, there are those who still deny the effects of climate change. Even with such irrefutable evidence staring them right in their right-wing faces, they still refuse to accept the existence of global warming. I supposed they won't be totally convinced until they see not just one, but hundreds or perhaps thousands of deranged people running around drunk and naked.

Unfortunately, we can't wait until the Democratic National Convention. Immediate steps must be taken to halt the damage Bush and his Big Oil Buddies are wreaking on our environment, so that our children and our children's children will need only be drunk and naked within the safe confines of their kindergarten sex-ed classes.

I BLAME B-B-B-BOOOOSH! (http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/)

LWW

Jeff
07-14-2008, 11:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

......... halt the damage Bush and his Big Oil Buddies are wreaking on our environment..........


LWW </div></div>

Yea, who cares if the Polar Bears and seals disappear from the wild, I mean that's why we have zoos isn't it. They'll be fine, and just think how much easier it will be to see them.

Deeman3
07-14-2008, 12:27 PM
So, if polar bear populations ahve gone from less than 10K in the 1950's to more than 50K now, how many more do you need, really?

LWW
07-14-2008, 12:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, if polar bear populations ahve gone from less than 10K in the 1950's to more than 50K now, how many more do you need, really? </div></div>
Don't ask Jeff to look at reality.

It riles him up.

FWIW, I could probably live for most of a year off 1 polar bear ... and make a nice coat.

LWW

Jeff
07-14-2008, 01:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, if polar bear populations ahve gone from less than 10K in the 1950's to more than 50K now, how many more do you need, really? </div></div>

Really?

So do you have a link or two to back that up?

Jeff
07-14-2008, 01:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, if polar bear populations ahve gone from less than 10K in the 1950's to more than 50K now, how many more do you need, really? </div></div>

"It isn’t hard to find media reports stating that polar bear populations are at historic highs – up to 25,000 now from a low of 5,000 or so in the 50’s or 60’s. This gets a chuckle from Nick. Look in any of those reports for the source of their conjecture. The fact is nobody was even paying attention to polar bear numbers in the 50’s or 60’s, much less conducting a scientifically sound census survey. So where do they come up with those numbers? Hmm… Good question.

In the 50’s and 60’s polar bear were being shot, killed, hunted down wholesale. It has only been within the past couple of decades that scientists, government leaders, and wildlife managers have realized that it might be prudent to put some limits on the carnage to assess what it is we have in the way of polar bears and to begin serious, ongoing scientific study of them.

What happens when uncontrolled hunting is stopped? Gosh, it seems there may have been some recovery in polar bear populations due to the alleviated stress from hunting. (Incidentally, 500 bears are still harvested every year in Canada.)

When you hear anyone authoritatively pronouncing that polar bear numbers have recovered from 5000 to 25,000 just know that they’re simply guessing. Right off the bat a reason to question the veracity of their argument. (And when the Wall Street journal says anything about environmental policy, assume they likely don’t know a whit about what they’re talking about."

http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/...lf-a-historian/ (http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2008/03/10/scientist-on-western-hudson-bay-polar-bear-population-i-consider-myself-a-historian/)

Jeff
07-14-2008, 01:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[
Don't ask Jeff to look at reality.

It riles him up.

FWIW, I could probably live for most of a year off 1 polar bear ... and make a nice coat.

LWW </div></div>

Facts are a funny thing aren't they Ducky?

They just keep popping up at the worst possible times don't they?

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Deeman3
07-14-2008, 02:05 PM
No,

I read a London Times article that says much what you have quoted above. Of course, there are estimates that go as high as 100,000 for the populations now. What you are saying is that they could not count in the 1950's which very well may be true.

That being said, I hope there are a few left by mid-century but, aside from a photo op for environmentalists, I just don't see the need for a larger popularion wheather you agree wiht the 25K, 50K or even 100K numbers.

Could it be that Nick is simply guessing as well? It seems we all will fall into the beleif we want or need to justify our position. I smimply asked how many Polar Bears you want? If they were incorrectly counted in the 1950's perhaps they are not being counted accurately now.

The following is similar to the article I had read. It may be no more valid than the one you dug up.

From The TimesNovember 12, 2007

Polar bears in danger? Is this some kind of joke?James Delingpole: Thunderer
Why don’t polar bears eat penguins? Because their paws are too big to get the wrappers off, obviously. It’s not a joke you hear so often these days, though, because polar bears are now a serious business. They’re the standard-bearers of a tear-jerking propaganda campaign to persuade us all that, if we don’t act soon on climate change, the only thing that will remain of our snowy-furred ursine chums will be the picture on a pack of Fox’s glacier mints.

First there came the computer-generated polar bear in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth; then that heartrending photo, syndicated everywhere, of the bears apparently stranded on a melting ice floe; then the story of those four polar bears drowned by global warming (actually, they’d perished in a storm).

Now, in a new cinema release called Earth – a magnificent, feature-length nature documentary from the makers of the BBC’s Planet Earth series – comes the most sob-inducing “evidence” of all: a poor male polar bear filmed starving to death as a result, the quaveringly emotional Patrick Stewart voiceover suggests, of global warming.

Never mind that what actually happens is that the bear stupidly has a go at a colony of walruses and ends up being gored to death.

The bear wouldn’t have done it, the film argues, if he hadn’t been so hungry and exhausted. And why was he hungry and exhausted? Because the polar ice caps are melting, thus shortening the polar bears’ seal-hunting season.

Having been up to the bears’ habitat in Svalbard, I do have a certain amount of sympathy with these concerns. To claim, however, that they are facing imminent doom is stretching the truth. In 1950, let us not forget, there were about 5,000 polar bears. Now there are 25,000.

No wonder Greenpeace had trouble getting polar bears placed on the endangered species list. A fivefold population increase isn’t exactly a catastrophic decline.

LWW
07-14-2008, 03:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jeff</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, if polar bear populations ahve gone from less than 10K in the 1950's to more than 50K now, how many more do you need, really? </div></div>

Really?

So do you have a link or two to back that up? </div></div>
How dare you ask someone for a link when you, at best, use moonbat blogs as sources.

Usually you show data of a completely different point after you opened your yap.

You claim they are at serious risk ... that makes it your job to document it.

How's the work going on showing that the USA funded and supplied Saddam's invasion of Iran?

LWW

LWW
07-14-2008, 03:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jeff</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[
Don't ask Jeff to look at reality.

It riles him up.

FWIW, I could probably live for most of a year off 1 polar bear ... and make a nice coat.

LWW </div></div>
Not for me, but with the beat downs you insist upon enduring I understand your feelings on the issue.

LWW
Facts are a funny thing aren't they Ducky?

They just keep popping up at the worst possible times don't they?

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>

Jeff
07-14-2008, 03:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


How's the work going on showing that the USA funded and supplied Saddam's invasion of Iran?

LWW </div></div>

Oh, you must mean the series of posts that gave you your nickname Ducky?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Saddam invaded Iran, threatening the free flow of oil.</div></div>



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jeff</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Which we funded and supplied him to do................</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Preposterous and ridiculous point that you cannot substantiate and you know it.</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jeff</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wrong, wrong, wrong........

"The United States supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War as a counterbalance to post-revolutionary Iran. The support took the form of technological aid, intelligence, the sale of dual-use and military equipment, and direct involvement and warfare against Iran.

Other countries that supported Iraq during the war included Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and West Germany."

"President Reagan decided that the United States would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran. President Reagan formalized this policy by issuing a National Security Decision Directive ("NSDD") to this effect in June, 1982. I have personal knowledge of this NSDD because I co-authored the NSDD with another NSC Staff Member, Geoff Kemp.

The NSDD, including even its identifying number, is classified... Pursuant to the secret NSDD, the United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat... The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war</div></div>




Or how about this one that you also ran from




<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Saddam attempted to assassinate a previous POTUS.</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jeff</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You mean kinda like the U.S. when it attempted to kill Castro? Both failed</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After Castro allowed nukes in Cuba, and Soviet troops, and fired on US planes.</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jeff</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wrong, wrong, wrong...........................

The Cuban Missile Crisis was in Oct. 1962

"On December 11, 1959, Richard Bissell (the new Deputy Director for Operations as of 1/1/59, same day Castro took power) sent Allen Dulles a memo suggesting that ?thorough consideration be given to the elimination of Fidel Castro.?

"documents show that at least one plot to kill Castro ? involving underworld figure Johnny Roselli ? was directly approved by C.I.A. Director Allen Dulles. The jewels document notes on page 12 that in 1960, Richard Bissell, Director of the C.I.A.?s covert operations branch, began searching for ?assets? to assist in a ?sensitive mission requiring gangster-type action? against Castro. According to the document, the C.I.A. Director ?was briefed and gave his approval.?

http://washington.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/richard-bissell/</div></div>

LWW
07-14-2008, 05:30 PM
Yes, you were wrong there also.

Most people are embarrassed when they show there ass in public, but not you.

That's what I really respect about you Jeff, you have no sense of personal shame.

LWW

Jeff
07-14-2008, 05:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, you were wrong there also.

Most people are embarrassed when they show there ass in public, but not you.

That's what I really respect about you Jeff, you have no sense of personal shame.

LWW </div></div>

You keep saying that, but it's hard to hear you when you are saying it while running as fast as you can the other direction.

"respect"???

There you go again using words that you have no knowledge of.

It's easy to say words like "credible" and "honest", but actually living up to them is something you haven't grasped yet.

mike60
07-14-2008, 05:50 PM
LWW, I looked in on you for old times sake. Besides the usual expected nonsense
you've made a slight error, nothing a remedial elementary english course can't fix.
You wrote, "there" when it should have been "their". Otherwise not too bad.

mike60