Linda Lou and the Polar Bears too

I decided to start a new string and the following lead post was extracted from Page 8 of the “T'was bad month for Global Warminists” string @ this hyper linked location
-------------------------------------------

lindaredtail wrote:

SamCogar wrote:

lindaredtail wrote: Oh and they just announced on the news ten minutes ago that the polar bear has been added to the ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST .

OH SHIDT, if that's true .......... then the US economy is in big trouble.

The "lefties" will now fight .... in Court ........ anything they can associate with Global Warming ........ because warming causes the ice to melt ...... which endangers the polar bear ....... which is now illegal ...... via the Endangered Species Law.

sAM SAM SAM Boy did all of that sound foolish or what? I am afraid it really really did. BOY DID IT EVER. "The primary reason for the polar bear being placed on the endangered species list (as a threatened species -and yes Sam I do know the subtleties of the process.) is DIMINISHING SEA ICE. SEA ICE IS ESSENTIAL TO THE SURVIVAL OF THE POLAR BEAR FOR HUNTING AND TRAVELING.(Katie Couric- CBS Evening News)

NOT POSSIBLY DIMINISHING SEA ICE OR MAYBE DIMINISHING SEA ICE OR PROBABLY DIMINISHING SEA ICE . DIMINISHING SEA ICE.

DOES YOUR GRASP OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEAD YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT DIMINISHING MEANS IT IS DIMINISHING RIGHT IN THE HERE AND NOW IN WHAT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE REFER TO AS THE PRESENT.

And if that was what you consider sound reasoning why that is a really really REALLY REALLY REALLY SCARY THOUGHT SAM. MY GOSH GOLLY GEE. So in some imaginary dream state you can think of yourself as being Secretary of the Department of the Interior and remove each species one by one.

AAAAWWWWWW …… Linda, I wish you hadn’t done that, it was really a STUPID emotional decision on your part ……. to rant and rave like that.

Linda, first re-read what you posted above.

Then read the article below exerted from this mornings paper ….. and the other reference below that. To wit:

WASHINGTON — The Interior Department declared the polar bear a threatened species Wednesday because of the loss of Arctic sea ice but also cautioned the decision should not be viewed as a path to address global warming.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne cited dramatic declines in sea ice over the last three decades and projections of continued losses, meaning, he said, that the polar bear is a species likely to be in danger of extinction in the near future.

But Kempthorne said it would be "wholly inappropriate" to use the protection of the bear to reduce greenhouse gases, or to broadly address climate change.

The Endangered Species Act "is not the right tool to set U.S. climate policy," said Kempthorne, reflecting a view recently expressed by President Bush.

The department outlined a set of administrative actions and limits to how it planned to protect the bear with its new status so that it would not have wide-ranging adverse impact on economic activities from building power plants to oil and gas exploration.

He cited conclusions by department scientists that sea ice loss will likely result in two-thirds of the polar bears disappearing by mid-century. The bear population across the Arctic from Alaska to Greenland doubled from about 12,000 to 25,000 since 1960, but he noted that scientists now predict a significant population decline. Studies last year by the U.S. Geological Survey suggested 15,000 bears would be lost in coming decades with those in the western Hudson Bay area of Alaska and Canada under the greatest stress.

But when asked how the bear will be afforded greater protection, Dale Hall, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, had difficulty coming up with examples.

Environmentalists were already mapping out plans to file lawsuits challenging the restrictive measures outlined by Kempthorne.

"They're trying to make this a threatened listing in name only with no change in today's impacts and that's not going to fly," said Jamie Rappaport Clark of Defenders of Wildlife and a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service director.

The Bush administration "is forcing the polar bear to sink or swim," said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., chairman of a House committee on global warming.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., called it "a lifeline for our last remaining polar bears" but said the bear's survival won't be assured without limits on oil development in the same Arctic waters where the bears are found.

Despite the new listing, the announcement underscores the need to approve climate legislation that would limit the release of greenhouse gases and avert the future effects on climate change, said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Environment Committee.

"It remains to be seen how much this belated listing decision will improve protection for polar bears and their rapidly shrinking habitat," said Clayton Jernigan, an attorney for Earthjustice. He said the Interior's announcement made clear steps would be taken to avoid interfering with offshore oil development in waters where bears and oil drilling are expected to coexist.

"The science is absolutely clear that polar bear needs protection under the Endangered Species Act," said Andrew Wetzler, director of the endangered species program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355668,00.html

Reporting in Geophysical Research Letters, Rothrock et al presented compelling evidence of the reduction in thickness of Arctic sea ice over the past 40 years. Combining their data with data from another study on the extent of Arctic sea ice , it would appear that the total mass of sea ice has shrunk by up to 60% in the past 40 years.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Arctic_Ice/

Now Linda Lou, below are the reported FACTS that were reported and confirmed from those two articles.

FACTS:
1. The melting of the sea ice is endangering the survival of the Polar Bears.

2. continued losses of ice mean that the polar bear is in danger of extinction

3. dramatic declines in sea ice over the last three decades (30 years).

4. evidence of the reduction in thickness of Arctic sea ice in the past 40 years

5. the total mass of sea ice has shrunk by up to 60% in the past 40 years.

6. Polar bear population has doubled from about 12,000 to 25,000 since 1960

SUMMARY:
1. Over the past 40 years the sea ice has decreased by 60%

2. Over the past 40 years the Polar Bear population has increased 52%.

CONCLUSIONS:
1. The increase in bear population is directly proportional to the decrease in sea ice.

2. It is therefore lies and deception to claim polar bears are endangered due to ice melt.



Now Linda Lou, you best discuss it with Katie Curic and TerryRC before you try to explain why 40 years of melting has caused a 52% increase in polar bears.

.

Maybe with less ice the bears are closer together and, you know, not as "lonely."

Linda, I'd like to hear "your" response, as opposed to a canned answer. I'd also like to hear, rhetorically, about whatever the dinosaurs did to bring on their own doom, perhaps by driving SUVs or emiting too much carbon.......

I'm curious to your response as well Linda.

SheikBen wrote: I'd also like to hear, rhetorically, about whatever the dinosaurs did to bring on their own doom, perhaps by driving SUVs or emiting too much carbon.......

They were just too dumb to build a comet / asteroid deterrent system.

Sort of like we're too dumb to build a stupid people deterrent system.

I wonder if it is possible to stave off another ice age by driving Hummers and using inordinate amounts of hairspray.

I guess Linda did bite off more then she could chew, huh.

Stephanie wrote:Sort of like we're too dumb to build a stupid people deterrent system.

Why dio I feel like I am I supposed to resemble that remark?

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Sort of like we're too dumb to build a stupid people deterrent system.

Why dio I feel like I am I supposed to resemble that remark?

No way, Zigster! You're the man that taught me how to fix the time in this thing.

Cricket, ...... Cricket, ...... Cricket, ......

Is that what ya do to get a cricket to chirp?

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Sort of like we're too dumb to build a stupid people deterrent system.

Why dio I feel like I am I supposed to resemble that remark?

I think there should be some law that says that if 10 people are willing to sign sworn affidavits declaring you a jackass, then you have to pay some sort of fine or do community service.

My plan would work twice over. It would keep stupid people poor and/or busy, but beyond that, if someone were difficult to 9 people, they might be nicer to the rest of us.

As for you, Zig, of course you would have nothing to fear from a stupid person deterrence system. My secularist deterrence system, made up of a dozen southern baptists legislating blue laws and an audio King James Bible, however, will likely have a greater effect.

OMG.

If I'd known you had all that handy, I have been outta here a long time ago!

Linda Lou and the Polar Bears too just kicked Sammy's tail by using one of his own "mentors" against him. See Mr. Inhofe is not a fool. Like Sammy he is a GW denier. So he isn't about to go before a Senate Committee and say the warming temperatures is what has helped the polar bears increase in numbers. Is he. Because to do so would give the enviromentalists a barrel of ammunition. So he comes up with something else to try to express his disappointment of the polar bear being put on the endangered species list. People are responsible (governments, treaties, agencies -all people things) for the increase in the number of polar bears. Is he wrong too Sam? Should we send him a fax or an e-mail? TALK TO SAM COGER HE KNOWS THE REAL SCOOP. THE POLAR BEARS NUMBERS ARE INCREASING BECAUSE THE SEALS ARE COMING TO THEM. And I only just discovered this thread as I was searching for Sam to discover why he lost his tongue and the reason for the deafening silence.

The Deluge of information you so love to use Sam actually as I am discovering makes it easier to find things like the above posting. Yes there is a disagreement between enviromentalists and Mr. Kempthorne. Mr. Inhofe undercut the argument of those who in actuality agree with him so he could continue to maintain a particular position on the issue of GW. But you Sam took your facts and formed them into an argument. You left out one of the most important variables however. Mr. Inhofe used that variable to make the case. Next I will be looking for that picture that you posted. I would love to read any information that goes along with it.

lindaredtail wrote:Linda Lou and the Polar Bears too just kicked Sammy's tail by using one of his own "mentors" against him. See Mr. Inhofe is not a fool. Like Sammy he is a GW denier. So he isn't about to go before a Senate Committee and say the warming temperatures is what has helped the polar bears increase in numbers. Is he. Because to do so would give the enviromentalists a barrel of ammunition. So he comes up with something else to try to express his disappointment of the polar bear being put on the endangered species list. People are responsible (governments, treaties, agencies -all people things) for the increase in the number of polar bears. Is he wrong too Sam? Should we send him a fax or an e-mail? TALK TO SAM COGER HE KNOWS THE REAL SCOOP. THE POLAR BEARS NUMBERS ARE INCREASING BECAUSE THE SEALS ARE COMING TO THEM. And I only just discovered this thread as I was searching for Sam to discover why he lost his tongue and the reason for the deafening silence.

The Deluge of information you so love to use Sam actually as I am discovering makes it easier to find things like the above posting. Yes there is a disagreement between enviromentalists and Mr. Kempthorne. Mr. Inhofe undercut the argument of those who in actuality agree with him so he could continue to maintain a particular position on the issue of GW. But you Sam took your facts and formed them into an argument. You left out one of the most important variables however. Mr. Inhofe used that variable to make the case. Next I will be looking for that picture that you posted. I would love to read any information that goes along with it.

Linda Lulu, it matters little how much "protection" is afforded a species ..... if it can not acquire enough food for survival.

And Miss Linda, ....... the most important variable for the survival of any species is a source of food.

There Linda, did ya read them big letters or avert your eyes like you usually do?

And of all the thousands of possible references to said, here is but one of them, to wit:

Drought and Starvation Return to East Africa Region
February 27, 2006
Source: The Seattle Times

By Chris Tomlinson
The Associated Press

Bissel, Kenya—

Babies in East Africa are starving again.

They lie in battered beds, hooked up to IV drips, their skeletal mothers beside them. Their cries are barely audible for now, but their woes won't end when they have gained weight. All of their families' wealth — their cattle and goats — are dead.

When drought comes, the very young and the very old are the first to suffer. But according to the latest U.N. figures, they are only the most visible of 11.5 million East Africans who don't have enough to eat.

http://www.worldconcern.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?&pid=950&srcid=455

And those are humans, ..... people, ....... not Polar Bears.

Linda, and you can create all the Programs and new Laws you want and even go to Africa and take a million other people with you TO PROTECT THEM people and their animals, ........ but unless you take food with you to feed them they will all perish.

And like those people, if the Polar Bears can't catch the seals they will starve and die.

And if the female bears do not get adequate food they will not go into estrus and therefore not become pregnant and not produce any cubs.

And any female bears with cubs that do not get adequate food, .... the cubs will die.

And thus said "starving and dying" is what holds their populations in check or decreasing.

And only when the current bear population is getting adequate nourishment will their population be increasing.

And adequate nourishment for Polar Bears is adequate success at catching seals.

And Linda, it doesn't matter one twit whether the seals come to the Polar Bears or the Polar Bears go to the seals.

Go drink that bottle of Chianti and enjoy it, ....... it might do ya good and help ya too.


.



.

Oh SamCoger you really are a stranger than life example of someone who exists in the twilight zone. You are the one who persisted in the seals will come to the polar bears, the seals are not endangered so therefore the food source isn't endangered and lah di dah the polar bears will be fine. Or should I go back before you can delete them all and quote them all to you. People in Africa are a totally different subject and those are domesticated animals which due to drought may not have enough to eat.This is not even a similar subject. You troll over the sites on here looking for a strategic place to put something but this is not it I am afraid. Another attempt by Sam the ham handed arguer and debator. Because see Sammy what do you think may be causing the drought which is causing the goats and Cattle to die of starvation and then the people too. Wouldn't have anything to do with global warming would it Sam? OOH! What will it be now. Can't wait to see.GW as an answer to this would be an Inhofe case of knowing when not to use the smaller argument in case it demolishes the larger one. Be very careful Sammy Boy of what you post. You might just find yourself validating GW by mistake. Lack of response to my guestimate of your course studies on the other postings tells me I am right.

lindaredtail wrote:Be very careful Sammy Boy of what you post. You might just find yourself validating GW by mistake. Lack of response to my guestimate of your course studies on the other postings tells me I am right.

My response here is the same as there, to wit:

SamCogar wrote:

lindaredtail wrote: On animals Terry is far more knowledgeable than you because his degree is in natural sciences. My degree is in natural sciences as well. Computers are wonderous inventions. But they are an artificial enviroment. How many true science courses did you take?

Linda, I earned an AB Degree from Glenville State College with a Major/Minor in Biological and Physical Science and had done quit my High School Teaching job and had been designing computers and related equipment SEVERAL YEARS ...... before they ever invented a Computer Science Degree.

And "YES", ...... computers are wonderous inventions.

I know, ..... because I helped DESIGN a few of them.

Most probably I was working in Engineering and Manufacturing of mini-computers and POS terminals ......... even before the pee was running down your leg out of your diaper.

So now, tell us all about your natural science degree.

See if you can make me believe you actually have one.

.