T'was bad month for Global Warminists

lindaredtail wrote:The debate he wants is not with me. He disputes the science or rather the proofs of the science and I don't. His debate is with a group of scientists who have drawn a set of conclusions which he disagrees with. I do not disagree with them. He is claiming expertise in this field, but I am not. Read his posts, and I quote " No, I know for a fact that they are rigging the debate because I have a Degree in two disciplines of science." He is comparing his education and experience to theirs. I am not. I compare the two and I accept the conclusions of the scientists who support global warming. His debate, his argument and his skepticism should be addressed with them.

So you got in over your head and now you can't keep up with him. I see. And here I thought you was going to replace Keith and keep Sammy amused for a while. I know he misses toying with those of you that you're in the know.

So much for high hopes.

http:/alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbears/issues.htm
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Alaska Polar Bear Conservation Issues
Proposal to list the Polar bear as threatened Under the Endangered Species Act. "The service has proposed to protect the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) A proposed rule that would add the polar bear to the federal list of threatened and endangered species was published on January 9, 2007 opening a 90 day comment period on this proposed listing
The primary threat to polar bears is the decrease of sea ice coverage. Although some females use snow dens on land for birthing cubs, polar bears are almost completely dependant upon sea ice for their sustenance. Any significant changes in the abundance, distribution or existance of sea ice will have effects on the number and behavior of these animals and their prey."
Well Sam here is a truly respected group of scientists and wildlife experts that you can disagree with. Now in comparing what you just wrote and this well the answer is clear. Where did you get your degrees from Sam? A foreign-based correspondance course?

Same source as previous post. Today at 11:03 am
" Two populations of polar bears occur in Alaska. The Southern Beaufort Sea population which is shared with Canada and the Chukchi/Bering seas population which is shared with Russia. Based on recently conducted mark/recapture studies from 2001-2006, the Southern Beaufort Sea population has approximately 1500 bears and is currently thought to be declining. Although accurate estimates of the Chukchi/Bering seas population are unavailable, the best available information suggests that there may be about 2000 bears and that the population is declining
____________________________________________________________ By SamCogar- today 8:16 am
" Now 2008 the Polar Bear population is estimated at 20,000 to 25,000."
Did you pull those numbers out of the air Sam or did your finger get stuck on the zero button?

lindaredtail wrote:The debate he wants is not with me. He disputes the science or rather the proofs of the science and I don't. His debate is with a group of scientists who have drawn a set of conclusions which he disagrees with. I do not disagree with them. He is claiming expertise in this field, but I am not. Read his posts, and I quote " No, I know for a fact that they are rigging the debate because I have a Degree in two disciplines of science." He is comparing his education and experience to theirs. I am not. I compare the two and I accept the conclusions of the scientists who support global warming. His debate, his argument and his skepticism should be addressed with them.

YEAH, you present someone else’s argument as your own …….. then claim that someone else is responsible for defending what you presented. HOGWASH

And that is what makes you a big phony.

You can present it, but you can’t claim it to be truthful and/or factual unless you can personally defend it.

You quote, reference, paraphrase and mimic people you know nothing about ….. on subjects and issues that you know even less about.

And thus the reason you are not only unable, but you are incapable of personally defending that which you claim to be truthful and factual. In essence, you are no different than any other purveyor of malicious rumors and gossip.

Linda, you are afflicted with what I call the “Jukebox Syndrome”.

Someone pushes one of your “buttons”, ..... you sing a song. Push a different “button”, ...... they get a different song. Push the first “button” again, ...... they will get the first song again.

.

lindaredtail wrote:Well Sam here is a truly respected group of scientists and wildlife experts that you can disagree with. Now in comparing what you just wrote and this well the answer is clear. Where did you get your degrees from Sam? A foreign-based correspondance course?

Braxton County University, Burnsville WV campus.

Oh dear......I'm sure I should keep my fingers out of this but:

The number you cite, Linda, is Alaskan polar bears. I doubled checked Sammy's numbers.....he is correct according to two sites I peeked at.

I think the polar bears are in danger and that 25000 of a creature is not exactly what I would call a number sufficient to guarantee their continued survival.

lindaredtail wrote:http:/alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbears/issues.htm
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Alaska Polar Bear Conservation Issues
Proposal to list the Polar bear as threatened Under the Endangered Species Act. "The service has proposed to protect the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) A proposed rule that would add the polar bear to the federal list of threatened and endangered species was published on January 9, 2007 opening a 90 day comment period on this proposed listing

The primary threat to polar bears is the decrease of sea ice coverage. Although some females use snow dens on land for birthing cubs, polar bears are almost completely dependant upon sea ice for their sustenance. Any significant changes in the abundance, distribution or existance of sea ice will have effects on the number and behavior of these animals and their prey."

Well Sam here is a truly respected group of scientists and wildlife experts that you can disagree with. Now in comparing what you just wrote and this well the answer is clear. Where did you get your degrees from Sam? A foreign-based correspondance course?

YADA, ..... YADA, ...... YADA ................

Linda, I sure hope no one asks you to pour pee out of a boot.

"DUH", you didn't even notice that your Polar Bear biased bunch of "experts" didn't mention the NAME of the prey that those Polar Bears preyed on, ..... did ya.

And you weren't even "boot smart" enough to check on it yourself before posting your piffling piffle.

Guess what that "prey" is Linda Lou.

Three (3) guesses and the first 2 don't count.

Linda, you probably guessed carrots and rutabeggars, which would be wrong, ..... so I'll just tell you, to wit:

POLAR BEARS - JUST THE FACTS

FOOD SOURCES:

Main food source: ringed seals (almost exclusively)

Secondary food sources: bearded seals, beluga whale, walrus, other marine mammals, bird, vegetation and kelp.

An adult bear usually eats one seal every six or seven days

http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/arctic99/reports/bearfact.html

GEEEZE Linda, I dun tolt ya but youes woodn't listen, iffen that ice melts ........ those adult bears can eat seal tenderloins bout every day.

.

lindaredtail wrote:Same source as previous post. Today at 11:03 am
" Two populations of polar bears occur in Alaska. The Southern Beaufort Sea population which is shared with Canada and the Chukchi/Bering seas population which is shared with Russia. Based on recently conducted mark/recapture studies from 2001-2006, the Southern Beaufort Sea population has approximately 1500 bears and is currently thought to be declining. Although accurate estimates of the Chukchi/Bering seas population are unavailable, the best available information suggests that there may be about 2000 bears and that the population is declining
____________________________________________________________ By SamCogar- today 8:16 am
" Now 2008 the Polar Bear population is estimated at 20,000 to 25,000."
Did you pull those numbers out of the air Sam or did your finger get stuck on the zero button?

Did you intentionally avert your eyes to the hyper link reference I posted to substantiate those figures? To wit:

SamCogar wrote:Now, 2008, the Polar Bear population is estimated at 20,000 to 25,000 and the Global Warming fruitcakes are DEMANDING they be added to the Endangered Species list.

And you can go back and check it, its there also.

Linda Lou, are you a blonde per chance?

.

OH DEAR, .... you don't know what a hyper link is.

Linda, just place your mouse cursor on those blue numbers there above .... and "click".

Well I do see the 20,000 to 25,000 in their report for worldwide polar bear numbers. That includes Alaska, Canada, Russia, Greenland and Svalbard. That covers thousands of miles and is not a large number and if you are as smart as you think you are you know it. The rest of the information is the same as what I quoted from the U.S Wildlife Service and what you wrote in that previous post is ridiculous. You are not the only person with a degree. I went to U-Mass and Stonehill College (that one s considered Ivy League)
SamCogar today at 8:16 am. "Well DUH DUH, iffen all that Arctic melts...those damn polar bears will be lying right there on shore...justa waiting for "dinner" to come them."
____________________________________________________________ From my source previously posted. The primary threat to polar bears is the decrease of sea ice coverage. Although some polar bears use snow dens on land for birthing cubs, polar bears are almost COMPLETELY DEPENDANT UPON SEA ICE FOR THEIR SUSTENANCE I'm afraid waiting on shore Sammy boy for the seals to come to them isn't in their nature. Your whole last post is just a ridiculous adventure in foolish rhetoric.

The truth is you didn't have your facts right. I just acknowledged the 20,000 to 25,000. But of course you are far too arrogant to admit you didn't have something correct.

And by the way Sammy we weren't discussing what they ate but where they ate it and how that affects their survival. And from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Source it matters more than anything. Sticking facts that aren't the issue doesn't cut it for the brilliant debator that you claim to be.

Hi Stephanie. 25,000 is not large. We never got to see them but I know from Alaskan natives that at one time there were lots of polar bears. We never had the right arrangements to visit them in the wild. (A trained hunter should go with you- polar bears can be very dangerous) We did however see wolves, caribou (which I also ate) moose Grizzlies, and beluga whales. Also lots of eagles. It was a lot of fun and if you ever take a cruise or a trip the inside passage from Seattle to Alaska is nice.

Oh and Sammy you do realize of course that sustenance means "food source" in obviously language not in your dictionary.

Pine shoot beetle is eating Alaska up.

They seem to thrive under the "just-a-couple-of degrees-warmer" conditions that Alaska is experiencing.

We will have malaria back in this country. I'm moving my prediction up to the next 10 years.

Good morning, Terry. Thanks for the ray of sunshine this am.

Malaria? I sure hope you're wrong.

Malaria? I sure hope you're wrong.

Me too.

Unfortunately, I'm so sure, I'm offering 3 to 1 odds.

And buying stock in Bristol-Meyers Squibb.

wonderful

I don't suppose you know anything about parasites in dogs do you? My new puppy is loaded with worms. Is this otc stuff hubs bought for her going to work? This is sooo gross and kind of frightening too. I never had a puppy before. I've had kittens and none of them had worms.

I don't suppose you know anything about parasites in dogs do you? My new puppy is loaded with worms. Is this otc stuff hubs bought for her going to work? This is sooo gross and kind of frightening too. I never had a puppy before. I've had kittens and none of them had worms.

Try this stuff. I have had good results with it.

Worms in puppies are as common as fish in a pond. Freak not.

lindaredtail wrote:Well I do see the 20,000 to 25,000 in their report for worldwide polar bear numbers. That includes Alaska, Canada, Russia, Greenland and Svalbard. That covers thousands of miles and is not a large number and if you are as smart as you think you are you know it.

Linda, the following study also covers thousands of miles and is not a large number but no one, not even you, is screaming about placing them on the Endangered Species list, to wit:

In 1920, a rough estimate put the mountain lion population at 600. Since then, more accurate estimates, based on field studies of mountain lions, revealed a population of more than 2,000 mountain lions in the 1970's. Today's population estimate ranges between 4,000 - 6,000. http://www.mortay.com/Cougar/LionPopMortal.html

Why so Linda, only 4,000 - 6,000 mountain lions, .... but 20,000 - 25,000 polar bears ........ but you are worried about the bears and not the lions. HORSEHOCKY

Anyway Linda, I’m smart enough to have read what you posted, to wit:

lindaredtail wrote:Same source as previous post. Today at 11:03 am
" Two populations of polar bears occur in Alaska. The Southern Beaufort Sea population which is shared with Canada and the Chukchi/Bering seas population which is shared with Russia. Based on recently conducted mark/recapture studies from 2001-2006, the Southern Beaufort Sea population has approximately 1500 bears and is currently thought to be declining. Although accurate estimates of the Chukchi/Bering seas population are unavailable, the best available information suggests that there may be about 2000 bears and that the population is declining.

Linda, tell me, how did your "experts" distinguish between Alaskan bears and Canadian bears if they share the same range in the Southern Beaufort Sea?

Linda, tell me, how did your "experts" distinguish between Alaskan bears and Russian bears if they share the same range in the Chukchi/Bering seas?

Linda two shoes, wouldn't that be akin to counting the Northern West Virginia White Tail Deer population that shares the same range with the Southwestern Pennsylvania White Tail Deer population?

Linda, do you actually believe that all wild animals carry an ID card so that your "experts" will know which country or state "lays claim of them"?

And Linda Lou, tell me, why would someone like you, who claim to be as smart as you claim to be, and who claims to have degrees from U-Mass and the Ivy League College of Stonehill, ......... believe those "bear count figures" are accurate when they were explicitely stated to be based on ..... mark/recapture studies, .... approximations, ..... thought to be's, .... and unavailable accurate estimates?

lindaredtail wrote:The rest of the information is the same as what I quoted from the U.S Wildlife Service and what you wrote in that previous post is ridiculous. You are not the only person with a degree. I went to U-Mass and Stonehill College (that one s considered Ivy League)
SamCogar today at 8:16 am. "Well DUH DUH, iffen all that Arctic melts...those damn polar bears will be lying right there on shore...justa waiting for "dinner" to come them."
____________________________________________________________ From my source previously posted. "The primary threat to polar bears is the decrease of sea ice coverage. Although some polar bears use snow dens on land for birthing cubs, polar bears are almost COMPLETELY DEPENDANT UPON SEA ICE FOR THEIR SUSTENANCE" I'm afraid waiting on shore Sammy boy for the seals to come to them isn't in their nature. Your whole last post is just a ridiculous adventure in foolish rhetoric.

Well now Linda Lulu, I don't think it makes much difference to a Polar Bear where it is searching/waiting to chomp down on a seal, ..... be it in the water, .... on the ice pack .... or on an ice free shore. Thus, part of your above posted statement is absolutely, positively asinine, ..................

polar bears are NOT almost COMPLETELY DEPENDANT UPON SEA ICE FOR THEIR SUSTENANCE, ....... they are almost COMPLETELY DEPENDANT UPON SEALS FOR THEIR SUSTENANCE.

GEEZUS, polar bears don't eat ice, ....... they eat seals, ...... anywhere they find them.

And I also think, actually I know for a fact, that it does make a difference to all the mother seals where they birth and nurse their pups ......... and that is just about anywhere except in the water.

If there is no ice pack and snow for the mother seals to birth and nurse their pups on ......... then they will be forced to birth and nurse them on terra firma, on land, the shore. Forced to, ..... don't have a choice, ...... and only dumbasses think otherwise.

And Linda Lulu, those Polar Bears are not dumber in the head than they are in the ass ...... and thus they are not going to be out in the water swimming around looking for seals and a drowning ........... when all the frigging mother seals are on shore birthing and nursing their pups.

Now Linda Lulu, maybe you and your cited "experts" are thatt frigging dumb ......... but I guarantee you those Polar Bears are not.

When it comes to catching seals ...... the Polar Bears are smarter than these fellows.

Sam, polar bears hunt, almost exclusively, at holes in the ice where animals MUST surface for air.

The more you know...

lindaredtail wrote:The truth is you didn't have your facts right. I just acknowledged the 20,000 to 25,000. But of course you are far too arrogant to admit you didn't have something correct.

And by the way Sammy we weren't discussing what they ate but where they ate it and how that affects their survival. And from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Source it matters more than anything. Sticking facts that aren't the issue doesn't cut it for the brilliant debator that you claim to be.

Right on Linda baby, ....... where one sits down to eat is more critical in determining their survival ......... than is whether or not they have anything to eat. I think I see whatcha mean Linda, ...... a bear could be in the right place without any food .......... and survive longer than it could if it was in the wrong place with lots of food.

Sure nuff Linda, that sure was a brilliant beautiful deduction, ....... make me really sorry I didn't attend an Ivy League College.

Linda, it is your feminist mindset of "emotions taking precedence over facts, truths and logical reasoning" ....... coupled with your arrogance and stupidity ...... that is beginning to bore me.

And iffen I wasn't having so much fun ........ I would quit replying to your silly posts.

.

lindaredtail wrote:Oh and Sammy you do realize of course that sustenance means "food source" in obviously language not in your dictionary.

Well "DUH", I didn't attend that Ivy League College that you attended ...... and apparently my dictionary is different from yours.

Anyway,

Yes I do ......... Linda Lou.

I understand what sustenance means.

And ice and snow is not a food source for anything and will not provide sustenance to nourish any organism.

Source:
Food \Food\, n. 1. What is fed upon; that which goes to support life by being received within, and assimilated by, the organism of an animal or a plant; nutriment; aliment; especially, what is eaten by animals for nourishment.

http://www.hydroponicsearch.com/spelling/simplesearch/query_term-food/database-!/strategy-exact

And Linda Lou, where it states "What is fed upon;" ..... does not mean table, counter, tray or dinner plate.

cheers

ps: Now I tell ya, I ain't had so much fun .... since ma caught her tit in the wringer washer, ...... shidt in the floor ...... and all us kids skated in it.

.
.

Stephanie wrote:Good morning, Terry. Thanks for the ray of sunshine this am.

Malaria? I sure hope you're wrong.

RIGHT ON, .... Steph, ...... and that's because one of the bestest chemicals for "fighting malaria" ......... is DDT, .......... and those LEFTY fruitcakes done got that banned from being used.

.